This story can even apply to any of the C level people, but I decided to keep this only to the technology people.
Its a vicious circle most working denizens don’t realise, but only experience the brunt of the impact. This came to me as i was assessing the corporate situation of which I am part of, conveniently being a pawn for execution. Warning, more rants after this.
It starts with the appointment of the new CTO/CIO. Someone to lead the team into the next level (thats what they always say – shameless self plug). They (the C level person, let’s call him Mr C.) starts by observing the current workings of the existing environment. This is the phase of bridge building and identifying potential ally candidates.
During this phase, Mr C will then plan for an efficiency drive (basically head slashing and reorg, because that would the first management priority). At this point, a lot of issues tend to crop up as short term decisions made by the previous Mr B (the previous CIO/CTO) now comes to surface. Hence, first order of the day, FIRE FIGHTING. Besides that, many decisions made by Mr B would reflect very poor foresight and long term strategy. With the massive cost cutting and efficiency drive, decisions made previously has some full circle to haunt the company. Escalating OPEX, uncontrolled CAPEX and efficiency issues, not to mention additional fats in form of manpower.
Hence, the austerity drive of “re-organising”, or efficiency drive, or process alignment happens. At this point, if someone walks out of the organization, management would be more than happy to accept the resignation and will not even ponder upon replacement. To add pressure to the existing workforce, an unbearable work environment is forced upon, causing the rest of the staff to leave. What happens is that in most cases, instead of filtering the dead-weed out of the water, you get the fresh water (meaning the skilled employees and talents) leaving the organization. Once this is done, the management shows poor performance and that they need immediate approval to “turn” the company around and make it operationally viable again.
At this stage, the new Mr C will slowly bring in his trusted generals to execute his plans, depriving the existing staffs of a chance to be promoted. This is also due to the fact that Mr C works best in his style of management, existing staffs may not be able to adopt that level of working efficiency, which causes “unsuitability” of the existing workforce. Plus the only other way of breaking the existing corporate culture is to “inject” the “so-called” fresh blood. Some leaders would have accumulated mass “empires” or “little napoleons” who dictate how the company is run, and the re-org allows the management to dismantle the existing mini-empires into a more manageable clubs.
Most who have worked a decent amount of years would be privy to this happen repeatedly. Some may have gone through re-org so many times, its business as usual. Change is constant, and most of often than not, change is caused because it is a reason of convenience, rather than actual need driven.
Change is necessary for an organization to move forward. Change for the sake of change is counter-productive. Each leader wants to exert control and authority, hence this takes place. What’s bad is that a staff whose competent in one area is thrown into a completely unrelated area. Because of organization’s lack of proper process, documentation and control, some tasks are not handed down, documentations go missing, processes unclear.
Question to Mr C – is it worth it? The usual answer would be a big resounding YES. 