A tale of two restructures
The first restructure: Rushed decisions, missed opportunities
In this case, leadership decided to decentralise enabling functions, aligning them with the delivery teams to create a more responsive, agile structure. The intention was sound, but the execution fell short. Leadership opted to fast-track the change, bypassing critical planning and reviews. The process was designed in isolation, with little engagement from staff or external consultants. Assumptions about the impact on staff and the organisation’s needs led to misalignments, frustration, and poor decision-making.
The second restructure: A thoughtful approach with better results
A few years earlier, another part of the organisation went through a similar restructure driven by redundancies and the need for operational efficiency. However, this time, leadership approached the change with a clear plan. They recognised the importance of conducting a thorough review before making any decisions. External consultants were brought in, and key stakeholders at all levels were consulted. The process was driven by informed decisions that considered the current state and future needs. The results were far more successful, and the transition smoother.
1. The review process: External review vs. internal design
Case study 1: Third-party expertise drives success
Result: Clearer alignment and smoother transition
In the second case, leadership engaged external consultants who brought a fresh, objective perspective to the process. These consultants conducted a comprehensive review, assessed roles, identified gaps, and facilitated critical discussions that challenged assumptions. The design was aligned with the organisation’s strategic goals and future needs, ensuring a data-driven and well-informed approach to the restructure.
Case study 2: Lack of third-party insight leads to issues
Outcome: Misalignment and unaddressed gaps
In the first case, leadership skipped the external review and relied on an internally-driven design process. The senior leader drafted the structure in isolation, making assumptions and quick decisions to save time. Without external or independent input, the design didn’t account for key challenges, leading to confusion and inefficiencies.
2. Engaging staff and leadership: Consultation vs. limited involvement
Case study 1: Engaging staff at all levels
Result: Better decision-making and smoother integration
In the second case, leadership consulted staff and middle management at multiple levels. This involvement provided real-world insights and allowed for a more informed design that aligned with the operational challenges. The conversations helped leadership understand the practical realities of roles and teams, leading to more effective decisions.
Case study 2: Limited consultation causes disconnect
Outcome: Poor decision-making and fragmentation
In contrast, leadership in the first case assumed that only senior leadership would be impacted by the restructure. The limited consultation with staff and middle management led to a lack of understanding of the operational realities, resulting in misaligned decisions and fragmentation across the teams.
3. Role alignment: Matching skills to functions vs. rushed reallocation
Case study 1: Aligning roles with staff expertise
Result: Enhanced operational performance and efficiency
Leadership in the second case took the time to assess staff capabilities, matching roles with the right people. This approach ensured that the restructuring was logical, with teams placed in roles that suited their strengths. The alignment of skills with responsibilities led to smoother transitions and better performance.
Case study 2: Rushing role reallocation creates issues
Outcome: Inefficiency and frustration
In the first case, roles were reallocated quickly without assessing whether staff had the necessary expertise for their new responsibilities. This led to inefficiencies and frustration, as staff struggled to meet the demands of their new roles. The resulting misalignments caused delays and confusion.
4. Transition management: Careful planning and communication vs. rushed implementation
Case study 1: Careful transition planning and communication
Result: Smooth adoption and reduced resistance
In the second case, leadership communicated clearly and early with staff, offering the necessary support and guidance. This thoughtful communication helped staff feel prepared and supported throughout the transition, reducing resistance and ensuring smoother adoption of the new structure.
Case study 2: Rushed implementation and lack of communication
Outcome: Confusion and delayed integration
In the first case, communication was rushed, and staff were not given enough time to prepare for the changes. Leadership assumed that middle management would remain stable, neglecting the broader implications of the restructure. As a result, staff felt unprepared, leading to confusion and delays in the integration of the new structure.
When leadership decided to decentralise business support functions and align them more closely with the delivery teams, the goal was clear: break down silos, increase collaboration, and drive performance. However, what followed wasn’t the seamless transformation that had been envisioned. Instead, the restructuring turned into a series of misalignments and over one year of repeated fixes.
In this case study, we’ll compare two restructures: one that was rushed and led to a year of patch-ups, and another that took a more strategic, thoughtful approach. You’ll discover how a lack of proper planning, poor communication, and leadership uncertainty derailed the first restructure, while a clear, data-driven strategy and careful planning led to a much smoother and more effective transformation in the second case. The lessons here will show you how a little extra time and consideration can make all the difference in your own organisational changes.
