Organizational Design and Technostructural Interventions

Introduction

Organizational design concerns the deliberate arrangement of roles, authority, processes, information, technology and relationships through which an organization creates value. Organizational development (OD) treats design not as a one-time charting exercise but as an intervention into the social, technical and political systems of an organization. A structure can enable coordination, innovation and accountability; it can also produce silos, delay, duplication and employee disengagement.

Technostructural interventions are OD interventions that focus on the design of work, organization-wide structures, business processes, quality systems and employment systems. They include work redesign, business process reengineering, total quality management, high-performance work systems, downsizing and restructuring. Their central challenge is alignment: people must have the capabilities and authority required by processes, while technology must support rather than undermine meaningful work and sound decisions.

This chapter evaluates major organizational structures and applies technostructural interventions to practical change situations. It emphasizes a diagnostic principle: no structure is universally superior. The appropriate design depends on strategy, size, technology, environmental uncertainty, regulatory demands, workforce capabilities and the nature of interdependence among activities.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, the learner should be able to:

1. Explain the relationship among strategy, structure, processes, people and technology.
2. Evaluate functional, divisional, matrix, network, agile and platform structures.
3. Apply work-design theories to improve motivation, coordination and performance.
4. Analyse process redesign, quality management and high-performance work systems.
5. Assess the risks and ethical implications of downsizing and restructuring.
6. Develop an integrated technostructural intervention and evaluate its outcomes.

1. Foundations of Organizational Design

1.1 Structure as an information and coordination system

Organizational structure specifies how work is divided and integrated. Its main design dimensions include:

• Specialization: the extent to which work is divided into distinct tasks or occupations.
• Departmentalization: the basis for grouping work, such as function, product, geography, customer or process.
• Hierarchy: the distribution of authority and reporting relationships.
• Centralization: the extent to which decisions are concentrated at higher levels.
• Formalization: the extent to which rules, procedures and roles are documented.
• Integration: mechanisms that coordinate interdependent units, including teams, liaison roles, councils, shared systems and common goals.
• Span of control: the number of direct reports managed by a leader.

A useful diagnostic distinction is between differentiation and integration. Differentiation enables expertise and efficiency, but it creates boundaries. Integration mechanisms reconnect differentiated units so that the organization can deliver an end-to-end product or service.

1.2 Contingency theory

Contingency theory rejects the idea of a single best structure. Structural effectiveness depends on fit among internal and external conditions. A stable environment may support formalization and centralized control, whereas a turbulent environment may require decentralization, lateral coordination and experimentation.

Key contingencies include:

• Strategy: cost leadership often requires standardization and disciplined processes; innovation strategies require autonomy, knowledge sharing and tolerance for experimentation.
• Environment: uncertainty and rapid technological change increase the value of flexible structures.
• Technology: routine technologies can be coordinated through standardized procedures; complex or non-routine work requires mutual adjustment and professional judgment.
• Size and life cycle: growth often creates the need for specialization and divisionalization, while mature organizations may need integration to overcome bureaucracy.
• Interdependence: pooled, sequential and reciprocal interdependence require progressively stronger coordination mechanisms.

The principle of structural congruence extends contingency thinking: structure, systems, culture and leadership should reinforce the behaviors required by strategy. A firm cannot credibly demand agility while rewarding only error avoidance, retaining all decisions at the top and measuring employees through narrow annual targets.

1.3 Structural alignment

A design diagnosis should examine five linked questions:

1. What value proposition and strategic priorities must the organization deliver?
2. What capabilities and activities are essential to that strategy?
3. How are those activities grouped and coordinated?
4. What behaviors, skills, incentives and leadership practices are required?
5. How do information systems, automation and data governance support the design?

Misalignment is often more consequential than an apparently imperfect structure. For example, a company may adopt customer-focused divisions but retain functional budgets and functional performance measures. The formal structure changes, but the underlying decision rights and incentives continue to produce internal competition.

2. Major Organizational Structures

2.1 Functional structure

In a functional structure, employees are grouped by expertise, such as operations, marketing, finance, human resources and information technology. It promotes economies of specialization, professional standards and efficient resource utilization.

Its limitations include functional silos, slow cross-functional decisions and a tendency to optimize departments rather than customer outcomes. It is generally appropriate for organizations with a relatively narrow product range, predictable operations or strong needs for technical depth.

Typical OD interventions include cross-functional teams, process owners, service-level agreements, shared objectives and enterprise information systems. The aim is to preserve expertise while improving horizontal coordination.

