When I reflect on this internship two things stand out to me the most. The first is the interviews I conducted with various employees from different institutions. What they explained was on point with the challenges expressed in my research. I had completed my research before interviewing the employees, which made it easier to listen for themes within the interview. Listening for themes can be hard during an emotional story and I felt prepared to focus on the information I was attempting to obtain. The merging process for people is very emotional. A lot of that emotion is fueled by the unknown. I felt that the interviews made me believe what the research was suggesting and the most prevalent themes of these interviews were chosen for my literature review.
The other thing I learned from this experience is that I really want to be in an administrative management position with more responsibility than the one I am currently in. I was able to see my potential as a leader 'the facilitating kind that asks good questions' which was somewhat covered in self doubt before this internship. It's time to step out of the world of middle management + supervison and start obtaining a positions that can become building blocks that can lead to a career that will have me helping others that seek collaborative excellence. I have a long way to go still and I am keeping Mary Vidas in my network to help me achieve this goal. I am happy to say that this internship will be the first title on my resume towards a new direction.
End.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Paper Construction
Spent a long time at the library writing the draft for this paper. Made some edits in the frame work in the previous post.
4/21/2013
Conducted Last Interview - It is becoming easier to pick out common themes within the stories instead of just becoming wrapped up in them. Interviewees become very emotional when answering questions about merge and it is easy to get off track regarding the initial question. By interview 4 I am able to listen without bias to collect the data I am after.
4/22/2013
Revision and draft clean-up now that I am no longer going cross eyed staring at the paper.
4/23/2013
Cross eyed again after hours of formatting.
4/25
Supervisor review of literature review and recommendations. I am happy with the suggestions and the outcome of the paper, as is she. I know she likes quotes so I made sure to add one in the index regarding merge. "Mergers don't occur between organizations. They occur between people."
- Building Blocks for a Successful Merger (Landry & Hix, 2013)
4/21/2013
Conducted Last Interview - It is becoming easier to pick out common themes within the stories instead of just becoming wrapped up in them. Interviewees become very emotional when answering questions about merge and it is easy to get off track regarding the initial question. By interview 4 I am able to listen without bias to collect the data I am after.
4/22/2013
Revision and draft clean-up now that I am no longer going cross eyed staring at the paper.
4/23/2013
Cross eyed again after hours of formatting.
4/25
Supervisor review of literature review and recommendations. I am happy with the suggestions and the outcome of the paper, as is she. I know she likes quotes so I made sure to add one in the index regarding merge. "Mergers don't occur between organizations. They occur between people."
- Building Blocks for a Successful Merger (Landry & Hix, 2013)
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Narrowing focus & framing
After conducting interviews I am going to narrow my focus further.
Something along the lines of considerations when it comes communication the message of merging to your internal stakeholders. <-- this title is too broad, I will rename it after writing it.
This framework is a living document.
Considerations will include:
Merge Message Delivery
1. message Vehicle/Method/Mode
2. message clarity and belief of message
3.
*Time
1. message delivery before or after decision is made
2. time between implementation and initial message
3.
*Identity and something to do with reclaiming or maintaining team identity with that message
1. (institution identity) mission
2. (team identity) group mixing, sharing, relationship building
3. (personal identity) concerns, benefits,
Challenges mergers are faced with when delivering the message to merge to internal stake holders.
1. Mixed messages
2. Time
3. Loss of Identity
Something along the lines of considerations when it comes communication the message of merging to your internal stakeholders. <-- this title is too broad, I will rename it after writing it.
This framework is a living document.
Considerations will include:
Challenges mergers are faced with when delivering the message to merge to internal stake holders.
1. Mixed messages
2. Time
3. Loss of Identity
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Interview Questions
Interview Questions for employees that have experienced an organization in merge:
Interview 1 Answers
Interview 2 Answers
Interview 3 Answers
Interview 4 Answers
Vision
1. How did you receive information that your organization would merge? What reason(s) do you believe was the motive for your organization to merge after receiving information?
Did that initial message ever change?
(Delivery, Accuracy, Belief)
At the beginning of a work shift when our team was going over a routine overview of nightly duties. It was a super short heads up. My merge was within an organization that held the same name, but all departments competed for budget. My understanding is that they merged for unity so they were no longer competing within. The message stayed the same, but we didn't hear about it again for another year. It was a please stand by kind of deal. We wondered if someone higher up changed their mind.
They had a big meeting saying we were going to be partners with this bigger organization. Ours was struggling to compete. They did change the message when the bigger organization not only partnered with us but then ended up absorbing us completely.
Rumor was going around that we might. Then on the news. Consolidation for money we were going broke. No.
Email from the secretary of our parent company. To save money on state regulation. Yes it changed, months later it said merging didn't work and they are going to try something else...which also didn't work and trying another thing.