Proven tactics to lead your restructure the right way
If you’re planning a restructure, don’t make the same mistakes. The lessons from this case study aren’t just useful—they’re essential. Here’s what you need to know to avoid the pitfalls that can derail your transition. From engaging the right experts to ensuring leadership alignment, these best practices are the game-changers that will keep your restructure on track and ensure it’s not just a series of patch-ups.
1. The importance of thorough review and expert input
Best practice: Always initiate a comprehensive review before a restructure. Engage external consultants or independent third parties to assess the current state and provide objective insights. This ensures decisions are based on real data rather than assumptions and biases.
Coaching tip: Even if time constraints are tight, taking the time for a full review can prevent costly missteps. Don’t skip this step in the name of speed; a well-thought-out design will save time and resources in the long run.
2. Involving staff and leadership at all levels
Best practice: Involve key stakeholders, including middle management and staff, early in the process. Consultation helps surface critical issues, aligns the restructure with real-world needs, and ensures buy-in across all levels.
Coaching tip: Don’t assume that only leadership needs to be consulted. Middle managers and frontline staff often have invaluable insights into operational challenges and needs. Their involvement leads to a smoother transition and better outcomes.
3. Aligning roles with staff expertise
Best practice: Ensure that roles are assigned based on staff strengths, capabilities, and expertise. A detailed analysis of current roles and a matching of skills to the new structure is essential to achieving operational efficiency and reducing frustration.
Coaching tip: Avoid rushing role reallocations. Take the time to assess each individual’s capabilities and match them with suitable responsibilities to avoid mismatches that could hinder performance and morale.
4. Clear and timely communication throughout the transition
Best practice: Communication should be clear, timely, and consistent throughout the transition. Ensure that staff at all levels are informed about the changes, their role in the transition, and what support is available.
Coaching tip: Never underestimate the impact of transparent communication. Regular updates and feedback loops create trust and allow teams to address concerns proactively, preventing confusion and resistance.
5. Managing leadership alignment and decision-making
Best practice: Leadership alignment is critical. Ensure that leaders have a shared understanding of the goals, the rationale behind decisions, and the roles they will play in the transition.
Coaching tip: Misalignment at the leadership level can create confusion throughout the organisation. Regular check-ins and alignment sessions with key leaders can ensure that decisions are made collaboratively and consistently.
6. Be prepared for ongoing adjustments
Best practice: Understand that the initial design may not be perfect and may require adjustments as the restructure unfolds. Build flexibility into the plan and be prepared to make ongoing changes to fine-tune the structure.
Coaching tip: The ability to pivot is key. Ensure that there’s room for feedback, and continuously assess how the new structure is functioning. It’s essential to keep an open mind and adjust as needed to address challenges that arise.
Faulty belief #1
"We can save time by skipping an external review and relying on internal decisions."
Reality
The absence of a thorough review led to a design based on assumptions, resulting in misaligned roles and decisions that needed to be corrected later.
Pitfalls of the project
Faulty belief vs reality
Faulty belief #2
"Most staff won’t be significantly impacted, so there’s no need to involve them in the consultation process."
Reality
Leadership’s decision not to engage staff and middle management led to isolated decision-making, so the needs and challenges of enabling teams were not properly understood and incorporated.
Faulty belief #3
"Leaders will adapt to new functions without needing a careful review of their skills and expertise."
Reality
Rushing the reallocation of functions without considering staff capabilities led to inefficiencies, misaligned responsibilities, and frustration, as individuals struggled to meet unfamiliar demands.
Faulty belief #4
"A rapid rollout will deliver quicker results without the need for extensive planning or communication."
Reality
Abrupt changes, especially those that overturn previously agreed-upon structures, indirectly undermine trust and erode morale, leading to resistance and prolonged adjustment periods.
Coaching notes & best practices for future initiatives
You don’t have to learn these lessons the hard way. By following these best practices, you can ensure your next restructure isn’t just another process to manage but a genuine opportunity for growth and success. Lead the change your organisation needs, and make it a transformation worth celebrating.
The challenges outlined in this case study are not unique, many organisations face similar hurdles when navigating complex transformations. The difference lies in the approach taken to mitigate these risks. By fostering a disciplined, strategic approach, your organisation can avoid these common pitfalls and turn change into a strategic advantage.
At EVOLVE Change Management, we specialise in guiding organisations through every stage of transformation, from strategic planning to smooth execution. Our proven methods ensure that your change initiatives are inclusive, well-supported, and adaptable to real-world challenges.
Ready to transform your approach to change? Let’s explore how we can support your organisation in overcoming these hurdles and achieving lasting success. Contact us today for a personalised consultation - together, we’ll design a change strategy that drives results and empowers your team.