A new general manager arrives at a manufacturing plant and finds that there are multiple layers of supervision and management between him and the hourly workers. Real-time updates take too long to move up or down the line and are often inaccurate.
Decisions are delayed until, finally, someone acts. Then implementation slows as it filters down level by level. “Too many managers,” he announces. “We’re going to trim the workforce and flatten the pyramid.” Of the 30 managers and supervisors, 8 are close to retirement, so they are offered enhanced benefits to retire.
Three others are poor performers and are laid off, and five more are “reassigned”—which means “demoted,” although no one will admit that. “There,” says the GM. “Now we’re trim and efficient.” But as months go by the results get worse and worse. People are dragging their feet. Rumors abound.
The GM keeps talking about how much better the new structure is than the old, hoping that somehow he can convince people to make it work. In logical terms, it is better, but he doesn’t realize that his words sound hollow to people who have lost their familiar turf, their sense of self-worth, and many of their good friends.
Structure is not about moving people around like pawns on a chessboard. It takes into consideration the working relationship and how it impacts productivity.
When working on restructuring projects with our clients, we ask them these questions as guides:
Why do you think restructuring is the best option?
What are you looking to achieve?
Who will be most affected and least affected?
What has to be true for this to work?
Do you have a competence problem or a character problem?
Are the leaders in the exercises principled, or do they like to bend rules to suit them?
Once you have asked these questions, you stand a chance of effectively engaging in change management and not falling short like in the story above.
