Some things become
very clear in the aftermath of a reorganization!
A lot of time and
energy is being invested lately into to rethinking the structure of
organizations. And that is positive. The traditional functional structure based
on the principle of specialization has proven its limitations over and over. Even 'assembly line' organizations have been working for years
on an efficient team development to improve both quality, efficiency and job satisfaction.
Multidisciplinary teams are the new concept, integrating what belongs together
according to the logic of the processes. This transition will pay off more in
companies with less routine work, and where more coordination between people is
needed to come up with solutions and results. That is clearly the case if we no longer
make standard mechanical products, but face more combinations of routines, more
unpredictable situations (services) and even the need to engage specific
expertise or intervene in the world of psychology at unpredictable moments (for
example in care organizations, especially in a therapeutic or
teaching setting).
If we observe how
these new structures are designed, we can make some remarkable observations. A criterion that is often used
as a criterion for re-design is the number of alignment relationships between people. That is of course not a bad idea, but it
seems very incomplete. The
quality of the relationships seems more decisive. These questions are therefore important:
- What do people need each other for ?
- How often, and how predictable are these moments
of alignment?
- How important is alignment for the results
of the team?
- How difficult is the substance of
alignment?
- How important is trust between those
involved?
- Etc ...
In addition to the
one-sidedness of the quantitative approach (which still forms an important limitation in our way
of thinking in organizations in many respects), there are a few things
that are too often neglected in practice. some essential elements:
- Job descriptions. It will inevitably be the case that
certain (even most) functions will get a different content if
we move to multifunctional teams. If it remains unclear to the person
concerned and to the environment what the new function entails, then the new
structure may not work as intended.
- Mission of the new teams. It seems logical to agree and write it
down clearly, but this is very often missing in the newly designed structure. This concerns both assignment, objectives,
mandates and powers.
- The structure of consultation. Which consultations are planned to
organize the functioning of the teams, and especially the coordination with
other teams and with management? Each structure of consultation must not
only contain who is involved and what is on the agenda, but especially what the
mandate is of that consultation and how the communication of the results is organized.
These three factors are a necessary component of the structure. It is therefore an unforgivable mistake in
a reorganization to pay little or no attention to them. If that happens, employees in the new
structure are left to their own destiny and, in addition to all the practical
changes that they have to cope with, they to develop these dimensions
themselves. Often reorganizations
and ‘tilts’ of organizational structures will get stuck due to the related frustration
of the employees.
But there's more. Directly
related to a new structure, there are elements that the new organization structure
needs to work smoothly:
- New systems or different use of existing
ones. Some systems may be crucial in the new
operation. Just think of
budgets, IT systems for registration and reporting, quality control, etc. They may already have existed, but it will be
necessary for them to be used differently.
- New processes. Some crucial processes will run
differently in the organization. Think of strategy formation, investments,
quality follow-up, knowledge development, etc.
- Leadership style. This is a very crucial factor that in reality
often makes the difference between success and failure. Leadership will also be present in the new
structure, but the role and style will have to be different. If that is not clear and accepted for all
involved, problems can be expected.
- Culture. The existing culture, both operational and
managerial, will determine how attainable the new structure turns out to be. In a compartmentalized organization there
is often a culture of sub-optimization and poor cooperation between departments
and specialisms. If only the structure
is adjusted in such an organization, the culture will not automatically change.
This requires much more targeted action, which may also have to precede structural
change. (it mostly does!)
With this brief
overview I just want to indicate that creating a new structure is a complex
assignment that goes far beyond making a new drawing of the organization chart. If these additional aspects are forgotten,
the reorganization is unlikely to be a success. Everything that is measurable is not
important; everything that is
important cannot be measured.
Moreover, if all the
necessary changes are unilaterally decided by the management, without
participation, then the support for the new choices will be very weak, and at the
most a certain degree of resignation will arise to allow the change to run over
them. The energy required from those involved to
make the new structure work will probably not be supplied. It requires sound change management to
prevent resistance and resignation on this point.
It could be an interesting
study to find out which factors prevent this logical approach from being
followed in practice. We
will undoubtedly end up with the personality of the manager, the quality of the
relationship with the consultants involved, and the pressure from above in the
organization.
-
Dealing
with complexity is not a matter of energy!
-
Participation
without insight indeed leads to statements without perspective!
Hugo Der Kinderen
November 3, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment