Why Organizational Transformation Takes More Than New Processes and Technology

TL;DR

• Many organizations are currently undergoing major transformations driven by AI, cost pressures, restructuring, and new organizational models.

• Transformation changes more than processes and responsibilities. It also disrupts informal networks, knowledge flows, and established relationships.

• During periods of change, trust, social orientation, and internal connections become even more important.

• At the same time, learning and development needs increase while budgets are often under pressure.

• Mentoring, peer learning, learning circles, and communities of practice can help make existing knowledge within the organization visible and easier to share.

• Successful transformation depends on more than new structures and technology. Employees need to learn, find their footing in a new environment, and build strong relationships.

Organizations in Transition: Transformation is no Longer the Exception

Volkswagen is facing the largest restructuring in its 89-year history. Bayer has eliminated two-thirds of its management positions. Uber is reducing management layers and consolidating teams.

And those are just three examples that have made headlines over the past few weeks.

Restructuring is also coming up frequently in my conversations with customers. When I look at what is driving these changes, several developments are happening at the same time.

AI and new technologies are changing how we work, as well as the roles and skills organizations need. At the same time, cost pressures, restructuring, and acquisitions are forcing companies to rethink teams and responsibilities.

Transformation has become remarkably widespread across industries.

The three companies I mentioned above could hardly be more different. Yet behind all of these changes lies the same fundamental question:

How do large organizations need to be structured today to become faster, more efficient, and more adaptable?

In an economic environment where some companies are fighting for survival, restructuring can quickly seem like the only way forward. But there is another question that interests me much more:

What happens during all of this transformation to the people who are expected to work together within these new structures afterward?

That is what I want to explore in this edition of Workplace in Focus. Enjoy the read!

What Changes on the Org Chart Still Has to be Relearned by People

One thing organizations often underestimate during restructuring is that transformation doesn’t just change processes. It can also disrupt informal structures that have developed over time.

Internal networks that may have taken years, sometimes even decades, to build are suddenly broken apart.

Responsibilities and points of contact change. Job titles are renamed. Informal knowledge flows slow down. Teams that used to work efficiently together are split up.

And suddenly someone asks: Where does Peter sit now?

That may sound like a minor or even slightly amusing question. But it can have very real consequences.

If Peter, to stay with the example, is moved out of his previous role, his colleagues may no longer know who has taken over as their point of contact. Who should they ask when a problem comes up? Is Peter still responsible for this topic at all? And perhaps more importantly: Can they trust their new manager?

Restructuring often comes with frustration and uncertainty. When employees have no one to give them a sense of stability, or simply someone to talk to about what is happening, that negative sentiment can easily grow.

Meta is a well-known recent example. Meta attempted to rapidly redesign its organization, team structures, and the way employees work with AI. Reuters reported internal resistance, declining trust, and implementation challenges.

What does that example tell us? New organizational structures can be decided relatively quickly on paper. Trust, new relationships, and functioning knowledge networks cannot be created through an org chart. Yet this informal side of an organization is still often underestimated in change initiatives.

During Transformation, Connection and Culture Become a Source of Stability

The previous section shows why culture and internal networking are not nice-to-haves during transformation. In my view, they are essential.

The less formal orientation structures can provide, the more important social orientation becomes. During stable periods, established routines compensate for a lot. During transformation, many of those routines suddenly stop working.

Trust becomes particularly important because uncertainty increases.

During these periods, employees need opportunities to get to know their new colleagues and points of contact rather than simply being told who they are. Teams need space to develop a new shared identity.

Yet when times are difficult, companies often cut exactly the things that appear “soft.” I think that is particularly shortsighted during a transformation. Informal networking can make a significant difference in these situations.

Change does not become real simply because structures, processes, or responsibilities have been redesigned. It becomes real when employees understand what those changes actually mean for their day-to-day work.

