As if there aren't enough challenges to simply getting the day to day stuff done, I see increasingly more "restructuring" done almost on a yearly basis in many firms we work with. This means there's a mad scramble to get things done, then a two to three month period during which no one is exactly sure of the outcomes and the new guys in charge need to consolidate their power and begin the place their stamp on the work that's being done. In some firms we work with, a fairly significant restructuring takes place on an almost annual basis.
OK, I recognize that markets change and people mature and need to be placed in the best positions. But in some of these cases almost all work other than that which is absolutely life essential to the business comes to a complete halt. Right now I can count three or four significant projects that are in limbo, simply because they could not get started before restructuring, and now those projects will have to be reviewed, approved and blessed by a new layer of management that in some cases was not even aware of the initiatives. One of two things needs to happen in most organizations: either we need to slow down the restructuring and ask people to do more things in the positions they are in, or we need to make the organizations exceptionally elastic, constantly able to change so that the change is accepted and not disruptive. Right now we ask for periodic, dramatic change in an organizational structure that is fairly rigid, and lacks good communication. So, we've got the worst of both worlds.
What would the two options look like? One option would be to suggest that people can take on more horizontal skills and responsibilities, so that there's less need to shuffle them and they can remain with the projects that matter to them or require their skill sets. This would indicate a more process-oriented or market facing organization structure that adapts itself to the needs of the market or customer, rather than a more hierarchical structure. The second option is to build an organizational model that has exceptionally little permanent structure, but can adapt itself at will to the needs of the customer, the market or business conditions. In this model, the organizational structure would be able to change constantly to reflect the needs of the business and the market. What's required in this model is much better communication and much lower walls or silos between business functions and perhaps even lines of business or product groups. After all, most firms are organized according to the product they develop rather than the customer they serve. Why not re-evaluate the organizational structure, which is the real problem.
It's hard enough to get anything done that takes longer than six to eight months, given the budgeting processes, rotational programs and constant restructuring, yet we cling to organizational structures, narrow and deep skill sets and top down hierarchical direction and communication models that simply don't reflect business reality. Now, most of my clients spend a month or two year year getting their budgets right for next year, and a month or two dealing with the fall out of the restructuring exercises and trying to squeeze in projects they can complete before their rotation or next promotion becomes permanent. It's no wonder that it's hard to get anything really interesting done.
Comments