|
|
|
An employee who has been in the crossfire of two different corporate cultures is
doubly valuable.
Oksana Goncharova, Vedomosti.ru, 09.10.2014
Working for a
company that has undergone a merger is a distinctive experience. However, one
should not rush to leave: a professional who has been in the crossfire of
different corporate cultures is worth much more than even two inexperienced
professionals.
The
critical adjustment phase following a corporate merger can take anywhere from
several months to a year, and it’s often the case that business process
integration occurs faster than employees can become accustomed to their new
co-workers, says Olga Suvorova, managing partner of Suvorova & Partners
Executive Search: “The joy associated with the fact that one’s company was not
on the receiving end of the acquisition subsides quickly. Shortly, it is
replaced by uncertainty that becomes irritation when new arrivals appear in the
office and business – bringing with them their own rules of conduct, business
methods, relationships, and even objects – from kitchenware to the paintings on
the walls.”
Particularly tense situations can arise when those merging are two successful
companies with well-defined corporate cultures, the expert notes: no matter the
efforts made by the market participants for the integration to go smoothly,
business and personnel losses are unavoidable. The intensive period of employee
departure gradually slows within the first year to year and a half, but by the
end of the third year following the merger, up to 70% of managers of the
acquired company may leave, observes Suvorova.
What’s good for an American
How
does one reconcile the excessive relaxation of Americans and the scrupulousness
and propriety of Germans – this question was set some time ago by the management
of two merging companies: the Eaton Corporation (Cleveland, USA), which by that
time had already been operating in Russia for 4 years, and the Moeller Group (Koln).
The former has spent more than a century developing solutions for effective
management of electric, hydraulic and mechanical power. The latter produces
electrical equipment and automation systems. Management was faced with the
challenge of melding together companies occupying two different market niches,
with differing corporate cultures and a vast number of employees.
“Moeller was a privately held company, while Eaton, which had just purchased
it, was publicly traded, – says Igor Anufriev, General Manager of Eaton in
Russia. – Experience demonstrates that public companies have a clear focus on
financial performance, while private firms prioritize long-term prospects. In
our case, the opposite happened: the German Moeller was determined to achieve
short-term financial results, while the American Eaton set its sights on
long-term goals.”
The respective management styles were also diametrically opposed, continues
Anufriev: “Moeller was run by one or two leaders, who were endowed with nearly
unlimited powers. In Eaton, on the other hand, a democratic and relaxed style of
management flourished.”
The Germans were meticulous about tracking expenses, while the Americans had a
more easygoing attitude towards expense planning. The Germans made their focus
on sales, whereas the Americans prioritized marketing and development of strong
relationships with clients and partners. In the German company, employee
departure and arrival times were tracked almost to the minute, while in the
American company, where performance was judged based on professional results,
such measures were viewed with distaste. Even approaches to recruitment
differed. In the American firm, for example, language knowledge requirements
were comprehensive: along with other employees, regular sales managers were
expected to be well versed not only in conversational but also in technical
English. Germans were not as strict in this regard. The Americans preferred to
hire people with potential and invest in them, while Germans were more likely to
look to those who were ready to fill a particular role immediately.
Streamline or destroy
The friction between two cultures may be so strong that employees might begin
departing the company without even attempting to become part of the new team,
experts warn. For example, when Procter & Gamble acquired Gillette, many
Gillette team members elected to leave before ever transferring to the P&G
office. “They were convinced that P&G, which successfully develops its own
employees, would not allow for the rapid career development of outsiders, –
recalls Suvorova (her company at that time conducted interviews with resigning
employees from both sides). – Gillette, for example, had its own
well-established network of distributors, and when the newly formed company
chose to transfer the entirely of the Gillette business to P&G distributors,
Gillette employees that were interviewed told me that this was a serious
mistake. In their opinion, the successful business that they had been building
over many years was being destroyed. The point of view of those at P&G was just
the opposite: they were convinced that this decision would streamline the
Gillette business, make it more effective.”
Finding a third path
Oftentimes, having learned about the acquisition of their company, management
decides that their team has been dealt a loss, notes Suvorova. A primary
question on everyone’s mind is which of the two General Managers will take over
leadership of the newly formed company. For some reason, many prepare themselves
for the victory of the party making the acquisition. “This is not always the
case, – Suvorova says. – As an example, we can refer to the deal between Cadbury
and Dirol. In that case, although Cadbury was the party making the acquisition,
the Dirol General Manager became General Manager for Russia and many management
roles were assumed by Dirol employees.”
At its Russia office, Eaton decided to try a different approach - to bring in
someone with a neutral position, i.e. a Russian. Having representatives of both
cultures under his management, he was able to act as an arbitrator. According to Anufriev, this kind of management approach allowed the company to reduce
personnel loss to a minimum: overall, no more than 10% of employees left the
company.
“All of upper management was able to find a place in the new organization, – he
says. – We made an effort to draw all the very best from the Americans and the
Germans. The former introduced durable relationships with partners and
high-quality marketing into the new corporate culture. The latter brought to the
table their drive and focus on business results. As for working hours, here the
Americans came out on top: there are no strict controls on employee’s time.”
Experience for all
Olga
Suvorova
Managing Partner, Suvorova & Partners Executive Search
“When
speaking with upper management and discussing the wisdom of leaving a company
after news of a merger, my advice is not to rush to any decisions. Mergers and
acquisitions are such a common occurrence in our time that sooner or later, most
professionals will face such an experience. It’s better to accept the situation
and undergo the integration process, in so doing demonstrating your maturity and
competitiveness. It’s advisable to spend 9-12 months in the newly formed
company, enriching your experience through immersion into a new business
environment, learning to use new tools and only after that making a decision
about staying or leaving.”
Unifying around values
“At one point we were advising on a
merger of two pharmacy chains, – says Yuri Pakhomov, a partner at the “Shag”
consulting center. The new owner too wanted to take the best attributes of both
companies and incorporate them into the operations of the newly formed chain. At
the individual pharmacy level this was simple: the standards and procedures
observed by employees of the two respective chains did not differ substantially,
so when transferring from location to location, employees were able to adapt
quickly in a new environment. Things went less smoothly with the central office.
Two accounting departments were to be consolidated into one, and a question
arose as to which Chief Accountant would take over the new department. And then
there were the two IT departments, two warehouses, etc.”
In this
situation, the consultant notes, it is less important to hold on to valuable
specialists than it is to receive from them a comprehensive understanding of the
principles and technologies that allow the respective departments to function.
This is necessary in the event that one employee remains in the leadership role
and the other decides to leave the company.
Another
objective was to assist the owner and new General Manager in making a choice as
to who would take charge of each subdivision. “In conducting an assessment of
managers, we took into account not only their level of professionalism, but also
their psychological compatibility with the new General Manager, the degree of
similarity in their approach to management and even similarities in their
attitudes and values.” – Pahomov shares.
This article can be found at the
following address:
www.vedomosti.ru/career/news/34467431/stat-vdvoe-dorozhe
|
|