2.2 Divisional structure

A divisional structure groups activities around products, markets, customers or geographic regions. Each division may contain its own marketing, operations and finance capabilities. Divisionalization increases responsiveness and clarifies accountability for results.

However, it may duplicate resources, create inconsistent standards and encourage divisions to compete for corporate resources. Corporate centers must therefore define which capabilities should be shared, which decisions should be local and how performance will be evaluated.

Divisions are effective where customer or product differences are substantial and local responsiveness matters. They are less efficient when products share highly specialized resources or when duplication would be prohibitively costly.

2.3 Matrix structure

A matrix combines two or more bases of grouping, commonly function and project, product or geography. An employee may report to a functional manager for professional development and to a project manager for delivery.

The matrix is designed for environments requiring both technical specialization and project responsiveness. Its principal risk is role conflict. Dual authority can produce competing priorities, unclear accountability and excessive meetings. Matrix effectiveness depends on explicit decision rights, conflict-resolution routines, mature managers and performance systems that reward collaboration rather than political influence.

A matrix should not be adopted merely because it appears sophisticated. It is justified when the benefits of simultaneous expertise and market or project focus exceed the coordination costs.

2.4 Network and modular structures

A network structure coordinates a central organization with suppliers, strategic partners, contractors, platforms or specialist firms. A modular organization retains control over core capabilities while outsourcing or partnering for other activities.

Advantages include access to specialist knowledge, scalability, speed and lower fixed investment. Risks include dependency on partners, loss of internal capability, information-security exposure, quality variation and weakened employment relationships. Governance must address contracts, standards, escalation routes, data ownership and partner development.

Network design is not equivalent to simply outsourcing work. It requires an explicit architecture of relationships and a clear understanding of which capabilities are strategically sensitive.

2.5 Agile and team-based structures

Agile structures organize work around multidisciplinary teams, short planning cycles, customer feedback and iterative delivery. They are particularly useful for complex knowledge work where requirements evolve and learning is essential.

Agility is not the absence of structure. Effective agile organizations establish clear product ownership, team boundaries, decision rights, technical standards, prioritization methods and review mechanisms. Common practices include iterative planning, visual workflow management, retrospectives and empowered teams.

Agile arrangements can fail when leaders use the language of empowerment while retaining approval bottlenecks, when teams lack needed expertise, or when speed is prioritized over safety, inclusion and long-term quality.

2.6 Platform and ecosystem structures

A platform structure provides shared infrastructure, standards, data or interfaces through which multiple groups create value. Examples include digital marketplaces, internal technology platforms and shared service platforms.

Platforms generate leverage through reuse and network effects, but they create governance questions: Who controls access? How are participants evaluated? Who owns data? How are quality, privacy, cybersecurity and algorithmic fairness protected? Platform leaders must balance openness with control. A platform that is too closed limits innovation; one that is too open may create security and quality failures.

Comparative evaluation

3. Work Design and Job Redesign

Work design determines how tasks, responsibilities, relationships and technologies are arranged. It affects productivity, learning, motivation, health and identity at work.

3.1 Scientific management and its limitations

Scientific management emphasized task analysis, standardization, specialization and close measurement. These principles remain useful for safety-critical and highly repeatable operations. However, excessive fragmentation can reduce autonomy, suppress learning and produce “efficiency at the expense of effectiveness.” Contemporary design therefore combines standardization where reliability is essential with discretion where judgment and adaptation are valuable.

3.2 The Job Characteristics Model

The Job Characteristics Model proposes that five core job characteristics influence critical psychological states and work outcomes:

• skill variety;
• task identity;
• task significance;
• autonomy; and
• feedback.

Skill variety, task identity and task significance contribute to experienced meaningfulness. Autonomy contributes to experienced responsibility, while feedback provides knowledge of results. These conditions can enhance internal motivation, satisfaction and performance, although their effects depend on individual growth needs, task context and organizational support.

A practical redesign may combine related tasks, create complete service teams, increase decision authority and provide timely information about customer and operational results. Enrichment should not mean transferring responsibility without resources, training or influence.

3.3 Sociotechnical systems theory

Sociotechnical systems theory treats the technical system and the social system as interdependent. Technical optimization alone can produce poor outcomes if it ignores cooperation, informal knowledge and human needs. Sociotechnical redesign commonly uses semi-autonomous teams, boundary management, multiskilling and joint optimization.