2. When you received information about merging was it your understanding that it was undergoing discussion, or were you informed after the decsicion was made?
(Anticipatory vs Reactionary)
After the decscion was made
The decscion was already made.
Rumor said we were merging with another company then media then through email
After the decision was made. each time. Projects were no longer clear if they were worthy. Who do we trust with what is really going on. People are in the dark about next steps.
3. From the time you first caught wind that a merge might happen how long was the duration before you saw signs of implementation?
(Time)
2 + years some more months after they said action would be taken, again beyond the stated time line
1 month
6 months
immediate - within the hour we had now responsibilities. blind sided.
4. Are there some communication considerations in regards to time and delivery that were not best executed - in what way would you have preferred?
The dead silence of a year after first mention of it sucked. Then all of a sudden everything was flipped - I knew something was up when they all of a sudden called us into a meeting and brought someone in we had never met to deliver the message. She didn't have answers to any of our questions and a lot of the plan she told us we would be participating in did not follow through the way stated. The people we always trusted (our supervisors) were also at the table were being very quiet. The whole meeting created a feeling of distrust.
no it worked out fine how they told us and when they started.
Be told from the inside before finding out through the news. From a CEO announcement.
Yes - they canceled our company picnic with 24 hours notice and laid off our 3 vice presidents which left us alone. They were gone when we were told and everybody is jumping ship because no one trusts what is going on. Had they given us more notice and not canceled our positive company event to put a negative news in its place. Came out of no where.
Voice
1. Was a committee, team, or representative established as a vehicle for your group's input?
If so - at what point in the process (before merge, during merge, after)?
If not - what issues or concerns would you have liked to express?
No. I would have liked to talk more about the process of training new employees in because that is what they expected us to do. I asked the question in the one meeting we had but was told they had not figured it out how it would go. They never did either. So we are left to trouble shoot some theory of a plan they put together and we have no input?
Sort of, a new boss would come to me wanting to add some new technology system to our unit and I would tell him no because it wouldn't work. He must have brought that back because it never went through.
Yes - after
We were encouraged if we had any concerns we could contact the new HR employee in Miami that we don't know if we need help...who contacts our HR assistant for help. After. Would have wanted input so we understand what is really going on and don't have to believe gossip. Setting clear expectations.
2. Did anyone or any groups in your organization resist the merge? What course of action did they take to resist?
Not that I know of. They wanted us to reapply for our jobs at a lower pay and train in newbies the same time we were working (us having to do twice the work) with no training program. A lot of us didn't reapply. They counted on us reapplying because who would show the new people what to do if we left?
Yes when they tried to change time off policy an employee strike happened.
Yes - strikes and negative commentary regarding not wanting to comply and gave excuses regarding competitor not being up to part with advances in the market
Resistance with poor attitude - motivation for job performance lower.
3. In what ways has this merge effected the public, volunteers, or your clients? Have they voiced their opinion or taken any action? Is there a vehicle for their input?
The public and clients is not aware, maybe only when they wonder why half our team doesn't know how to run the program. Volunteers are being used more but have less clarity about their role. They do evaluations at the end of the program, they can make comments but I don't think upper management sees those as a reflection of our group...if they even read them.
By merging we had the ability to give more to the community - if they do well as a organization the public benefits.
Our institution's reputation was tainted so the public had a positive outlook about the merge. But the message about the conditions for the merge changed and the public had a media outcry. There were also service complaints.
Clients got moved and relocated which they were not happy about. Some of our branches closed completely so they left to find a new company.
4. During the transition what employee involvement steps were taken to prepare your group to merge?
I would include past and future employees in a meeting to make the group whole. Have time when we are not on the floor to figure out what holes might happen and the cause and effect. Make a timeline for how we need to implement it. It would have also been nice for them to stop feeding us deadlines they couldn't manage. Example: we were told we would be rehired when we reapply and scheduled before the newbies. They basically forgot to post our internal job application and we were plugged into any opening they could find....because the newbies were already hired and scheduled! Yet we are the only ones with information on how to run that program? Hmm..
Meetings keeping everyone updated, invested in more training and schooling for us. It took about 6 months to a year for them to complete our merge, the organization name changing.
Training - and sessions about the difference in our cultures of each institution. They had representatives come in and teach from merger to help understand and cope.
Previous training for future roles and duties
Identity
1. How long were you with this organization?
9 years
38 years
30 years
3 years
2. What was your preconceived impression(s) about the partner your organization was joining?
Was it a partner you collaborated with in the past or a competitor?
