I see more and more that leadership understands the importance of change management, cultural fit and people. But… when resources are low, or money is short or time is running out it seems that change management is the first place they look to cut.
its expected that the synergy created from the merger amplifies the production and productivity. keeping that in mind, the change management helps in the process by acting as a cushion between two companies. it also prevents the collision effect.
My experience is that it is often misunderstood, even for the executive leaders who say they “get it”. Perhaps there is not a clear and concrete link between change management and the key success areas of the merger? For me, I know, the better I get at articulating the clear business impacts and results, the more it seems to be adopted and stuck with.
I think there are 2 prospective to look at. One is called bilateral approach and the other one is unilateral approach. Bilateral approach emphasizes on understanding each other and communicate to ensure all parties reaching certain consensus. On the other hand, unilateral approach will go according to what the acquiring company wanted to be and target company staff have to follow and adopt to the new ways/culture of doing things gradually. Whoever failed to adopt, they have to go as they are not fitting into overall direction of the acquiring company. Change management can be applied in both approaches. Under bilateral approach, more resources might have to be applied in bilateral communication to achieve certain consensus. under the unilateral approach, more works on giving clear guide lines, reviewing and damage control if there is any.