A FRAMEWORK FOR THE HUMAN

RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING

CULTURE IN MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS
MITCHELL LEE MARKS AND PHILIP H. MIRVIS
Scholars, business people, and change agents agree that culture matters in
eventual merger and acquisition (M&A) success. Researchers have generated
many insights and practitioners have developed many interventions regarding culture in M&A. Managing culture, however, is often a low priority when
executives are consumed with the deals financial and strategic aspects. The
authors propose a framework for how Human Resources (HR) can work with
business partners in managing acculturation in M&A. They first examine the
relationship between cultural differences and M&A outcomes, how culture
manifests itself in combinations, and the causes and stages of culture clash.
They then highlight the value of a clear cultural endstate in M&A and apply
classic change management theory to identify actions that unfreeze current
cultural mind-sets, move people toward the desired endstate, and refreeze
the desired culture. Their framework specifies HR actions for four distinct cultural endstatespluralism (in which the partner companies coexist), integration (in which the partners blend current cultures together), assimilation (in
which one company absorbs the other), and transformation (in which the
partner companies abandon key elements of their current cultures and adopt
new values and norms). 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: mergers, acquisitions, M&A, corporate culture, acculturation, change

management, human resources

e know that culture matters in

merger and acquisition (M&A)
success (Stahl & Voigt, 2008).1
However, in our 30 years as
researchers and consultants
on the M&A process, we have seen that managing culture usually gets a low priority by
executives who are overwhelmed by the
operational aspects of integration (Mirvis &

Marks, 1986; Marks & Mirvis, 2010). Yet,

when asked with 20/20 hindsight, most of
those same executives acknowledge that underestimating the importance and difficulty
of combining cultures was a major oversight
in their integration efforts (Cartwright &
Cooper, 1996).
The time has come and gone when
Human Resources (HR) professionals have

Correspondence to: Mitchell Lee Marks, College of Business, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
94132, Phone: 415-817-4343, Fax: 415-817-4340, E-mail: marks@sfsu.edu
Human Resource Management, NovemberDecember 2011, Vol. 50, No. 6, Pp. 859 877
2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.20445

860

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

needed to convince business leaders that

culture matters in M&A. Todays breed of
senior executives get iteither because
they have worked in organizations where
culture has been actively managed or because they have mismanaged a previous
merger or acquisition and know there has to
be a better way to combine cultures along
with systems, structures, staff,
and services. Fortunately, scholA framework
ars have generated practical insights and practitioners have
guides action in a
developed robust interventions
regarding acculturation in M&A.
chaotic time when
What is missing, however, is a
framework to help line execuexecutives are
tivesas well as HR professioncontending with
alsunderstand which culture
building tools to select and when
driving in two lanes
to employ them. A framework
at oncemanaging guides action in a chaotic time
when executives are contending
the transition
with driving in two lanes at
oncemanaging the transition
while running the
while running the business. It
also positions culture managebusiness. It also
ment activities as integrated and
positions culture
coordinated rather than occasional or sporadic. In addition to
management
having substantive value to executives and HR professionals, a
activities as
framework for managing culture
integrated and
in M&A also has symbolic value
for other employees who see it
coordinated rather
as a signal that the combination
is on the path to being well
than occasional or
managed.
This article offers a framesporadic.
work to help managers apply insights and associated culture
building tools over the course of a combination. It positions culture management as an
integral part of deal making, integration,
and building the combined organization.
The framework highlights the value of defining a desired cultural endstate in combinations and applies Lewins (1947) classic
model of change to Marks and Mirvis
(2010) combination phases to help HR
contribute effectively to culture building in
combinations.

Cultural Differences and M&A

Performance
The failure of a merger or acquisition to
achieve its financial or strategic objectives is
often blamed on a clash of cultures between
the combining entities (Cartwright & Price,
2003). On the human side, studies document
how cultural differences can give rise to ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and the belittling of
counterparts between members of combining
top management teams (Sales & Mirvis, 1984).
Cultural differences also have been negatively
related to the effectiveness of IT systems integration (Weber & Pliskin, 1996), the realization
of strategy (Very, Lubatkin, & Calori, 1996),
and postmerger stock price performance (Chatterjee, Michael, Schweiger, & Weber, 1992).
However, research has also shown that
differences in style and practices can enhance postcombination performance (Vermeulen, 2005). Several studies, for example,
find that differences in organizational culture in cross-border M&A can augment synergies (Weber, Shenkar, & Raveh, 1996) and
sales growth (Morosini, Shane, & Singh,
1998), and reduce employee resistance (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999). Our case studies, in
turn, document how a moderate degree of
culture difference between combining companies can be a stimulus for cross-company
dialogue, creative problem solving, and innovation (Mirvis & Marks, 2003).
Whats behind these contradictory findings? There is a well-established body of theory and research on the challenges associated
with combining peoples from different cultures. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981;
Turner, 1982) contends that organization
members show a positive bias toward members of their own in-group and tend to hold a
negative view about the members of an outgroup in order to enhance the relative standing of their own kind. This in-group bias and
us-versus-them comparisons are greatest
when there is a perceived external threatas
is common in M&A activityand when the
out-group is perceived to be very different
from the in-group (Elsass & Veiga, 1994; Hogg
& Terry, 2000). In an acquisition, cohesiveness
among the members of the target firm is likely
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