We collaborated with them to serve the public but never worked together. I just knew those other groups like ours, only had a knowledge base of what program we executed specifically. Because none of our knowledge was written down we didn't understand how they expected us to all of a sudden know how to do their programs and them know how to do ours. Especially because ours was an over night program. How many of those other people would even want to stay the night? sounds like an assumption that all programmers provide education so must all be the same kind of skill set?
Competitor - I thought was neutral about the idea of merging with them.
That they were a big competitor, nothing beyond that.
They were a sister company - we felt they were disorganized and don't follow the rules.
3. Was any attempt made from your understanding to bridge the cultures (internal teams) of these joining organizations?
No. We are just suppose to show up to perform jobs we have never done before by getting one chance to shadow and after that on our own to trouble shoot.
They never worked where we did, but we were brought in to interact with their employees in meetings and they did relationship building workshops.
Sessions where merger reps would come in and prime us.
Branding - moving us all onto one floor, training for one company...but they canceled it 3 months in.
4. Were you physically mixed together with the joining group(s) in the location you work?
What interaction did you share with other groups you were joining with?
In either case, what must now be shared?
Were their any distinct difference your group maintained from the old identity that it did not share?
Not physically mixed. Language like acronyms were difficult for us to understand and adopt when we interacted.
Physically mixed. We randomly show up to join a new group we've never met to perform a shift duty and service we've never done. All available shift openings for programs (any type) we must share and compete for. Our group is broken, the way the shift sign up was set up doesn't allow us to work together because we are considered vets on that particular program so one leader only can be there. I imagine we would have maintained our teams good relationship regardless of newbies and absorbed them into that culture but now it new people all the time. Relationships can't happen because they may not sign up again for a year on this program and they spend more time not trying to sweat what is going on as it rushes by.
No - phone interaction at first..physical blending much later. Jobs, skills, process and procedures. Benefits.
No - we talk phone and email. Our vice presidents are not local either they travel back and forth. Roles and duties, customers, systems, product in general has to be merged as one. Internally identifying with the old company and so are the others.
5. Did your organization adopt the mission of the joining organization or was a new mission created?
The overhead mission stayed the same, but new philosophies were created to dispel competition.
Adopted their mission
They created a new one
New missions were created each of this process.
6. What concerns emerged when you heard your organization was merging?
For your position at work: I felt they would be getting rid of us because we were too expensive having been here so long when they can hire others in cheap. Just had this long time feeling that it was just a matter of time before they came up with the way to tell us we were no longer a good fit for them. Felt devalued after giving this many years of my life. Wondered why they didn't think that is value in itself.
You wonder if they are going to get rid of people or if supervisors are going to change, new management? Union contracts?
Job loss, overwhelmed with tasks and lack of time to complete project, losing teammates, company may vanish.
For your personal life:
I was sad. I always identified myself as a proud employee and representative of this organization. It was like breaking up in a relationship. So much time in my life invested in their mission and believing what it meant all being flipped made me feel lost. Money concerns also.
Employee benefits and job security
No income, job loss
7. Were there changes made that hindered your position? Helped?
They changed the whole employee work model. Had to compete for shifts, with no training for mixing groups. It did not help us on a group level, it helped the org on a scheduling level.
I got more training, so that helped. I don't think it really hindered my position because they listened to us before going forward with a decision.
A little of both.
Work load is crazy in terms of being able to focus. We are making more mistakes. I am doing two things for companies I know nothing about that I've never heard of in 24 hours notice.
8. Are you still with the organization? No, No No Yes
If not, was any part of the merge a result of you leaving? Yes. 7 years later the strike happened because we kept getting bigger after the merge but did not increase human resources. so an issue that revealed itself after a long period of time. Yes
What reason caused you stay or leave.
I left because of the merge and everything having to do with out it was executed. I can't trust the people in charge because even the little stuff they couldn't follow through on if they could even REMEMBER. Like our applications to reapply for instance? Questions they couldn't answer regarding a model they created? They obviously didn't put mindful thought into their proposed idea so what would make us think they would start after the fact? Red flag. Some of my group did reapply. One of them is no longer signing up for shifts and will be leaving and the other one is getting slammed because her whole team is new and she is the only one on the floor that knows what needs to happen. She tells me that she tries to ask supervisors to giver her extra time to train them or hold meetings but they never get back to her. I am not sure how long their new model will sustain itself.
I was sick of being on strike on this particular issue and close to retirement. Overall though a lot of us felt the merge was a benefit to everyone in other areas.
They were laying off people and a lot of us took an early out package
It's better to get a severance package when you are laid off vs quitting. My internal team works hard and I am devoted to stick it out for them. I had fear about being laid off before, but now I feel it is inevitable.
Interview 1 Answers
Interview 2 Answers
Interview 3 Answers
Interview 4 Answers
Vision
1. How did you receive information that your organization would merge? What reason(s) do you believe was the motive for your organization to merge after receiving information?
