 |
by
Terry Hoon
|
Has it ever struck you how often people consider restructuring
as a way of solving their problems? They may be senior managers,
or boards of management or councils or governments, but they think
that sorting out the overall framework of the services which they
offer will improve things, speed up decision-making, help with
communication, increase efficiency, save money or provide better
services.
And
if you have been one of the foot soldiers undergoing restructuring,
was it worthwhile? Did it improve things, speed up decision-making,
help with communication, increase efficiency, save money or provide
better services? Or did it create confusion, demoralise staff,
necessitate a lot of extra work and divert staff from their primary
task?
A
phoney quotation, said to be from Gaius Petronius Arbiter, used
to be on a lot of office walls. "We
trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning
to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn
later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of
progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
Phoney or not, it had the ring of truth. It was the foot soldier’s
view of the general’s plans.
Clearly,
there are times when fundamental restructuring is necessary, and
there is certainly an argument for ongoing organic growth and
change if an organisation is to stay alive and adapt to meet needs
better. Too often, though, major changes can simply reflect the
ideas of a new manager or newly elected government or council,
rather than the real needs of the service.
Research
Needed
There
is room for a major piece of research into the number of times
which the National Health Service has been restructured, and the
impact which the changes have had on staff morale and commitment,
the fracturing of systems and working relationships, and the sheer
cost of early retirements both in cash and experience, every time
senior staff have had to re-apply for their jobs.
Or
again, the impact of restructuring on clients would warrant research.
One small study showed that children who had spent long periods
of their childhood in care had largely been admitted to care at
times when their departments were being restructured and their
social workers had had other preoccupations.
Ten
Principles
So
here are ten principles by which to test any restructuring.
1
Everyone throughout the organisation should be doing an important
but not overwhelming job, wherever they are in the hierarchy.
The balance of duties and responsibilities has to be right. Are
there imbalances which need to be changed? Will the proposed change
improve any imbalances, or may it create some?
2 In services directed to serve people, the operations need to
be properly represented at senior level. Finance, human resources
fundraising and development are all important, but should not
significantly outweigh operations, or else the tail may wag the
dog, and there can be undue pressure put on the operational representatives.
3 The structure needs to be looked at from different angles. It
is easily seen from the top down as it is the top people who are
doing the restructuring, but what is it like from the bottom up?
How do the foot soldiers or the middle managers see it? They may
be able to see better ways of organising services and processes,
and if they are involved, they are likely to be more committed
to the change. Do the service users or customers have opinions?
They may be able to identify what is really needed, and the re-identification
of the service or product may lead to a different format for the
restructuring.
4 Is it clear who is accountable to whom? Unless you have a totally
democratic organisation where everyone has a say, it is important
for clear decision-making to know who to salute to. It is also
vital to acknowledge the “dotted” lines of accountability,
where a person works closely with another, supporting them or
working under their leadership but not being directly answerable.
Confusion over these lines can leave an organisation incapable
of action.
5
It is important to see people not just as individuals in line
accountability, but also as teams (sometimes very small) of people
who back each other up, act as listening ears for each other,
deputise during leave etc.. If one makes savings by thinning a
structure out, it can look leaner but may have no reserve in the
event of crisis, during holidays or if staff are ill.
6 Typically, unless the aim is explicitly to make savings, restructuring
should be at nil cost, but show benefits in efficiency and effectiveness,
rather than reduced expenditure. Of course, deleting an unnecessary
post may allow a new one to be created.
7 The structure should normally come first, to match the functions
to be carried out. The individuals then have to fit into the structure.
Otherwise, the organisation ends up serving its staff rather than
its clientele, and it drifts off target. However, to make best
use of staff, who are an organisation's key resource, care does
need to be taken to match people to roles, to give individuals
workloads they will find satisfying, to use the opportunity to
stretch promising staff etc. The "elegant solution"
works both structurally and for the individuals involved.
8 The actual process of restructuring should reflect the values
of the organisation. If the organisation is intended to offer
care, then to carry out its task effectively, it needs to show
concern for all people affected - staff and clients. The prevalent
values of those directly providing services will be affected by
what their managers do more than by what they say. A caring service
needs a caring style of management. This does not mean that it
has to be sloppy or unbusinesslike, but being caring does entail
honesty, openness, respect, sensitivity, facing problems jointly
where possible and keeping to the spirit of employment policies
as well as the letter.
9
Fundamentally, the final test of the restructuring will be whether
the organisation meets its basic aims more effectively. That may
take some time to judge. After implementing changes, a period
will be needed to deal with hiccups, mismatches and unintended
consequences. Once the system is fine-tuned, it will be possible
to judge whether the change was worthwhile. By that time, some
managers may of course be arguing for another restructuring, but
problems may indicate a need to change management style or some
other factor, rather than the structure.
10
Finally, there need to be really good reasons for restructuring
in the first place, as it is a disruptive process, breaking down
lots of systems and working relationships which take time and
energy to restore. Restructuring can create anxiety and it diverts
an organisation from its task. The main losers in restructuring
are often the clients who receive inadequate services while the
staff are busy dealing with the changes affecting them. In brief,
the benefits must demonstrably outweigh the disbenefits if restructuring
is to pay off.
The
Wrong Way and the Right Way
A
senior manager in a large organisation once said that he believed
in restructuring every four years, so that he could “get
rid of the dead wood”. So who appointed the dead wood four
years earlier? And why was he unable to identify the potential
dead wood four years earlier when he selected them? And why had
he been unable to do something more positive about the people
who were failing? Indeed, was it the style of management in the
organisation which led to their failure? Sometimes there may be
other answers to a problem, rather than restructuring.
It
is said that the Japanese approach to restructuring is to talk
about it for a long time, asking all the questions, listening
to all the viewpoints, sharing possible solutions, considering
the possible consequences of the solutions and, when there is
a consensus for change, implementing quickly and smoothly. That’s
the way to do it.
