Question

Case Study:
In the past, the decision criteria for mergers and acquisitions were typically based on considerations such as the strategic fit of the merged organizations, financial criteria, and operational criteria. Mergers and acquisitions were often conducted without much regard for the human resource issues that would be faced when the organizations were joined. As a result, several undesirable effects on the organizations’ human resources commonly occurred. Nonetheless, competitive conditions favor mergers and acquisitions and they remain a frequent occurrence. Examples of mergers among some of the largest companies include the following: Honeywell and Allied Signal, British Petroleum and Amoco, Exxon and Mobil, Lockheed and Martin, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, SBC and Pacific Telesis, America Online and Time Warner, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe, Union Pacific and Southern Pacific, Daimler-Benz and Chrysler, Ford and Volvo, and Bank of America and Nations Bank.
Layoffs often accompany mergers or acquisitions, particularly if the two organizations are from the same industry. In addition to layoffs related to redundancies, top managers of acquiring firms may terminate some competent employees because they do not fit in with the new culture of the merged organization or because their loyalty to the new management may be suspect. The desire for a good fit with the cultural objectives of the new organization and loyalty are understandable. However, the depletion of the stock of human resources deserves serious consideration, just as with physical resources. Unfortunately, the way that mergers and acquisitions have been carried out has often conveyed a lack of concern for human resources.
A sense of this disregard is revealed in the following observation:
Post combination integration strategies vary in tactics, some resemble to “marriage & love’ but in reality, collaborative mergers are much more hostile in implementing forceful decision and financial takeovers. Yet, as a cursory scan of virtually any newspaper or popular business magazine readily reveals, the simple fact is that the latter are much more common than the former.
The cumulative effects of these developments often cause employee morale and loyalty to decline, and feelings of betrayal may develop. Nonetheless, such adverse consequences are not inevitable. A few companies, such as Cisco Systems, which has made over 50 acquisitions (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/corporate-strategy-office/acquisitions/acquisitions-list-years.html), are very adept in handling the human resource issues associated with these actions. An example of one of Cisco’s practices is illustrative. At Cisco Systems, no one from an acquired firm is laid off without the personal approval of Cisco’s CEO as well as the CEO of the firm that was acquired.

QUESTIONS:
1. If human resources are a major source of competitive advantage and the key determinant of an organization’s ability to pursue a given strategy, why have the human resource aspects of mergers and acquisitions been ignored or handled poorly in so many instances in the past?

Answer 1

The human resource aspect of mergers and acquisitions have been ignored or handled poorly in the past because of the following reasons:-

1. The mergers and acquisitions were always done with the motive of acquiring the top place in the industry. Therefore, only the financial and operational aspects were considered before M&A (mergers & Acquisitions). It was never done to acquire the talent that the employees of the target company possessed.

2. For many years, it was impossible to quantify easily the results of any such report, even though it has been shown that a high percentage of these processes fail because of the inability of the management team to bring together two opposing cultures once the process has been completed.

3. It is very difficult during a M&A to satisfy each and every employee. They will always think that they have not been provided with the best alternative other than those who land with better jobs. Hence, sometimes it is the employees who think that they have been treated poorly, even though the management did its best.