Did that initial message ever change?
(Delivery, Accuracy, Belief)
At the beginning of a work shift when our team was going over a routine overview of nightly duties. It was a super short heads up. My merge was within an organization that held the same name, but all departments competed for budget. My understanding is that they merged for unity so they were no longer competing within. The message stayed the same, but we didn't hear about it again for another year. It was a please stand by kind of deal. We wondered if someone higher up changed their mind.
They had a big meeting saying we were going to be partners with this bigger organization. Ours was struggling to compete. They did change the message when the bigger organization not only partnered with us but then ended up absorbing us completely.
Rumor was going around that we might. Then on the news. Consolidation for money we were going broke. No.
Email from the secretary of our parent company. To save money on state regulation. Yes it changed, months later it said merging didn't work and they are going to try something else...which also didn't work and trying another thing.
2. When you received information about merging was it your understanding that it was undergoing discussion, or were you informed after the decsicion was made?
(Anticipatory vs Reactionary)
After the decscion was made
The decscion was already made.
Rumor said we were merging with another company then media then through email
After the decision was made. each time. Projects were no longer clear if they were worthy. Who do we trust with what is really going on. People are in the dark about next steps.
3. From the time you first caught wind that a merge might happen how long was the duration before you saw signs of implementation?
(Time)
2 + years some more months after they said action would be taken, again beyond the stated time line
1 month
6 months
immediate - within the hour we had now responsibilities. blind sided.
4. Are there some communication considerations in regards to time and delivery that were not best executed - in what way would you have preferred?
The dead silence of a year after first mention of it sucked. Then all of a sudden everything was flipped - I knew something was up when they all of a sudden called us into a meeting and brought someone in we had never met to deliver the message. She didn't have answers to any of our questions and a lot of the plan she told us we would be participating in did not follow through the way stated. The people we always trusted (our supervisors) were also at the table were being very quiet. The whole meeting created a feeling of distrust.
no it worked out fine how they told us and when they started.
Be told from the inside before finding out through the news. From a CEO announcement.
Yes - they canceled our company picnic with 24 hours notice and laid off our 3 vice presidents which left us alone. They were gone when we were told and everybody is jumping ship because no one trusts what is going on. Had they given us more notice and not canceled our positive company event to put a negative news in its place. Came out of no where.
Voice
1. Was a committee, team, or representative established as a vehicle for your group's input?
If so - at what point in the process (before merge, during merge, after)?
If not - what issues or concerns would you have liked to express?
No. I would have liked to talk more about the process of training new employees in because that is what they expected us to do. I asked the question in the one meeting we had but was told they had not figured it out how it would go. They never did either. So we are left to trouble shoot some theory of a plan they put together and we have no input?
Sort of, a new boss would come to me wanting to add some new technology system to our unit and I would tell him no because it wouldn't work. He must have brought that back because it never went through.
Yes - after
We were encouraged if we had any concerns we could contact the new HR employee in Miami that we don't know if we need help...who contacts our HR assistant for help. After. Would have wanted input so we understand what is really going on and don't have to believe gossip. Setting clear expectations.
2. Did anyone or any groups in your organization resist the merge? What course of action did they take to resist?
Not that I know of. They wanted us to reapply for our jobs at a lower pay and train in newbies the same time we were working (us having to do twice the work) with no training program. A lot of us didn't reapply. They counted on us reapplying because who would show the new people what to do if we left?
Yes when they tried to change time off policy an employee strike happened.
Yes - strikes and negative commentary regarding not wanting to comply and gave excuses regarding competitor not being up to part with advances in the market
Resistance with poor attitude - motivation for job performance lower.
3. In what ways has this merge effected the public, volunteers, or your clients? Have they voiced their opinion or taken any action? Is there a vehicle for their input?
The public and clients is not aware, maybe only when they wonder why half our team doesn't know how to run the program. Volunteers are being used more but have less clarity about their role. They do evaluations at the end of the program, they can make comments but I don't think upper management sees those as a reflection of our group...if they even read them.
By merging we had the ability to give more to the community - if they do well as a organization the public benefits.
Our institution's reputation was tainted so the public had a positive outlook about the merge. But the message about the conditions for the merge changed and the public had a media outcry. There were also service complaints.
Clients got moved and relocated which they were not happy about. Some of our branches closed completely so they left to find a new company.
4. During the transition what employee involvement steps were taken to prepare your group to merge?
I would include past and future employees in a meeting to make the group whole. Have time when we are not on the floor to figure out what holes might happen and the cause and effect. Make a timeline for how we need to implement it. It would have also been nice for them to stop feeding us deadlines they couldn't manage. Example: we were told we would be rehired when we reapply and scheduled before the newbies. They basically forgot to post our internal job application and we were plugged into any opening they could find....because the newbies were already hired and scheduled! Yet we are the only ones with information on how to run that program? Hmm..
