There's an old joke in OD circles that says you know an organisation is in trouble when the answer to its problem is to restructure.
Unfortunately, very often it is no joke as many organisations do sadly jump to the restructure 'lever' in the vain hope of changing something which proves to be nothing more than illusion. Also restructuring can be a very disruptive and relatively high transaction cost to undertake. So why do it?
Satisfying the craving
Well, its a visible management action for one thing and also easy to communicate (the actual restructure that is - not the ensuing changes) and, in management terms, satisfies our over-focused 'task' box-ticking craving in one go. It is this last point particularly. To have convinced ourselves and others that something has been done........And thus HR........
Yes - we know that HR restructurings far outweigh organisational restructurings on a straight one-for-one basis. But what do they really achieve?
The schizophrenic function?
The HR function is supposed to be the home of the OD/change technical specialism (dare I say a centre of excellence, in a structure kind of way?!).
So why does it often not display true OD/change practice and all too often follow similar (mis)management practice? Are political considerations always over-riding the more effective HR/OD (technical knowlege) solutions? If that is the case does not the HR profession have a real schizophrenic issue?
It has been very interesting to observe, in various client projects and in many conversations with HR practitioners, the skewing to changing structure as the 'lead item' even when the evidence suggests that it is not. The urge, it would seem, still proves too great.
If HR is trying to prove that it is becoming more aligned or is cutting costs to become more efficient then restructuring provides an intoxicating solution. Of course, for structure you can read technology for exactly the same reasons.
Vacuous exercise?
But I'm afraid that all the evidence suggests that it is at best a part-answer and at worst a completely vacuous exercise (allowing for the fact that most HR functions are at least semi-competent).
I have remarked before how structure dominates many conversations and press comment. One who is alien to HR may be forgiven in thinking that the function exists on a wall with various boxes and labels. Mmmm.....
There are a number of reasons to this question (which we look at in the HCMI programme). But one of the key questions is 'what are we trying to solve?'
The real solution
The real solution invariably starts with people management effectiveness and also ends with it. (It's why we do what we do). Structure comes up in the majority of cases as a minor-player in the scheme of things (as does technology, interestingly).
There is now no doubt that my forecasts regarding the fairly tough economic conditions are playing out and HR is going to have to do more with less, no matter what some recent surveys suggest.
HR's opportunity
So I'll repeat my final message from the recent conference. HR has an opportunity or choice, if you like, to either:
'UPGRADE and RESHAPE' or 'SLASH and BURN'.
Both of these options may involve resizing. However, the first is led by analysis and has people management effectiveness as its main focus. The second is led by structure driven by efficiency, in the form of cost reduction.
My question is if we're a true profession it has to be the first option, right.......?
If you are further interested you may find my paper 'Real HR transformation' of interest (amongst others).........
