Latest / The Science of Leading / Operating Model vs. Org Chart: Why Reorgs Fail

Transcript

Operating Model vs. Org Chart: Why Reorgs Fail · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome back to Science of Leading, I'm Claire Monroe with Edwin Carrington.
• 0:04
  Edwin, I want to start with a distinction from this week's piece that I think gets
• 0:07
  collapsed into one thing constantly.
• 0:10
  Organizational structure and operating model.
• 0:12
  Aren't those the same thing?
• 0:14
  Everyone assumes they are, Claire, and that assumption is exactly why most reorgs
• 0:19
  disappoint.
• 0:20
  Structure is who reports to whom and how teams are grouped.
• 0:24
  The operating model is how work actually happens, decision-making,
• 0:28
  planning, handoffs, metrics, governance.
• 0:32
  You can redraw the entire chart and never touch the second one.
• 0:35
  And when that happens, you get confusion instead of improvement,
• 0:38
  because the boxes moved but nobody's actually deciding things differently.
• 0:42
  Precisely.
• 0:43
  And HBR's research backs up just how costly that confusion gets,
• 0:48
  reorg uncertainty is linked to noticeably reduced productivity in about sixty
• 0:53
  percent of cases.
• 0:54
  That's not a soft cost.
• 0:56
  That's most of the organization slowing down while everyone waits to understand what
• 1:01
  actually changed in practice.
• 1:03
  McKinsey's number on this is even more sobering, less than a quarter of
• 1:06
  organizational redesign efforts actually succeed.
• 1:09
  Which tells you the failure mode isn't rare, it's the default outcome unless you
• 1:13
  deliberately do something different.
• 1:15
  And that something is almost always the operating model.
• 1:19
  New boxes on a chart with the same old approval chains, the same unclear decision
• 1:24
  rights, the same planning cadence, you haven't changed anything that actually
• 1:29
  determines how work gets done.
• 1:30
  So walk me through what it looks like when a company gets this right,
• 1:34
  because I know the piece has a real case study.
• 1:36
  A mid-size SaaS company, growing headcount, adding layers as they scaled the way
• 1:41
  most companies default to.
• 1:43
  And predictably, decision speed slowed and customer issues started escalating more.
• 1:49
  The fix wasn't another reorg.
• 1:51
  They clarified decision rights specifically for product calls,
• 1:55
  customer exceptions, and priority trade-offs.
• 1:58
  They reduced handoffs by creating true end-to-end ownership for one key customer
• 2:03
  workflow.
• 2:04
  And they rebuilt role profiles based on actual decision load and stakeholder
• 2:08
  complexity, not job titles.
• 2:10
  And they used behavioral data in there too, didn't they, specifically for the new
• 2:14
  leadership roles.
• 2:15
  Exactly, they validated role fit for those roles with behavioral assessment results
• 2:20
  before finalizing who sat in them.
• 2:22
  And the result pattern is almost boring in how straightforward it is.
• 2:27
  Fewer escalations to executives.
• 2:29
  Faster decisions on customer-impact issues.
• 2:33
  Clearer accountability, less cross-team ping-pong.
• 2:36
  And better retention in the critical roles, because ambiguity and overload had both
• 2:41
  dropped.
• 2:42
  No magic, like the piece says.
• 2:43
  Just less ambiguity and roles matched to what the work actually demands.
• 2:47
  That's the whole lesson, Claire.
• 2:49
  And the behavioral piece deserves more precision than "role fit,"
• 2:53
  because there's a specific mismatch pattern that shows up constantly.
• 2:57
  A role requires constant cross-functional negotiation, but the person in it is
• 3:02
  motivated by deep, independent work.
• 3:05
  You don't get a dramatic failure.
• 3:07
  You get slower decisions, avoidance of hard conversations, rising escalation volume,
• 3:13
  and performance that looks fine right up until it suddenly isn't.
• 3:16
  That "looks fine until it suddenly isn't" part is unsettling,
• 3:20
  because it means the warning signs are quiet by design.
• 3:23
  Which is why you watch for specific signals instead of waiting for a crisis.
• 3:27
  Persistent overload.
• 3:29
  Meeting volume climbing while output declines.
• 3:33
  Rising handoffs and escalations.
• 3:36
  Quality dipping or rework spiking.
• 3:38
  A manager's span of control creeping up without any added support underneath them.
• 3:44
  None of those require mind-reading.
• 3:46
  They're just signals most companies aren't systematically watching for.
• 3:50
  And Gartner's number on this is a pretty direct warning too,
• 3:53
  only thirty-two percent of leaders globally get employees to adopt structural
• 3:57
  changes in a genuinely healthy way.
• 3:59
  Which is not a motivation problem, that's a design and enablement problem,
• 4:03
  almost always.
• 4:04
  The chart changed, the operating model and the behavioral fit underneath it didn't.
• 4:09
  If you want to validate whether your own new or redesigned roles are actually
• 4:13
  realistic for the people in them before you finalize a reorg,
• 4:16
  OAD's free Top Performer Profile gives you that signal in about seven minutes,
• 4:21
  results in twenty-four hours, no credit card.
• 4:23
  That's O-A-D dot A-I.
• 4:25
  Change the operating model, not just the chart.
• 4:28
  That's the difference between a reorg that sticks and one that just moves the
• 4:32
  furniture.
• 4:33
  Perfect place to leave it.
• 4:34
  Thanks, Edwin.
• 4:35
  Always, Claire.