London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

•  
  beeboo506/12/08 Report as spam
  1

  Neither Nor

  I don't think it's lunacy, if it's done in an educated, planned manner. Unhappy workers is the biggest reason for lack of productivity. It'd be a good idea to at least let them know THEY are not the reason, that it is, indeed, a random reograinziation, and that you have no better reason than boredom.
  
  If you can't see a direct, positive affect to the bottom line, then don't do it again. The negatives outweigh the positives in this type of overhaul.

•  
  pbevilaqua06/12/08 Report as spam
  2

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  Right, if there's a problem, reorganize; if there isn't a problem, reorganize. Eventually, it will turn out to be the right thing to do.
  
  Consultant's get paid for advice like this?

•  
  pbevilaqua06/12/08 Report as spam
  3

  From Today's BNET Business Dictionary

  Business Definition for: Leavitt's Diamond
  a model for analyzing management change, developed by Harold J. Leavitt. Leavitt's Diamond is based on the idea that it is rare for any change to occur in isolation. Leavitt sees technology, tasks, people, and the organizational structure in which they function as four interdependent variables, visualized as the four points of a diamond. Change at any one point of the diamond will impact some or all of the others. Thus, a changed task will necessarily affect the people involved in it, the structure in which they work, and the technology that they use. Failure to manage these interdependencies at critical times of change can create problems.

•  
  Mark Pilipczuk06/12/08 Report as spam
  4

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  Not lunacy, but not quite a stroke of genius. Creativity and new ways of
  thinking are fostered by randomness and discomfort. And there's nothing like
  the apparent randomness of a re-org to create discomfort within entrenched
  people. I've been through a number of re-orgs and I always embraced them
  because I knew I'd get the chance to work with some people I didn't really know
  before, who might have some weird ideas about how I did things. I always
  thought I got smarter after a re-org.

•  
  TraceyLea06/12/08 Report as spam
  5

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  Business are always operating in a changing environment and this "Re-org" idea is a similar principle to using project teams effectively. It is part of making sure that you have a dynamic employee base.
  
  The teams come together for the duration of the project/task and then disperse to join another project/task team. This keeps the team members energised because they aren't stuck doing the same thing all the time and they are always networking both inside and outside the company, with different vendors and colleagues. Teams go through the ups and downs of discomfort, building relationships and comfort (basically the five-stage model of group development), just on a much smaller time scale than a complete "Re-org" because their tasks are finite.
  
  Another thing to think about before doing a "Re-org" would be the practicality of it in relation to the type of business operating and whether it can still maintain acceptable levels of performance the down-time required to make the changes.
  
  However the creation of new formal groups through a "Re-org" would possibly be the best solution for a business that has a number of employees that have been entrenched in the same positions for years but it would be silly to re-organise a whole organisation when the manager could just as effectively start using a different approach, the creation of project/task teams, to achieve a similar result.

•  
  Graeward06/13/08 Report as spam
  6

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  DON'T FORGET THE ROMANS
  This management technique was first exploited by the Roman emporer, Caius Petronius, who gained control of the palace, as its administrator, by constantly reorganizing the military and administrative commands. In those days the technique was called 'divide and rule'

•  
  matt.birchall@...06/13/08 Report as spam
  7

  Up to a point Lord Copper

  I have worked in two very large organizations that reorganized every year. The reorgs would come in response to the arrival of a new chief or as a reflex reaction to poor performance. the size and depth of the orgs together with the frequency of the reorgs bred cynicism and apathy. The last one resembled a game of musical chairs with many people ending up in jobs where they had no experience and no network of contacts with which to create value.
  In my opinion the reorganisation must have a clear specific, and well communicated goal - adapting to new market conditions or reasserting appropriate scale by dividing a behemoth into managable chunks can be good reasons but the outcome can be value destructive if not executed well.

•  
  mbizy06/13/08 Report as spam
  8

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  I've been through NUMEROUS re-org's and been on both sides. Change for the sake of change, is lunacy. Not allowing employees to develop some routine work patterns and/or a department to mature is counter productive. Employees, systems and departments need time to grow, develop and bloom. That cycle will vary per individual circumstance. Cut it short and the org will not bear fruit.
  
  This kind of shuffling also creates insecurity. Employees begin looking over their shoulders, waiting for the next hammer to fall, wondering what's coming next. When this preoccupies their thoughts, productivity suffers.
  
  Don't get me wrong, the only way to improve is through change. Without change, you stay the same. Sameness doesn't produce winners, but neither does constant change or change for the sake of change.

