ReOrganizations

Is a reorganization a good sign or a bad sign?

Awhile back I was working in a large software division that decided to do a major reorganization. Various people were promoted, changed job titles, moved from one group to another, group and divisions names changed, reporting structures changed, etc. (no staff reductions). However as far as I could tell the only likely improvement would come from just �shaking things up� � with the possibility that some people might get some new perspectives. But the changes caused all ongoing work to bog down for quite some time while everyone tried to make the transitions and figure out who was now responsible for what, and tried to keep on track with their existing projects while getting up to speed on new things.

The organization traditionally had low turnover and was pretty set in it�s ways. The business it was in had not had any recent significant changes. Everyone knew that the way things were being done needed to change but no one seemed to have an idea of exactly what to change, and management would ping-pong from one new thing to another. And if anyone thought changes were needed, the view was typically that �the other guy� should do the changing.

My view on �reorgs� is that they�re generally a red flag � it means management has given up trying to improve things and just hopes that rattling the cages will bring about some positive change. But maybe I�m being too cynical � possibly reorgs really can be helpful in the long run�

Anyone with a different perspective?

-RickHower 2004.10.08

My view of reorganizations. When I used to write programs for a living, if I saw code that wasn't right, i.e. it did do something like it should or as well as it should, I fixed it. I changed it.

A manager walks into an organization of people. The managers sees things that aren't right, i.e. the organization isn't doing something it should be or isn't doing it as well as it should, the manager fixes it. When a manager fixes an organization of people, the fix appears to be a reorganization. The last few reorganizations I've lived through (and there have been quite a few since September 11, 2001) have been called "realignments" instead of reorganizations.

DwaynePhillips 8 October 2004

called "realignments" instead of reorganizations.

The term "bird cage management" comes to mind for many reorganizations. Imagine a gigantic cage with all the managers sitting on their own individual perch. Someone comes and violently shakes the cage and all the managers fly to a different perch.

I've seen this type of reorganization many times in my career. They have resulted in the employees diverting cycles from work to educate their new manager. Followed by more cycles diverted from work to planning. Followed by more cycles diverted from work to justification.

I am worried whenever I see a major reorganization without an influx of at least a few new managers. To me, no new managers means no new ideas. No new ideas means the same results (but slowed down) as before the reorganizaton managed by the same people with different titles.

SteveSmith 2004.10.08

I used to work for an large organization that reorganized on a scheduled basis. Each manager would stay in a position for two to three years and then would be reassigned to a different location. Depending on the senior manager, the managers may be reshuffled more frequently locally before their transfer. All the worker bees would also be cycled though they sometimes stayed up to five years. Part of the idea was to expand the experience of the managers with the idea that they would either apply that broader experience at a higher level in the hierarchy or would move on to a different company. For the worker bees, the reorganizations were more a matter of giving them less arduous assignments alternated with the harder ones. Sometimes it worked for the better and sometimes it didn't. Perhaps it's most positive effect was that no one was stuck with a bad manager for very long. -- MikeMelendez LCDR USN Ret 2004.10.11

Mike, I like the idea of reassigning managers, as well as worker bees, every few years - as long as they get any needed training and as long as everyone doesn't get reassigned all at the same time...

-RickHower 2004.10.11

I like the idea, too, but it's not my idea of "reorganization." Instead, it's changing personnel within the same organization. Reorganization, to me, means changing the parts of the organization, their relationships, and perhaps their goals. Of course, some of this happens when you change personnel around. (which happens in the natural course of things anyway) - JerryWeinberg 2004.10/12

I guess frequency of re-org would be one measure to indicate whether it's healthy or not. Especially when the frequency is at odds with how you perceive the growth of the company. Dull Inc. used to reorg every 3 months or so, despite the fact that the organisation was 10+ years old, with 40,000 employees and growth rates down in the 40% region (this is slow compared to previous growth rates for Dull).

There is also something equivalent to the fault-feedback ratio - assuming the reorg is to fix some fault, organisations that flip-flop between basic org structures (regional to sector, sector to regional, regional to sector) is a good sign of poor health - and a complete lack of thought as to what the problems are with matrix management, and how to compensate for them.

PhilStubbington 2004.10.13

Given Jerry's comment on reorganization, which I can subscribe to, we seem to need a name for the lesser "reshuffling". More importantly, I have some questions for Rick. You seem to be refering to a reorg by Jerry's definition that had no impact on the choice of work being done. Have I got that right? Or maybe changes in the choice of work will follow? MikeMelendez 2004.10.13

Mike, in the reorg I was referring to, some employees (including managers) had their assignments changed and some did not, and in most cases changes were involuntary; the overall work of the organization did not change.

-RickHower 2004.10.13

So the reorg was intended to increase efficiency somehow? That is, rather than stopping efforts worth less to the company and adding efforts worth more? Maybe better put, what rationale did the high-er (-est?) management give?

That asked, I reread your opener. Management "ping-ponged". Irrespective of other aspects of reorganization, I suspect that is the red flag you were seeing. It sounds like they were unwilling to work through the Satir Change Model, but took the initial chaos to indicate failure.

MikeMelendez 2004.10.13

Updated: Thursday, October 14, 2004