to increase and entreaties from the acquirer

are apt to be resisted. On the other hand, acquiring managers, from the stronger or larger
company, are prone to adopt an attitude of
superiority and treat the members of the target firm as inferior (cf. Hambrick & Cannella,
1993; Jemison & Sitkin, 1986). In cross-border
deals, feelings of hostility and distrust may be
further fueled by national cultural stereotyping and xenophobia (Krug & Nigh, 2001).
A contrasting point of view about the
benefits of cultural differences is based in
theory and research about diversity (Cox,
1993). The logic is that more variety in peoples and practices enriches the gene pool of
ideas and potential actions in organizations.
Applied to M&A, this perspective contends
that differences rather than similarities create
the friction needed for synergies and learning (Vermeulen & Barkema, 2001). Cultural
differences, it has been argued, can also break
rigidities in acquiring firms, help them to
develop richer market and management
knowledge, and foster innovation (Schreygg,
2005). Finally, M&A can provide the firms
with a competitive advantage by giving them
access to unique and potentially valuable
capabilities that are embedded in a different
culture (Olie & Verwaal, 2004).
In sum, the relationship between cultural
differences and M&A outcomes has been
found to be complex and to vary across industries and outcome measures (Weber,
1996). At the same time, researchers have established a clearer relationship between actively managing culture and achieving desired
M&A outcomes (Schweiger & Goulet, 2005).
Whether cultural differences have a positive
or negative impact on M&A performance depends on (1) the nature and extent of those
differences, (2) the interventions used to
manage them, and (3) the integration approach taken (Stahl, Pucil, Evans, & Mendhall, 2004). Thus, the answer to the question
of how to best handle the cultural aspects of
M&A is not necessarily to find a partner with
a similar or compatible culture. Rather, it is a
matter of managing cultural differences
through a comprehensive approach that
builds cultural understanding and promotes
creative synergies.
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

861

Culture in Combinations
Culture encompasses the way things get done
in an organization. It represents the shared
goals, roles, norms, and ideologies held by a
given organization and its members and includes the set of important, often unstated
assumptions, beliefs, and values that guide
an organizations business practices (Buono,
Bowditch, & Lewis, 1985; Schein, 1985).
Consider some examples of cultural factors in
combinations:
Do managers make quick decisions and spend time selling others on their merits or
do they take time up front
to build consensus and then
implement decisions in a relatively quick manner?
Does a business have monthly
or quarterly meetings? Are
there formal presentations
or do managers roll up their
sleeves? Is the emphasis mostly
on financials or all aspects of
the operation?
Does an organization attempt
to typically promote from
within or does it go outside to
find the best person possible?

Social identity
theory contends
that organization
members show
a positive bias
toward members of
their own in-group
and tend to hold a
negative view about
the members of an
out-group in order to

Of course, organizational enhance the relative

members are not just influenced
standing of their
by their company culture overall.
There are subcultures within comown kind.
panies that center around divisions, projects, or occupational
groups (Elsass & Veiga, 1994; Sathe, 1985).
Engineers from two combining companies,
for instance, may have more in common
than engineers and salespeople in either partner company. In many large companies, built
through combinations, there are often subcultures based on employees prior affiliations (Bower, 2001). People who worked at
Hewlett-Packards (HPs) personal computer
business, for example, were quick to note
whether a colleague came from HP, Compaq,
or DEC (which was acquired by Compaq
prior to its merger with HP).
And, there is the matter of national culture to consider (Weber, Shenkar, & Raveh,

862

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

1996). Company cultures do not operate in a

vacuumthey are embedded in national cultures and sometimes regional cultures (e.g.,
when a laid-back West Coast firm combines with a buttoned-down East Coast
company in the United States). Again, research demonstrates that national culture
differences can be a bane or boon to M&A
performance (Brock, 2005). Some
studies, for instance, find higher
It may be that cross- levels of cultural distance between
border combinations partners from different countries
or regions to be associated with
greater postcombination conflict
are successful,
(Brock, Barry, & Thomas, 2000;
despite their
Jemison & Sitkin, 1986). Other
studies, however, find that differcomplexity, because
ences in national cultures between
parent and target firms offer the
the integration
buyer more knowledge of markets
challenges are
and the capacity to establish distinctive competencies worldwide
more obvious,
(Ghoshal, 1987; Mayrhofer, 2004).
It may be that cross-border combiprompting leaders
nations are successful, despite
to pay closer
their complexity, because the integration challenges are more obattention throughout
vious, prompting leaders to pay
closer attention throughout the
the combination
combination process (Stahl et al.,
process.
2004).

Stages of Culture Clash

Companies have distinctive histories, folklores, and personalities, as well as products,
markets, and ways of running the business.
Typically, people are proud of their company
cultures or, at minimum, have learned how
to operate effectively within them. A combination brings together companies with different cultures. What people notice first are
differences between the two company cultures and what makes their own unique.
Think, for example, of traveling abroad.
What one notices is how a foreign land is different from ones homeland. The same is true
of a combination: people notice how their
own company is different from a partners
and begin to pay attention to what makes
their company unique. Indeed, even when

cultures may not be especially distinctive,

employees tend to see them that way (Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983).
Managing culture in M&Athat is, working with two organizational cultures to help
achieve desired business resultsstarts by
understanding the way in which a culture
clash unfolds as companies combine (Marks
& Mirvis, 2010):
1. Perceive Differences. At this first stage,
people focus on differences between the
two companies in terms of the style of
their leaders, their products and reputation, the ways they make decisions, the
kinds of people who work in the two
firms, and so on.
2. Magnify Differences. Next, people
begin to magnify differences that they
observe. Instead of merely different, the
partners ways become very different.
Distinctions become sharper and more
polarized. This is the start of we versus
they when talking about cultures.
3. Stereotypes. Then people start to typecast others in a partner company as embodiments of the other culture. Every
contact in a parent company is characterized as a bean counter, every engineer in an acquired software house is a
whirlybird, and all corporate staff are
storm troopers.
4. Put-downs. The culture clash reaches
full height as the partner company is put
down as inferior. We becomes the superior culture and they are denigrated.
The innovators in one acquired firm
put down their parent company managers as pants pressers who were more
concerned with neatness than running
an entrepreneurial business. In turn, the
seasoned hands at the parent company
felt obliged to teach the greenhorns in
the entrepreneurial shop a thing or two
about running a real business.

