assignment of the subject organizational design

1. SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN
ORGANISATION DESIGN
M.SUNIL KUMAR
RA1952001020025
MBA 1-A

2. SUCCESS IN
ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN

3. SUCCESS IN ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
 Effective organizational design is rapidly becoming a fundamental aspect of enabling
successful companies to continue achieving good results.
 The very nature of work is changing, and organizations that recognize this and commit to
analyzing and, if necessary altering their organizational design have a good chance of
remaining both relevant and successful in the new age of business.
 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.

4. Avoiding cracks
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.
 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?
 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?
 Feasibility test: Do we understand, and are we operating within, the financial, technological, legislative
or resource constraints bounding our organization?

5.  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?

6. FAILURE IN
ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN

7. 7 REASONS WHY ORGANIZATION FACE FAILURE
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?
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.
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.
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.

9. 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.
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.