Meetings keeping everyone updated, invested in more training and schooling for us. It took about 6 months to a year for them to complete our merge, the organization name changing.
Training - and sessions about the difference in our cultures of each institution. They had representatives come in and teach from merger to help understand and cope.
Previous training for future roles and duties
Identity
1. How long were you with this organization?
9 years
38 years
30 years
3 years
2. What was your preconceived impression(s) about the partner your organization was joining?
Was it a partner you collaborated with in the past or a competitor?
We collaborated with them to serve the public but never worked together. I just knew those other groups like ours, only had a knowledge base of what program we executed specifically. Because none of our knowledge was written down we didn't understand how they expected us to all of a sudden know how to do their programs and them know how to do ours. Especially because ours was an over night program. How many of those other people would even want to stay the night? sounds like an assumption that all programmers provide education so must all be the same kind of skill set?
Competitor - I thought was neutral about the idea of merging with them.
That they were a big competitor, nothing beyond that.
They were a sister company - we felt they were disorganized and don't follow the rules.
3. Was any attempt made from your understanding to bridge the cultures (internal teams) of these joining organizations?
No. We are just suppose to show up to perform jobs we have never done before by getting one chance to shadow and after that on our own to trouble shoot.
They never worked where we did, but we were brought in to interact with their employees in meetings and they did relationship building workshops.
Sessions where merger reps would come in and prime us.
Branding - moving us all onto one floor, training for one company...but they canceled it 3 months in.
4. Were you physically mixed together with the joining group(s) in the location you work?
What interaction did you share with other groups you were joining with?
In either case, what must now be shared?
Were their any distinct difference your group maintained from the old identity that it did not share?
Not physically mixed. Language like acronyms were difficult for us to understand and adopt when we interacted.
Physically mixed. We randomly show up to join a new group we've never met to perform a shift duty and service we've never done. All available shift openings for programs (any type) we must share and compete for. Our group is broken, the way the shift sign up was set up doesn't allow us to work together because we are considered vets on that particular program so one leader only can be there. I imagine we would have maintained our teams good relationship regardless of newbies and absorbed them into that culture but now it new people all the time. Relationships can't happen because they may not sign up again for a year on this program and they spend more time not trying to sweat what is going on as it rushes by.
No - phone interaction at first..physical blending much later. Jobs, skills, process and procedures. Benefits.
No - we talk phone and email. Our vice presidents are not local either they travel back and forth. Roles and duties, customers, systems, product in general has to be merged as one. Internally identifying with the old company and so are the others.
5. Did your organization adopt the mission of the joining organization or was a new mission created?
The overhead mission stayed the same, but new philosophies were created to dispel competition.
Adopted their mission
They created a new one
New missions were created each of this process.
6. What concerns emerged when you heard your organization was merging?
For your position at work: I felt they would be getting rid of us because we were too expensive having been here so long when they can hire others in cheap. Just had this long time feeling that it was just a matter of time before they came up with the way to tell us we were no longer a good fit for them. Felt devalued after giving this many years of my life. Wondered why they didn't think that is value in itself.
You wonder if they are going to get rid of people or if supervisors are going to change, new management? Union contracts?
Job loss, overwhelmed with tasks and lack of time to complete project, losing teammates, company may vanish.
For your personal life:
I was sad. I always identified myself as a proud employee and representative of this organization. It was like breaking up in a relationship. So much time in my life invested in their mission and believing what it meant all being flipped made me feel lost. Money concerns also.
Employee benefits and job security
No income, job loss
7. Were there changes made that hindered your position? Helped?
They changed the whole employee work model. Had to compete for shifts, with no training for mixing groups. It did not help us on a group level, it helped the org on a scheduling level.
I got more training, so that helped. I don't think it really hindered my position because they listened to us before going forward with a decision.
A little of both.
Work load is crazy in terms of being able to focus. We are making more mistakes. I am doing two things for companies I know nothing about that I've never heard of in 24 hours notice.
8. Are you still with the organization? No, No No Yes
If not, was any part of the merge a result of you leaving? Yes. 7 years later the strike happened because we kept getting bigger after the merge but did not increase human resources. so an issue that revealed itself after a long period of time. Yes
What reason caused you stay or leave.
I left because of the merge and everything having to do with out it was executed. I can't trust the people in charge because even the little stuff they couldn't follow through on if they could even REMEMBER. Like our applications to reapply for instance? Questions they couldn't answer regarding a model they created? They obviously didn't put mindful thought into their proposed idea so what would make us think they would start after the fact? Red flag. Some of my group did reapply. One of them is no longer signing up for shifts and will be leaving and the other one is getting slammed because her whole team is new and she is the only one on the floor that knows what needs to happen. She tells me that she tries to ask supervisors to giver her extra time to train them or hold meetings but they never get back to her. I am not sure how long their new model will sustain itself.
