Organization Change

  • Uncategorized



Adoptingnew structures in an organization is a delicate practice that canaffect the performance, technologies, processes, people, anddepartments of the firm. However, people are the most important partof a company that is affected by re-organization. Some group CEOsbelieve in the restructuring of the organization`s structure whenthey get into office. The motive and belief vary but most are aboutchanging strategic focus, cutting costs, promoting growth and moldingthe organization`s culture. The primary aim of any reorganizationprocess is to create changes for improving overall performance.

However,in the process of change, most companies end up falling flat (Blenkoet al., 2012).Such failure is may be caused by the misunderstanding of therelationship between the organizational structure and the decisionsmade. The two companies, Ford, and Yahoo, had to make decisionsconcerning their products. Yahoo had to move to customerdepartmentalization. Terry Semel, the then CEO of Yahoo, declared amajor change in the organization`s structure in which the olderYahoo`s product-focused structure was being replaced with thecustomers and users based one. In the process of reorganization, acollection constituted seven products units and was called Audiencewhile the next seven products were taken to a single unit known asPublishers and advertisers. The above two groups were supplementedwith a division called Technology that provided infrastructure (Haaget al., 2016). The whole idea of restructuring was to increase growthby taking advantage of the vast Yahoo’s umbrella of advertisers andaudience products.

Thedecision-making process of a company is more important and is adeterminant of some sales that an organization can achieve within aspecified duration. For example, when Allan Mulally became the CEO ofFord Company in 2006, the company was on the verge of collapsing dueto the losing of shares in the market. The first approach heintroduced is to focus on critical decisions rather than concentrateon restructuring the organization (Blenkoet al., 2012).The process of re-building the team came at a later stage whencritical decisions were already in place.

Mullay’sapproach was to identify the issues, and resolution approaches forresponding to these matters. His priority was the relevantinfrastructure required for mitigating the problems or for executingthe decisions efficiently. Mulally proposed the consolidation of bothsuppliers and dealers he believed this would be beneficial for thecompany. Also, he changed the structure of the company to a globalmatrix of functions from a regional business unit. The new structurewas to facilitate fast decision making a structure that enabled Fordto improve its production for the global market. For example,creating global car platforms had been a challenge for an extendedperiod, but the new structure was successful in achieving the goal(Blenkoet al., 2012).

Someissues arose from the restructuring process by the two companies.First was the delayed decision making and action even as the roleshad clearly been defined. Customers demanded precise answers thatcould not be provided by technology. The next issue was competitionfor developer time between Publishers and Advertisers the Audience.The experience shows that in the process of the restructuring, wisdomis needed in decision making as described by Ricardo Semler in thevideo. The solution to an organization issues goes beyond itsstructural organography. It involves carrying out SWOT analysis andmore importantly not forgetting the organization`s critical decisions(Haag et al., 2016). The stages that need critical thinking anddecision-making must be pinpointed in addition, implementation ofthe decisions should be done accordingly.


Blenko,M. W., Mankins, M. C., &amp Rogers, P. (June 01, 2012). Thedecision-driven organization. HarvardBusiness Review, 88, 6.)

Haag,S., Baltzan, P., &amp Phillips, A. (2016). Businessdriven technology.New York, N.Y: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Close Menu