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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)