I was sick of being on strike on this particular issue and close to retirement. Overall though a lot of us felt the merge was a benefit to everyone in other areas.
They were laying off people and a lot of us took an early out package
It's better to get a severance package when you are laid off vs quitting. My internal team works hard and I am devoted to stick it out for them. I had fear about being laid off before, but now I feel it is inevitable.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Vision - Voice - Identity
After reviewing my research material it is very evident that merging institutions fail to acknowledge the 'people' element within the process - which can become very costly or lead to failure of completion.
A few common themes arise regarding communication with internal stakeholders (or the people merging effects) and I am considering how I want to frame the paper to address how to navigate these common challenges.
Communication needs of team undergoing a merge:
Internal teams or internal stakeholders need a voice in the process. Information should not be filtered with a top down communication model. Internal teams need to feel PART of the process.
The new vision needs to be clear and communication delivery needs to be timely and appropriate to audience. A lot of upper management or boards create this as they go or forget establish exactly what they meant even after a merge is complete. Too much time for communication to be delivered allows misguided information to be created among internal teams and fosters mistrust due to looming unpredictability.
The team's identity needs to remain intact or transform so loss of identity is not realized. Role clarification is mandatory.
Vision - Voice - Identity
Possible titles for Literature Review: Validating Vision and Voice within a Merging Team
Ok ok - it needs some work. Titles last. Paper first.
I've also arranged an interview with an employee currently in merging transition and I will be developing questions around the content of my paper to ask her.
A few common themes arise regarding communication with internal stakeholders (or the people merging effects) and I am considering how I want to frame the paper to address how to navigate these common challenges.
Communication needs of team undergoing a merge:
Internal teams or internal stakeholders need a voice in the process. Information should not be filtered with a top down communication model. Internal teams need to feel PART of the process.
The new vision needs to be clear and communication delivery needs to be timely and appropriate to audience. A lot of upper management or boards create this as they go or forget establish exactly what they meant even after a merge is complete. Too much time for communication to be delivered allows misguided information to be created among internal teams and fosters mistrust due to looming unpredictability.
The team's identity needs to remain intact or transform so loss of identity is not realized. Role clarification is mandatory.
Vision - Voice - Identity
Possible titles for Literature Review: Validating Vision and Voice within a Merging Team
Ok ok - it needs some work. Titles last. Paper first.
I've also arranged an interview with an employee currently in merging transition and I will be developing questions around the content of my paper to ask her.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
The plane plan
My other class feels like another internship - spending most my time chasing a community partner. Combined with my recent illness, I now must spend my spring break catching up on my research so that I can start drafting my lit review. Because I will be traveling out of the country (with many hours spent on the plane) I have downloaded all the journals I intend to read to my iPad. What a perfect time to become immersed in journals. Away from distractions - stuck in a chair in the sky. I am confident my selected material is on the right track and have already identified that 'loss of identity' is a common theme in challenges facing internal groups in regards to merging. I am actually excited to read journals under travel circumstance. Seems like a win win and gives me a mission to get through extended plane hours...I never do well sitting still and grow restless when I don't have a project to trouble shoot. My an advisor and I will be meeting again shortly after I return. Perfect.
Spring semester is half over.
"No one not panic - I have a plan"
Spring semester is half over.
"No one not panic - I have a plan"
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Collecting Data (Stage 1)
This is note keeping that I can refer back to that relates to my research.
Keyword Search:
Merging Organizations
Communication Merging Organizations
Merging Organizations Communication Challenges
Non-profit Merging
Reasons to merge nonprofit
Group challenges organizational merge
Lessons learned organization merge
Results that relate
*Next steps* continue to read documents in depth to explore common themes centered around challenges, reasons to merge so that it can be communicated effectively, and successful practice in regards to the internal communication during the transition of merging.
*Next steps* continue to read documents in depth to explore common themes centered around challenges, reasons to merge so that it can be communicated effectively, and successful practice in regards to the internal communication during the transition of merging.
Identity Struggles in Merging Organizations: Renegotiating the Sameness–Difference Dialectic.
How do people collectively reconstitute their group identities for themselves and others, and in particular, how do they renegotiate understandings of sameness and difference called into question by merging?
identity struggles of 4 groups of employeessources for self-understanding and affiliation. The authors show how identity regulation and identity work manifest themselves in three domains of language, practices and space, and how identity regulation and identity work mutually interact. Thus, the negotiation of identity in merging is a dialectic process in which managerial identity regulation aimed at enhancing convergence across groups may be undermined both by groups’ attempts to reestablish differences and by a countervailing managerial need to accommodate (and thus sustain) differences in order to enable groups to locate themselves in the emerging entity.
