I am a huge curmudgeon when I read these types of articles. I tend to think back to Moral Mazes and I have no faith or hope that executives will do healthy things in these situations.
But I actually liked a couple of the major points in this. And it's really rare for me to not just basically be Lumpy Space Princess about these things.
The points I most liked:
-- Keep it internal -- They didn't mention this in the article, but it's not uncommon for firms to blow unreasonable amounts of money on external consulting firms, who typically come in with no consideration whatsoever for the existing employees or the way things work.
Often these firms are value-destructive, and the fact that a company would choose them usually means there's some type of internal power struggle that can only be resolved through the use of meaningless external credential, status symbols, and prestige. When someone is using BCG or McKinsey, you can bet it's not because they need quality, evidence-based outcomes, but because the BCG/McKinsey/FancyBrand stamp of approval cannot be overridden by their internal rival. It's a good sign for this firm that they did it by talking with their existing employees rather than hiring external advisers (at least it seems that way in the article).
-- Anticlimax -- this is a great way to put it. By the time the dust settles, anyone who didn't want to leave the company should be completely and utterly unsurprised, bored even, by how it has turned out. This doesn't mean everyone has to like it, but no one should come to work after the re-org and have significant feelings of "why is it working like this?" or "this isn't what we talked about..." The aforemocked consulting type dummies often take a rip-the-bandaid approach that I will never understand. It leaves almost everyone surprised, like one of George Sr.'s mass layoff days.
I personally liked the "people who know how this needs to happen are the people you're reorging" thought, to paraphrase. I've been in orgs where "the reorg" is some sword of Damocles that will shatter all order and attempt to rebuild it in some unknowable new form. Poetic license aside, that does no good for morale, and typically doesn't end up too well with respect to operational efficiency given the inevitable communication gaps between the powers that be and the boots on the ground when the reorg is seen as orders from on high rather than a collaborative restructuring.
That last bit was a little too close to the buzzword line for me, twenty lashes or something.
Maybe shows my inexperience but I don't see how people have time to write things like this if a company is successful, busy and making money. To me it indicates people have time on their hands. Ok do the re-org but spend 4 hours writing about it ?!
Writing a blog post like this is a form of retrospective. Would you agree that those improve outcomes and surface issues and are valuable? The only difference with those other successful companies making money is that we try to do more of it in public and that non-Engineers are doing it too (like Robert did here). It shouldn't take more time.
But I actually liked a couple of the major points in this. And it's really rare for me to not just basically be Lumpy Space Princess about these things.
The points I most liked:
-- Keep it internal -- They didn't mention this in the article, but it's not uncommon for firms to blow unreasonable amounts of money on external consulting firms, who typically come in with no consideration whatsoever for the existing employees or the way things work.
Often these firms are value-destructive, and the fact that a company would choose them usually means there's some type of internal power struggle that can only be resolved through the use of meaningless external credential, status symbols, and prestige. When someone is using BCG or McKinsey, you can bet it's not because they need quality, evidence-based outcomes, but because the BCG/McKinsey/FancyBrand stamp of approval cannot be overridden by their internal rival. It's a good sign for this firm that they did it by talking with their existing employees rather than hiring external advisers (at least it seems that way in the article).
-- Anticlimax -- this is a great way to put it. By the time the dust settles, anyone who didn't want to leave the company should be completely and utterly unsurprised, bored even, by how it has turned out. This doesn't mean everyone has to like it, but no one should come to work after the re-org and have significant feelings of "why is it working like this?" or "this isn't what we talked about..." The aforemocked consulting type dummies often take a rip-the-bandaid approach that I will never understand. It leaves almost everyone surprised, like one of George Sr.'s mass layoff days.