Ensuring the post-carve-out management structure is capable of making decisions
Following a carve-out, roles, committees and responsibilities often need to be reorganised whilst business must continue as usual. Where key positions are vacant or supervisory and operational management functions overlap, a structure is required that enables swift action whilst also supporting the next phase of development. We support owners, supervisory boards and management teams in clarifying the initial situation, developing viable organisational options and preparing a decision that can be implemented.
When is an organisational design process appropriate?
A structured process is particularly useful when:
- oversight, management and operational responsibility are not clearly separated
- key roles are vacant or individual managers are chronically overburdened
- reporting and decision-making processes no longer meet management needs
- a growth, integration or M&A agenda is held up by unresolved responsibilities
- an upcoming HR decision will help shape the future structure
If any of these issues requires an immediate decision by the supervisory board or the owners, the process should consider governance and appointment issues together. Where detailed employment law or regulatory issues arise, the relevant specialist advisers should be consulted.
What basis for decision-making is established?
The end result is not an abstract target structure, but a template ready for decision-making. Depending on the remit, it includes:
- an analysis of gaps in leadership, governance and reporting
- two to three distinct organisational options - clear definitions of roles and responsibilities for the supervisory board, executive management and operational units
- a recruitment strategy and, where appropriate, refined job profiles
- the key prerequisites, risks and implementation decisions for each option - a prioritised roadmap for implementation
The decision on appointments remains with the relevant governing bodies. Our task is to present the options in a transparent and comparable manner.
How do we deal with sensitive staffing issues?
Organisational design following a carve-out often affects personal roles, status and local identities. That is why we establish at an early stage who will be involved, what information will remain confidential, and who will decide on the structure and staffing. The perspectives of those affected are incorporated into the assessment without undermining the decision-making authority of the relevant body. This ensures that tensions and implementation risks become apparent at an early stage and can be factored into the options, rather than only emerging after a decision has been made.
What sets the undconsorten approach apart?
Following a carve-out, an organisational structure must not only work on paper, but also be implemented effectively in what is often a sensitive situation. undconsorten combines governance and structural issues with the perspectives of the managers concerned. Working collaboratively, we develop comparable options, highlight conflicting objectives and translate the decision into clear roles and next steps.
When does a structural leadership gap typically arise following a carve-out?
A structural leadership gap often arises when a single person holds several leadership roles simultaneously – for example, acting as a supervisory representative and operational manager in several national subsidiaries at the same time – and is consequently structurally overburdened. This is often accompanied by unfilled key positions, delayed or inadequate reporting, and a lack of strategic initiatives at the operational level. The result is an organisation that functions operationally but cannot be strategically managed.
A typical trigger for an organisational design project is the growing pressure to align with an overarching group strategy, whilst at the same time an unresolved local leadership issue blocks strategic plans – such as planned M&A growth.
The process is divided into three phases, which typically take three to four months:
1. Diagnostic phase:
Structured interviews with the supervisory board and operational management (typically 8–12 sessions of 45 minutes each) on organisational structure, decision-making processes and understanding of roles, supplemented by a review of existing organisation charts, management reports and minutes of board meetings.
2. Design workshop:
A full-day, participatory workshop with the Steering Committee to jointly develop organisational options at several levels – supervisory, executive and operational units.
3. Proposal for a decision:
Development of two to three specific target scenarios, including staffing proposals, governance implications and an implementation plan, for a final decision by the relevant body. A participatory workshop enables stakeholders to help shape options and resolve conflicting objectives at an early stage. This ensures that relevant perspectives and outstanding issues can be taken into account before a decision is made.
Experience has shown that a participatory rather than a presentation-based approach to workshops – in which stakeholders help to develop options rather than having them simply presented to them – significantly increases acceptance, particularly when it comes to difficult staffing issues.
Why is it crucial to involve those affected at an early stage when dealing with politically sensitive organisational design issues?
Organisational decisions with direct consequences for staff – such as the choice between filling a new leadership role internally or externally – naturally trigger fears of job loss amongst those affected. If these individuals are involved at an early stage through interviews and workshops, rather than merely being informed, areas of resistance can be identified and actively addressed, rather than ignored. This generally also improves the quality of the outcome, for example through a more precisely defined job profile for new roles.
Regional or local identity issues (e.g. concerns about centralisation resulting from a higher-level corporate structure) should be explicitly identified and incorporated into the development of options, rather than being dismissed in discussions.
Illustrative scenario: Management structure following a spin-off
Initial situation:
A spun-off company must reorganise roles, governance and reporting whilst business operations continue as normal. Individual responsibilities are temporarily consolidated, key roles remain to be filled, and the owners require a sound basis for decision-making for the next phase of development.
Procedure:
Leadership, governance and reporting issues are clarified through interviews and document analysis. Subsequently, several organisational options are developed, setting out their roles, responsibilities, staffing principles and transition requirements. The relevant committee compares the options and decides on the next steps.
Impact:
Projects of this kind typically show that early and broad stakeholder involvement brings resistance to light much sooner than traditional top-down-down processes – in comparable projects, critical HR issues (such as threats of resignation in the event of an unfavourable outcome) arise as early as the design phase, rather than only after the decision has been made. Organisations that refine their requirement profiles for new leadership roles as part of the process report more precise and market-realistic role definitions. At the same time, comparable cases show that the availability of highly specialised external candidate profiles can be limited in regulated sectors – an aspect that should be accompanied by a market availability check from the outset.
What can be deduced from this pattern?
Early involvement can ensure that relevant perspectives, outstanding questions and potential implementation risks are incorporated into the development of options at an early stage. It guarantees neither a conflict-free decision nor its subsequent acceptance. Clear decision-making criteria, transparent responsibilities and a transparent assessment of the options remain essential.
The next step: clarifying the need for decision-making and the scope of the brief
In an initial consultation, we clarify which decisions need to be made, who needs to make them, and what information is missing to develop a robust organisational option. From this, we can determine whether a focused diagnosis will suffice initially or whether a full organisational design process is required.
Request an initial consultation