Levels of Acculturation
Acculturation results when contact between
two autonomous cultures requires change in
one group or both (Berry, 1980). While there
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

The Human Resources Role in Managing Culture in M&A

are many possible levels of acculturation

in a merger or acquisition, four are most
prominent:

Executives rank the ability to manage culture

as more important to M&A success than financial or strategic factors, but they also acknowledge that they tend to undermanage it
(Cartwright & Cooper, 1996). The message to
HR professionals is to be proactive in putting
culture on the agenda. The ability to do this
depends substantially on the way in which
the HR function is regarded in the lead organization in an acquisition or in both parties
in a merger (Marks & Vansteenkiste, 2008).
Some organizations, especially those with
past experience in M&A, give HR a seat at
the table in the earliest days as the combination is being planned. Others bring in HR to
assist in implementation. (Still others limit
HRs involvement to integrating the two HR
functions and handling staff appointments
and layoffs.) Figure 1 presents a framework
for the HR role in managing culture in M&A,
aligned with the three phases of M&As that
we have delineated in our writings (Marks &
Mirvis, 2010):

Cultural pluralism, in which the partners

coexist;
Cultural integration, in which the partner companies blend current cultures
together;
Cultural assimilation, in which one company absorbs the other; and
Cultural transformation, in which the
partner companies abandon key elements
of their current cultures and adopt new
values and norms.
Although, theoretically, acculturation can
result in a balanced merging of two group
cultures, anthropological studies suggest that
this balance rarely occurs. Instead, one group
typically dominates the other and influences
the direction of cultural change much more
strongly than the subordinate group. Interestingly, anthropologists point out that the
conflicts and upheaval that come from the
modernization of a culture, or as a result of
voluntary migrations, are far less pronounced
than are those that follow forced occupations
and the imposition of the dominant cultures
way of life (Berry, 1983). To translate this to
M&A, assumptions of cultural superiority
and actions toward forcing one sides culture
onto the other will be met by more force and
resistance than efforts to work together to
build a desired cultural endstate.

1. The precombination phase when a deal is

conceived and negotiated by executives
and then legally approved by shareholders and regulators;
2. The combination phase when planning ensues and integration decisions are made;
and
Change Management Stage

Combination Phase

Unfreezing

Precombination

1. Set the cultural

endstate

Combination

2. Unfreeze
cultural mind-sets

Moving

3. Move toward
desired culture

Postcombination

FIGURE 1. Framework for Managing Culture in Mergers and Acquisitions

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

Refreezing

4. Refreeze the
desired culture

863

864

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

3. The postcombination phase when implementation occurs and people settle into
the new organization.
The framework also reflects the requirements of effective organizational
change management, as identiThe cultural
fied in Kurt Lewins (1947) classic
endstate in the
model of unfreezing, moving, and
refreezing.2 While each deal has
framework is more
its own dynamics and there can
never be a one-size-fits-all prescripof a journey than a
tion for combination managedestinationthere
ment, the framework highlights
four sequential tasks for harnessmay be legitimate
ing the power of culture to contribute to achieving a combinations
reasons for
financial and strategic objectives
changing the
while minimizing the potential
culture clash:
desired endstate,
1. Define a desired cultural endeither strategic or
state.
2. Deepen cross-cultural learning.
cultural, to adapt
3. Drive the combination toward
the desired end.
to the changing
4. Reinforce the emerging culbusiness situation.
ture through substance and
symbolism.
In practice, culture management in M&A
is an iterative process. Mid-course corrections
are common in mergers and acquisitions that
succeed in attaining their financial and strategic objectives (Marks & Mirvis, 2010). As
the months of integration planning roll by, it
is likely that market, competitive, regulatory,
and/or technological conditions will change.
It is also possible that due diligence wasnt all
that diligent and the buyer finds some skeletons in the targets closet after the deal closes.
So, the cultural endstate in the framework is
more of a journey than a destinationthere
may be legitimate reasons for changing the
desired endstate, either strategic or cultural,
to adapt to the changing business situation.

headed. Yet, very few give sufficient thought

to articulatingor devote the resources
needed for developingtheir desired postcombination culture. After months of plotting a deal, identifying candidates, selecting a
target, negotiating the terms, and waiting for
legal approval, senior executives are more
inclined to look ahead to their next big deal
than carefully lead and manage the current
combination. As one senior manufacturing
executive told us, Acquiring is fun, integrating is hell.
Leaders in successful combinations, by
comparison, understand that the work of
building a new organization also means
building a new culture (Shrivastava, 1986).
Increasing numbers of firms include cultural
assessment as a part of their due diligence.
When performed thoroughly and early
enough in the process, a cultural assessment
can identify factors that may influence organizational fit and contribute to a plan for
how the cultural issues should be addressed if
the deal goes forward (Adolph, Gillies, &
Krings, 2006; Mirvis & Marks, 1992).
As an example, before moving ahead on
any deal, GE Capital begins a behavioral and
cultural assessment of acquisition candidates.
This due diligence identifies a wide range of
potential business and cultural barriers to integration success including the level of resistance to integration in the candidate, trust in
existing management, probability of downsizing, language differences, and differences
in operating strategies and go-to-market processes. All of these are then factored into buy
decisions and, if the deal goes forward, into
the integration managers agenda. On the
culture end, GE combines the results of interviews with acquired leaders, focus-group discussions, a survey of acquired management,
and sometimes staff into a cultural workout session with both sides during the integration phase (Ashkenas, DeMonaco, &
Francis, 1998).

The Value of a Cultural Endstate

Define a Cultural Endstate
Executives cant get where they want to go in
M&A if they dont know where they are

Beyond contributing to cultural due diligence

and surfacing cultural issues early in the precombination phase, HR leaders can play a key
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

role in helping executives to articulate their

desired cultural endstate for a combination.
The outcomes of M&A depend upon steps
taken after the deal is done (Haspeslagh &
Jemison, 1991; Morosini et al., 1998). Defining a cultural endstate in the precombination
phase has four key values.
First, it sets a context for leaders roles on
both sides of the deal and creates guidelines
for transition teams to plan desired levels of
integration. If a buyer is clear that it intends
to fully integrate a target, then saying so
means that energy is less likely to be diverted
from planning to politicking by acquired
managers who otherwise may plot ways to
maintain their autonomy. By contrast, when
cultural preservation is desired, lead company managers need to take their cues and
back off from attempting to dominate the
action.
Second, cultural mapping identifies any
disconnects between the expectations of
buyers and sellers. A lack of congruence is
common as buyers tend to soften intentions during the precombination courtship
that is, they talk merger but intend
acquisitionand sellers tend to downplay
or ignore the threat to their status quo
through wishful hearing during sale negotiations (Marks, 2000). Moreover, as Nahvandi and Malekzadeh (1988) note, acquired
parties approach acculturation based on the
extent to which members want to preserve
their own culture and the degree to which
they are willing to adapt to the acquirers
culture; acquirers, in contrast, approach acculturation based on the degrees of multiculturalism in their organization and relatedness
of the firms. Incongruence between expectations is likely to lead to acculturative stress.
Key employees may leave, active resistance to
integration may occur, and conflict is apt to
erupt.
A third reason to clarify the desired cultural endstate early in the M&A process is to
provide some behavioral anchors for employees as they develop expectations for life in
the combined company. Research finds that
unless people can locate fixed points, dependable principles, or stable benchmarks,
they are apt to make up their own behavioral
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

