Restructuring an NFP: Consultation Is Part of the Work, Not a Final Step
NFPs restructure for many reasons. Funding changes. Programs end or expand. Service models shift. Technology changes how work is done. A merger creates duplication. A strategy requires different capability. Costs grow faster than income.
The organisational case for change may be sound.
The process can still fail.
One of the most common mistakes is treating consultation as the final communication step after leaders have settled the structure, selected the roles and prepared the announcement.
Consultation is not simply telling employees what will happen. It involves providing relevant information, inviting views and genuinely considering those views before the final position is implemented.
Modern Awards contain consultation clauses. These commonly require consultation about major workplace change that is likely to have a significant effect on employees, and about proposed changes to regular rosters or ordinary hours.
The applicable Award or enterprise agreement must be checked carefully. The process, timing and information requirements matter.
Beyond compliance, good consultation improves the quality of a restructure. Employees often understand workflow, client needs, hidden dependencies and operational risk better than the organisation chart reveals. Their input can identify problems before the new structure is locked in.
Consultation does not prevent an employer from deciding that change is necessary. It does mean the organisation should remain open to input about the impact, design and implementation of that change.
For example, a board may approve a savings target or a strategic shift. Management may then develop a proposed structure. Consultation can test role groupings, reporting lines, hours, location, workload, transition timing and measures to reduce adverse effects.
If every detail is already irreversible, employees will quickly recognise that the process is an announcement rather than consultation.
A credible process usually includes:
+a clear explanation of why change is being considered
+written information about the proposed changes and likely impacts
+enough time for affected employees and representatives to respond
+accessible ways to ask questions and provide views
+the option for employees to involve a representative where required
+careful consideration of feedback before final decisions
+a record of issues raised and the organisation’s response
+clear communication of the final decision and implementation plan
Consultation should be proportionate to the change. A small roster adjustment may require a focused process. A major restructure affecting roles and employment may require staged communication, individual meetings and specialist support.
Restructures often focus on boxes and reporting lines. The harder question is whether the new roles are workable.
NFP roles can become overly broad when organisations try to preserve every function with fewer positions. This can create unclear accountabilities, unrealistic workloads, classification problems and psychosocial risk.
Each proposed role should be tested against purpose, required outcomes, decision authority, workload, capabilities, Award classification and interactions with other roles. A structure is only effective if the work inside it can be performed safely and sustainably.
Where roles may no longer be required, organisations need to examine the genuine operational change, consultation obligations, redeployment possibilities, notice, redundancy pay and other entitlements. The applicable Award, agreement, contract and National Employment Standards must be considered.
A restructure should not be used as a substitute for performance management. Changing a title while substantially retaining the same job may also create risk.
This is an area where early HR or workplace relations advice is far safer than trying to repair the process after decisions have been communicated.
The board may approve the strategic, financial or risk parameters for significant change. It should avoid directing individual employment decisions unless governance arrangements require it.
The board should seek assurance that:
+the rationale and expected benefits are clear
+workforce, service and psychosocial risks have been assessed
+the applicable industrial instruments have been checked
+consultation and communication are properly planned
+financial provisions include transition and employment costs
+management has access to suitable expertise
+implementation and post change review are built into the plan
Good governance supports a fair process without turning the board into the operational project team.
A new organisation chart does not implement itself. Managers need support to hold conversations, clarify roles, rebuild team routines and monitor whether expected benefits are being achieved.
NFP Success works with organisations from review and design through consultation, communication and implementation. Our Organisation Reviews and Restructures service is supported by NFP specific HR, industrial relations and change experience.
If your organisation is considering structural change, involve the right people early. Consultation is part of the work, not the final step.
General information note
This article provides general information only and is not legal, taxation, financial or industrial relations advice. Organisations should check the current requirements that apply to their circumstances and obtain advice where needed.
.png)
