A young computer scientist who works in the subsidiary company of a huge US IT concern told me a short time ago:
”My work is far less demanding that I would wish. The problem is that, in a little more than one year, there were three different superiors of mine. Consequently, the current boss does not even know me. Nobody really knows my true competence. It annoys me to be so misjudged and I am going to look for another job where my competence is appreciated.“
Huge enterprises and concerns organise themselves anew in ever shorter time intervals. They want to show that they are capable of and willing to react to changes. This is to increase efficiency and decrease costs. The intention is to make it clear that they understand the market and initiate new concepts. More often than not, the re-structuring is not really a consequence of some acute tragedy, but you will always find a reason.
Once in a while, a mere change of managing directors will suffice. After all, the newcomer has to show that he brings change. In the wake of such re-structuring it can easily happen that two thirds or even more of the employees suddenly have a new superior. One they did not know at all or just from a distance before.
I am rather sceptical about this tendency towards re-structuring in ever shorter time intervals. An “introductory phase” that deserves the name requires that you trust each other. And the first requirement of trust is getting to know each other. How else should you have at least some knowledge about the values, expectations, interests and needs of the persons you are working with, as well as their competence and special talents?
Today, leaders are responsible in a “disciplinary sense” for many more people than formerly. In times gone, a “boss” was directly responsible for perhaps seven employees. Today, it is often many times that number. Leadership did not get any easier through this, since, basically, there is just not enough time for the individual person. It is hardly a surprise that in surveys most of the employees say they would like to have more time with their boss.
The HR Department (“Human Resource”), relying on a sophisticated HR software, is supposed to compensate for the loss of time with your immediate superior. Said software also contains very detailed employee evaluations. The leadership work is pressed into artificial personnel processes. External support for leaders is used with counsellors from outside the company. They subject internal employees to a “profiling” and then have “professional” feedback discussions with them.
I very much doubt that this will ever work. On the contrary: if a stranger, for instance, “evaluates” an employee who has been in the company for a long time and then tells him what type of person he thinks said employee is, this will often cause bizarre or ghost-like situations. More often than not, those situations will cause frustration or at least “inner resignation”.
To sum it up, I would say all re-structuring in huge concerns, as well as in small enterprises, should be executed with a lot of sensitivity. Forming (too) big teams with only one leader should also be well-thought-out. In such a context, frivolous and radical measurements usually do more harm than good.
Change as it happens today will certainly call for a permanent change in your own organization, too (both in structure and processes), yet it should happen as a continuous process and after long consideration.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
For more articles of my entrepreneur’s diary, click here: Drehscheibe!
Loading ...