Restructuring Kate Kirkland

1. RestructuringKate Kirkland kate_kirkland@btinternet.com

2. Introduction The importance of structure and its relationship to strategy The determinants of structure Common structures used by not-for-profit organisations Problems that may be structural Examples

3. Organisational Structure ‘The means for attaining the objectives and goals of the organisation’ Peter Drucker

4. Organisational structures define The roles of staff and volunteers and their job titles Route through which decisions are made Who is responsible and who is accountable to whom, and for which activities How employees communicate with each other and how information circulates

5. Managing without a Structure • No clarity on who was part of the organisation • No way of setting and measuring objectives • No agreed way of making decisions • All decisions would be open for reconsideration • No clarity on who should do what • External people and organisations would not know who to contact and whether a response committed the organisation

6. Advantages of having a clear & transparent structure Enables participation Provides a framework for the allocation of responsibilities & resources Establishes the organisation’s identity Continuity and change

7. Designing a structure • Structure almost always follows strategy ‘unless structure follows strategy, inefficiency results’ Alfred Chandler, Prof of Business History, Harvard BS • Managers are limited in choice of structures • Structure impacts on staff motivation, managerial control, organisational flexibility • No one ‘best’ structure

8. Structures evolve over time • View structures as dynamic, not static • Well-established structures are difficult to change • Major changes requiring structural alteration include • Appointing first paid staff • Setting up teams or departments • Diversifying the activities • Establishing regional offices or local groups

9. Perceptions of Organisational Structure

10. Contingency School of Organisational Analysis • Based on research by David Wilson • Avoid ‘tyranny of structurelessness’ & ‘sclerosis of bureaucracy’ • Key determinants of structure can be identified

11. Key Determinants of Structure • Size • Technology • Operating environment • Age & history • Strategy • Dependence

12. Four Dominant Structures used by Not-for-Profit Organisations • Functional • Divisional • Federal • Matrix or project based

13. Functional structures • Tasks differentiated into separate departments according to function • Hierarchy: information flows between CEO and departments • Bureaucracy in strict meaning of term • Work well in contexts that are relatively predictable, little change or competition

14. Divisional structures • Divisions can operate relatively independently of geographic area or type of client • Divisions co-ordinated by Head Office where service functions are provided • Structure often the result of planned growth and adaptation to operating circumstances

15. Federal structures Local Organisation Local Organisation Local Organisation Head Office Local Organisation Local Organisation Local Organisation Local Organisation • Often formed when local organisations providing similar services ‘federate’ to establish nation stands, brand, represent common interests • Local groups may be part of legal structure or autonomous organisations • Head Office plays less directive role

16. Matrix or project based structures • Dual lines of authority, e.g. National Director (or Manager of service or project ) reports to the Director of Operations on operational matters, the Director of Finance on financial matters, etc • Greater strategic flexibility, but organisation as a whole more difficult to manage, particularly strategic decision-making

17. Recognising Structural Problems • Structural issues are not always obvious • Problems may appear to be due to lack of commitment, bloody-mindedness, inadequacy • John Child suggested that there are certain recurring symptoms of structural problems

18. Problems that may be Structural • John Child’s Recurring Symptoms • Low motivation • Late and inappropriate decisions • Conflict and lack of co-ordination • Inadequate response to changing circumstances • Rising costs • These are not always an indicator of imminent structural breakdown

19. Structures for Today’s World • Views about structures are changing • Static concept of formal structures less appropriate • Organisations frequently have to reorganise themselves • ‘organising’ rather than ‘organisation’ • Harnessing knowledge distributed throughout the organisation requires more than top-down hierarchies • Informal relationships and processes vital to obtaining competitive advantage

20. New Thinking Structure Configuration Relationships Processes • Formal structures & processes must be aligned with informal processes and relationships into coherent configurations • Configuring the organisation so that these elements fit together and with strategic challenges is crucial to organisational success

21. Structural Change in Practice • Introduction of corporate management team to large charity • Members to spend 50% of time leading their department and 50% working as CMT • Aims • Strengthen leadership • Greater co-ordination of departmental goals & activities • Recognise the importance of HR

22. What worked well and why New structure improved organisational performance CMT posts advertised internally and externally Wide range of selection tests; Myers Briggs Type Indicator used to recruit balanced team Existing departmental directors assured of future within organisation Process facilitated by external consultants Trustees involved in selection process

23. Lessons learnt • Results justified the pain! • Time spent on consultation worthwhile • Organisational focus on change for a considerable period so timing of change important • Using Myers-Briggs Type Indicators helps produce a balanced team but can restrict the pool of applicants when a team member leaves • If in doubt, don’t appoint

24. Structural Change in Practice • Change of membership status in large membership charity • ‘Members’ ceased being members of the charitable company • Aims • Strengthen governance • Cut administrative costs

25. What worked well and why • Aims achieved • Lead by Trustees & SMT • Members & other stakeholders consulted • Process facilitated by external consultants • Members Forum established  Kate Kirkland Consultants

26. Lessons learnt • Most members were disinterested • Time spent on consultation lessened opposition to change • Trustees should have been reminded of their ‘cabinet’ responsibility • If something is being taken away, offer something better in return

27. Structural Change in Practice • Aim: To improve performance within budget constraints • Context: recently formed charity (12 staff, income £1m) in which initial appointments of some Heads of Departments not achieving desired results • Structural Change: Trustees and CEO agreed to outsource two HoD roles to see if having greater expertise, albeit for less time, would improve performance

28. What worked well and why • Using external communications & fundraising consultants for a day a week produced better performance than employing full-time, less experienced staff • Consultants coached junior staff • Better balance of ‘chiefs to indians’ for small charity • Reasons for change easy to communicate to small staff • Change introduced on experimental basis & without long-term commitments

29. Lessons learnt • Staff departures can be an opportunity to reassess deployment of human resources • Worth trying innovative solutions • CEO had to devote more time to staff management • Using consultants can be cost-effective • Expertise • Billed only for time spent on task • Higher hourly pay balanced by no holiday/sick pay, no NI, no pension contributions