BTW, on the subject of corporate re-organizations:
There is a book I have used twice as a methodology, and (I am not exaggerating) those two Organizational Re-architecture projects were the only successful re-orgs in my career (I've suffered through 16 in my 30 years). The book, alas, is now out-of-print but can be found online and in libraries:
I posed this question to each employee in our 90+ organization as we prepared for pending M&A integration during which time were absorbing 170 additional IT staff across 8 locations in 5 states (and yes, I traveled to each location for these meetings to reinforce their importance).
This “Bottom Up” (rather than Top Down) approach to organizational design allowed for these very critical aspects of successful Change Management to flourish:
• Human beings resist change if they feel excluded from the planning of that change – this proved true in our re-org, as our post-merger employee engagement survey reported 98% satisfaction with the “new” organizational structure, twenty points higher than any previous survey, spanning 5 years.
• FYI, this remains applicable, even in circumstances when few of their ideas (proposed by first line staff) are actually incorporated – the key element is that they were involved in, rather than merely impacted by, the final design for teams and hierarchies.
• Most middle managers reported that they learned, in the King For A Day one-on-one sessions, important info about their employees they had never known nor heard during “normal” meetings, i.e., a different level of truth emerged. These Aha’s resulted in 4 promotions, a full career change for 2, and (perhaps most significant) a belief among the employees that they were being “heard.”
Emergent wisdom (of those most affected by executive decisions) is the single most influential factor in the perceived success of long-range organizational change.
As such, I advise anyone considering or currently planning their company’s Return to Work (post-Covid) structures and policies to do this one thing. And a great trick to open that conversation? "If you were King/Queen for a Day..."
If I were King for a day! Yes, I want to be King, not simply the Queen! LOL (John, I know you are laughing now!)
One thing I would change is grading Associates on a bell curve. In today's world when organizations are running mean and lean, grade people on their contributions! If the blow, then grade them that way, but if you have 10 direct reports and all 10 are rock stars, grade them appropriately with documentation supporting their Rock Star Status! Gone are the old GE Welch days of "bell curve grading"!
One thing I would not change is the yearly pain in the backside reorganizations. Yes, I said I would NOT change them. This gives Leadership the ability to course correct after a justifiable period of trial and errors. Granted, it does make organizations less likely to reach an era of working as a well oiled machine, but allows for trialing out lots of wild ideas organizationally year after year. (Yes, you should detect a bit of sarcasm there!)
But putting that aside and the twisted ankle .... thankyou
Number 1 I file under something I used to call 'forced ranking' - is that what you mean? I THINK it emerged from those days of Siebel - where every year the 'bottom' 10% were removed from the organization ... I will forward this to a couple of people I know on this list that will have some thoughts on this direction.
But banning the reorg? Oh My. Revolutionary. Do you mean when a new person takes over they don’t get to change the org to make their mark? YIKES!
Leah - do you think these two ideas would be well supported in your current organization ... or not?
I said I would KEEP the yearly reorgs. As unpopular as they are, they actually provide leadership the ability to trial out orgs and wild changes, give them a decent trial period and course correct as needed. I would keep them even as painful and uncomfortable as they usually are.
And yes, number 1 that I would alleviate would be the ole "Siebel forced rankings". IMO, if you have good people managers, they know how to "manage out" those bottom feeders without forcing your Rock Stars to feel like poo because of a "forced ranking situation" - especially when they don't deserve it. It also drives great employees away from your org. These days, with most orgs running on the anorexic side, great employees are too hard to find, so much easier to keep your Rock Stars than risk losing them due to this archaic practice.
yes - my question was more around the new leader that arrives, sits back and contemplates for a couple of seconds and then announces that the company would improve massively under this NEW way of organizing ... I interpreted that you meant that would go - unless it was in line with the yearly?
Ha! Now, JP, that is a whole different topic!! LOL. I have seen this type of org attack often with new leaders coming in from outside your company. I do think there should be an "org change moratorium for x period" on changes for at least a qtr prior to a new leader changing the entire org. And possibly, the freeze needs to be longer than a qtr for them to truly be able to assess the org.
One more comment and I will stop. Great leaders know they need a period in a new company to evaluate and watch the existing org prior to blowing it up with changes. I am a firm believer in changes are good, but sometimes painful and usually uncomfortable.
