Change Management Strategies For New Merged Company

One of the major components that influence change in organizations is communication during the change process. Denning’s (2005) provided an example of how one major merger failed based on how it was communicated. For change to have an opportunity to succeed at Central Valley College, the university needs a trusted individual that Lewis (2011) described as a connector who can bridge the gap between the stakeholders and someone who is able to navigate diverse social

Collaboration and mergers have similar obstacles to their success. In both cases, there is a risk of volunteers and staff being apprehensive about any new changes that will occur. One example would be “a loss of autonomy that may reduce their own role” (Worth, 2013, p. 199). Another potential threat to both is the use of such resources as time and money to either collaborate on their shared mission or merge into one organization.

The most significant responsibility for leadership during this merger is motivation and persuasion behavior to support Triton Investment goals that should not be taken lightly. Therefore, I would like you to think through a non-monetary recognition program for staff members. A peer to peer recognition will help enhance mergers communication between staff members. Giving a motivating persuasion method for inspiring teambuilding program will build productive and highly successful teams. The purpose of this recognition program will help support Triton Investment mission, values and goals throughout the merger. A succesful merger requires smooth intergration of people into a new cultures.

The final force for change was the need for flexibility in organizational structure. The employees of Synergetic needed to understand what the transition plan was exactly, and they needed to know that they were of great value to the company during the transition. Thus, I felt focus on the employee, a streamlined operation and production standards was a necessary first step.

Vertical reconciliation can be an exceedingly basic framework, be that as it may it is broadly difficult to realize successfully and—when it winds up being the wrong approach—nonsensical to settle. Organization's notoriety on vertical mix decisions is not good.1 this article is relied upon to offer directors some help with settling on better consolidation decisions. It discusses when to vertically arrange, when not to fuse, and when to use elective, semi blend methodology. Finally, it shows a framework for settling on the decision.

Change Management: mergers and acquisitions; group processes; process reengineering; productivity and quality improvement and helps in creating a strategic planning.

Week 3, the lecture on Managing Change describes organizational changes that occur when a company makes a shift from its current state to some preferred future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to decrease employee resistance and cost to the organization while concurrently expanding the effectiveness of the change effort. Today's business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they are to remain competitive. Students of organizational change identify areas of change in order to analyze them. A manager trying to implement a change, no matter how small, should expect to encounter some resistance from within the organization.

According to Rickie-Kiely (2013), “since merger is the eraser to separate identities it is often problematic for organizations to actually make the decision” (p. 159). This article also states that some obstacles to even begin merging include egos and donor mandates (p. 159), as well as limited time and resources to take on the complicated process. The concept of ego in mergers can be a challenge because occasionally staff who were a part of the original organizations, particularly the founder might have invested their personal identity in that organization and might be unwilling to change because of it (Worth, 2013, p. 200). This is what is commonly referred to as founder’s syndrome. (CITE) For the CWU, by bringing in

To adjust to greater competition and pressures of obtaining increased organizational efficiency and cost containment, many organizations have begun to examine strategies related to restructuring and downsizing to maintain organizational viability. These processes have included mergers and acquisitions, and redefining occupational roles of workers within the organization. Consequently, successful management of the structural change process can be daunting and overwhelming if not handled in an organized and thoughtful process. Those who are responsible for the process must

In order to examine this issue further, this research will look at a number of different sources. Contemporary managerial sources are explored in order to understand how other voices in the field are describing similar methods for change. First, popular structures for change management are examined, especially within their correlation to Palmer & Dunford (2009). This is followed with an extensive

When there is a significant change being made such as a merger of several organizations there tends to be quite a bit of resistance to the new changes. Even though some decisions are hurtful to some, it is a collaborative decision made by everyone involved. The change initiative stage will define how the stages of change are implemented for the merger and the evaluation of the plan for the merger. When these are made and agreed upon, then for growth and success to occur the newly joined organization will need to provide ideas on sustainability.

Providing prior training to the employees of the organizations on the changes they expect after merger is a great way of reducing culture shock on employees when the two organizations merge. To minimize restructuring costs, the organizations should agree to work with old structures in the meantime while restructuring gradually (Ybema, Yanow, & Sabelis, 2011)

The merger of companies creates value by increasing profits and capturing market share in a time unachievable by natural growth (Salama, Holland & Vinten, 2003). This has caused M&A to be very popular with companies thus causing a huge activity in M&A. However this optimistic view of M&A does not match the success rate of M&A where a large amount end in failure (Weber & Tarba, 2012). It is often not the shortfalls of the proposed strengths and benefits a merger may provide a company that causes failure but rather it is where the acquiring company is unable to successfully merger the acquired company’s culture into their own (Vuuren, 2012). Organizational culture is often overlooked by

According to Yamanoi & Sayama (2013) found studies that propose the effects of lower post-merger financial performance is due to lack of cultural integration and creates organizational dysfunctions, with interpersonal conflict, organizational communication ineptitude, thus creating employee and executive turnover. With cultural

According to the case study both companies are in the merger process. During the process there are significant changers applied to the both companies. In this report pre and post-merger processes ware analyzed mainly using following change management theories and models,