By Jean-François Colin, senior executive vice-president, humanresources and socialaffairs at Air France - 16th May 2006
The merger of two companies can be stressful for workers, but it need not be,explains Jean-Marie Colin.
A merger can be an asset for a new group, but it can also create destructive tensions unless there is mutual respect between colleagues from the two merging companies.
Timing is of strategic importance if the merger is to succeed: a fast approach brings quicker results, but is risky.
A more measured approach, where the two companies bring their business closer together through cooperation over a longer period of time, is a safer way of proceeding – and the way chosen by Air France and Dutch airline KLM.
More than half of all mergers fail, and there are a number of reasons why this happens. Firstly, while mutual respect is essential, it may also create misunderstandings due to different working structures.
Problems such as culture shock, changes in working tools, different relationships between management and employees and differences in the level of professional and geographical mobility can all be hard for employees of merged companies to cope with.
Culture shock can be particularly hard when, as was the case with Air France and KLM, the two companies come from countries with different traditions and languages. But there are various ways of overcoming the
cultural differences.
In the case of Air France/KLM, regular staff exchanges led to a better mutual understanding of French and Dutch business cultures. In some cases, we have set up language courses for young managers.
These exchanges can last anything from one week to two years, and at present more than 500 mangers are involved in the scheme.
For crew members, the approach was slightly different, focusing on the specific – and often different – ways the two companies carried out the same functions.
We have also involved the trade unions in both countries to help find a more harmonious approach to tackling common issues, and both companies have made a number of presentations to staff in their country of origin to help them acclimatise to the way the other works.
It is also important to remember that the way in which a company works often depends upon the markets in which it operates, with different approaches possible even within a single company.
For this reason, it should not be assumed that the “major” partner in a merger should impose their working structure upon the more junior partner – indeed, one company’s skills are often inappropriate for the other, even when companies operate in the same sector.
This can lead to problems for workers, not least a lack of motivation. Workers in a company with a history of creating “human size” working units with a great deal of autonomy will often find it hard if they are merged into a much larger unit with far less flexibility, for example.
The way to deal with such a problem is to advance slowly, trying to find common working practices and creating a hybrid working method combining the best of both merger partners.
This can also help reduce the number of job losses, with employees from both firms working together to adapt their skills.
Adapting to new working tools – such as software programmes – can also be hard for workers in a merged company, and can have particular psychological consequences.
It is important for all workers in a newly merged company to “own” the tools they are expected to use, and companies must invest in proper training for all staff if they are to reap the real benefits of any merger.
Employees need to feel confident in their future and that they are doing the right job for their skill level, and offering them greater mobility can be one way of dealing with this.
But it should not be considered as an end in its own right: some companies encourage their staff to move within the company, and between its various offices, on a fairly regular basis, and this can be hard for employees from a company with a more traditional approach to cope with.
Any multinational group is a combination of different cultures and competences, and this can offer a myriad of opportunities for its employees.
But these various cultures are not held together simply by a set of ‘corporate values’; a company’s environmental, ethical and social policies become a fundamental part of what keeps it together.
This means close collaboration with local, regional and national representatives, as well as trade unions, in each country where the multinational operates.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.