BTW, on the subject of corporate re-organizations:
There is a book I have used twice as a methodology, and (I am not exaggerating) those two Organizational Re-architecture projects were the only successful re-orgs in my career (I've suffered through 16 in my 30 years). The book, alas, is now out-of-print but can be found online and in libraries:
Structural Cybernetics, by N. Dean Meyer
I posed this question to each employee in our 90+ organization as we prepared for pending M&A integration during which time were absorbing 170 additional IT staff across 8 locations in 5 states (and yes, I traveled to each location for these meetings to reinforce their importance).
This “Bottom Up” (rather than Top Down) approach to organizational design allowed for these very critical aspects of successful Change Management to flourish:
• Human beings resist change if they feel excluded from the planning of that change – this proved true in our re-org, as our post-merger employee engagement survey reported 98% satisfaction with the “new” organizational structure, twenty points higher than any previous survey, spanning 5 years.
• FYI, this remains applicable, even in circumstances when few of their ideas (proposed by first line staff) are actually incorporated – the key element is that they were involved in, rather than merely impacted by, the final design for teams and hierarchies.
• Most middle managers reported that they learned, in the King For A Day one-on-one sessions, important info about their employees they had never known nor heard during “normal” meetings, i.e., a different level of truth emerged. These Aha’s resulted in 4 promotions, a full career change for 2, and (perhaps most significant) a belief among the employees that they were being “heard.”
Emergent wisdom (of those most affected by executive decisions) is the single most influential factor in the perceived success of long-range organizational change.
As such, I advise anyone considering or currently planning their company’s Return to Work (post-Covid) structures and policies to do this one thing. And a great trick to open that conversation? "If you were King/Queen for a Day..."
If I were King for a day! Yes, I want to be King, not simply the Queen! LOL (John, I know you are laughing now!)
One thing I would change is grading Associates on a bell curve. In today's world when organizations are running mean and lean, grade people on their contributions! If the blow, then grade them that way, but if you have 10 direct reports and all 10 are rock stars, grade them appropriately with documentation supporting their Rock Star Status! Gone are the old GE Welch days of "bell curve grading"!
One thing I would not change is the yearly pain in the backside reorganizations. Yes, I said I would NOT change them. This gives Leadership the ability to course correct after a justifiable period of trial and errors. Granted, it does make organizations less likely to reach an era of working as a well oiled machine, but allows for trialing out lots of wild ideas organizationally year after year. (Yes, you should detect a bit of sarcasm there!)
Laughing? I fell off my chair goddamit!
But putting that aside and the twisted ankle .... thankyou
Number 1 I file under something I used to call 'forced ranking' - is that what you mean? I THINK it emerged from those days of Siebel - where every year the 'bottom' 10% were removed from the organization ... I will forward this to a couple of people I know on this list that will have some thoughts on this direction.
But banning the reorg? Oh My. Revolutionary. Do you mean when a new person takes over they don’t get to change the org to make their mark? YIKES!
Leah - do you think these two ideas would be well supported in your current organization ... or not?
I said I would KEEP the yearly reorgs. As unpopular as they are, they actually provide leadership the ability to trial out orgs and wild changes, give them a decent trial period and course correct as needed. I would keep them even as painful and uncomfortable as they usually are.
And yes, number 1 that I would alleviate would be the ole "Siebel forced rankings". IMO, if you have good people managers, they know how to "manage out" those bottom feeders without forcing your Rock Stars to feel like poo because of a "forced ranking situation" - especially when they don't deserve it. It also drives great employees away from your org. These days, with most orgs running on the anorexic side, great employees are too hard to find, so much easier to keep your Rock Stars than risk losing them due to this archaic practice.
yes - my question was more around the new leader that arrives, sits back and contemplates for a couple of seconds and then announces that the company would improve massively under this NEW way of organizing ... I interpreted that you meant that would go - unless it was in line with the yearly?
Ha! Now, JP, that is a whole different topic!! LOL. I have seen this type of org attack often with new leaders coming in from outside your company. I do think there should be an "org change moratorium for x period" on changes for at least a qtr prior to a new leader changing the entire org. And possibly, the freeze needs to be longer than a qtr for them to truly be able to assess the org.
One more comment and I will stop. Great leaders know they need a period in a new company to evaluate and watch the existing org prior to blowing it up with changes. I am a firm believer in changes are good, but sometimes painful and usually uncomfortable.
awwh - don’t stop !!!
I think people doing change often like change - but those having change done unto them ... well - not so much!