The document discusses reasons why organizational redesigns fail and keys to success. Common failures include not establishing clear goals for the redesign, structuring the organization around specific personnel rather than business needs, causing too much disruption, making side agreements outside the process, skipping assessing the current state, breaking confidentiality, and neglecting change management planning. To succeed, organizations should understand drivers for change, separate design from staffing decisions, minimize disruption, follow an agreed-upon process, conduct a current state assessment, maintain confidentiality during planning, and implement formal communications.

2. SUCCESS AND FAILURES
IN
ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN

3. One of the key aspects of organizational design is alignment. An organization
can have a well thought out and proven strategy, but without meaningful connection and
engagement or the right resources or relationships, the strategy is ultimately just a piece
of paper.
Rather than creating a level of cohesion that enables an organization to frame
core work, an ineffective structural design creates a friction that is detrimental to
employee happiness and organizational success.
“With global, technological and social trends dramatically altering customer
expectations for quality, service, timeliness and innovation, new organizational forms are
evolving to enable greater innovation, speed and flexibility,” Barker Scott says.
“Designs with steep hierarchies, centralized authority and narrowly defined jobs
are hopelessly out of date. From Lars Kolind’s spaghetti organization to Gareth Morgan’s
organic network, the DNA of these new forms is dramatically different from that of the
traditional bureaucracy – they are entirely different entities.”

4. Common design issues, also known as cracks, include an inability to adapt, role
confusion, duplication of work, poor relationships, unclear authority, insufficient resources
and, in some cases, an inability to focus on the core value-added work. In order to test
the fitness of the design structure, Barker Scott has developed a series of organizational
effectiveness tests related to the core capabilities that every organization should develop, hone
and align
For any forward-thinking organization that wants to rethink its design, Barker
Scott recommends first ‘living’ the design process. Select a team, department or division in
the organization as a case study, and then get a clear handle on the events, trends
and developments that are impacting this team’s success and viability.
When the designers are firmly rooted in the things that are driving the redesign
effort, they can test the fitness of their current design to meet those challenges and
opportunities.

5. Fit for strategy test:
Does your design enable staff to focus on and achieve your strategy – the core
value-added work?
Flexibility test: Does your design enable people to adapt as necessary to day-to-day shifts,
fluctuating workloads, customer needs and developing strategies?
Capabilities and resources test: Does your design focus resources on and enable the
execution of required capabilities?
Relationships test: Does your design permit seamless and easy interactivity between
areas that need to cooperate and collaborate?
Accountability test: Do people know who has accountability for what? Are they enabled
to make decisions and act?
People test: Do we understand the job roles that are critical to organizational success
(pivotal roles for now and in the near future)? Are we able to fill them with talented and
motivated people?
Leadership test: Do our leaders at each level of heirarchy add value through a knowledge
or coordination or performance coaching benefit? Do our leaders infuse the organization
with a common performance spirit?

6. Feasibility test:
Do we understand, and are we operating within, the financial, technological,
legislative or resource constraints bounding our organization?
“As designers reflect on each test, they will identify the design issues, or
cracks, that need to be addressed via the design process,” Barker Scott says. “Depending
on the focus, breadth and depth of the design issues identified, the work may require
fine-tuning within a unit or a full-blown examination of multiple units and levels. If, for
example, the current organizational form does not easily permit people to focus on the
right work or to develop core capabilities or to coordinate activities, the scope of the
work will be quite broad.
On the other hand, if the current form permits the right kinds of work focus,
flexibility and connectivity, but blocks accountability, then accountability will be the
primary focus.”

7. Why Organization Structures Fail
1. Not knowing what you are trying to achieve
Before moving boxes and lines on an organization chart, it is important to know
why you are doing the reorganization. Is it a result of a merger, acquisition, or downsizing?
Are you trying to reduce costs and improve efficiencies? Are you struggling with
performance issues? Are there too many direct reports, which may be impeding both
employee development and innovation? Is the reporting structure too complex? Clear
guidelines that reflect what the goals of the new organization are will help companies ensure
that the redesigned organization will attain those stated goals.
2. Structuring an organization for specific personnel
It is not uncommon for key people within an organization to have tremendous
influence due to their tenure, expertise, or importance to certain client relationships. As
a result, there is a risk that the preferences of the individual will become a priority
during organization design rather than the objectives and requirements of the business.
It is incredibly important to separate the organization design component from the
actual selection of staff.