Bridging Two Worlds:: Using Knowledge Management Theory to Understand the Merging of Two Non-Profit Organizations.
Results reflect that one of the original organisations began as a non-profit medical provider with formal culture and communication patterns; the other a grass-roots social service agency with informal structure and communication patterns. Lessons learned included the need for good documentation of all work processes, an external facilitator, and the need for transparency and collaboration between all constituents. [
Ideological positioning in organizational change: The dialectic of control in a merging organization
Presents a case study of a merging utility company which examines organizational members' discursive responses to the contradictions evolving in the condition of merger. Structuration theory; Positioning of members as function of the dialectic of control; Reproduction of organizational structures that enhance or inhibit autonomy, identification, empowerment and change.
REA Group drives employee collaboration for business success.
The article presents a case study of how REA Group Ltd. has supported and encouraged innovation and collaboration among its employees toward profitable growth and business success. It says that an internal communication strategy was created to support the delivery of the company communication strategy aimed at merging the wiki and intranet. It says that the social intranet become an essential tool for the delivery of innovation and collaboration-based business model and strategy.
Managing up, over, and across.
The challenges of managing up in a merging organization that is structured as a matrix and provides services to others in a network organization are described. Managing up in the merging organization, which may be characterized by instability, jockeying for position, conflicts of organizational cultures,
inconsistent or conflicting policies, and a lack of vision, calls for the development of relationships, support for the merger, a focus on pharmaceutical care, and consideration of all factions. Managers are advised to be aware of shifts of power and to focus on issues rather than people when forced to take a "side." Identifying bosses, keeping multiple bosses satisfied, and avoiding upper-level politics are challenges posed by managing over in the matrix organization. Recommended strategies include communicating with and understanding each boss, developing relationships, and keeping the goals and visions of the organization in mind. Managers in a matrix organization should remember to whom they ultimately report and should be honest with their primary boss about conflicts. Managing across may be complicated by differences in the objectives of network institutions, the customer-based relationship among these institutions, and the need for a vision that clearly recognizes mutual responsibilities. Establishing a relationship that benefits both institutions, tailoring services to institutions, specifying the services to be provided in a contract, developing relationships, and checking regularly on the quality of services are among the strategies for managing across. Services should not merely be transplanted from one institution to another, and relationships that are not mutually beneficial should be re-evaluated. Specific challenges, strategies, and cautions are associated with managing up in amerging organization, over in a matrix organization, and across in a networkorganization, but success in any of these situations requires vision, a strong team, influence, a strong network of relationships, effective communication, the ability to focus on goals, and a history of delivering on promises.
Building Blocks for a Successful Merger
The article offers suggestions on successful merging plans for non-profit organizations. It states that the organizations should create a team in which volunteers will deal with the problems associated with the merger and then they should communicate the advantages and disadvantages of the merging plan. It further states that team members should work together in order to develop a plan that includes an outline of the combined governance structure of two merging organizations.
Merging Nonprofit Organizations: Analysis of a Case Study
This article presents a case study of merging among nonprofit organizations that provide social and community services. The study sheds light on the dynamics and problems of merging nonprofit organizations, whose espoused ideology focuses on promoting the well-being of their clients. The author describes and analyzes a merger in metropolitan Jerusalem, Israel, and highlights the potential problems that may ultimately undermine its success. This merger is the outcome of an ongoing power and political struggle. The analysis focuses on the organizational ideologies and culture as well as the strategies and structure of the merging organizations. In addition, the author deals with the underlying motives for merging, the driving and restraining forces, and the implications of merging nonprofit community services organizations with other social and human services organizations.
The Urge to Merge: A Multiple-Case Study
The authors undertook a comparative study of three recent mergers of nonprofit organizations in a Midwestern urban center, within the context of political-economy theory. The research explored the impact of the same environmental factor, managed care, on the initial decisions by organizational leaders and the effects of these early decisions on subsequent actions taken to implement the merger. The study tested the authors' model of the motivations for merging, which proposes that the relationship between the decision-making style of the leadership and the internal and external resources of the prospective partners determines whether the merger is driven primarily by mission, practicality, stability, or fear. Although the findings provide initial support for the hypotheses derived from the model, a demonstration of the differences in the approach to the merger by each organization indicated that other factors emerged as important driving forces during the various phases of the process.
Organizational Changes Among CDCs: Assessing the Impacts and Navigating the Challenges.
