One from Two: Facilitating an Organizational Merger

Abstract

Applied behavioral scientists spend most of their consulting time with single groups or organizations dealing with matters of communications, problem solving, organizational structure, interpersonal relations, and so forth. This paper focuses on the problems which develop when two organizations are joined to create one functioning unit. There is a small but growing body of literature' that is concerned with merging organizations. Although the major emphasis of what is written is on financial matters, Kitching (1967) focuses on matters of management and organization, albeit not in great detail. His data indicated that in 8i per cent of the merger "failures" reported, reporting relationships were unclear and there was a tendency to change them often. He also suggests the necessity of having competent "managers of change" and of setting up unambiguous reporting relationships in the newly formed organizational structure. The financial and economic components of mergers are part of a total mix of problems that includes such things as expectations about norm development, role changes, leadership style, decision-making processes, and goal orientation. It is with these factors that this paper is concerned. The format is that of a case study of a merger situation in which the writers were involved.

The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on People at Work: Existing Research and Issues

“…In addition, there are also many other associated methodological problems. Indeed, studies that have been undertaken have tended to arise as much by accident as by design (Mirvis, 1985;Blumberg & Weiner, 1971) or under simulated conditions (Berney, 1986), one of which is selecting the focus and level of analysis at which to direct research attention. A merger is both a phenomenological and significant life event for the organization and its employees (Sinetar, 1981;Mirvis, 1985), and a major long term process of change and integration (Jemison & Sitkin, 1986;Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988), amenable to analysis at the individual, group and organizational level.…”

The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on People at Work: Existing Research and Issues

“…Indeed, studies that have been undertaken have tended to arise as much by accident as by design (Mirvis, 1985;Blumberg & Weiner, 1971) or under simulated conditions (Berney, 1986), one of which is selecting the focus and level of analysis at which to direct research attention. A merger is both a phenomenological and significant life event for the organization and its employees (Sinetar, 1981;Mirvis, 1985), and a major long term process of change and integration (Jemison & Sitkin, 1986;Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988), amenable to analysis at the individual, group and organizational level.…”

“…Because the highly secretive nature of merger/acquisition negotiations generally prohibits the adoption of traditional pre/post comparative research methods, most studies have been of a descriptive qualitative nature, small in scale and narrow in focus (for example, Mangham, 1973;Mirvis, 1985); wider scale and quantitative studies are less common (Blumberg & Weiner, 1971;Wicker & Kauma, 1974;Graves, 1981;Buono, Bowditch & Lewis 111, 1985).…”

“…The total number of employees involved in the Blumberg & Weiner (1971) study, which addressed the characteristics of combining management systems, was limited to 24. The post merger study used the Likert Profile of Organizational Characteristics Scale (1967), as a diagnostic tool to form the basis for group discussion, and was useful in revealing the differing perceptions and hidden agendas of the two managerial groups.…”

The Likert Organizational Profile: Methodological analysis and test of System 4 theory in Brazil.

“…Factor scores aside, much can still be done with individual items and especially with a total LOP score. Using ideal and actual profiles in a feedback program for organizational development has been useful in both Brazil (Butterfield, 1970) and the United States (Blumberg & Wiener, 1971 14 An alternative explanation is the "manpower competence-performance feedback loop hypothesis" (Farris, 1969;Farris & Butterfield, 1971 …”