Why mishandled reengineering could lead to disaster for Singapore companies

Recently we were approached by a government linked organisation which had gone through some drastic changes.

Firstly the organisation switched its office from the north of Singapore to town, making travel time longer for many of its  older employees living in the area.

Next, more importantly, not all employees benefited from the moveover from a public compensation scheme to a private one and inevitably, as with all reengineering schemes, job scopes and roles were also affected.

At the top, a new chairman would be put in place soon, setting off speculation regarding shifts in management styles and directives.

Any organisation embarking on the onerous task of reengineering knows that introducing such drastic changes is more than just deleting numbers from a balance sheet.

Where people are involved, especially long time employees, a little handholding goes a long way towards maintaining morale, good-will and performance.

Of course, reengineering consultants, easily classed with heartless predators, take a different point of view. In the 90’s when reengineering was widely considered a must-do productivity initiative, many companies succumbed to its siren call.

I remember one ‘world-class’ name that managed to show consistent results for everyone of their clients. Its modus operandi was always to engineer off 10% of the workforce resulting in of course, a corresponding 10% rise in productivity.

But whether the instant, productive gains of 10% is maintained was another matter. Many times, the damage was irreversible in fact, in the case of one client, the organisation never recovered from its reengineering attempt, many of its loyal staff and talent resigning in exodus soon after the event.

Most companies know today the importance of talent retention that losing an entire department even though they may not be your key talent is like losing a vital organ of the body.

The reengineering company referred to here is not wholly insensitive to the need of allaying staff’s fears or morale regarding the loss of jobs, benefits or taking on expanded work roles and new KPIs.

But thinking that such a drastic corporate changeover can be effectively managed with a two-hour lunch break type of initiative involving games and glib talk aimed at exorting its employees to ““cultivate a better mindset towards dealing with organisational change that may not always benefit.” strays far from reality.

The life of a Singaporean is synonymous with change, in fact it would be safe to say that it’s deeply etched into our DNA. Everyone, especially the baby boomers of our work force have seen the country metamorphosed from a colonial backwater to the sparkling global metropolis it is today.

Our vibrant economy, upmarket lifestyles, safe and clean streets, beckons the well heeled and wealthy from the region, while our government linked organisations & entrepreneurs continue their successful foray into global business.

So with the hindsight of such economic wisdom and the vast amount of case studies available on the net on what makes for successful or failed reengineering attempts  including that of several Singaporean or Asian companies from the 90’s onwards, it is inexcusable and delusional for even the most blinkered managers to think other than being a pure waste of time, likely only to incite greater resentment, that a two hour change management initiative can do the trick.

Preaching  of the “right attitude” would certainly does not help as well.

It is shocking that the ‘reengineering experts’ and the high revenue generating organisation in this case does not see fit to include at the very minimum, a two days’ change management process which would have allowed unhappy employees an empathetic ear.

This in itself, would be invaluable in giving feedback to management to mitigate the worst effects of the exercise.

Do dinosaurs still proliferate in the corridors of government bodies or is productivity now devoid of its people element and akin to the ringing tills of a casino?

p/s we turned the work down...