Organizational Assessment & Design

Nearly 70% of organizational disintegrations can be traced to organizational structure or leadership failures that either contributed to the failed structure or flowed from it.

Like an aircraft or a boat, an organization’s efficiency and speed to destination are very heavily impacted by its design, load, and weight distribution. And, if staff meetings and decision delays are endemic to your enterprise, you exist within a failing organizational design.

One very large challenge in the business world is that of getting people to agree on objectives that have no common value to them. Yet, an organization’s design is what can most effectively create necessary agreement the quickest. It is generally the organizational design that creates or enables positive and growing results without excess expense.

Poor organizational designs cost nothing to maintain on a direct basis, but their costs are seismic in terms of lowered organizational production and efficiency.

Our experience has shown that organizational structure limitations tend to have had their genesis quite some time ago, and they also tend to have been engendered through flawed preferences by one or several key individuals. Additionally, flawed organizations tend to evolve through an internally myopic focus instead of through a rightfully placed external market focus.

Our experience indicates that over 75% of the time a major redesign of the organization is not necessary. More frequently, the solution lies in minor organizational structure and staffing adjustments. Our solutions in this area are designed to peacefully create an organization that is exceptionally productive, fully supportive of the entire organization’s strategic intent, and able to change as necessitated by business and market conditions.

We have shared for decades that, “Speed is the only competitive advantage you have that costs you nothing”.  And, “How slow your enterprise is and how many staff meetings occur on a cyclical basis within it are usually directly relational”.