Three main obstacles during organisational restructuring

It’s said that only 30% of organisational change succeeds. Yet every year thousands of firms try to enforce new structures, beliefs and procedures with no clear strategy at hand. To successfully implement restructuring one needs to consider all the possible resisting forces that might prevent the change from happening.

Let’s clarify what restructuring entails and outline different ways it can come to be. At its core, restructuring is the process of rebuilding new organisational infrastructure. Usually, this involves a re-examination of hierarchical order and a re-evaluation of the need for the existence of some departments. A variety of forces can drive this. Most commonly, (a) when firms grow larger, the strategy of delayering is implemented to share responsibilities among a greater number of workers; (b) during times of struggle, many would decide to downsize to cut the costs to secure organisational survival; (c) a firm, in post-merger stage, needs to find ways to allocate new departments or expand existing ones. So, what are the main obstacles during organisational restructuring?

The first, and probably the most common, difficulty of implementing any change is employees’ resistance to adopting and embracing new ways (of thinking and doing). Resistance to change is extremely common and not always detectable right from the beginning. While in some situations people will make their disputes public, going on strikes or speaking with supervisors, the resistance is mostly silent but deadly. Workers might choose to ignore the new hierarchy, go over their heads and spread opposing beliefs in the working environments.

Secondly, a lack of talent management can be detrimental to organisational survival. Talent management is the process of identifying and retaining (or attracting) key individuals who are highly valuable to a firm due to the role they play within it. It is important that key individuals, or sometimes the whole department, are considered and accommodated when structural changes are being implemented. In some instances, while the whole organisation might be required to change that specific individual should be left untouched, and vice versa. “Talents” should be treated separately as they are responsible for the majority of the profitability thus, resistance from them might result in detrimental consequences.

Thirdly, communication channels are one of the first things to fail. Restructuring brings ambiguity among employees and they might be uncertain about new communication channels and new hierarchy. Thus, during the process of change, it is crucial to establish a clear flow of information and bring everyone on board. Failure to do so might result in resisting forces remaining unknown and arising obstacles growing too large. Like Nat Turner once said, “Communication is the bridge between confusion and clarity”.

In conclusion, organizational restructuring is a complex process that, despite its necessity for adaptation and growth, faces substantial challenges. The primary hurdle in implementing change is employee resistance, which can manifest silently but pose significant threats to the success of restructuring. Secondly, managing talent is another critical aspect, as the failure to consider key individuals during structural changes can be detrimental to organizational survival. Finally, clear communication channels play a pivotal role, with the establishment of a transparent information flow being crucial to avoid confusion and address potential obstacles on time. Ultimately, any organisational change requires a strategic approach that carefully considers a multitude of elements that boost or hinder said process. There is no one clear way to implement change that would work indiscriminately for the environment. Therefore, it is of great importance that experts are involved who can guide and steer the process of change in the right direction.