When Consultants and Clients Clash

Moreover, merger of the two companies carries along risks to human resources as it increases in insecurity among employees, lower levels of satisfaction at work, less affective commitment, and a loss of trust in the firms and management teams. Those issues would lead to difficulty in bending cultures, reductions in service levels, poor motivation and loss of key people and clients, and eventually impede the ability of the two companies to achieve their longer-term objectives and result in the failure of merger. [9]

Mergers and acquisitions has become an important part of the American commerce, which communication plays an important role in reducing the negative impacts. While Schweiger agrees that failure to communicate with employees during a merger will increase employee uncertainty and anxiety, he highlights that previous researchers (Napier et al., 1989) did not measure uncertainty nor any of the supposed dysfunctional outcomes said to follow uncertainty.

7. Lastly, Anne could cut down on the number of performances to reduce the expenses (if the contract allows for that). From a leadership perspective, the main weaknesses are a vacant CEO position, which makes coverage for the responsibilities of that position difficult, especially in a time of a merger. Secondly, key members such as Keith Lockhart and Ms. Abravanel are skeptical

So far numerous studies shows that between 50 to 85 percent of merger failed, and a study by Baker & McKenzie (2014) opined that majority of the merger did not improve shareholder value or did not returned enough return on investment by stakeholder.

“There is good agreement that the first 100 days after a merger change set the tone, signal the troops about the real direction of the organization and its vitality”(DiGeorgio, 2003,p.266) A slow integration process can actually worsen problems. Merger integration should not be treated as an after-thought. It is something that needs to be addressed during the merger search and negotiations phase while there is time to minimize any negative impacts.

One of the most common arguments for mergers and acquisitions is the belief that "synergies" exist, allowing the two companies to work more efficiently together than either would separately. Such synergies may result from the firms' combined ability to exploit economies of scale, eliminate duplicated functions, share managerial expertise, and raise larger amounts of capital. These distinguishing features had made Nicholas Anaptyxi,CEO of Paragon to battle it out with his colleagues to acquire MonitoRobotics.The case study portrays Nicholas as a visionary and a hard-driving builder who belonged to the same thought of train as his father. They both believed that to get better they had to grow bigger. He had worked in

A strength from performing a merger is the ability to acquire a company’s unused debt. “Some firms simply do not exhaust their debt capacity. If a firm with unused debt capacity is acquired, the new management can then increase debt financing, and reap the tax benefits associated with the increased leverage” (Keown, 2005, pp. 23-4). Another strength is enabling Baderman Island to remove an ineffective management strategy or team. Baderman Island has the option to decide who stays with the merged company, and who is out the door. Often times, a weak management leading team is the problem the organization has not evaluated for its mediocre success. “The merger of two firms can result in an increase in market or monopoly power. Although this can result in increased wealth, it may also be illegal. The Clayton Act, as amended by the Celler-Kefauver Amendment of 1950, makes any merger illegal that results in a monopoly or substantially reduces competition. The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission monitor all mergers to ensure that they do not result in a reduction of competition” (Keown, 2005, pp. 23-4).

When companies combine/merge the whole objective is to gain new opportunities, gain market share, grow the business, to become more innovative and to improve product offerings, utilizing/sharing the existing resources and data. From the case

Conflict is a fact of life - for individuals, organizations, and societies. The costs of conflict are well-documented - high turnover, grievances and lawsuits, absenteeism, divorce, dysfunctional families, prejudice, fear. What many people don't realize is that well-managed conflict can actually be a force for positive change.

Post-merger integration work is difficult, political, and often driven by teams that still have day jobs. Budgets are undefined, executive leadership is not clear beyond the C-level, no plans exist, and no one has done it before. Companies are willing to spend money on due diligence ahead of signing the papers, but do not always follow through to ensure that targets are met. In many cases, integration team members are plucked from the “operate and maintain” staff, and either cannot see or do not share the strategic vision of the “design and build” dealmakers. Companies that thrive from mergers do eight things (at least) correctly: Have a Plan, Communicate, and Measure Results, Dedicate the Team, Automate, Plan for Turnover, Focus on Business

Abernethy and Chapman are desirable because they have a steady clientele and continue to generate revenues leaving them with a net income that is favorable. Often companies will merge with another company in an effort to avoid bankruptcy, consolidate services, or expand. Over the years, we’ve seen many big-name firms merge with others. Acquisitions and mergers are becoming a trend due to the number of partner retirements and the lack of succession plans. (Sinkin and Putney, 2013) Firms such as Abernethy and Chapman might agree to an acquisition because it is often the most cost-effective way for them to increase cash flow and continue to be successful. Mergers can either be a success or a failure. When you merge organizations, you are also merging personalities which can often lead to conflict; however, merging the different levels of expertise could be beneficial to a firm. Ultimately, I believe that merging firms will create

The General Electric (GE) and Honeywell International (HI) case illustrates the complexities of structuring mergers and acquisitions when the combined firms are capable of exerting market influence that threatens the competitive landscape. While General Electric's CEO, Jack Welch, characterized the deal as, "This is the cleanest deal you'll ever see," European anti-trust regulators were not so inclined to view the transaction as harmless to competition (Elliot, 2001).

Unfortunately, the same issues that existed with the overall governance existed here. The company may have been acting as an exemplary corporate citizen, but with no overall strategy and minimal communication, there was no consistency or coordination, and the company was not getting the public relations benefits that they might have otherwise gained (Veleva, 2010).

As we can see on attached charts - Market was not too sure about this merger (“On paper, the deal has much to commend it, many outsiders say”. But thorny issues remain, including how to accommodate the strains between consultants and auditors, potential conflicts of interest involving important clients and even the delicate matter of choosing a new name. If the negotiators are not careful, fallout could haunt the combined firm for years to come.) From the time when merger plans were made public Shares of

In reviewing this article it was observed that some employees were skeptical of the merger between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz. Daimler-Benz employees were proud of the elite image and were concerned about having that tarnished by another company. Chrysler employees voiced concerns about the addition of a foreign partner to one of America's auto manufacturers. Employees needed reassurance that this merger was going to be a success! In light of all the adversity both companies faced since announcing their plans to merge, how did they remain so steadfast in their commitment to pursuing this merger? What kept them believing this merger was a good deal that deserved a second look? To answer these questions I want to step back and discuss what I