It’s tough out there. Economic uncertainty, supply chain disruption and rising costs have made cost cutting essential for survival in many organisations, leading to hard decisions: hiring freezes, reduced budgets and for many a return to restructuring.
And while a reorg is often the right (or only) move, what we’re noticing, and what the evidence increasingly suggests, is that how these changes are done matters more than we often acknowledge. Too often, reorgs become the go-to lever in moments of scarcity; they offer a sense of temporary control or momentum, yet the actual long-term impact on performance and savings is far less clear.
A recent McKinsey study found that only 23% of reorgs deliver any meaningful performance improvement.
And when structural changes are made without time to meaningfully engage people, they can come at a high cost to morale, trust, and strategic focus.
Every restructure, no matter how necessary, sends ripples of anxiety through an organisation. Even with good intentions, the lived experience for many is one of confusion, disconnection and fatigue.
And all of this plays out against a broader backdrop. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer found that 62% of employees globally feel their job security is under threat, whether from automation, recession, or lack of training. A restructure, layered on top of this, only deepens the sense of precarity.
In the name of efficiency, we can unintentionally undermine the very thing we need most right now: coherence, the clarity, connection, and coordination that helps us to move together despite not knowing what’s coming.
Often restructuring is the most responsible thing to do, but when it becomes a recurring pattern, without time or space for people to absorb and adapt to what’s changing, it can cause more disruption than progress.
So alongside the question “What structure is going to reduce our cost base by x%” , we believe we should also be asking:
That’s where resilience lives; in the culture and relationships that help people to work through change together without defaulting to fragmentation or fear.
Alongside structural change, we’ve seen meaningful impact when leaders focus on strengthening the organisation’s capacity to stay connected and think well under pressure.
Treat culture as infrastructure. Relationships, trust, and shared understanding are what carry your strategy, especially under stress. If culture is weak, no structural change will hold.
______
Under threat, our thinking narrows. Our brains search for fast answers and clear solutions. But resilience often requires something different: what this recent HBR article describes as “spacious thinking”. The capacity to consider multiple perspectives, explore ambiguity, and stay open to unexpected possibilities.
Creating the conditions for that kind of thinking, in ourselves and our teams, is part of what helps organisations move through uncertainty without losing themselves.
_______
Yes, restructuring is sometimes necessary. But when it becomes the reflex, the only move on the table, we risk compounding the very challenges we’re trying to solve.
When we meet uncertainty with more uncertainty, without grounding or coherence, cultures begin to fray. Burnout rises. Cynicism creeps in. And the energy that fuels innovation and collaboration begins to drain.
Resilience comes from depth of connection, from shared sensemaking, and from facing complexity together, without pretending there’s a quick fix.
Restructuring may be required. But on its own, it’s rarely enough.
In this climate, leadership is about creating the conditions where people can face into uncertainty, together.
If you want support in how to do that well, let’s talk.