LONDON -- I have had another epiphany. They don't happen often and are usually much less interesting than James Joyce's... or Archimedes. But here we go.
It is a lot harder for companies to merge when they are too much alike than it is when they are very different.
As you know there are -- at last count -- four different kinds of merger:
- Partial integration
- Full absorption
- Best of both, and
- New company
We would tell you that the last is not only always best, but it is inevitable. I didn't do too well in physics at school, but I do know that you can't put two different things together and have either of them stay the same.
But regardless of how you go about merging you will have a view of how well the two organisations fit together. If you think it's going to be a mighty stretch. Let's say (using unfair social stereotypes) like getting Danes and Italians to play Charades together. It will not be easy. There will be places where decisions will have to be made and people will have to learn.
But when you are putting two groups of people together who think they are alike, say two high street banks, or two companies from similar organisational cultural backgrounds, the challenge can be even greater. Because people don't expect to have to change. "She's like me, so she won't mind if I..." When, in fact, in every merger changes have to happen.
Imagine that you show up to the church, assuming you're getting married. Your partner has been lovely and you're sure this is a good decision. And your partner's there with a pen and paper for you: "Can you take the minutes? We might need to remember this stuff later?"
In northern, anglocentric businesses this tends to be even worse, because we like to avoid talking to people about stuff. So we just sit there taking minutes saying, bitterly "this is my %4£? wedding! I am not meant to be doing this stuff..."
Mazal Tov.
/df