The approach is especially useful during automation. Instead of asking only which tasks a technology can perform, designers ask how human judgment, exception handling, learning and accountability should be integrated with the technology.

3.4 Contemporary work design

Hybrid and digital work increase the importance of outcomes-based accountability, coordination norms, psychological safety and equitable access to information. Managers should specify which work requires physical co-presence, which requires synchronous interaction and which can be completed asynchronously. Monitoring technology should be proportionate, transparent and connected to legitimate work purposes rather than used as a substitute for effective management.

4. Business Process Redesign and Reengineering

A process is a linked set of activities that transforms inputs into outputs for an internal or external customer. Process analysis shifts attention from departmental boundaries to the complete flow of value.

4.1 Process diagnosis

A process diagnosis should identify:

• the customer and required outcome;
• process boundaries and major activities;
• handoffs, approvals and queues;
• rework, defects and failure points;
• information and technology dependencies;
• decision rights and escalation paths; and
• measures of time, cost, quality and experience.

A process map can reveal that total elapsed time is dominated not by work time but by waiting between activities. Redesign may then focus on reducing handoffs, simplifying approvals, integrating data and moving decisions to the point of service.

4.2 Business process reengineering

Business process reengineering (BPR) seeks fundamental redesign rather than incremental improvement. It asks why a process exists, whether activities can be combined, whether decisions can be made once rather than repeatedly, and whether technology enables a different operating model.

BPR can produce substantial gains, but it carries social and implementation risks. Radical redesign may eliminate roles, disrupt professional identities and expose hidden dependencies. It should therefore include employee participation, transition planning, capability development and safeguards for service continuity.

4.3 Lean and continuous improvement

Lean emphasizes customer value, flow, pull, waste reduction and continuous learning. Common forms of waste include defects, overproduction, waiting, unnecessary movement, excess processing, inventory and underused human capability. Lean is most effective when employees are empowered to identify problems and leaders address systemic causes rather than blaming individuals.

A simple process-efficiency measure is:

Value-added time is the time spent performing activities the customer values or requires for the product or service; total elapsed time includes waiting and delays. The measure is meaningful only when the process boundary is defined consistently and “value added” is assessed from the customer and regulatory perspective. It should not be used to remove necessary controls merely because they do not appear directly value adding.

Worked example. A loan application spends 45 minutes in active processing but takes 3,600 minutes from submission to decision. Process efficiency is:

The result does not mean that 98.75% of the process is useless. It indicates that most elapsed time is waiting, queueing or review time and that redesign should investigate those sources of delay.

5. Quality Management and High-Performance Work Systems

5.1 Quality management

Total quality management (TQM) is an organization-wide approach emphasizing customer requirements, prevention of defects, process capability, fact-based decisions, continuous improvement and involvement of people. Quality is not solely an inspection department’s responsibility; it is produced by the design of work and systems.

Important principles include:

• define quality from the perspective of relevant customers and stakeholders;
• design quality into processes rather than relying mainly on final inspection;
• use reliable data and root-cause analysis;
• involve employees who understand the work;
• develop suppliers and partners; and
• align leadership, rewards and resources with improvement.

Quality initiatives can become ceremonial when organizations collect metrics without acting on them, reward short-term output over defect prevention or impose improvement programs without adequate capacity.

5.2 High-performance work systems

A high-performance work system (HPWS) is a mutually reinforcing bundle of people-management practices designed to support organizational capability. Practices may include selective staffing, extensive training, information sharing, team-based work, participation, employment security, developmental performance management and contingent rewards.

The word “bundle” is important. Training without decision authority may frustrate employees; empowerment without information may create risk; performance pay without cooperation may damage teamwork. HPWS design must consider institutional context, occupational identity, labor law and employee voice.

A useful evaluation logic is:

Practices → employee capabilities, motivation and opportunity → behaviors and collaboration → operational outcomes → customer and organizational results.

This is a causal framework, not a guarantee. Outcomes may be affected by market conditions, leadership, technology, labor relations and implementation quality. HR professionals should therefore evaluate both intended and unintended effects.

6. Downsizing, Restructuring and Responsible Change

6.1 Distinguishing the concepts

• Downsizing is a deliberate reduction in the number of employees, usually to reduce cost or alter organizational scale.
• Restructuring is a broader change in units, reporting relationships, processes, ownership or governance.
• Rightsizing refers to aligning capacity with current strategic requirements, although the term can obscure the human consequences of job loss.
• Redeployment moves employees to different roles or locations rather than ending employment.