865

rules (Weick, 1995). A statement of a desired

endstate counters ambiguity and shapes
outlooks. It can also energize employees by
appealing to their values and rallying them
around a set of meaningful unified goals
(Chatman & Cha, 2003).
A fourth benefit is that statements of the
endstate can help employees determine
whether or not their leaders possess the skills and fortitude needed
A statement of a
to successfully move the organization in a desirable direction. Again,
desired endstate
research finds that a leader who
conveys specific and challenging counters ambiguity
standards as part of a broader
and shapes
vision is more apt to gain a following than someone who doesnt outlooks. It can also
know where they are going (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005). Peo- energize employees
ples need for direction increases
during the insecure and uncertain by appealing to their
days and months following a comvalues and rallying
bination announcement (Marks &
Mirvis, 1985). A clear statement of them around a set of
the desired cultural endstate
meaningful unified
backed up by executive actions
that reinforce the desired ways of
goals.
doing thingssatisfies this need
and reassures employees that the
combination is being well managed. This is
especially pertinent to the many contemporary workplaces that have experienced multiple transitions over the past several years. As
Pederit (2000) notes, when numbed by constant and ongoing change, employees may be
more ambivalent to change rather than outright resistant to it.

Mapping the Desired Cultural

Endstate
Mergers and acquisitions occur for a variety
of reasons and each has distinct challenges
and requirements for successful integration
(Bower, 2001). As Weber (1996) notes, the
impact of culture clash on their effectiveness
varies from one situation to another. Culture
clash should be much less of an issue in an
acquisition made to eliminate a competitor
in an industry with excess capacity than in
one made to obtain an emerging technology

866

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

in which the buyer aims to create value

through resource exchange or knowledge
transfer that clearly requires social integration as a critical component of organizational
integration (Ranft & Lord, 2000, 2002).
An effective culture is closely related to
business strategy. Indeed, Chatman and Cha (2003) contend that
In our opinion,
a culture cannot be crafted until
an organization has first develcompanies joining
oped its business strategy. Just as a
forces need a high- successful business needs a clear
strategy, so does the combination.
level vision of this
At the broadest level, senior executives need to decide how much
endstate before
to integrate two firms in a combination. When it comes to putting
agreeing to a deal.
together, say, manufacturing or
That way decisions
marketing, the synergies therein
may dictate different levels of inabout how to put
tegration. For instance, in many
high-tech acquisitions, marketing
functions and units
and sales in a subsidiary are abtogether can be
sorbed into the parent company
which often has more competence
weighed against the and better distribution channels.
But the acquirees engineering and
desired endstate.
manufacturing may be given high
levels of autonomy to do their
thing. In health care combinations, back-office functions may be consolidated, and systems and procedures standardized, but the
delivery of care is left to each of the providers. In oil industry mergers, in turn, refining
and distribution are often consolidated yet
each companys dealerships and brand kept
separate. In all of these cases, decisions about
integration hinge on the business case behind the combination.
In the same way, there needs to be a
case for combining culturesfunction by
function. It is very likely that senior executives will see a need for a common and unified culture in some areas of the combination
and for more pluralism in others, as in the
high-tech, health care, and oil cases above.
Occasionally, executives will be ready to articulate their case for combining cultures;
more frequently, however, they will need
prodding from HR professionals to make explicit what has been implicit in their thinking

about the combined organization. In these

instances, HR can work with the senior executive to assert up front:
1. Where the lead or parent companys culture will prevail,
2. Where the partners cultural autonomy
will be honored,
3. Where the two sides cultures will be
blended, and
4. Where new cultural themes need to be
developed through a transformational
process.
In our opinion, companies joining forces
need a high-level vision of this endstate before agreeing to a deal. That way decisions
about how to put functions and units together can be weighed against the desired
endstate. However, executives need not have
an intricate or fully worked out cultural endstate from the get-go. To the contrary, combination partners learn a lot about each other
and their cultures only after they work together and the two sides get to know one
other. Figure 2 shows a grid we have developed of different organizational and cultural
endstates that can help executives to think
through their options and clarify their intentions for the combined organization:
Preservation. This is the case where the
acquired company faces only a modest degree of integration and retains its ways of
doing business. This endstate is desirable
in diversified companies that promote
cultural pluralism among business units
and in acquisitions where the intent is
to secure and build on human and social
capital. To succeed, parent-company management has to protect the boundary of
the subsidiary, limit intrusions by its corporate staff, and minimize conformance
to its rules and systems. Strategic synergies
generated in a preservative combination
come from the eventual cross-pollination
of people and work on joint programs.
Absorption. Here the acquired company
is absorbed by a parent and assimilated
into its culture. This is the classic model
used by companies such as GE Capital
and, until recently, by Cisco that buy
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

High

Absorption

Transformation

Acquired company
conforms to acquirer
Cultural assimilation

Both companies find

new ways to operate
Cultural transformation

Best of Both
Additive from
both sides
Cultural integration

Degree of
Change in
Acquired
Company

Low

Preservation

Reverse Merger

Acquired company
retains independence
Cultural Autonomy

Unusual case of acquired

firm leading
Cultural assimilation

High

Low

Degree of Change in
Acquiring Company

FIGURE 2. Cultural Endstates.

