Managing and supporting employees through cultural change in mergers
By Becky Kaetzler, Kameron Kordestani, Emily O’Loughlin, and Mieke Van Oostende – Mergers create vast organizational anxiety about the future: in most cases, the operating model and culture will change dramatically for one or both merging companies. These changes go far beyond a new name and senior leadership; they challenge the core of an organization’s identity, purpose, and day-to-day work. Even small tactical changes, like new expense policies or cafeteria options, can rattle employees. Anticipating and addressing these “organizational emotions” can set the foundation for seamless, effective integration. Failing to anticipate and address them can lead to poor business performance, a loss of critical talent, and the leakage of synergies.
Merging companies must shift the day-to-day behavior and mind-sets of their employees to protect a deal’s sources of value, both financial and organizational, and to make changes sustainable.
One basic problem is management’s tendency to focus mostly on changes that would directly help to capture a deal’s value targets while largely ignoring those required to maintain and enhance the company’s health. Organizational design, for example, is always top of mind in the early stages of merger planning, but companies often sidestep cultural differences until difficult issues come to light. At that point, the base business will already have suffered, top talent may already have looked for external opportunities, and the capture of synergies may have become more difficult.
A holistic, effective integration program should proactively address the full scope of changes your employees will experience in an integration. Managing through this kind of effort involves two broad tasks: embedding cultural changes and managing operational ones. more>
Posted in Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, How to, Net
Tagged Business improvement, Change management, culture, McKinsey, Mergers and acquisitions, Skills
By Stewart M. Patrick – As vacation photos from exotic locales pile up in Facebook and Instagram feeds this summer, it’s easy to take far-flung tourism for granted. Well-heeled friends riding elephants in Thailand or camels in Giza might as well be at the Jersey shore or beside a lake in the Adirondacks. Mass international tourism, like the free flow of goods, services, money and data, has become a hallmark of globalization.
This is neither accidental nor trivial. The ability of those with with means and passports to travel the world is a function of international cooperation. It is also a force for global understanding, a potential antidote to the resurgent nationalism that now infects this era. Achieving such cosmopolitan ideals, however, requires a tourism focused on people-to-relpeople contacts and mutual benefits, rather than perpetuating self-contained bubbles of privilege.
At the dawn of the 20th century, foreign leisure travel required no passports. But it was the province of aristocrats and plutocrats of the sort that populated Henry James novels. The advent of jet travel, followed by package tours and declining airline fares, hastened mass tourism. According to the World Bank, between 1995 and 2017 the number of international tourist arrivals rose more than 250 percent, from slightly above 500 million to more than 1.3 billion, while tourist expenditures more than tripled, from $463 billion to $1.45 trillion. The United Nations estimates that tourism now accounts for 10 percent of global GDP and 7 percent of exports, and supports one out of every 10 jobs. Tourists still flock to Paris and Acapulco, but new, once unimaginable destinations from Antarctica to Zanzibar have also emerged.
Back in 1795, the philosopher Immanuel Kant famously outlined three preconditions for “perpetual peace.” The first two are more well-known: the emergence of self-governing constitutional republics and open international commerce. Kant’s third precondition is more often overlooked. It is the principle of “universal hospitality”: the right of all “citizens of the earth” to visit and be welcomed in all lands, regardless of their country of origin.
Kant believed that humans should act according to moral imperatives regardless of the precise effects of those actions. But his concept of hospitality still carried a utilitarian logic, since if universally practiced it would contribute to a cosmopolitan peace. more>
Posted in Business, EARTH WATCH, Economy, Education, History, How to, Media, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, culture, Globalization, nationalism, Tourism, xenophobia
The Tyranny of Metrics, Author: Jerry Z Muller.
By Jerry Z Muller – More and more companies, government agencies, educational institutions and philanthropic organisations are today in the grip of a new phenomenon. I’ve termed it ‘metric fixation’.
The key components of metric fixation are the belief that it is possible – and desirable – to replace professional judgment (acquired through personal experience and talent) with numerical indicators of comparative performance based upon standardized data (metrics); and that the best way to motivate people within these organizations is by attaching rewards and penalties to their measured performance.
The rewards can be monetary, in the form of pay for performance, say, or reputational, in the form of college rankings, hospital ratings, surgical report cards and so on. But the most dramatic negative effect of metric fixation is its propensity to incentivize gaming: that is, encouraging professionals to maximize the metrics in ways that are at odds with the larger purpose of the organization. more>
Posted in Book review, Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, Leadership
Tagged Business improvement, culture, Jobs, Leadership, Organization, Performance management
By Mark Penn – The United States of America is creeping toward creating a more imperfect union, one dominated by the power of the online mob that is threatening to disassemble more than 200 years of learning.
It was in “Federalist 10” that James Madison, the father of the Constitution, discussed the human tendency to divide into factions, which he defined as groups of people “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens” and to the community. He warned how the zeal for certain government policies, for passionate leaders and for different religions could lead us to a society inflamed “with mutual animosities.”
Welcome to America 2018. Madison’s solution then was to tame the forces of the moment through a republic as opposed to a pure democracy.
This is done by electing the people’s representatives from across the country who would be more sensible and objective. They would face periodic elections, but were to be freed from the easily inflamed mobs that would be quick to trample the rights of others.
But in the modern age, as I document in “Microtrends Squared,” people are increasingly divided into factions, and whether it is through their news channels or their Twitter feeds, the ability to whip up crowds quickly and with slanted information has never been easier, or more dangerous. Forget about the Russians dividing us, we have to worry about us Americans doing the job of tearing the nation apart. more>
Posted in Book review, Business, CONGRESS WATCH, Economy, Education, History, Leadership, Media, Net
Tagged Congress Watch, culture, Democracy, factionalism, Federalist Society, Government, Leadership