Mergers and Acquisitions: Finding Synergy and Avoiding the Reefs Before the merger takes place, the leaders of both organizations - at least, of the dominant one - should have a strategy mapped out, including communications to employees and customers, where layoffs will take place (if any do), and how the cultures should be merged. Power relationships
In many ways, it makes sense to consider mergers in the same light as acquisitions. It has become a truism that there is no such thing as a merger — one side will come out dominant in each function, even in the friendliest of “mergers.” There can, in the end, only be one CEO, one head of each function, one head of each department. Therefore, we will generally consider mergers and acquisitions to be interchangeable. Power issues should be confronted directly to avoid drawn-out conflicts and confusion for employees. Conflicts must be controlled but addressed, to avoid protracted turf wars, lasting bitterness, and employee withdrawal and retention. (Withdrawal can be psychological as well as physical - employees can simply not go that extra mile, and do the absolute minimum required of them. They can also sabotage change efforts and new initiatives. This can last for many years, long after outsiders have forgotten about the merger.) Personal issues
In most takeovers, both companies’ staff lose some productivity (and people) as employees divert their attention to their own place in the future, merged company. Will they still have a job? Will they have advancement prospects? What will be their role? Will the company gain or lose? This is the time when the best employees may jump ship, because they will find it easiest to get jobs elsewhere — which strengthens the competition even as it weakens the integrated company. Mergers can be a profoundly demoralizing time, especially if communications from the leaders are sparse or misleading. Many agree that the best way to handle this is to constantly communicate to everyone in the company, using a variety of methods - face to face included - so that people understand the reasons for the acquisition, the combined companies’ strategy, and how the two companies will combine. If layoffs need to be made, they should be announced quickly and directly, again with the reasons and rationale clearly expressed. As people devote more time to exchanging rumors, trying to find out their status, and dwelling on the change, productivity tends to drop. In the absence of credible, continued information, the grapevine will spread inaccurate rumors with amazing ease. For that reason, the transition should be as short as possible. If there are layoffs, the role and situation of the survivors should be addressed. There is a separate line of research on this, which we will not delve into. As the integration of the companies proceeds, many may feel that their past ways of working and their contributions are not valued. In addition to celebrating success, the company must show in word and in deed that it value the best of the old ways, the tradition and heritage of the company being taken over. If the new organization shows total disregard for the heritage of groups being taken over, people will take longer to get over the shock of transition, and may sabotage change or simply “vote with their feet.” Cultural issues
Culture - the shared values, beliefs, and preferred ways to behave - is hard to control, and in most mergers, it seems that nobody tries very hard to do it. The end result is that the culture usually is not as productive as it should be in the combined organization, moulded primarily by the leaders actions and politically adept or powerful people in each organization. The goal in a merger is for the best of two companies to be preserved, resulting in synergy and continued profit. This applies to culture as well as to operational processes and technologies. The cultures of each company should be carefully examined, and care taken to guide the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document