​How many organizational restructurings have you been through? How many have actually improved how the organization worked? Too often in nonprofits and associations, restructuring and reorganizations happen for the wrong reasons.

​The ripple effect of these changes lingers for weeks if not months. Energy is caught up in discussing the changes. Critiquing them, trying to discern the reasons behind them. For each new staff team they now have to adjust to a new boss, a new set of colleagues. They will have to spend time creating new team norms – whether explicitly or implicitly. Staffers have to learn the new boss’ expectations and communications style. More than just a ripple it is as if the water has been churned up in a pond or a river and you cannot see in front of you. While this churn is going on, actual work of the organization slows. The necessary gets done but any team that was in high gear and really performing before the reorganization is likely disrupted. Teams are knocked back to square one and have to rebuild.

Another reason organizations restructure is to promote “collaboration” or to be more customer centered. “We are breaking down the silos,” says management. Break them up, the thinking goes, and then people will work across team boundaries more easily. This may work for a short while people get used to the new structure. Yet if other aspects of the organization’s culture do not support cross-team collaboration, it will not last long. Over time the boundaries around the newly formed staff groups will get reestablished and the silos will rebuild. ​

​The key to promoting collaboration is not what the organizational structure is. It does not matter whether staff is organized by functional area, or geography or customer segment. Rather what regular cross-cutting mechanisms exist? Are there regular cross-cutting projects, task forces, committees that bring people together? These could be ongoing or for a specific project. Regardless of the topic, they serve to bring people together in different groupings. In these, people will build relationships and share information. 
 
Creating these cross-cutting groups – especially a series of short term projects that provide the opportunity for more people to be involved – will do much more than yet another reorganization for promoting organizational collaboration. Regular retreats can also help cultivate cross-cutting relationships. 
 
So consider restructuring with caution. Ask why you doing this and will it achieve what you are aiming for? Consider the ripple effects.

​At the American Society for Association Executive (ASAE)’s At Work conference in early October, I facilitated a session on cultivating a healthy organizational culture. When asked what they associated with the term organizational culture, participants had lots of responses. Values, communications, hierarchy and energy were mentioned most frequently. The word cloud to the left summarizes the variety of responses.

​Organizational culture, as defined by Edgar Schein, is “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”
 
While there are visible parts of culture such as dress code, the organization’s mission, work environment, policies and procedures and strategic statements, most of culture in implicit and not readily visible. It has to be learned. This could be through story and conversation or more powerfully by making mistakes that break unspoken rules and assumptions.

​Human Synergistics International’s Organizational Culture inventory is a commonly used organizational assessment that uncovers an organization’s cultural style. They group cultures in three styles, including constructive, passive/defensive and aggressive/defensive. A constructive culture, in their model, supports achievement, self-actualization and encourages people within the organization to work cooperatively with each other. A passive/defensive culture encourages people to follow the rules, values dependability, solutions tend to be conventional and conflict is avoided. An aggressive/defensive style values people who vie for status and influence by challenging each other, by taking charge and compete with each other. This style also tends to celebrate perfectionism and long hours. Of these three styles, the constructive style (not surprising considering its name!) is the healthiest culture and is most closely correlated with deeper employee engagement and better organizational results.

​Having used this assessment with many of her nonprofit clients, Dr. Elizabeth Scott researched what nonprofit organizations that have a healthy culture do differently than their peers with less healthy organizational cultures. She found that these organizations take distinctive action in two major areas – people practices and employee wellbeing and empowerment. Some specific actions that they take include infusing fun into their work, focusing on self-care and work-life balance and empowering staff to carry out the mission on their own. In terms of their human resources practices, they see human resources staff as a partner, they engage in careful hiring, onboarding as well as off boarding when needed. They provide ongoing training and regular feedback and place an emphasis on teamwork.

​I asked participants in the session what their organization was doing in the areas of people practices and employee wellbeing and empowerment. Some current steps in people practices that people mentioned include new employee welcome and mentoring program, a new idea generation group that meet regularly, every other Friday off, employee engagement surveys and committees, staff retreats and telecommuting options. For encouraging employee well being, people mentioned fun committees, culture committees, book groups, gym reimbursement, movie day and other wellness initiatives. 

​What I appreciate about most of these ideas is that for the most part they are not costly. What they require is intention and support from leadership. Support for people to take the time to come together and plan fun activities as well as the time and permission within the culture for people to participate. 

That permission is key. I have seen organization that have tried some of these things – putting a foosball table and other board games in the lunch room for example. Yet the culture valued quiet and the CEO was known to publically question people when they took a break. So very few people used the foosball table or the games because it went against both unspoken and spoken ‘rules” within the culture. Other examples include organizations that have elaborate telecommuting policies or flexible leave policies that few take advantage of because face time and being seen in the office is highly valued.
 
What of these ideas could your organization try? And if you do – how will you make sure people know they really have permission to engage! Does your organization’s culture need some attention? Inquire about a coaching call.

I was talking to a colleague recently who was leaving an organization after being there much of her career. While she was excited about her career’s next chapter, a part of her was grieving.

​This made me think of some work I had done a few years ago working with a team that was ending its work together. In our death phobic culture, we Americans love to celebrate new beginnings, youth and vitality and ignore that everything ends eventually. Similarly, the vast majority of study of teams and their performance has focused on how to start out right with a team, build it and move it to high performance.  

