When introducing an organizational change it is easy to just focus on ‘the new org chart’ or new business. However, the success of implementing this change depends not only on the appropriateness of this structure but also the interests of those affected and – often overlooked – the perceived fairness of the process leading the implementation.

The appropriate ‘content’ needs to follow the right steps and in the right order.  If this is not done, ‘procedural flaws’ prevent the change from success: if you don’t pay the application fee, a municipality will never even take your building permit into consideration; if you do not appoint a lawyer, most legal claims are not accepted in court. The original reasoning for these procedures were pure efficiency. A Steering Group/judge/Municipal Board can not learn a new format every time so insists on the same format to allow for speedy processing. That some procedures have ‘cancered’ into procedural nightmares is a different matter and will not be discussed here now.  

The same ‘need for process adherence’ applies to organizational changes where employees will need to give their buy-in as well, not only formal employee representative bodies but also the general employee body at large. One needs to ensure to take the appropriate steps at three different levels.

Any discussion on a higher level is influenced by the one below: when talking about a new organizational chart, most people’s opinion will be heavily influenced by their expectation of their own position in that organization, just as any perceived (un)fairness in the process will influence the acceptance of people’s own positions in that org chart. Employees (or any other human beings) want to be treated with respect and fairness, if not, they will resist even the best change proposal.

In case of a typical reorganization with significant lay-offs the organizational chart is often designed in secret with the help of a management consultancy. Any acceptance of the results will be greatly determined by the strength of their arguments for the change (often adverse or changing market conditions).  The next steps of placing individuals in the (remaining) positions can be done in multiple ways. In case of forced lay-offs, there generally is a national legal framework that describes which steps need to be taken and how positions are going to be distributed. This legal framework implies a certain fairness so a lot of resistance by subjected employees usually is reduced.

However, e.g. mergers based on market synergies are not based on negative factors and do not need to  use legally prescribed methods. Still, one needs to design and communicate the process of both organizational design and attribution of positions beforehand to avoid discontent of employees afterwards.

A good design does not guarantee acceptance by all stakeholders, applying an acceptable process does not guarantee acceptance of the design, but overlooking the fairness of the implementation process does almost guarantee failure of both.