4.4. Lessons learned from past reorganisations

The case studies show different situations and reflect the specificity of the change process in each DG. At the same time, there are lessons learned which can be applied to reorganisations in general.

Looking at past experience it seems that reorganisations in the Commission have successfully tackled the “hard” factors of reorganisations to adapt structures and organisation charts but often neglected the “soft” factors which refer to values, behaviour and processes.

Overall, the case studies show that the reorganisations were successful in increasing efficiency and effectiveness. However, they confirm what became already apparent when analysing the Commission framework: the human factor and the reaction of the individual to change are not systematically considered in reorganisations.

Limited involvement of staff and middle management

Although the extent differs from DG to DG, real staff involvement during reorganisations, in the sense that staff contributes to decision making, is not common. It is rare that staff is used as a resource for providing information/input and reflection. Also middle management at the level of Heads of Unit is often left out. In many cases, reorganisation plans are already decided by a smaller circle at top management and senior management, and changes proposed by middle management and staff cannot be integrated easily. Typically staff is informed three months before the final decision is adopted, with the intention to keep the phase of uncertainty as short as possible.

The case of DG TREN shows that deeper involvement of staff and middle management is possible already in the preparation phase but requires sufficient time. The case of DG INFSO is a good illustration that staff involvement can also be done at a later stage of the reorganisation through extensive feedback mechanisms.

Resistance to change exists in reorganisations and will grow with further resource constraints

Management has to deal with resistance on the part of staff, especially when the reorganisation implies large-scale change, affects many people who have to change attributions and is combined with a reduction of posts. The case studies demonstrated different ways to support dissatisfied staff to come to terms with the reorganisation: open and transparent communication and a comprehensive response strategy by the human resource department (DG INFSO), and the use of the Chambre d’ Ecoute who genuinely tries to find solutions to individual cases (DG DEVCO).

It also helps to have as a guiding principle “job follows function” but to leave some choice to staff members if they will follow the new attribution or rather look for other jobs in the DG (DG INFSO).

High commitment by top management

The three case studies demonstrate that commitment of top management is usually strong. Often this is complemented by support at the policy level from the respective Commissioner and the Cabinets. This strong commitment can be explained by the fact that it is the Directors General themselves who decide and shape the reorganisation. In doing so, different formats are used, taking the lead themselves (DG INFSO) or establishing a Taskforce in charge of the reorganisation process (DG TREN, DG DEVCO).

Communication is mainly used to inform and to create transparency but rarely in form of two-way communication

Communication is often used in one direction, de facto playing more the role of information and transparency about the change process than a real two way communication between management and staff. While this is already an important step which reduces the concerns of staff about an uncertain future, it does not use its full potential to get valuable feedback and information back from staff. The experience of DG INFSO shows innovative ways to use a wide variety of communication means, including face-to-face meetings with top management, thus also opening two way communications.

The timeframe for reorganisations is too short

Directorates General often inspire themselves from the timeframe proposed in the Communication on Organisation Charts. The overall change process is condensed into a relatively short time span of about six months from start to end. For large-scale reorganisations affecting the whole of a Directorate General, with sometimes more than thousand staff, this is too short and happens at the expense of planning and preparation. The time constraint also limits the possibilities for real staff involvement (DG DEVCO, DG INFSO).

The focus of change is on implementation rather than preparation, on structure rather than on processes

Attention often focuses on the implementation phase of reorganisations, and less on preparations. Most time and efforts are invested to decide on changes to the organisation chart and to implement the legal and administrative aspects of change (adapt the organisation chart, change posts and profiles, discuss new attributions of posts, move offices). Fewer efforts were invested to reflect on the improvement of processes and on better ways of working together. Less attention is given to the planning phase. However, change is a long-term process which in reality starts much earlier than the timeframe proposed by the Communication on Organisation Charts.

Few reorganisations have an explicit strategy and an action plan in place

The drivers for change are usually well detected and a general vision exists. However, often there is no clearly defined strategy of what the real economic and other advantages of a reorganisation will be, what aspects need to change and how it should be implemented, with accompanying measures for human resource management and communication. Elements of strategy are formulated, often implicitly by members of top management, but are not necessarily put in writing and widely communicated. Due to time constraints, this fundamental part is often piecemeal, without comprehensive reflection and analysis. The case of DG TREN shows the usefulness of having a strategy in writing as a way to increase clarity and transparency.