Personal relationships help make that possible. They provide orientation, make knowledge more accessible, and enable employees to quickly reach colleagues who have faced similar challenges or are already one step ahead.

That is how an abstract transformation gradually becomes part of everyday work.

New Organizational Structures Require New Skills

When companies remove layers of hierarchy, reorganize teams, or move decision-making closer to employees, the expectations placed on people within those structures also change.

Employees may need to take on more responsibility, find knowledge more independently, and collaborate more frequently across team boundaries.

Leaders, meanwhile, may find themselves moving away from the traditional role of decision-maker and increasingly becoming coaches and enablers.

Bayer is an interesting current example. As part of its new organizational model, the company has significantly reduced management layers and moved more decision-making into teams. At the same time, its understanding of leadership is changing: away from control and toward coaching and empowerment.

For me, this illustrates something important: Organizational transformation is always a learning challenge as well. Individual employees also need to develop new skills.

Whenever restructuring involves new technologies, responsibilities, or ways of working, learning and development become essential.

The important question is therefore not only: Which skills will our organization need in the future? It is also: How can those skills be developed and shared across the organization as quickly as possible?

Because often, the expertise and knowledge employees need already exist somewhere inside the company. The real question is how to get that knowledge to the people who need it.

How Organizations Can Support Learning During Transformation When Budgets Are Tight

This is where many organizations face a difficult contradiction. Transformation increases the need for learning and development. At the same time, budgets are often under greater pressure.

New technologies, changing roles, and new ways of working create questions for which there may not even be an external training program yet. And even when there is one, not every new skill can be developed through seminars or courses.

What is often overlooked is that a significant amount of the knowledge employees need already exists within the organization. Some employees have already gone through similar processes. Others are already using new tools or have built up experience that could immediately help their colleagues.

The challenge, then, is often less about continually bringing new knowledge in from outside and more about making the knowledge that already exists visible and accessible.

This is where formats such as mentoring, peer learning, or learning circles can become particularly valuable.

Not as a replacement for traditional learning and development, but as a complement that brings learning closer to everyday work and makes better use of expertise that already exists within the organization.

Here is a quick overview of what these formats can look like:

Mentoring
More experienced employees share knowledge, experience, and guidance.

Peer Learning / Learning Circles
Employees facing similar challenges learn together and from one another.

Reverse Mentoring
Younger or more digitally experienced employees can, for example, share their knowledge of AI with colleagues.

Communities of Practice
Expertise remains accessible over time and can continue to grow through exchange.

Why Connection Is a Foundation for Successful Transformation

When I developed the Connection Framework for the last edition, some of you may remember that I primarily looked at it through the lens of employee engagement.

The more I think about it, the more I see the same relationship at play during transformation. This time, let’s look at the framework from the top down.

The ultimate goal of transformation is long-term business success. To achieve that, employees need to share knowledge and continue learning. Employee engagement is another important factor in enabling both of those things.

But what creates the foundation for all of this Trust. And trust can only develop through human relationships. If I do not know someone, it is difficult to trust them.

Because restructuring often disrupts established relationships, rebuilding those connections should be a priority during transformation.

As the Connection Framework illustrates, relationships form the foundation for many of the factors organizations ultimately depend on to succeed. And long-term business success is, after all, the goal of every transformation.

Sources

• Reuters: Main points of Volkswagen’s restructuring plan
  https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/main-points-volkswagens-restructuring-plan-2026-09-03

• Bayer: Dynamic Shared Ownership
  https://www.bayer.com/en/strategy/dynamic-shared-ownership

• Reuters: Uber to cut jobs and reduce management layers
  https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/uber-cut-3300-jobs-overhaul-bloomberg-news-reports-2026-09-02

• Reuters: Meta’s AI-driven organizational transformation
  https://www.reuters.com/investigations/mark-zuckerberg-had-bold-plan-replace-meta-staff-with-ai-heres-how-it-imploded-2026-08-26/