Note: Adapted from Marks and Mirvis (2010)

and culturally assimilate small companies

regularly. Lead companies often have to
bring in new management in these cases
and conform the target to corporate reporting relationships and regimens. This
endstate is often workable in horizontal
mergers that join companies in the same
industry. Acquisitions in the U.S. airline
industry, such as Deltas absorption of
Northwest, are classic examples.
Reverse Takeover. This is the mirror image of the absorption combination. Here the buyer wants to adopt the
ways of the seller. The acquired company
dictates the terms of the combination
and effects cultural change in the lead
company. When this unusual type of
combination occurs, it typically involves
an acquired business unit or division absorbing the operations of a parallel unit
in an acquirer. For example, REO Motor
Company acquired Nuclear Consultants
and, ultimately, folded its operations into
the acquiree that became the modern-day
Nucor.
Best of Both. This is the case of achieving synergy between companies through
their partial to full integration. Geographical expansions or roll-ups in fragmented industries often seek this endstate. Historically these additive kinds of
combination tend to be more successful
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

than othersbut also bloodier. Financial

and operational synergies are achieved
by consolidation. This means crunching
functions together and often leads to
reductions in force. The optimal result is
full cultural integrationthe blending of
both companies policies and practices.
The merger of equals between SmithKline and Beecham (and of these with
Glaxo Wellcome to form GSK) and the
combination of Canadas Molson Breweries with Australias Carling OKeefe are
examples.
Transformation. Here both companies
undergo fundamental change following
their combination. This endstate is desired when an industry is radically evolving or emerging. Synergies come not
simply from reorganizing the businesses,
but from reinventing the company. This
is the trickiest of all the combination
types and requires a significant investment and inventive management. Transformation poses a sharp break from the
past. Existing practices and routines must
be abandoned and new ones discovered and developed. In the integration
of Pfizer Incorporateds Animal Health
Group and SmithKline Beechams animal pharmaceutical business in Europe,
two orthodox country-centric operations
were transformed into a new organization

867

868

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

aligned with the realities of the European

Community. Traditional country-specific
structures and cultures were broken down
and forged into a pan-European strategy,
structure, team, and identity as the precombination parties merged.

and similarities between partner cultures is

where efforts to create common ground and
form a unified culture begin (Buono et al.,
1985; Leroy & Ramanantsoa, 1997).

There are instances, of course, where the

cultural endstate may not be the same for different components of an acquisition or merging partners. And a complicating
factor in international combinaA complicating
tions is that there often will be
parts of the organizations where a
factor in
particular endstate makes sense
and others where it does not. For
international
some countries or regions, or for
combinations is
some parts of the business, absorption may be the best apthat there often
proach; in other areas, say where
the seller has a more prominent
will be parts of the
status, a reverse merger could be
organizations where the more appropriate endstate.

To understand a culture, you need to appreciate the whys beneath the whats that you
observe. Many misunderstandings and communication breakdowns result from managers, lacking the means to decode, translate,
and contextualize messages from publicly
available information about their partners.
Unless key players from the combining organizations learn to read these deeper roots of
the other sides culture, mutual working relations will always be under threat.
Learning plays an essential role in raising
awareness of cultural dynamics in a combination (David & Singh, 1993; Shrivastava, 1986).
In a rare field study of managing culture in
M&A, Schweiger and Goulet (2005) examined
three levels of cultural learning during an
acquisitionnone, shallow, and deepand
found an interesting relationship between
them and the subsequent integration of
plants in an acquired firm. In the case of no
learning, they found, not surprisingly, no relationship to eventual integration success or
failure. By contrast, deep cultural learning
interventions, involving cross-company dialogue, culture clarification workshops, and
the like, had a strong, positive effect on integration success. Measured results included
greater cross-cultural understanding, smoother
resolution of cultural differences, more communication and cooperation between combining parties, and greater commitment to
the combined organization.
What fascinates in this study is that shallow learning (e.g., show-and-tell presentations, official communiqus, informal Q&As,
and such) did little to clarify and eliminate
inaccurate cultural stereotypes or to reconcile
differences between the partners. On the
contrary, these had the undesirable effects of
strengthening perceptions of cultural differences and reinforcing stereotypes that contributed to conflict between the organizations.
Based on this research, it seems that it is bet-

a particular endstate
makes sense and
others where it

Unfreeze Mind-sets
Through Deep Cultural
Learning

As the merger or acquisition receives legal approval, the combination phase begins with earnest
attention to planning how to join together
the partners. This is a critical period when the
organization is at least somewhat unfrozen
and employees are relatively malleable to
new ways of doing things. Most executives
miss this opportunity and, instead, try to
combine quicklyrather than carefully
with the promise of coming back later to rethink culture and fix things later on. Of
course, they rarely make the time to revisit
combination decisions and, even if they did,
they would have to deal with unfreezing the
newly solidified norms and practices that
have been set in place.
HR professionals can help business partners understand and be prepared for the work
of managing culture at this critical juncture
in a combination. In what seems counterintuitive to business people who want to move
forward, looking back at both the differences

does not.

Deep vs. Shallow Cultural Learning

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

ter to do nothing about culture clarification

than something superficial and perfunctory.
The best approach, of course, is to devote
time and resources to deep cultural learning,
especially during the combination phase.