Downsizing may produce rapid cost reduction, but it can also cause survivor syndrome, loss of critical knowledge, lower trust, increased workload, reduced innovation and deterioration in service quality. Savings are often overstated when organizations fail to account for severance, legal costs, rehiring, burnout, quality failures and lost capability.

6.2 A responsible restructuring process

A responsible process includes:

1. establish the strategic and operational problem using credible evidence;
2. test alternatives such as redeployment, reduced hours, process simplification, natural attrition and reskilling;
3. identify critical capabilities and knowledge dependencies;
4. consult employees and, where applicable, unions or representative bodies;
5. apply transparent, job-related and legally compliant selection criteria;
6. communicate honestly without promising certainty that cannot be delivered;
7. provide fair severance, transition assistance and psychological support;
8. protect continuity, safety, data and customer service; and
9. monitor outcomes for both departing and continuing employees.

Selection systems must be audited for indirect discrimination. Algorithmic tools used to rank roles or predict redundancy risk require explainability, data-quality review, human oversight and an avenue for challenge. Efficiency cannot justify discrimination or the removal of due process.

7. Integrating People, Processes and Technology

Technostructural interventions fail when they treat technology as an independent solution. A new enterprise system may reproduce poor processes at greater speed; an agile framework may increase stress if staffing and priorities remain unstable; automation may reduce routine work while increasing cognitive load and accountability for exceptions.

An integrated design should address:

• People: skills, motivation, workload, inclusion, participation, leadership and employee voice.
• Processes: customer value, sequence, controls, handoffs, decision rights and performance measures.
• Technology: usability, interoperability, cybersecurity, data quality, automation, accessibility and explainability.

7.1 A practical design sequence

Diagnose. Gather qualitative and quantitative evidence through interviews, observation, process data, employee surveys, customer feedback and document analysis.

Clarify the operating model. Define customers, value propositions, critical capabilities, governance and accountability.

Generate alternatives. Compare structural options and assess their effects on coordination, cost, expertise, speed, risk and employee experience.

Prototype and test. Pilot redesigned work, workflow or technology with representative users. Include edge cases and failure modes.

Implement in waves. Sequence changes so that capability, technology and role transitions are synchronized.

Stabilize and learn. Review outcomes, correct unintended effects and institutionalize learning through standards, communities of practice and feedback.

A balanced scorecard for an intervention may include customer outcomes, process performance, financial effects, learning and innovation, employee well-being, equity and compliance. Measuring only cost encourages destructive optimization.

Illustrative Case: Restructuring a Regional Health-Technology Provider

Background

This illustrative case concerns “MedAxis,” a fictional regional provider of health-information software. It had grown from 300 to 1,100 employees through acquisitions. Its formal structure was functional, with separate product, implementation, support, sales and engineering departments. Customers complained that implementation took too long and that support issues were transferred repeatedly between departments.

Problem

The organization had strong technical specialists but weak end-to-end accountability. A customer issue passed through an average of five handoffs. Product teams prioritized new features, while support teams were measured on ticket closure. The enterprise resource planning system contained duplicated customer records, and managers proposed a 12% workforce reduction to fund a new customer platform.

Analysis

An OD diagnostic found four interacting problems:

1. Functional targets encouraged local optimization.
2. Customer implementation required reciprocal coordination among sales, engineering, training and support.
3. Data ownership was unclear, creating rework.
4. Employees had limited authority to resolve routine customer issues.

Interviews also showed that proposed layoffs threatened specialist knowledge needed for regulatory compliance. A simple headcount reduction would therefore reduce visible cost while increasing operational risk.

Approach and solution

MedAxis adopted a hybrid design. Functional communities retained responsibility for professional standards and capability development, while customer-segment teams received end-to-end responsibility for implementation and service outcomes. Each team included a product lead, implementation specialist, support representative, data analyst and compliance adviser.

The organization redesigned its case process by:

• assigning one accountable case owner;
• integrating customer records;
• eliminating two unnecessary approval stages;
• creating standard solutions for common issues;
• reserving expert escalation for non-routine or high-risk cases; and
• using weekly retrospectives to identify recurring defects.

Instead of immediate layoffs, MedAxis redeployed 60 employees from duplicated administrative roles into data-quality, customer-success and automation work. It provided training in process analysis, product knowledge and responsible use of AI-assisted support tools. The AI tool suggested responses and classified cases, but employees retained responsibility for clinical, regulatory and customer-impacting decisions.