8. 3. Causing more disruption than needed
Scott Madden sometimes encounters clients who view reorganization as an
opportunity to “clean house.” Although it is true that the need for change usually provides a
good opportunity to also address other inefficiencies or problem areas, leaders should be
cautious about causing more disruption than necessary.
Drastic staffing cuts or process changes can result in reduced employee morale,
the loss of valuable talent, stagnated innovation, and an overall distraction from the mission
of the organization.
4. Making decisions and/or having sidebar agreements outside of the agreed-
upon process
A sidebar or supplemental agreement that compromises the documented, agreed-
upon, communicated process threatens project success. These actions can open the door to
additional exceptions to the organization design process and can result in an overall lack of
trust in the organization’s leadership going forward. For example, management has set forth
a process of evaluating and selecting for all reorganized positions. Two managers have a
sidebar discussion in the hall that they really want “someone like Kim” in one of the
positions.
Both managers agree and decide to put Kim in the position and determine who
will backfill her in her current position, despite already communicating that the two
positions will be posted and interviews will be conducted for final selection.

9. 5. Skipping current state assessment
Many organizations desire to jump directly to the organization design stage before
conducting a detailed current state assessment (CSA) that includes current costs, volumes,
and service levels of the organization. It is imperative that a comprehensive CSA is
completed prior to the design, as the design is dependent upon many of the metrics and
standards that are established within the CSA.
Gauging improvements in efficiency and/or performance from the redesign often
depends on an organization’s ability to analyze and compare layers, spans, and cost-to-
manage to standards. A CSA forms the basis for these and other analyses, without which
decisions are not fully informed.
6. Breaking the circle of confidentiality
It is incredibly important for participants involved in the redesign to keep project
information inside the circle of confidentiality. Revealing too much too soon to those outside
the “Circle of Trust” can threaten an organization’s level of engagement and overall
productivity. The design of a new organization structure brings with it new roles,
responsibilities, and reporting relationships. These changes can encourage or discourage
personnel, and therefore have the potential to threaten the effectiveness of the new structure.
The performance of individuals or entire departments can be compromised if people think
they will not have a job in the future organization, and this has a network effect on the rest of
the organization. In addition, organizations may lose their most talented individuals who feel
uncertain about their future within the new organization, while being highly sought after in
the marketplace.

10. 7. Bypassing a formal change management and communications plan
It is essential that a formal plan is developed to support the communication of the
right information at the right point in the process. Details about the new organization, along
with details of the selection process, should be communicated as they are finalized to all
levels of the organization.
This will help avoid surprise or confusion about the responsibilities and
expectations during the change. If rumors conflict with formal communication during the
process, the legitimacy of the organization will be jeopardized.
Reorganizations can be highly successful ventures.
However, by understanding what your main drivers are on the front end, whether
you are promoting growth, cutting costs, changing culture, or changing overall operations,
you can ensure you achieve your goal of better performance. Avoiding ScottMadden’s
seven reasons for failure will help ensure your organization redesign is “done right.”

11. conclusion
This paper discusses some of the factors which determine whether
proposals for changes in job design are implemented or not and, if they are,
whether they are likely to be successful. It takes a systems approach in that in the
real world there are a number of interdependent factors and a change in any one
will affect others. Failure to consider the effects of changes of a traditional
ergonomic type on individual psychological needs or wider ranging job design
proposals on payments, management style, etc. will lead to failure.
Important factors to consider are the attitudes and values of top
management, the involvement of those whose jobs are being changed, the tradition
of work organization and the expectations of the employees. The aim must be to
allow the individual worker at any level the greatest possible choice in how he
does his job.
Comment is made on the education of economists, the problems of performance
measurement and the evaluation of change.

12. Done
by
NAME: BOOBESH KUMAR M
REG NO: RA1952001020045
CLASS: 1 MBAA SEC