Every two to three years, the same pattern: results are off, collaboration stalls, management is dissatisfied. The diagnosis comes quickly: “We need a new structure.” New reporting lines are drawn, divisions are merged or split, spans of control are changed. Six months and significant friction losses later, the new structure works\u2014more or less. But the old problems remain. Only the interfaces have shifted.<\/p>\n\n
\nMost reorganizations do not solve the problem they are meant to solve. Because the problem is not structural, but a leadership or cultural issue that reproduces itself in any structure. <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
A managing director I advised was facing his third reorganization in five years. The first had replaced the regional structure with a functional structure because the regions were working too much in isolation. The second had rolled parts of it back because the functional structure had destroyed customer proximity. The third was meant to introduce a matrix organization that would combine both. I asked him a question that visibly unsettled him: “What exactly will change through the new structure that could not be changed through better leadership within the existing structure?” It took him a long time to answer. And the answer was: less than he thought. <\/p>\n\n
This is not an argument against every reorganization. It is an argument for honestly checking\u2014before reaching for the organizational chart\u2014whether structure really is the problem. Because an organizational chart only defines the boxes. The real work and the real conflicts happen in the “white space” between them: in the interfaces, the informal agreements, the way people talk to one another across division boundaries. You can move the boxes around as often as you like: if you do not change the behavior between the boxes, you have gained nothing. In corporate jargon, this is aptly called “box shifting.” Three levers help you distinguish whether you are dealing with a genuine structural problem\u2014or just box shifting. <\/p>\n\n
Lever 1: Diagnose the real problem<\/h2>\n\n
Alfred Chandler coined the phrase “Structure follows strategy.” What is often forgotten is that Chandler meant structure should be a consequence of strategic decisions<\/a>, not the other way around. In practice, structure is often used as a substitute for strategy. The direction is unclear, so the organization is reorganized. Collaboration<\/a> is stuck, so reporting lines are redrawn. Accountability<\/a> is diffuse, so a matrix is introduced. <\/p>\n\n
Before you reorganize, ask three diagnostic questions. First: Is the problem structural or behavior-based? If two divisions do not collaborate, is that due to the structure\u2014or because the division heads do not trust each other, pursue conflicting goals, or are trapped in a risk-avoidance culture<\/a>? A new reporting line changes nothing about a lack of trust. Second: Have you fully leveraged the existing structure? Many structures work better than expected when leadership operates consistently within them. Third: What exactly should be different after the reorganization? Not “better collaboration” or “more customer proximity”\u2014those are wishes. Instead: Which specific decision paths will be shorter? Which interfaces will disappear? If you cannot name that precisely, you are probably solving the wrong problem. <\/p>\n\n