Systematically Learning About

Partners Cultures
One example of a deep-level culture learning
intervention is a cultural clarification activity to help teams joining forces in a merger or
acquisition learn about one another. Its objectives are, first, to lift up emerging cultural
perceptions and stereotypes between the
partners and, second, to generate dialogue on
the desired cultural endstate for the combination. The activity is built around each partner
group making three lists: (1) how we view our
organizations culture, (2) how we view the
other sides culture, and (3) how we think the
other side views our culture. The rosters include business practices, interpersonal behaviors, and values. Importantly, participants are
instructed to include characteristics that
either have been experienced firsthand or
heard about secondhand. The intention here
is to unearth all the perceptions and stereotypes that are circulating regarding the
partner.
In one case, this exercise was completed
by the combining senior executive teams
from an energy-industry combination. The
two groups had been working together for
about two months, so they had had enough
time to develop impressions of each other.
Figure 3 shows a few of the perceptions

mapped on to one another. Company A, in

this example, saw itself as having a good
balance between business and technology,
but regarded Company B as primarily financially driven; behind closed doors, A perceived Bs technological expertise was inferior
to its own. In turn, Company B acknowledged its emphasis on financial performance
but also felt that it wasnt respected by their
counterparts. This was a sore point for them,
and it surfaced in the ensuing discussion.
Frequently, the two sides agree on crosscultural perceptions. In this case, Company B
had a behavioral norm of confronting people
head-on over disagreements. They cited this
norm as push back required. Executives
from A described Bs style as in your face
and decisions dont holdneed to argue
and revisit. Interestingly, executives from B
knew this behavior irritated the too polite
A group. In their list of how they think A
views them, the Company B executives unambiguously reported rude, in your face.
When this cultural distinction was aired, it
led to a discussion between the two groups
regarding the desired norms for their combined culture. Both sides agreed that As style
was too reserved and polite; a faster-paced
style of decision making and more head-on
debate of the issues were required. But As
executives felt that Bs style went too far in
the other direction. Together, the two groups
settled on a desired endstate of polite
confrontation: speak up and challenge, but
not rudely.
The example shows two benefits of the
culture clarification process. First, it reveals for

Company A Culture
How Company A Views Its
Own Culture

How Company B Views

Company As Culture

Balance of business and

technical skills

Bureaucratic and polite

How Company A Thinks

B Views As Culture
They think were
bureaucratic
They think were
unwilling to change

Company B Culture
How Company B Views Its
Own Culture

How Company A Views

Company Bs Culture

How Company B Thinks

A Views Bs Culture

High priority on financial

performance; set the bar
high

Financially driven
They dont have good
technology

They think were bean

counters
They dont respect us

FIGURE 3. How Two Companies View Each Others Cultures.

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

869

870

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

both partners the language that is used behind

closed doors as one side discusses the other.
What B valued as push back, A distastefully
regarded as rude. Second, this activity engages the two sides in discussing which aspects
of the existing cultures should be retained in
the combination and which should not be carried forward. Sometimes, as in the polite versus push back example, the end result is a
hybrid born from the two cultures.
The requirements
for managing culture
vary depending on
whether the desired
endstate is to keep
the precombination
cultures at arms
length, mix them
up, fold one into

Drive the Combination

Toward the Desired End
Going about the tasks of setting a
cultural endstate and unfreezing
cultural mind-sets are fairly similar
across different types of combinations. At this point, however, the
work involved in moving from
the precombination cultures to the
postcombination culture(s) depends on the desired endstate. Note
that the five cultural endstates
identified in Figure 2 sort into the
four levels of acculturation:

the other, or give

1. A preservative combination
connotes cultural pluralism.
them both a radical
2. A best of both blending partner
cultures means cultural intemakeover.
gration.
3. Absorptive acquisitions and reverse mergers both are forms of
cultural assimilation.
4. A transformational combination, of course,
entails cultural transformation.
The requirements for managing culture
vary depending on whether the desired endstate is to keep the precombination cultures
at arms length, mix them up, fold one into
the other, or give them both a radical makeover. (In consideration of space limitations,
we provide sample interventions for each
level of acculturation rather than comprehensive approaches.)

Cultural Pluralism: Value Diversity

Cultural pluralism defines combinations
wherein the companies establish a relation-

ship based on mutual coexistence or, more

frequently, where the parent company grants
a subsidiary a measure of independence. Cultural preservation is most common in highly
technical industries, like pharmaceuticals or
biotechnology, where acquirees need the
capital, management support, and technical
assistance to bring new ideas through to the
market, but also the freedom to invent and
develop them. To succeed, leaders have to
protect the boundaries of the subsidiary, limit
intrusions by lead company staff, and minimize conformance to its rules and systems.
HR has a distinctive vantage point in
overseeingand influencingdynamics between the buyer and seller in a situation of
cultural pluralism. There usually is at least
some integration around HR practices even
when the intention is to keep changes to a
minimum. Seemingly rudimentary tasks like
putting acquired employees on the payroll
system or enrolling them in corporate benefits programs provide opportunities for HR
professionals to interact with members of the
target firm. In some cases, HR will be able to
pave the way when administrative or operational directives are handed down from
the lead companyboth by alerting lead
company staff how to best implement the
changes and by preparing acquired staff for
what might otherwise be resisted as an intrusion.
Perhaps the most valuable role HR can
play in a preservative combination is as a
conduit of information. If rapport has been
established, acquired employees will seek out
HR to let off some steam about the inevitable
stresses and strains of a combination. Creating a safe environment for ventingeither
one-on-one or in a facilitated group setting
helps the acquired individuals manage stress
but also provides good intelligence for the
buyer (Marks, 2007). A European software
development firm acquired a much smaller
company based in the United States and had
every intention of not meddling with the
operations of its new subsidiary. It also
assumed some intended changes would be
regarding by the target staff as clear enhancementsfor example, the seller had offered
employees a single health insurance option
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

while the buyers current U.S. business provided employees with a choice of six health
insurance plans. What seemed like an obvious improvement to the buyer was greeted by
people at the seller, many of whom were
young Generation Y employees, as an inconvenience. Why are you forcing us to make a
decision about health care plans? came the
cry to their HR liaison from the lead firm.
The European firm learned from briefings
with HR that the positive or negative effect of
a change is in the eye of the beholder and
moved more carefully in contemplating future policy changes.