This article focuses on how CDC failures, downsizings, and mergers affect individuals and communities served; how the work of CDCs can be supported by their local community; and how CDCs and their support community can anticipate and prepare for the possibility that some organizations in their area may need to dramatically change their operations. The final section explores how, if change is inevitable or desirable, CDCs can best navigate and steer the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Combine & conquer. Lessons learned from a Minnesota merger.
Despite the fact that the doctors at Park Nicollet Clinic brought in most of the patients at Methodist Health System's hospital, their alliance was tentative. So when the medical group decided to build a facility in order to compete with Methodist, anything could have happened. Health care organizations poised to merge can learn from their tale.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformation: Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies: GAO-03-293SP.
are a number of key practices that have consistently been found at the center of successful mergers, acquisitions, and transformations and can serve as a basis for subsequent consideration as federal agencies seek to transform their cultures in response to governance challenges. These practices to (1) ensure top leadership drives the transformation, (2) establish a coherent mission and integrated strategic goals to guide the transformation, (3) focus on a key set of principles and priorities at the outset of the transformation, (4) set implementation goals and a timeline to build momentum and show progress from day one, (5) dedicate an implementation team to manage the transformation process, (6) use the performance management system to define responsibility and assure accountability for change, (7) establish a communication strategy to create shared expectations and report related progress, (8) involve employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the transformation, and (9) build a world-class organization.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations: GAO-03-669.
The key to a successful merger and transformation is to recognize the "people" element and implement strategies to help individuals maximize their full potential in the new organization, while simultaneously managing the risk of reduced productivity and effectiveness that often occurs as a result of the changes. Building on the lessons learned from the experiences of large private and public sector organizations, these key practices and implementation steps can help agencies transform their cultures so that they can be more results oriented, customer focused, and collaborative in nature.
The merger that wasn't: lessons for senior administrators
A turbulent health care environment has prompted some hospitals to consider integrating services and in some cases merge entirely. Fundamental lessons may be learned by studying how an attempted merger between Women's College Hospital and The Toronto Hospital in Toronto failed--despite board and senior executive support. Clarity of purpose, involvement of essential external and internal stakeholders, rational analysis, ideological fit and political expediency are a few key elements to consider. Once initiated, changes of this magnitude may take on a life of their own with often unpredictable results.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
February 1, Research Focus
My supervisor's mother passed away in January so we rescheduled our first meeting for Feb 1, 2013. We had a 3 hour discussion at the University Club off of Grand Avenue to brainstorm an area of focus for my literature review. I've decided to research internal communication in relation to an organization merge. I would specifically like to analyze the government and non profit sector. I want to identify communication challenges that surface during this transition. By identifying challenges I can recommend navigation techniques for internal communication to better prepare and organization that may face merging in the future.
I may investigate the history of how the Three Rivers Park District evolved if time allows. They are similar to the department I work for and have benefited from consolidation and collaboration. I've always been boggled by their success. I also wonder what challenges they face and are faced with today.
Depending on what I find in my research my focus may redirect so that it can be narrowed.
Notes to reference during research:
Reasons to merge (should we? communication considerations before doing so?)
Merging non profit differs from corporate and private - how? Who needs to know and by when? How do different groups effected by this change prefer to be notified? <-- interview individuals that are facing/faced merge.
Reading between the lines - CEOS - Jocking
What are the challenges of communicating a merge? Lessons learned by other organizations that went through it?
*Know the challenges to navigate them
How does the message of merge transition *Communication channels
and what does that look like on a timeline?
Explore models in the Twin Cities (Three Rivers Park District/MN council of non profits)
-------------
At the next meeting I will report in with my supervisor regarding my research progress. I can use email to report in to her and we are also going to tele communicate. I will contact her to schedule our next meeting after I've had my 'ah-ha' moment. Currently still researching and reviewing journals for common themes.
I may investigate the history of how the Three Rivers Park District evolved if time allows. They are similar to the department I work for and have benefited from consolidation and collaboration. I've always been boggled by their success. I also wonder what challenges they face and are faced with today.
Depending on what I find in my research my focus may redirect so that it can be narrowed.
Notes to reference during research:
Reasons to merge (should we? communication considerations before doing so?)
Merging non profit differs from corporate and private - how? Who needs to know and by when? How do different groups effected by this change prefer to be notified? <-- interview individuals that are facing/faced merge.
Reading between the lines - CEOS - Jocking
What are the challenges of communicating a merge? Lessons learned by other organizations that went through it?
*Know the challenges to navigate them
How does the message of merge transition *Communication channels
and what does that look like on a timeline?
Explore models in the Twin Cities (Three Rivers Park District/MN council of non profits)
-------------
At the next meeting I will report in with my supervisor regarding my research progress. I can use email to report in to her and we are also going to tele communicate. I will contact her to schedule our next meeting after I've had my 'ah-ha' moment. Currently still researching and reviewing journals for common themes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)