Performance measures were revised to include resolution quality, customer effort, implementation cycle time, employee learning and regulatory compliance. Individual ticket volume was retained as a diagnostic indicator rather than the primary reward measure.

Outcome

After two implementation cycles, the organization reported shorter implementation lead times, fewer transfers and improved employee understanding of customer outcomes. Some functional managers initially resisted the loss of direct control, and teams experienced priority conflicts during the transition. These issues were addressed through a decision-rights charter, portfolio prioritization meetings and clearer escalation rules. The case illustrates that structure, process, data and workforce practices must change together.

Learning points

1. Structural change should begin with the value-creation problem, not an attractive organization chart.
2. Cost reduction is not the same as capability improvement.
3. Cross-functional accountability requires compatible measures and decision rights.
4. Automation should augment judgment while preserving accountability and safeguards.
5. Participation improves design quality and supports implementation legitimacy.

Challenges, Limitations and Governance

Technostructural interventions involve trade-offs rather than universally positive outcomes. Greater autonomy may increase decision speed but also create inconsistency. Standardization may improve reliability but constrain professional judgment. Outsourcing may reduce fixed costs but increase dependency. Downsizing may improve short-term financial results while damaging trust and capability.

Ethical governance requires attention to dignity, fairness, privacy, safety, accessibility and employee voice. Organizations should conduct impact assessments before major redesign, identify affected stakeholders and provide channels for appeal. Data used in workforce analytics should be necessary, proportionate, secure and interpreted with awareness of bias. Employees should know what data are collected, how they are used and who can access them.

From a research perspective, evaluating interventions requires more than comparing before-and-after financial results. Researchers and practitioners should consider implementation fidelity, comparison groups where feasible, longitudinal effects, employee well-being, distributional consequences and alternative explanations. Mixed methods are valuable because process metrics may reveal improvement while interviews expose increased work intensity or hidden exclusion.

Contemporary Developments and Best Practices

Current organizations increasingly combine permanent functional expertise with temporary teams, digital platforms, ecosystems and distributed work. Artificial intelligence is changing task boundaries, but it does not eliminate the need for organizational design. It creates new requirements for data stewardship, model oversight, human review, reskilling and accountability for automated decisions.

Best practices include:

• design around customer and stakeholder outcomes rather than departments;
• make decision rights explicit;
• preserve expertise while creating mechanisms for integration;
• involve employees in diagnosing and testing redesigned work;
• align incentives with collective and long-term outcomes;
• pilot before scaling;
• use multiple measures, including quality, equity and well-being;
• treat technology, process and people as one design problem; and
• review the design continuously as strategy and context change.

Chapter Summary

Organizational design is the deliberate alignment of structure, processes, people, technology and governance with strategic purpose. Functional structures support specialization, divisional structures support market accountability, matrix structures combine dimensions of expertise and responsiveness, network structures extend organizational boundaries, agile structures support iterative learning, and platform structures coordinate ecosystems through shared infrastructure. Each involves benefits and coordination costs.

Work design theories show that motivation and performance depend on meaningfulness, autonomy, feedback, skill use and the joint optimization of social and technical systems. Process redesign and reengineering shift attention from departments to end-to-end value, while lean and quality management emphasize flow, prevention, evidence and continuous improvement. High-performance work systems operate as mutually reinforcing bundles of capability, motivation and opportunity.

Downsizing and restructuring must be evaluated beyond immediate cost savings. Responsible interventions protect fairness, knowledge, employee dignity, compliance and future capability. The central managerial task is integrated alignment: redesigned roles require appropriate processes, decision rights, skills, information and technology. Effective OD practice is participative, evidence-based, ethically governed and continuously evaluated.

Key Terms

Organizational design: The arrangement of structure, roles, processes, authority and systems used to create value.

Technostructural intervention: An OD intervention focused on organization structure, work design, processes or technology.

Functional structure: A structure grouping employees by specialized function.

Divisional structure: A structure grouping activities by product, market, customer or geography.

Matrix structure: A structure combining two or more bases of authority or departmentalization.

Network structure: An arrangement coordinating a central organization with external partners and providers.

Agile structure: A team-based arrangement emphasizing iteration, feedback and adaptive prioritization.

Platform structure: An arrangement providing shared infrastructure through which multiple participants create value.

Differentiation: The division of work into specialized units or roles.

Integration: Mechanisms that coordinate differentiated units.

Work design: The arrangement of tasks, responsibilities, relationships and technologies.

