How to lead a reorg without derailing your organisation

Executive overview

Reorgs fail not because they're unnecessary, but because leaders move too slowly, communicate poorly, or use them to solve the wrong problem. Structure must mirror strategy — if they're misaligned, a reorg is warranted; if they're aligned, one probably isn't.

Speed is the most underrated variable: the longer the process drags, the more damage it does — don't leave the ice cream on the counter.

Three triggers for a reorg

• Strategy shifts first: new product lines, new markets, or rapid growth often make the old structure obsolete.
• Talent gaps (a departure or open role) are an opportunity to re-examine structure — not just a slot to backfill.
• Underperforming teams are the most misused trigger; diagnose root causes before assuming a structural fix will help.

Diagnosing whether a reorg is actually needed

• Leaders who start with current state ("here's my team today") rather than future state ("here's where we're going") are skipping the essential question.
• When a team underperforms, ask why five times before concluding it's the leader or the people.
• Ask yourself first: did I set the right goals? Have I removed the obstacles? Did I create conditions for success?
• Moving a struggling team under a "strong" leader often just overloads that leader and leaves the structural problem intact.

The ice cream rule: move fast, then let things settle

• Starting a reorg and not finishing it quickly is the main source of org fatigue — people can't do their jobs while waiting for resolution.
• Avoid incremental tinkering toward a future state; plan two clean transitions and let things stabilise between them.
• Piloting and iterating is good advice for most things — not for reorgs.

Structuring around individuals: a common trap

• Building structure around a star performer inverts the logic: structure should serve strategy, not a person.
• Ask explicitly: is this the person I want to break my structure for? Sometimes the answer is yes — but be intentional.
• Piling scope onto one standout person rarely works; they eventually collapse under it.
• If someone threatens to leave and you respond with money alone, they're leaving anyway — focus on development and internal opportunity instead.
• The better move: look across the whole organisation, not just your own team, for a role that serves their growth.

Phase zero: decide and design quietly

• Start with yourself, then bring in your manager and a trusted HR partner — keep the circle very small.
• This phase is exploratory: poke holes in the idea, get sounding-board input from implicated colleagues who can keep confidence.
• The goal is conviction before the ice cream leaves the freezer.

Phase one: get buy-in from key people

• Approach every conversation — including the hard ones — with a positive mindset; negativity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• For people losing scope or responsibility: lead with the vision, explain their role in it, and connect it to their stated development goals.
• Give people time to process, but maintain pace — follow up the next day, not the next week.
• Role first, person second: define what the organisation needs, then match people to it.

Phase two: communicate and close

• People directly affected should hear the news before any broadcast communication goes out — at least the day before.
• Most people in the wider organisation are barely affected; the "blast radius" is usually smaller than it feels.
• A clear communication covers: the why (vision and strategy), the what (who reports where now), and nothing more.
• If leadership is aligned and bought in, most of the organisation will read the announcement and get back to work.

Change vs. transition

• The structural change should be fast. The internal transition — how people process and adapt — takes longer and that's normal.
• Transition goes better when the changes themselves are already done; dragging out the change phase traps people in permanent transition.