The Restructuring-Fear Cycle: I

Decisions about restructuring usually depend on models that show how different approaches might affect the enterprise, by projecting the values of organizational attributes such as net income, market share, or shareholder value. Although these projections rarely include attributes like employee anxiety or fear, such factors are truly important. They help to determine productivity, voluntary turnover, the workload of the people in Human Resources, and many of the attributes that the experts do model, albeit indirectly.

Most important, restructuring-induced fear can create a need for future restructuring, through a variety of paths, some of which are subtle and rarely identified. Here's Part I of an exploration of some of the less obvious mechanisms by which restructuring-induced fear creates a need for future restructuring. Refer to the accompanying diagram of effects, which displays these dynamics graphically. [Weinberg 1989]

Degraded and disrupted relationships

When we relocate people, eliminate positions, or merely change reporting structures, we disrupt relationships between people. Those who formerly relied on each other for advice, instruction, or services must sometimes find new contacts. Even the relationships that aren't totally eliminated can be degraded by restructuring-induced fear, in the form of competitive attitudes that can take hold when people come to believe that further restructuring is possible, and that everyone is in competition for a declining number of jobs.

Although relationships between and among employees are valuable organizational assets, the value of these assets doesn't appear on financial statements. Unaware of the amount of these assets lost to restructuring, the depressive effects on results seem surprising to planners. The unexpectedly disappointing results can sometimes lead to further restructuring.

Risk aversion

When people believe that their When people believe that
their jobs are at risk,
their appetite for risk
in general declinesjobs are at risk, their appetite for risk in general declines. In effect, some people have difficulty keeping separate their own personal risk profile and the risk profile associated with their job responsibilities. This can affect the necessarily subjective judgments people make as part of their responsibilities, which creates a risk aversive approach to operating the enterprise.

After experiencing several serial restructuring events, people in organizations that formerly had a healthy approach to risk can find themselves being overly conservative in their strategies and tactics, because they have begun to confuse their own personal risk experience with the risk experience of the organization. In this way, the organization can become so risk averse that it is no longer capable of accepting the levels of well-managed risk that are so necessary in today's market environments. These organizations then find that they can innovate only by acquiring innovative organizations, which is an expensive method for attaining market leadership. The resulting high costs and low yields sometimes lead to further need for restructuring.

Next time we'll explore three more pathways by which restructuring-induced fear leads to restructuring addiction.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

Are You Taking on the Full Load?

Taking on the full load is what we do when we feel fully responsible for either the success or the failure of some organizational activity. Instead of asking for help, we take extreme measures to execute responsibilities that might not even be ours.

Hot and Cold Running People

Do you consider yourself a body linguist? Can you tell what people are thinking just by looking at gestures and postures? Think again. Body language is much more complex and ambiguous than many would have us believe.

Not Really Part of the Team: II

When some team members hang back, declining to show initiative, we tend to overlook the possibility that their behavior is a response to something happening within or around the team. Too often we hold responsible the person who's hanging back. What other explanations are possible?

Why Scope Expands: II

The scope of an effort underway tends to expand over time. Why do scopes not contract just as often? One cause might be cognitive biases that make us more receptive to expansion than contraction.

Personal Feasibility Decisions

When considering whether to exploit a rare but desirable opportunity, there is a risk that desire can overcome good sense. Having at hand a predefined framework for making such decisions reduces the risk of blundering by acting in haste.

See also Emotions at Work and Organizational Change for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info