The Benefits of Tracking Impact
and Sources of Resistance to Measuring Progress
by Mitchell Lee Marks, PhD
San Francisco State University
JoiningForces.org
Joining forces effectively benefits not just from skilled management but also from informed management. Successful navigation through a complex organizational transition requires a constant flow of operational and behavioral information about how the business is performing and how people are acting and feeling. This information helps managers monitor the impact of the combination and the effectiveness of the process. It also directs attention and resources to the issues that matter most in eventual success.
Of course, leaders frequently think they know what is going well and what isn’t working. But when they consult mainly with peers and direct reports, what executives hear is often censored and self-serving. This can give them a distorted picture of progress and false assurances that problems will pass so long as they stay the present course. Even in firms that have a good communications climate, a combination upsets regular methods of intelligence gathering and two-way information exchange. People put on poker faces and keep their cards close to the vest. Trust has yet to develop and people do not know the consequences of speaking up. Is the “messenger” shot? Will a critical comment come back to haunt you? Will a new boss or peers feel betrayed by an employee’s candid reports about problems in a work team?
In this issue of M&A Monthly, I review the benefits of tracking a merger or acquisition’s impact on people, processes and the overall organization. And, I candidly discuss common sources of resistance to measuring and assessing a combination’s progress and process. Next month, I will provide specific methods for tracking M&A and what to look for at various phases of a deal.
Benefits of Combination Tracking
Executives from several organizations I’ve worked with have reaped assorted benefits from tracking the progress of a combination:
- Determine if the integration is proceeding according to plan or veering off course
- Identify hot spots before they flare out of control
- Ensure a good flow of upward communication
- Highlight needs for midcourse corrections
- Involve more people in the combination process
- Demonstrate interest in the human side of change
- Send a message about the post-combination culture
Resistance to Tracking the Combination
Despite the many benefits of tracking a combination’s impact and progress, there always will be some resistance. Early on, managers fret that nothing positive has happened yet and predict that employees will only cite the downside if asked their views. Then, as combination planning begins in earnest, managers object on the grounds that the time taken to collect, analyze, feed back, and work with data detracts from attending to business opportunities. Next, as planning gives way to implementation, some argue that it is “too late” to assess employees’ views since the combination is almost “over,” while others assert it is still “too soon” because their organization and people have not yet settled into a normal routine. These arguments have some validity—there is no “ideal time” to measure employees’ views during a merger or acquisition. However, none of them is an excuse for putting off tracking.
Managers’ resistance typically is motivated by their fear of being assessed. It is important, then, to set a developmental tone for tracking and to engage managers and their teams in shaping the data gathering and using the results. Messages from the top clarify that data is being collected to understand and focus on key issues, not as a performance appraisal for managers. Moreover, many managers wrongly assume that employees expect changes be made reflecting their input and use this as an excuse to thwart tracking. The only obligation when conducting employee research is to convey that the findings were heard and considered. A straight-forward explanation of why an issue cannot be addressed or a change cannot be made at this time is one way to act responsibly on the data.
In the next issue of M&A Monthly, I will show how to track a combination’s progress and impact using a variety of common data collection methods.
__________________________
About the Author: Mitchell Lee Marks is Professor of Leadership at the College of Business at San Francisco State University and leads the change management consulting firm JoiningForces.org. Over the past 30 years, he has been involved in over 100 mergers and acquisitions as a researcher or advisor. He is the author of six books on organizational change; most recently, Joining Forces: Making One Plus One Equal Three in Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances with Philip H. Mirvis. Dr. Marks is a member of the Advisory Board of the M&A Leadership Council. He can be reached at [email protected].