Why are spills of positions done?

That’s the inquiry.

Most explanations begin with the official narrative. New strategy. Restructure. Operating model redesign. Merger integration. Digital transformation. Capability uplift. All perfectly reasonable explanations. But are they the real reasons, or simply the most acceptable reasons?

Perhaps a spill is a politically cleaner way to reduce headcount. Rather than targeting individuals, everyone is required to compete for a newly constituted role. The process appears objective, even when the outcome may have been broadly anticipated.

Perhaps it is about capability. Organisations evolve. New skills are required. Different leaders are needed. The future may demand something different from the past. A spill becomes the mechanism through which that transition occurs.

Or perhaps it is about power. New executives often inherit teams they did not build. Existing alliances, loyalties and informal power structures can be difficult to dismantle. A spill effectively resets the board and allows a new leadership team to shape the organisation in its own image.

This may explain why management consultants so often appear during restructures. Not necessarily because they designed the outcome, but because they provide legitimacy. “Following an independent review” sounds more objective than “management has decided.” Consultants provide a process, a framework and, sometimes, political cover.

Then there is another possibility. Do spills reset employee entitlement?

Many long-serving employees develop a perfectly understandable sense of attachment to their role. They built the team. Hired the staff. Delivered the strategy. Solved the problems. Over time the role becomes more than a position on an organisational chart. It becomes part of their professional identity.

A spill challenges that assumption. It reminds everyone that organisations typically view roles as assets that serve a strategy. When the strategy changes, the role can change. The employee sees continuity. The organisation sees discontinuity.

And then there is the uncomfortable question nobody likes to ask. Is a spill simply a way of getting rid of dead wood?

Sometimes perhaps. But that explanation feels too simple. The same process can remove poor performers, high performers, expensive performers and political opponents alike. Clearly something larger is occurring.

Which brings us back to the original inquiry.

What organisational problem is a spill actually attempting to solve?

Strategy? Cost? Capability? Power? Politics? Control?

Or all of the above?

Perhaps restructures tell us less about jobs than they do about how organisations manage change.