From: Steven Sinofsky To: Jeffrey Epstein Subject: Fw: [New post] Reaching for harmony in org changes Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:41 +0000 Importance: Normal Sent from Surface RT Check out From: Learning by Shipping Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 12:11 PM To: Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on Learning by Shipping Reaching for harmony in org changes by Steven Sinofsky IHarmony Reorgs are a part of an organization of any size. As business changes, development teams resize, code evolves, or products pivot, the organization can and should change as well. Given the frequency and challenges of reorgs it is worth looking a bit at the complexity, rationale and some challenges of reorganization. While the first reaction to a reorg could range from a sigh of relief to groan or worse, the most important thing is to keep calm and make sure the work continues. Be sure to take our three question survey on reorgs after reading this post, here ( ) and to check out survey results below from the last survey about "Meeting effectively". A first-year MBA student t recently met took the occasion of a reorg as time to career pivot and attend business school, which motivated this post. Reorgs (this post is about structural and management changes, not changes in staffing levels) are sometimes a popular topic in blogs where they take on a certain level of drama or mystique (for example, some blogs talk about org changes as solutions to perceived design challenges). Lacking context, some tend to see reorgs as either the solution to or the cause of a change in strategy or execution. That itself can be the source of reorg angst. In practice, a reorg should be the outcome of a strategic decision not the decision itself—reorgs don't cause change or things to happen, but are (hopefully) a better way to execute on strategic changes that have been decided upon. EFTA00682746