•  
  Pete Malpass06/13/08 Report as spam
  9

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  This is what Japanese major industry used to do in the 1980s - destabilize business processes and see how they reformed when the residual benefits of continuous process improvement tailed off. Essentially - do a business process re-engineering and fundamentally change the process by changing the requirements. It seemed to work best on a 5-8 year basis in heavy industry which would put the re-org at the end of the massive earnings phase as commoditization of what had been a new product began in earnest. With fast followers now, large investments in production facilities, equipment and training can't be recooped in the 1-3 years before comeptition jumps on your idea so re-org may be sooner or not all that useful.

•  
  don.aday06/13/08 Report as spam
  10

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  Lunacy!! Why is it that so many managers believe you must make employees uncomfortable and confused through continuous change to create productivity? Just the opposite appears true in my experience. Employees navigate change best when they have a foundational basis of understanding, a clear direction, and the power to help chart the course.
  
  I believe the best way to manage change, reform business processes, and increase productivity is to challenge the employees to reform/redefine their own roles and procedures and to manage/control the change. It is not the uncertainty of change that causes employee dissatisfaction. If led appropriately, change can create an extremely dynamic and exciting work environment. The scary part of change is most often the feeling of helplessness that comes when managers (vice leaders) who usually don't fully understand established processes shake things up, just to see what falls out!
  
  There are four clear factors in successful change for a company or organization. Leadership must provide measurable obtainable and specific goals, employees need to clearly understand their roles in the change process, everyone must adequately and continually account for personal dynamics, and all must understand and acknowledge the associated short-range resource costs involved (time, energy, manpower, productivity). If business leaders focus on these four factors, they can effectively harness the most effective and efficient change machine available, their employees. It is those entrenched employees who have seen it and done it, and readily understand what is right/wrong with their processes in intimate detail. If energized properly, they have the knowledge, to keep a manager's haphazard reinvention of the wheel from quickly becoming the counterproductive and costly "flat tire"!

•  
  mbizy06/16/08 Report as spam
  11

  Well said Don Aday!

  Well said Don Aday! I agree TOTALLY!

•  
  mheminway06/13/08 Report as spam
  12

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  That old saw "if it ain't broke break it" coming back around again. Continuos improvement can and perhaps should be concieved without complete upheaval. if the work is flowing and improvement and inovation is a focus for everyone, the reorgs will come naturally.
  
  If something is seriously broken, and there is a complete lack of leadership, then a reorg may be in line. If you find yourself in need of a reorg, take a long hard look at yourself and your leadership style first. Are you fostering an environment for inovation? Have people come to you with new ideas? What is your turnover rate? Have you been missing signs that a change is overdue?
  
  Reorgs can sap people's enthusiasm and reduce productivity for six months or more. Is that what you need?

•  
  bkdebar06/13/08 Report as spam
  13

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  Sheer rubbish! If an organization is so stagnate that they have to manufacture a reorg to create talent movement and creativity, they need to think carefully about their leadership competencies. If the institution is generating opportunities for promotion and transfer, as well as doing a good job of hiring new blood and culling poor performers, then re-orging for re-orging sake is unnecessary, creates both distraction and cost, and disrupts management accountability

•  
  neilldsouza06/13/08 Report as spam
  14

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  It is pretty much true that looking at things in different perspective is much required to stimulate creativity and retain interest in the job. This excercise is best put to use when periodic reviews are done.

•  
  gurrola535@...06/14/08 Report as spam
  15

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  I manage a group of top notch engineers who are at the top of their game. Rotating job assignments is a good way to keep them on their toes and at their highest level of performance. They rise to the challenge because it is an opportunity to demonstrate their skills. In this day of "keeping employees engaged" I find this a useful tactic to keep my department finely tuned while further developing employees to their potential. They know why I do this and participate in the process. More importantly,they collaborate with one another and share their knowledge to assist each other to ensure continued high performance within the team. I think this article is spot on!

•  
  Shyam Singhal06/16/08 Report as spam
  16

  RE: London Business School: Re-org is its Own Reward

  Every action is a result of "Problem Statement" and "End Point / Result / Outcome". If that were true, re-organization has to have a problem statement, and set goal.
  
  Now, whether a goal is to break the "complacency", "staleness", or to make it lean and matrix driven, or something else; in every single case you have "reason" to do it, and you also know the "end point" that you want to achieve. Therefore, as long as you do not violate this fundamental understanding, any exercise (for improvement) will result in delivering desired / expected / foreseen improvement.
  
  Regards,
  Shyam