When large organizations are faced
with new challenges, they sometimes opt for a traditional solution.
They reorganize.
“Reorganization is one of the most traumatic experiences for companies
and their employees,” warns Vince Fearon, a Bay Consulting Group
partner. “It can be disruptive, frightening and risky. If there are
underlying issues, the ‘reorg’ can produce great upheaval and harmful
turmoil. But if done properly, it can produce efficiencies and maximize
returns.”
Why? Because reorganization by
itself is no panacea and, sometimes, it may not address the real
problems confronting an organization. “Reorganization can’t help
you—and it can harm you—if there are fundamental issues that need to be
confronted first,” Vince says.
This was the case with one of Bay
Consulting Group’s recent clients.
THE PROJECT STARTED WITH A
REQUEST TO REORGANIZE
The organization, a regulatory
body, was established in 1998 by merging a relatively young and growing
organization with one that had been around for more than 50 years.
Clearly, a merger of such different cultures presented incredible
challenges to senior management.
In 2005, the CEO decided to
reorganize. He thought that would strengthen the organization to better
achieve its mission by minimizing structural, process and
communications barriers. Bay Consulting Group was chosen to help the
management team tackle this challenge “because we put the right people
on the project,” says Vince, who co-founded Bay Consulting in 1984.
“These large, complex jobs need people with real expertise and
experience. That’s one of our fundamental values: Match the right
consultant to the client’s needs. Don’t send in a junior when a
seasoned consultant is needed.”
CULTURE
AND COMMUNICATIONS WERE THE ISSUES, NOT STRUCTURE
It didn’t take long before Vince
and his team uncovered deep-seated cultural clashes that would diminish
the impact of any structural changes. These differences were not
surprising given that one part of the new organization was relatively
freshly staffed, reflecting its creation in 1992, while the other had
been in existence for decades. “We also found,” says Vince, “that the
CEO was absolutely correct in identifying communications as a
fundamental problem.” Further complicating staff relations was the fact
that more than one-third of the total complement were charged with law
enforcement, and this group had a separate culture with its own set of
distinct values and procedures.
Add to that the normal tensions
between head office and the field common to most organizations serving
a large geographic area. The contrast between the relatively new people
at head office and the long-serving field staff exacerbated the
tensions. “In the field,” says Vince, “we found tremendous job
knowledge and very capable people. But they felt their ideas were
ignored by head office. At the same time, they were able to work
effectively by sorting out issues among themselves.”
Communication was a major problem
throughout the organization. “We found lots of silos and alliances,”
says Vince. “Directives went down from the executive group, but not
across, and they came down differently, depending on who was delivering
the initial message.” He added, “Different processes were used by
different parts of the organization reflecting both the evolution of
the unit and its manager.” All of these issues further
complicated the normal customer service, effectiveness and efficiency
challenges that most organizations face.
It follows that a knee jerk
restructuring effort might have looked good on paper but not tackled
the root problems of clashing cultures and shaky communications. And it
would have hidden the key success factor – leadership.
COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP WAS
THE SOLUTION
The solution: Bay Consulting Group
felt the executive team had to take more collective responsibility for
the overall direction of the new organization and that the
decision-makers, starting at the top, needed to be held collectively
and individually accountable for their decisions. As a first step,
Vince’s team brought the executive team together for an off-site
session. They were asked such questions as how they would overcome
existing cultural differences or what sacred cows they wanted
challenged. The response was enthusiastic and immediate. It made
the entire team realize that they were saying similar things but
expressing themselves differently. The grounds for agreement and growth
were laid.
The answers stimulated further
discussion that led to a set of recommendations and, in a subsequent
session, an action plan developed by the executive and facilitated by
Bay Consulting Group. Greater emphasis on demonstrating leadership and
breaking down barriers, both among corporate divisions and between the
field and head office were key components. Bay Consulting emphasized
behavioural change, not reorganization.
What had started as reorganization
had grown to become a blueprint for success on many fronts. Bay
Consulting had helped the executive to uncover the real problems, and
they were pleased to work together as a team to overcome them. As a
result, the CEO decided to implement the broad recommendations with a
sensitivity to specific issues. “It would be a mistake to do exactly
what we told them to do,” Vince says. “The client needs to continue to
make the process its own. They have to put their footprints into the
sand that we laid out. All organizations and their challenges are
unique and all management teams must take full ownership for their
solutions.”
In the end, the client got an
action plan to address its concerns. But it did not get a disruptive
reorganization. Says Vince: “We fulfilled the mandate by adapting to
the needs and capabilities of the management team in order to best
serve the organization as a whole. ”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT VINCE FEARON
When Vince Fearon co-founded Bay Consulting Group in 1984, he did it
for the clients as much as for himself. After a decade at Currie,
Coopers & Lybrand, Vince found he missed the direct contact with
clients as he found himself running consulting teams instead of helping
clients solve their problems. “The finders, minders, grinders model is
typical of a large consulting firm,” he says. “The more senior you are,
the less fun it is. But if you are a medium-sized firm, like Bay
Consulting Group, you can still share the pleasure of getting results
for your clients.”
Born in London, it took a while
before Vince settled on a consulting career in Toronto. In between, he
became an engineer and circumnavigated the globe. During his extensive
travels, he was kidnapped by bandits near the Malaysia-Thai border,
confined to a medical isolation zone between Afghanistan and Iran
during a outbreak, was robbed in India, taught English in Japan and
worked in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Before his globetrotting, Vince
had won a General Electric scholarship and graduated as an electrical
engineer. He worked for GE for about four years, studying accounting
and industrial engineering at night before deciding he needed a break
and wanted to see the world. It took another four years before he
returned to London. En route, he stopped in Toronto where he worked for
18 months for Woods Gordon and experienced his first taste of
consulting.
When he returned to London, Vince
became head of strategic planning for Unigate, a large food
conglomerate. But marriage and economic conditions brought him back to
Toronto in the early 1970s. First, he worked as an independent
consultant before joining Currie Coopers & Lybrand in 1975.
At Bay Consulting Group, Vince has
done everything he can to “lower the barriers between us and the
client.” BCG does not want to follow the path of the larger firms.
“It’s not about growth,” he says. “It’s about serving the client.”
