Too often, leaders considering restructuring think that just drawing a new structure on a piece of paper and sharing it at a staff meeting will change the structure of the organization. Unfortunately, they could not be further from the facts. Restructuring costs time, money, effort, and has a direct and sometimes disruptive impact on employees. It is, therefore, important to start by assessing what is working in the organization, what is not, and to consider the perceptions of the employees on these issues. Designing the new organizational structure is a participatory process that requires input from all stakeholders within the organization. This means that all work group units should be represented and given the opportunity to provide input and feedback. This information is used by the designers, who are usually part of the organization’s leadership team or working as external consultants.
Since organizational structure is abstract and subject to interpretation by members of the organization, it is critical that any restructuring directly involve as many members as possible to ensure that they understand why the restructuring is necessary and have a sense of ownership in the results through their contributions. Once the new structure is launched, it should be monitored for its effectiveness and impact on stakeholders. It is not unusual for there to be issues that may create the need for leadership to consider revisions. If issues are not detected and addressed, employees must work around the problem, which corrupts the intended structure and complicates efforts to improve its effectiveness.
Analysis of the Beth Israel Hospital case study (Ch. 4) by applying relevant theoretical concepts from the literature.
Explain how contingency theory, differentiation, or integration occurred in the change.
• Identify at least two strengths and one limitation that may occur in this restructuring, and provide a recommendation to address the limitation.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapter 3, “Getting Organized” (pp. 45-70)
Chapter 4, “Structure and Restructuring” (pp. 71-92)
Chapter 5, “Organizing Groups and Team” (pp. 93-114)
Bonabeau, E., & Meyer, C. (2001, May). Swarm intelligence. A whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, 79(5), 106–114, 165.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001, January). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 107–116.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chapter 3, “Nature Intervenes: Organizations as Organisms” (pp. 33–69)
Chapter 4, “Learning and Self-Organization: Organizations as Brains” (pp. 71–114)
Walley, E. E., & Stubbs, M. (2000). Termites and champions: Case comparisons by metaphor Links to an external site.. Greener Management International, (29), 41–54.
https://prezi.com/cpwci7koexo-/a-case-study-of-beth-israel/
https://youtu.be/1NzmpPC6Sdw