Cultural Integration: Best of Both

In a merger of equals or an acquisition with
the intention of selecting best practices from
the partner organizations, the consequences
of how culture is managed are substantial
the two sides will either seek to work through
their differences or fight over them like cats
and dogs (Marks & Mirvis, 2000). When best
of both is the desired cultural endstate, HR
involvement assists in three ways:
1. Educate people about culture clash.
2. Clarify values for the combined company.
3. Incorporate culture into the integration
decision-making process.
HR interventions cannot eliminate culture clash, but may be able to lessen its potential to adversely impact M&A outcomes.
Several companies address culture clash between combining entities in workshops and
training programs that enhance employee
insight into the cultural and human aspect of
the combination process. Sensitizing people
to the sources and symptoms of culture clash
helps them understand that these dynamics
prevail in any combination but, if left unmanaged, can create fissures.
In a best of both combination, it is helpful to have the partners identify values and
practices of which they are most proud. The
top teams in a major financial services
merger separately listed cultural elements
that they wanted to carry forward into their
combined entity. The new firm that
emerged emphasized reliable work processes
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

871

and speedy deliverystrengths that the respective partners brought to the deal. This
activity also highlighted undesirable cultural characteristics, such as bureaucracy,
which were present in the premerger partners and were weakened or eliminated in the
process of combining the banks by having
transition teams consider them
during integration planning.
The merger of HR in the HP/
In a merger of
Compaq deal provides some examples of how to integrate culture
equals or an
into the integration decision-making process. The cultural endstate acquisition with the
identified for this merge was one
new company, one new culture.
The HR integration team operated
through three phases. In the
first phase, the HP team conducted a current-state analysis
that compared the two firms
HR strategies, structures, functional capabilities, and respective technologies. In the second
phase, the HP team was joined by
counterparts from Compaq, validated the analysis, and set up
adopt and go teams to recommend which sides approach to
adopt. At the integration phase,
these recommendations were
synthesized into goals and an
operating plan covering staff appointments, workforce reductions,
employee communications, total
rewards, and an overall people
strategy.

intention of selecting
best practices
from the partner
organizations, the
consequences
of how culture
is managed are
substantialthe
two sides will
either seek to
work through their
differences or fight
over them like cats
and dogs.

Cultural Assimilation:
Respecting Cultures
Cultural assimilation is probably the most
common endstate, especially when there is a
difference in the size and sophistication between the lead and target firms. Assimilation
is also the result when a buyer folds some or
all of its business into a target in a reverse
merger. Either way, one side conforms to the
others way of doing things. The key here is
to move somewhat quickly to avoid too
much uncertainty and to capture hypothe-

872

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

sized operating synergies either by cutting

costs or applying improvements in systems
and procedures from the lead to target firm.
But, moving too quickly and with too little
care results in culture clash flaring out of controlpeople dig in and protect their ways of
doing things when they feel their cultures are
threatened.
Cultural assimilation is more straightforward than a transformation,
which requires breakthrough
Cultural
thinking, or an integration, which
depends on a set of decisions reassimilation is more
garding which sides ways should
straightforward than be adopted. The endstate is fairly
clear in assimilationthe lead
a transformation,
company will prevail. So, to a substantial degree, HRs role in this
which requires
type of combination is to work
with business partners in smartly
breakthrough
adopting effective change manthinking, or an
agement principles throughout
the integration process.
integration, which
One basic rule of effective
change
management is to overdepends on a set of
communicate the benefits. In
decisions regarding M&A, this means not only selling
people on the business case for
which sides ways
the deal, but also on why the lead
companys culture is appropriate
should be adopted.
for the combined organization.
The more that people see a direct
link between the lead companys ways of
operating and enhancements in getting work
done, the more they are likely to accept
them. Employees may even welcome the
new culture if a case is made for how it will
address perceived weaknesses in the targets
ways of doing thingssuch as when an established firm with big marketing muscle
takes over a start-up with a great product but
little marketplace experience.
Another basic rule of change management is that participation in the processeither directly or by representationbreeds
support for decisions. Even when the endstate is relatively clear in cultural assimilation, people can participate in transition
teams charged with planning how to move
from the targets ways of doing things to the
lead companys ways. As with cultural inte-

gration, the dynamics of the planning process

in assimilation have a huge impact on eventual results: if the teams from the two partners work well together, high-quality decisions
will emerge and so will confidence among
the overall workforce that the combination is
being well managed. Conversely, if politics
permeate the process or if lead company staff
overtly dominate and otherwise make power
plays, then low-quality decisions will prevail
and people will develop pessimistic views
about the deals potential to achieve its business objectives.

Cultural Transformation: Ending the

Old Before Embarking on the New
A transformational merger differs substantially
from the other types. While pluralistic, absorptive, or best of both combinations seek to
retain one or both partner cultures, a transformation is about letting go of them. Leaders are
intent on using the transition to break sharply
with the past and be a catalyst for trying to
do things differently. This is exemplified by
the creation of Novartis from the merger of
two Swiss-based pharmaceutical firms; the
proposed management style for the new company reflected the desired transformation:
We will listen more than Sandoz, but decide
more than Ciba (Stahl et al., 2004).
In transformational combinations, rather
than value premerger strengths, it is useful
for HR interventions to help people find fault
with their old cultures. Research has shown
that self-criticism is an important element in
attitude change (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
As the task here is to invent new ways of
doing things, self-criticism aims at freeing
up people from prior attachments and bringing to light sacred cows. In the transformational merger that created Aviat Networks
from former competitors Harris Microwave
Communications and Stratex Networks,
workgroups from the two sides uploaded videos on YouTube of people destroying their
premerger work badges and removing traces
of the previous company names from work
locations. In another case, a Trash Bin Project was established for employees to submit
examples of work processes and policies that
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

they did not want to carry over to the combined organization.

