REVERSE RESTRUCTURE - WHAT DIFFERENTIATION REALLY MEANS TO ME

In a down economy, companies inevitably restructure their operations and business units. Which invariably involves personnel reassignment and laying off employees. Where does differentiation come in here?

Under Jack Welch, GE famously practiced 20/70/10. I assume the reader knows how that worked. (Google or youtube it). As Welch admitted: 'Famously known for differentiation. "Known" is a kind word!' In a restructure, I would argue this notion is crucial, whichever way you assess employees during more stable periods of growth.

However, I would propose the concept of the 'reverse restructure'. In most companies, managers and supervisors reassign and reassess or fire individual contributors. I contend that the process should obviously be backwards.

Move up the line. Why? Very often, research would suggest, it is inconsiderate or poorly performing managers and immediate supervisors who fail to inspire and motivate their reports towards objectively measurable common goals. Managers, supervisors and indeed in too many cases, executives fail, willingly or unwillingly, to communicate the business or functional strategy through to operational teams. They mismanage or inappropriately coordinate metrics, though of course this is not always the case. They neglect to speak candidly about the business climate to employees, eschewing discussion of 'what's in it for them'.

Jesus famously proclaimed, 'I am no respecter of persons'. What I consider He meant was that an ethical bond must bind all: In the circuitous discussion around organisational culture, too often, in Australia certainly, senior managers and board members leave out cultural primacy. Culture, done right, is your strongest asset. Therefore, culture must know NO BOUNDS. It must translate, in conjunction with valued behaviours, all the way up the line and to the C Suite. Positional power MUST BE EARNED.

In a merger or restructure, I would claim that 'servant leadership' necessitates employees speaking truth to power and conveying their concerns. 'Closest to the work, describing the work'. Are employees being given the material and organisational resources to succeed? Are opportunities for innovation and growth genuinely, not merely formally, available? Are superiors cultivating their reports and setting individual contributors up for lasting success?

If not, managers or supervisors should be the first to go. Not the other way around. What do you think?