Reteaming or Reorg?
I often get the question, “What’s the difference between a reteaming and a reorg?” Let’s explore. I didn’t name my book Dynamic Reorgs. I didn’t even consider using the word reorg. To tell you the truth, I usually avoid the word. I think the term reorg comes with a legacy of baggage, and it also implies larger-scale changes, so using that term was too narrow and limiting for what I cover on Dynamic Reteaming.
When I think of “reorg” I think of:
Top-down changes that need to be managed or “rolled out”
“Power over” as opposed to power with. The people are “impacted” by changes instead of participating in them
Large scale changes that impact tens to hundreds or thousands of people
Layoffs
Loss, such as the loss of being included in decisions, loss of information, loss of status, loss of job and livelihood
Fear
On the other hand, “reteaming” is a broader and more open term. Sure, you can roll out reteamings and check all of the bullet points in the reorg description above. However, newer words, like using the word “reteaming” allow for new paths forward and new associations.
To me, reteaming includes changes in three areas: Dimension, Agency and Decentralization.
1. Reteamings can span multiple dimensions
Individual changes - someone joins or leaves a company, or someone switches from one team to another.
Team changes - a team splits into two or more teams, or two or more teams merge together.
Teams of teams changes- more than one team transforms into another variation, usually leveraging splitting or merging, switching teams, starting new teams, retiring some teams.
Department level changes- maybe there are changes in management structure, and other changes noted at the team of teams dimension.
Company level changes - it could be that your company acquires another one and there is some kind of blending of the workforces. This could take shape as people joining teams and leaving teams and the company. It could also be that the people from the acquired company join your company, but are left as a separate entity that is not blended with your day to day teams. Your product could split and become a separate company.
In looking just at the dimensional level, it could be noted that it is awkward to call the following a reorg: when someone joins or leaves a company or switches to another team. But all the other dimensions here can probably be called reteamings or reorgs. And as we’ve discussed, reorgs contain some additional semantic baggage that you may or may not notice. I notice it so I typically don’t use the word reorg.
2. Reteamings include a greater possibility of agency for the people and teams going through changes.
In fact, the changes may even be their own idea. For example:
An IC talks with their manager about switching to a different team in the organization so that they can work with different people and on a different part of their application.
A team has a retrospective and decides that due to the fact that their team grew, they feel they could better attain their goals by splitting into two or more teams.
A group of engineering and product directors get together and decide that based on next year’s roadmap, they need to build a few new teams, and staff the existing teams differently. They decide to visualize their future team design using whiteboards and invite input from the members of the team on their future structure. Throughout the process they learn that their initial plan had some shortcomings and needed adjustment based on the feedback they gleaned from the people closest to the work.
An engineering department as a whole has a culture of reteaming annually. They have an event once or maybe twice per year where ten team leaders share their teams’ missions and invite people with interest to indicate their preferences for joining their team. After the event they decide on the final team composition.
3. Reteamings can involve decentralized or centralized decision making.
In the cases described in point 2 above, these different changes could happen across time or simultaneously at different levels. They could be driven by different stakeholders within an organization; they could also be bundled together and released more akin to what I think about with “reorg”. Inherent in the term “reorg” is some sense of centralized decision making that gets “rolled out.” Reteaming can be either centralized or decentralized.
At the heart of this discussion, it’s dimension, agency and centralization that come into play when differentiating the terms reorg and reteaming. And I think dimension is the strongest indicator of the use of reorg over reteaming. Reorg being more closely tied to bigger changes..or a bunch of smaller changes bundled together.
Is it bad to use the word reorg? No, you can use whatever words you want. Just know that some contain interent negativity, such as reorg. At the end of the day what I think is important is how you go about the changes. I have found greater success when people are given agency and are included in determining the next step in the organization’s evolution. That yields more ownership of the changes. That’s not always possible, but when it is, it can be very empowering for people.
I’m curious what you think and would love to have some dialogue in the comments so feel free to share.
Thanks for reading my newsletter! If you’d like to get in contact, please respond to this post or find me online at heidihelfand.com. Here’s how I can help you:
If you’d like to join the waitlist for my upcoming online course, go here. You’ll answer a few questions that will help me to refine the content of this course and other offerings.
Invite me to speak at your event or do a workshop on how to lead others through change. Email me.
I like to consult on a retainer basis - monthly hours. Invite me to become a part of your teams and I can coach in context. Email me.
Learn practical tactics about coaching teams through change. Buy Dynamic Reteaming.