Few team models acknowledge that teams end. Yet with increasing frequency people experience these endings in their work life. It could be through finishing a cross-functional project. Or because there has been yet another reorganization. Or they are reassigned. Or they leave the organization.
​

In his work on group endings, Matt Minahan says that the each individual on the team needs to identify lessons learned, detach from the group and decide on new ways to maintain key relationships. To have a successful ending the team needs to debrief the whole experience, acknowledge individual contributions and celebrate success. 
​

People often have simultaneous conflicting emotions of loss at the group coming to a close and relief that the task is done. Without acknowledging these feelings and providing an opportunity to pause and celebrate, endings can be messy and feel unfinished. The depth of these emotions will also depend a lot on how much a person’s identity is caught up in being a member of this team. Will some team members mourn the loss of this team? Can you expect them to experience the stages Kubler Ross identified in the grieving process of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance?
​

What can you do to help your team have a successful ending? Take some time to create space for a different type of conversation. Are there ways that you can create a meeting that doesn’t just feel like yet another team check in or progress report. One that marks this important rite of passage. That helps each team member surface what they learned throughout the project or by being on the team. What they are proud of? What mistakes did they make and how they learn from those? Try asking each person to appreciate something that each of their team mates brought to the table. Are there funny stories to share and remember? Is there something they can create to memorialize the experience? 
​

Then how can you help them start shifting their focus away from the past and towards the future? What are their hopes as they think about moving forward? What skills did they develop that they want to capitalize on as they move into new roles, new teams and new projects? How do they want to stay in touch with each other? How can you help them create a vision for what’s next?
Have a team that is ending and need help crafting an appropriate process that helps it end well? Inquire about a coaching call.
​

Once upon a time there was a boss who wanted to be everyone’s friend. As he tried to be nice, he was indirect in his communication. He wanted everyone to feel like they were on equal footing. He rarely gave direction. Unfortunately for the boss, this left his team members frustrated rather than happy. He actually did have specific ideas about how he wanted certain things done. But team members would not find this out until after they had invested a fair amount into the project.

​Clarity in scope and purpose would have helped this situation a lot. As a manager, you will frequently hear the recommendation to delegate. When you delegate tasks or projects to your team are you clear how far they can go? Do they know the parameters they are working within? Or are you erring on the side of Mr. Nice Guy. 

​I am certainly not advocating being a jerk. But without clarity, team members may invest a lot of time pursuing an approach that you are not happy with. Alternatively they may be asking for your direction and input in a case where you do not have strong feelings about an approach. Or you may have sought input and were going to make the final decision but your team got the impression that they would be part of the decision making as well. Each of these instances can create frustration and breed mistrust.

​A useful tool for thinking about this issue is Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s delegation continuum.

​There could be a step beyond the end of ‘subordinate-centered leadership’ in which the boss defines the end goal and asks the team to define the parameters and scope of the project.

​Have a discussion with your team. Where do you usually fall on the continuum? In what instances do they find the scope of the delegation confusing or unclear? What could bring more clarity to those instances?

​When you are delegating a larger project, working with the team to create a project charter can help the group start with greater certainty. This charter should include project goals, roles and responsibilities, timelines, budget. The team should also spend time as they get started talking about how they will work together, how they will make decisions and what skills and talents each person brings to the team.

So often the challenges at work come down to the lack of shared understanding. How can you use these tools to bring greater shared understanding to how your team and your direct reports work together?
 
Having team challenges? Inquire about a free coaching call.

​Staff turnover is usually described in terms of its costs. The loss of institutional knowledge. The time and energy it takes to find a replacement. The burden on those who are left behind who have to take on urgent tasks while juggling the rest of their responsibilities. Yet when someone leaves creating a vacancy on your team, you can use this moment as an opportunity. 

You may be tempted to hurry into the hiring process, dusting off the old job description and posting to every place you can think of. Instead take a breath and a moment to think about what has changed since the person who had been in the role started. ​

​Start by asking yourself and your team a few questions. How has the role morphed to fit the departing person’s particular skills and talents? Are there aspects of the role that someone on your team would be excited to take over? What would they trade for these new responsibilities? What else has changed? Within your organization? With the constituents you serve? The wider political, economic or social environment? 

​Use it as an opportunity to even reimagine everyone’s role on your team. Rather than simply doing this reorganization yourself, involve your team in the discussion. This will make it more likely that they will embrace any new role that is created. One way to do this is to have a conversation with each team member. Find out what skills and talents they want to develop and what new responsibilities they see themselves taking on, as well as what responsibilities they feel like they have outgrown. 

​This type of reshuffle will likely create a bit of a domino effect.  Each person on your team will likely be impacted in some way. Another way to involve the team in reimagining the distribution of responsibilities is to create a map of your team’s work. Ask each team member to write their major tasks on post its (using the one task per post it rule). Consider assigning each team member a color. Put them up on a wall. You will likely notice that team members are doing similar work that they may not have realized. How could the tasks be clustered differently than you are doing now? Are there natural groupings that you did not realize before? Do you have good alignment with each team member’s strengths?  Before diving in, decide whether there are any non-negotiables that should not be put on the table – or the wall in this case. Set your ground rules of what is in bounds and what is not up for grabs.
 
Want to be in the conversation that results in this reimagining instead of facilitating it? Inquire about a coaching session and we can talk about how I can help.