Mapping to Enable Better Reorgs

The function of an org chart is to depict a system for belonging and control, not to provide a model for performance optimization. Yet every year, most organizations undergo some type of global reorg, ostensibly to increase performance. Such reorgs disrupt relationships and projects within the company and with external customers. McKinsey reported that 23% of reorgs are deemed successful in retrospect.

An org chart is a map. It’s mapping the organization’s hierarchical structure, and it’s what gives everyone clarity on where they stand. It tells us where we exist in the structure, who we report to, who reports to us, who we can go to if we need to get something done, and who we can escalate an issue to if we’re not seeing the results we need. The org chart helps us navigate that communication infrastructure in our organization, and the clarity it offers helps us be more effective in the way we choose to act. Org charts are necessary but not sufficient to understand and manage a company.

Reorgs are based on the idea that the people assigned to a function are the main factor in the effectiveness of that work. Changing the person responsible for a role may sometimes be the right step. But the near-term effect is always reduced productivity, as that individual adjusts to the new role and their coworkers adjust to them. Entirely absent from the org chart is a representation of the work process. Individual skill and effectiveness depend overwhelmingly on the environment they’re working in.

Rather than changing the people responsible for an activity, we should first focus on understanding the activity and the process it’s part of. The limits on team effectiveness are primarily based on the process rather than individual workers. For example, there are typically long waiting periods between stages in a process. Replacing one worker with another who can create 20% more output will have no significant effect if those upstream and downstream from them are not able to also increase their corresponding output. Often, the main limitation in work systems is the long delays before and after a person picks up a piece of work rather than the time it takes to do the work.  

Our understanding of the organization is not complete unless we include the customer and the value we are delivering to them. After all, that’s the reason we are in business. To effectively deliver that value, a map needs to show us what processes are required to deliver that value. Executives emphasize reorgs because that’s one of the few areas over which they have direct control. They generally don’t have a detailed understanding of processes and metrics to make fine-grained improvements to the way teams work. But they have the authority to hire, fire, and make big org changes.

Decisions like hiring, firing, and reorganization are very coarse-grained attempts to solve problems. Sometimes, they work. The key benefit that those in executive roles have is the ability to step back from the details and assess whether the employees and reporting hierarchy are effective. This is exactly what value stream mapping does but from the point of view of the work process rather than the org chart.

Mapping the value stream engages the people who actually do the work to reorganize the work process itself for greater effectiveness. In essence, we’re inviting those involved in the system of work to step back from the details to assess whether the overall system of work is effective. They can then choose to “hire”, “fire”, or “reorganize” processes, rather than people. Since this is a far less disruptive change, it can be done regularly throughout the year. And since it’s done by the people doing the work, they can directly assess the effectiveness of the change and correct it immediately if necessary. 

Corporate reorgs set the precedent that nothing in a company is set in stone. They can require courage to undertake. But decisions made at a great distance from those doing the work can be disastrously inaccurate. Mapping provides a method for everyone in the company to make such courageous changes on a smaller scale and with greater frequency.

Discover more about how mapping can help your organization with Flow Engineering: From Value Stream Mapping to Effective Action.

- About The Authors

Steve Pereira

Steve Pereira has spent over two decades improving the flow of work across organizations. He’s worked through tech support, IT management, build and release engineering, and as a founding CTO for enterprise SaaS. He serves as lead consultant for Visible Value Stream Consulting, as a board advisor to the Value Stream Management Consortium, Chair of the OASIS Value Stream Management Interoperability technical committee, and co-founder of the Flow Collective to bring flow-focused professionals together. Since 2017, he has been developing and facilitating Flow Engineering to make flow improvement in large organizations accessible, collaborative, and actionable.

Follow Steve on Social Media

• 
• 

Andrew Davis

Andrew is Chief Product Officer at AutoRABIT, focused on the next generation of DevSecOps on the Salesforce platform. He is also the author of the leading book on the Salesforce development lifecycle, Mastering Salesforce DevOps. He was formerly Senior Director of Methodology and Training at Copado.

Follow Andrew on Social Media

• 
•