A case in point
A few years back, I worked with an organisation going through its third restructure in quick succession. The first two had failed: staff were demoralised, the brand had taken a hit, and the bottom line had suffered.
When I asked management what they were trying to achieve, they were hesitant, worried that naming financial targets would appear cold. My response: “How’s that worked for you so far?”
Eventually, they laid out their objectives. Those weren’t up for debate. But the how was wide open. We ran workshops with staff, asking them to design solutions that would meet the goals. Three of the four groups independently came up with the same approach. Management accepted the proposal, implemented it without change and it worked. Why? Because those who lived with the problems every day had a hand in solving them.
The leadership blind spot
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: when management design the solution, it’s often the same group that created the current situation. What makes us think their answer will be any good? Time and again, I see organisations slowed by the same patterns. Leaders often show a delayed response to market conditions, waiting too long to adapt. At the same time, hesitancy around small, localised decisions mean frontline teams are blocked from making improvements that could lift performance. Added to this, centralised control mechanisms with head office processes designed to manage risk end up stifling initiative and responsiveness.
All of this contributes to underperformance. And yet, when results falter, the very same leadership group and their lieutenants retreat behind closed doors to design the “fix”. That approach is not only unlikely to succeed, it risks compounding the mistrust that led to disengagement in the first place.
The employee perspective
Employees, on the other hand, usually see both the problems and the possibilities with greater clarity. They know where bottlenecks lie, where customer frustration is highest, and where resources are being wasted. They also bring a deep commitment to making things better, provided they’re treated with respect and honesty.
When leaders open the process up, not to debate objectives but to shape how those objectives are achieved, two things happen: better solutions emerge that are more practical, implementable, and tailored to the realities of the business, and trust is reinforced as people feel valued, heard, and willing to recommit even in difficult circumstances.
This is the paradox of restructuring: the very people you fear will resist are often the ones most capable of creating the path forward.
Trust as cultural currency
Trust is the most valuable cultural currency organisations have. Lose it, and even the most carefully engineered restructure will falter. Keep it, and your organisation emerges leaner, but also more engaged and resilient.
Rebuilding trust after a restructure is possible, but it’s much harder than protecting it from the outset. Once employees feel deceived, excluded, or disrespected, they may stay in their jobs physically while withdrawing their discretionary effort. That quiet disengagement, the meeting nodded through, the problem left unsolved, the innovation never spoken aloud, is what really costs organisations after.
Repairing culture after
Of course, not every restructure is designed well, and many organisations are left dealing with anxious survivors, depleted trust, and a fragile culture. To repair the damage, leaders must acknowledge the impact rather than gloss over the human cost, rebuild psychological safety by creating forums where employees can speak openly, and anchor people back to purpose by reminding them why the organisation exists and how their work contributes.
Confidence is restored when leaders model constructive behaviours such as consistency, transparency, and humility, and invite contribution so staff can continue to refine processes and shape the new way of working.
The bottom line
Restructures will always be part of organisational life. But the difference between those that fail and those that succeed comes down to trust. Leaders who assume the worst about their people and default to secrecy end up creating the very disengagement they fear. Those who lead with clarity, honesty, and involvement not only preserve trust, but they also often find their teams more committed than before.
In other words: it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