Job enrichment: Increasing a job’s autonomy, responsibility and meaningfulness.

Sociotechnical systems: A perspective that jointly optimizes social and technical elements of work.

Business process reengineering: Fundamental redesign of end-to-end processes to achieve major improvement.

Lean management: An approach emphasizing customer value, flow, waste reduction and continuous improvement.

Total quality management: Organization-wide management of quality through prevention, participation and continuous improvement.

High-performance work system: A mutually reinforcing bundle of people-management practices supporting capability and performance.

Downsizing: Deliberate reduction in workforce size.

Restructuring: Redesign of organizational units, relationships, processes or governance.

Decision rights: Explicit allocation of authority to make, approve or challenge decisions.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is meant by structural differentiation and integration?
2. State two strengths and two limitations of a functional structure.
3. What are the five core job characteristics in the Job Characteristics Model?
4. How does process efficiency differ from employee productivity?
5. Why can downsizing damage organizational capability?

Long Answer Questions

1. Compare functional, divisional and matrix structures. Under what circumstances would each be appropriate?
2. Explain how sociotechnical systems theory can guide the introduction of workplace automation.
3. Discuss the principles of business process reengineering and contrast them with continuous improvement.
4. Explain how high-performance work systems create value through capabilities, motivation and opportunity.
5. Develop an ethically responsible approach to organizational restructuring.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A growing software company has strong functional expertise but repeated delays in delivering customer projects. Diagnose the structural problem and recommend a design, including decision rights and performance measures.
2. A bank’s loan process takes 4,000 minutes from submission to decision, of which 50 minutes are value-added. Calculate process efficiency and propose three interventions that could reduce waiting without weakening risk controls.
3. An organization plans to replace 15% of its workforce with AI-enabled systems. Design a technostructural change plan that addresses work redesign, reskilling, governance, employee voice, quality and fairness.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which structure primarily groups employees according to specialized expertise such as finance, marketing and operations?

A. Functional structure

B. Divisional structure

C. Network structure

D. Platform structure

Correct Answer: A. Functional structure

Question 2

The principal coordination challenge in a matrix structure is typically:

A. Absence of any specialization

B. Role conflict arising from dual authority

C. Complete dependence on external suppliers

D. Inability to create temporary teams

Correct Answer: B. Role conflict arising from dual authority

Question 3

Which Job Characteristics Model characteristic most directly provides knowledge of results?

A. Autonomy

B. Task significance

C. Feedback

D. Skill variety

Correct Answer: C. Feedback

Question 4

A process has 30 minutes of value-added time and 2,400 minutes of total elapsed time. Its process efficiency is:

A. 0.8%

B. 1.25%

C. 8%

D. 80%

Correct Answer: A. 0.8%

Question 5

What is a central principle of sociotechnical systems theory?

A. Technology should always replace human judgment

B. Social and technical systems should be jointly optimized

C. All work should be standardized into narrow tasks

D. Informal relationships should be eliminated

Correct Answer: B. Social and technical systems should be jointly optimized

Question 6

Which intervention focuses most directly on fundamental redesign of an end-to-end process?

A. Business process reengineering

B. Job rotation

C. Succession planning

D. Individual coaching

Correct Answer: A. Business process reengineering

Question 7

Why is a bundle of practices important in a high-performance work system?

A. Individual HR practices always have identical effects

B. Practices reinforce one another through capability, motivation and opportunity

C. Bundles eliminate the need for employee participation

D. Bundles focus exclusively on financial incentives

Correct Answer: B. Practices reinforce one another through capability, motivation and opportunity

Question 8

Which is a major risk of downsizing?

A. Automatic improvement in organizational memory

B. Loss of critical knowledge and survivor disengagement

C. Guaranteed increase in innovation

D. Elimination of all coordination costs

Correct Answer: B. Loss of critical knowledge and survivor disengagement

Question 9

A platform structure requires particular attention to:

A. Data governance, access and ecosystem quality

B. Removing all standards from the system

C. Eliminating external participants

D. Centralizing every operational decision

Correct Answer: A. Data governance, access and ecosystem quality

Question 10

Which approach best reflects responsible restructuring?

A. Announce layoffs before examining alternatives

B. Use opaque criteria to accelerate implementation

C. Assess alternatives, apply fair criteria and protect critical capabilities

D. Measure success only through immediate payroll savings

Correct Answer: C. Assess alternatives, apply fair criteria and protect critical capabilities