Why Mergers Tend to Fail

Corporate mergers tend to fail because of conflicting corporate cultures

Many corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&As) fail to realize their wished-for synergies, and eventually fall short of producing value to the stakeholders. Some years ago, a KPMG survey estimated that 83 percent of all mergers fail to create value and half may actually destroy value.

M&As invariably produce disappointing results because of a variety of reasons. One of the principal reasons has to do with the failure of management to integrate successfully the operating cultures of the individual companies. During M&A deals, the due diligence processes tend to focus more on the corporate matters (market synergies, product or service offerings, financial projections, legal and regulatory matters, etc.) and overlook the organizational and cultural challenges.

Integrating Conflicting Corporate Cultures

Undoubtedly, the biggest barrier of post-merger integration is the conflicting corporate cultures of the individual companies. Management consultant Rick Maurer likens corporate mergers to the marriage of two single parents each with their own children — “just because mom and dad are so in love, they fail to see that the kids don’t get along.”

During a merger, two organizations with unique cultures cease to exist and a new organization is supposed to establish. The erstwhile individual organizations simply will not let go of the past and move on. In time, when the “stronger” partner tries to thrust its culture on the new combined organization, employees of the “weaker” partner resist change. This impairs cooperation among employees, as was case with AT&T’s unsuccessful acquisition of NCR in the early ’90s.

Forcing Employees to Mesh

Ill-fated Daimler-Chrysler merger suffered from cultural differences If cultural differences are far apart, the merged companies often fail to compromise and stick to a middle ground. The ill-fated Daimler-Chrysler merger suffered immensely from differences in the engineering and corporate cultures of the supposedly equal partners, Daimler-Benz and Chrysler Corporation, as well from differences in the national cultures of Germany and the United States. Within years of the merger, the dominance of the Daimler culture did not go well with employees in the United States. In December 2001, DaimlerChrysler CEO Jürgen Schrempp exclaimed, “What happened to the dynamic, can-do cowboy culture I bought”

Conflicting corporate cultures between US Airways and America West Combining two individual cultures and intricate administrative processes is very difficult to execute and manage successfully. Forcing employees to mesh behind the scenes is often ineffective because differences in organizational cultures are indiscernible to the top management. Take, for example, the merger of the Phoenix-based America West and Washington, D.C area-based US Airways in 2005. Many years into the merger, US Airways’s managers spoke of the “east side” (referring to the former US Airways) and the “west side” (referring to America West.) The unions continued to squabble over pilot seniority. Even though the company obtained a single operating certificate, two distinct cultures functioned internally resulting in poor employee morale, unhappy customers, and unpredictable financial performance.

Retaining Key Talent

Sagging morale and employee disorientation about job insecurity, company structure, seniority, decision-making processes, and promotion and growth opportunities often constitute another barrier to successful post-merger integration. Employees of the “weaker” partner or the acquired company tend to distrust the management of the “stronger” partner or the acquiring company. Fears of layoffs and new power equations in the merged entities often result in the exodus of key talent from the acquired company.

Forcing employees to mesh » why mergers fail

Engaging the Rank-and-file

Human due diligence is every bit as important as financial due diligence. Ultimately, every deal will succeed or fail based on the collective efforts of the individuals who make it up.”
* David Harding

The success or failure of a merger results not from what happens at the top management level, but from what happens at the rank-and-file level. The importance of engaging the rank-and-file employees in the merger process and retaining key talent during the initial transition period cannot be overstated.

Recommended Resources

***See other articles related to Mergers, acquisitions, consolidation, corporate strategy, leadership, organizational management, talent management, diversity, cross-cultural management

Crises call for constant, candid communication

As the current crises at Toyota and BP highlight, how you respond to a problem or crisis is the ultimate test of your leadership character. Knowing how to step up your communications efforts to the right levels during disorder can be a powerful tool in managing a crisis. Here are seven key lessons for communicating during crises.

  • Crises call for constant, candid communication Be visible. Communicate and lead from the front. In a crisis, your key constituencies (your board, management, team, government, or the public) insist on hearing from the leader. Stay engaged and maintain consistency of purpose and action. Keep all the lines of communication open.
  • Communicate in real-time and explain your position. If you do not communicate frequently with your key constituents, somebody else will. In the absence of information, people will develop their own perceptions of the problem and its implications. Keeping your constituencies well informed diffuses many suspicions and uncertainties.
  • Be transparent and forthright right from the beginning. Face the realities of the problem and its potential consequences. Acknowledge what you know about the problem or crisis and go into detail about what steps you are taking in response. Proactive communication is reassuring and prevents perceptions of negligence and evasion from becoming realities.
  • Research thoroughly the challenges you face and your options for remedial actions. Be prepared to describe everything that matters at each moment. Carefully administer your communication plan with due consideration to possible litigations and penalties.
  • Be objective and calm. Avoid engaging in finger pointing and playing pass-the-parcel. Avoid criticizing and discrediting the victims or critics. Continuously verbalize empathy and responsibility, and announce plans for early resolutions and restitution.
  • Remember that your attitude sets the tone for the rest of your organization. If you take a defensive position, play victim or engage in finger pointing, the rest of your organization will react the same way. Through your communications, set a positive tone to build confidence within your organization and promote constructive responses.
  • As soon as the crisis dissolves, research and communicate opportunities to make fundamental changes to improve your organization. Reiterate your core values and missions. Revamp internal practices as necessary and follow through on all initiatives to rebuild your credibility. Consider organizational changes and new processes for managing future crises.

Recommended Reading

***See other articles related to Crisis management, leadership communications, problem solving, corporate communication, public relations

Measuring Leadership Performance in Context

Mahatma Gandhi at the Charaka or Spinning Wheel

In this article from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, US presidential historian Richard Norton Smith offers ten guidelines to evaluate presidents. These guidelines apply to assessing leadership performance as well.

History’s take on presidential performance is subject to change. Presidents can only be understood within the context, conventions and limitations of their time. Each generation needs to revisit its assumptions in light of new evidence, the performance of succeeding presidents and the perspective that comes with time.

Frequently, leadership assessments disregard the fact that leadership is contextual. The common belief that Mahatma Gandhi was opposed to modernity and technology ignores Gandhi’s proposal for rural development through means such as homespun cloth, cottage industry and self-sufficiency in the just-independent India. Six decades hence, this idea now seems obviously bizarre.

Furthermore, ideas, competencies, and actions that are relevant in one context can be inhibiting in others. Comparisons of General Electric’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt to his predecessor, the legendary Jack Welch, in terms of shareholder return ignore the fact that Jack Welch’s tenure intersected with the prosperous Regan- and Clinton-presidencies and Jeffrey Immelt has faced two of the worst slowdowns in modern history.

Some of the key intellectual traits demanded of a leader — risk-taking, vision and execution, organizational development, etc. — may not see fruition until long after the leader’s tenure. Hence, a broad, sincere assessment of a leader’s performance can happen only years after his tenure.

Recommended Reading

***See other articles related to leadership assessment, performance evaluation, CEO performance, executive compensation, corporate governance