By Dr Leandro Herrero
Most restructures succeed on paper. And underperform in practice. The reason is rarely financial. It lies in what organisations don’t see: informal networks, tacit knowledge, and behavioural dynamics. This article explores the hidden system behind performance — and why cutting costs without understanding it can quietly destroy value.
Restructuring has become a permanent feature of corporate life. Announcements arrive almost daily — headcount reductions, delayering, relocations, AI-driven efficiencies. The rationale is familiar: protect margins, increase agility, respond to market pressure.
In financial terms, the logic is often sound.
But there is a second ledger — rarely seen, never formally audited — that determines whether restructuring delivers value or quietly destroys it.
That ledger is behavioural.
The Visible Logic — and the Invisible One
Most restructuring decisions are made on visible variables: roles, costs, reporting lines, spans of control. These are clean, legible, and measurable. They fit neatly into models and spreadsheets.
But organisations do not run on org charts. They run on networks.
Informal, dynamic, often invisible networks of trust, influence, and collaboration. The things people actually use to get things done. These networks do not respect hierarchy. They cut across functions, geographies, and levels. They are built through reputation, reliability, and repeated interactions, not job titles.
When restructuring ignores these networks, it doesn’t just remove “positions”.
It can dismantle the very pathways through which work happens. And that is where the hidden cost begins.
The Bridges You Don’t See
Within every organisation there are individuals whose formal role tells you very little about their real impact.
They are not always senior. They are not always visible. But they are highly connected. They are trusted across boundaries. They act as bridges between otherwise disconnected groups.
Remove one of these individuals, and something disproportionate happens.
Not immediately. Not visibly. But operationally.
Communication slows. Misunderstandings increase. Decisions take longer. Collaboration fragments. The organisation doesn’t collapse but it becomes heavier, more brittle, less responsive.
I have seen this triggered by what appeared to be trivial events: a single individual stepping away temporarily and, with them, the invisible bridge holding together multiple teams. The system did not break. It degraded. And degradation is rarely attributed to the cause.
Tacit Knowledge: The Other Loss
There is a second, often misunderstood, dimension.
Explicit knowledge — the kind that lives in manuals, systems, dashboards — can be transferred, stored, and re-trained.
Tacit knowledge cannot.
It resides in experience, in judgment, in relationships, in knowing who to call, how to navigate ambiguity, when to escalate and when not to. It is embedded in networks, not documents.
Restructuring frequently assumes that knowledge is largely explicit. It is not. When people leave, what disappears is not just capacity. It is context. And context is what makes capacity effective.
The Measurement Problem (and the Excuse It Creates)
A common objection is: “We cannot know who these critical connectors are.”
That is no longer true.
Methods such as Social Network Analysis and its organisational application (ONA) allow companies to map patterns of collaboration, trust, and influence with surprising accuracy. When done ethically and often anonymously, using peer nomination and opt-in participation, they reveal the informal structure that sits beneath the formal one.
They show who is central, who connects clusters, who enables flow.
In other words, they identify the people whose removal carries disproportionate systemic risk. And yet, in most restructuring processes, this data is not even considered. Not because it is unavailable but because it is not part of the dominant mental model.
Segmentation: External Sophistication, Internal Blindness
There is an irony here.
Organisations invest heavily in segmenting their customers—personas, behaviours, preferences, micro-targeting strategies. Thirty-seven types of customer profiles are not unusual.
Internally, however, people are treated as interchangeable units. A body is a body.
This asymmetry is costly.
Because internally, not all “bodies” are equal in terms of network position, influence, and systemic contribution. Some are nodes. Some are bridges. Some are accelerators. Some are bottlenecks.
Ignoring this is equivalent to managing a financial portfolio without distinguishing between assets.
AI, Productivity and the Intensification Effect
The current wave of restructuring is inseparable from AI. Efficiency gains are real. Automation is reshaping roles. Expectations are rising.
As Jensen Huang recently put it: “You will not lose your job to AI. You will lose it to someone who uses AI.”
That statement captures a shift in performance dynamics. But it also hides something.
AI increases output visibility. Visibility fuels comparison. Comparison resets expectations. And expectations intensify work.
The result is not necessarily less work but more pressure, more speed, more fragility in the system.
In that environment, informal networks matter even more—not less. They are the shock absorbers. The sense-making mechanisms. The informal coordination layer that allows organisations to adapt without breaking.
Remove them carelessly, and the system may still function — but under increasing strain.
Two Models: Surgical or Shock
There are, broadly, two ways to restructure.
One is surgical: informed, selective, aware of informal networks and tacit knowledge. It aims to preserve the connective tissue while adjusting the visible structure.
The other is blunt: large-scale, rapid, indifferent to internal topology. It relies on the organisation’s capacity to self-reconfigure after disruption.
Both can work.
But most organisations operate in a dangerous middle ground: neither informed nor decisive. They cut based on visible structures, without understanding invisible ones, and without committing to a full reset.
That is where the worst outcomes tend to occur: not failure, but prolonged underperformance.
A Different Starting Point
Restructuring is not inherently flawed. In many cases, it is necessary. But the starting question is often incomplete.
Instead of asking only: “Where can we reduce cost?” A more useful question might be:
“What must remain intact for the organisation to function as a system?”
Not as a chart. Not as a budget. As a network.
Because in the end, organisations do not execute through structure. They execute through behaviour. And behaviour travels through connections.
Break enough of those connections, and the numbers may look right — while the organisation quietly loses its ability to deliver them.
About the Author
Dr Leandro Herrero is Chief Organizational Architect at The Chalfont Project, psychiatrist, author, and international speaker. For over 25 years, he and his team have transformed organizational cultures worldwide through his pioneering Viral Change™ methodology – where a social movement approach creates lasting change. Follow Dr Herrero on LinkedIn for his latest updates.
Source link
#Cutting #Blind #Costly #Organizations #European #Financial #Review
