Reorganization-Solution or Symptom.jpg

Microsoft announced a major reorganization recently.  Don’t worry if you didn’t notice.  They do it so often you have to wonder whether one reorganization completes before the next one begins.

They’re not alone.  Reorganizations are seen by many as healthy and necessary, even strategic. They supposedly promote innovation, create realignment, shake the tree, etc.

If that’s true, wouldn’t there be a direct correlation with improved performance? And wouldn’t any gains be discounted by the inevitable productivity drain from reorganizing?

Simply announcing a reorganization instantly refocuses employees from the organization’s future to their own.  A coveted opportunity for the select few is an anxiety-ridden endurance test for everyone else.

Reorganization is neither innovative nor strategic.  It’s a tactical correction that, done correctly, can both promote those things and scale to their resultant growth.

Of course, unhealthy, neglected organizations do need reorganizing.  But not repeatedly.  Frequent reorganization is a symptom of a much deeper problem.

Just because the big guys do it every few years doesn’t mean it’s right, just that they can afford it.  Can you?

Comment