In most efforts at transformation, however, resistance and defensiveness flare up as
people seek to maintain their existing identities. The resolution of cultural identity is thus
an essential element of transformation. It is
required for people from the two sides to
challenge assumptions regarding their current cultural identity and to promote dialogue about future identity. As transition
consultant William Bridges (1991) puts it,
beginnings start with endings. People have to
deal with the loss of their old ways and
need some time to disengage from their past
identities. One of us has worked with HR
functions to design and implement ceremonies such as mock funerals, in which people
place mementos and memorabilia from the
past glory days in a coffin, to help people
work through their loss, end old cultural
identities and attachments, and accelerate
readiness for life after the combination.
Ending the old is facilitated also by gaining a sense of the new. Cultural transformation in M&A is difficult unless there is some
explicit management philosophy with values
and norms that guide behavior in the combined organization. To create the new culture
of ABB after the cross-border merger of Asea
and Brown Boveri, the CEO spent three
months with his new senior management
team defining a policy bible to guide the
intended new organization. It was a manual
of soft principles such as speed in decision
making (better to be quick and roughly right
than slow and completely right) and for
conflict management (you can only kick a
conflict upstairs once for arbitration), as
well as hard practices such as the financial
measurement systems that would apply across
all units of the newly merged entity (Stahl et
al., 2004). In the transformational merger
that created Novartis, the CEO led the change
process by communicating the new set of
core values in numerous employee workshops around the world. This intervention,
supported by a new performance management system and investment in training and
development, helped build the desired highperformance culture.
Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

873

Refreeze the Postcombination

Culture Through Substance and
Symbolism
It is one thing to put on paper words that
describe a desired postcombination endstate.
It is quite another to bring those
words to life by translating values
Cultural
and norms into action. Even when
a combination has temporarily
transformation in
unfrozen their mind-sets, the experience does not necessarily
M&A is difficult
change employees underlying beliefs about how to operate and be unless there is some
effective in a new environment.
Forces remain pulling employees
back to established assumptions
and routines as well as precombination identities, attitudes, and
behaviors. So, as the months of
combination planning segue into
implementation, HR has a role to
play in ensuring that the forces
for desired change persevere.

explicit management
philosophy with
values and norms
that guide behavior
in the combined
organization.

Reinforce the Emerging Culture

Through Substance and Symbolism
The postcombination culture is reinforced
through key leverage points:
Leadership actions. The extent to which
the CEO and upper management in the
combined organization are aligned with
the desired endstate and in sync with
one another gives credibility to and
breathes life into messages about the
new culture. Alignment is most clear to
employees when executives model behaviors consistent with the desired culture (Chatman & Cha, 2003). Besides
talking about overcoming a silo mentality in a combined professional services
firm, a senior vice president invited representatives from other functions to his
staff meetings. He also asked his HR
team to devise a bonus scheme to reward
cross-unit cooperation.
Day-to-day actions of individual managers and supervisors. While senior executives set the tone for culture building,

874

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

employees look to their more immediate

managers and supervisors for a link between high-level statements of culture
and actual work-team norms. In dealing
with their direct reports, peers, and superiors, middle managers and supervisors
either reinforce or weaken movement
toward the desired culture through their
behavior. The professional services firm
used 360-degree feedback tools to assess
the extent to which managers and supervisors were adhering to elements of the
desired culture.
Structures, processes, systems, and procedures. A combined companys organizational structure, business processes,
measurement and appraisal systems, selection and staffing practices, and reward
systems can help to speed acculturation,
slow it down, or take it off the tracks.
What matters here is the extent to which
employees see alignment among all these
elements of the organization and not
what leadership intended to do. So, there
is a need for timely and candid feedback regarding structural and procedural
changes prompted by the combination.
At the professional services firm, an employee attitude survey accomplished this
in a cost-effective manner.
Individual employee engagement. Individual employee actions are the ultimate test
for whether the desired culture takes in
the postcombination organization. The
HR group in the professional services
firm used advanced training tactics to
accelerate the process of acculturation at
the working level. One program provided
frontline employees with opportunities to
discuss and role-play behaviors consistent
with the desired postcombination culture. A member of the senior team kicked
off the sessions with a frank recount of
why and how the companys shared values were selected. To model the value of
open communications, the executive
described the debate and controversy
that consumed the senior team as they
wrestled with options. Then, in experiential exercises, employees participated
in simulated business situationsthey

were assigned a business circumstance

and asked to act out how to handle it in
line with a particular shared value. This
brought the values to life, raised awareness of the intentions underlying the
words, offered opportunities to practice
new behaviors, and provided individuals
with feedback on the degree to which
they understood what was being expected of them in the postcombination
organization.

Conclusion
As new organizations are created with people
from different cultures, who may have been
bitter competitors or come from foreign
lands, opportunities for conflict and misunderstanding abound. Rather than wait for
culture clashes to occur, HR leaders can
prompt business partners to proactively address and manage culture in M&A. The
framework presented here helps them do this
in a comprehensive manner by clarifying the
desired endstate, unfreezing employee mindsets, using appropriate interventions to move
in the desired direction, and refreezing cultural norms and values.
Cultural differences between combining
firms can either help or hinder the attainment of desired M&A results. HR has an opportunity to not just keep culture in play but
to press for cultural interventions with sufficient depth and consistency to overcome the
many forces operating against desired culture
change. This is no easy task for a function
whose people may feel their personal
employment or career progress is threatened
by the combination. Yet, it seems like the
only way to go if HR shares with its business
leadership a genuine interest in using culture
to help a merger or acquisition achieve its
strategic and financial objectives.

Notes
1.

While the terms merger and acquisition tend to

be used interchangeably, here merger is intended to
mean the integration of two relatively equal entities
into a new organization and acquisition is intended
to mean the takeover of a target organization by a

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

2.

lead entity. The word combination is used here in

the vast majority build upon rather than contradict

reference to either a merger or an acquisition.

Lewins classic model.

While there certainly have been many insights and

advances in organizational change management,

MITCHELL LEE MARKS is a member of the faculty of the College of Business at San Francisco State University and leads the consulting firm JoiningForces.org. His research and
consulting focus on organizational change, team building, strategic direction, corporate
culture, human resources management, employee motivation, and the planning and implementation of mergers, acquisitions, restructurings, and other major transitions. He is
the author of six books, including Charging Back Up the Hill: Workplace Recovery After
Mergers, Acquisitions and Downsizings. He has a BA from the University of California at
Santa Cruz and a PhD in organizational psychology from the University of Michigan.
PHILIP H. MIRVIS is an organizational psychologist and senior research fellow at Boston
College. His studies and private practice concerns large-scale organizational change, the
character of the workforce and workplace, and business leadership in society. An adviser
to businesses and nongovernmental organizations in five continents, he has authored
10 books, including The Cynical Americans, Building the Competitive Workforce, To the
Desert and Back, and Beyond Good Company: Next Generation Corporate Citizenship.
Mitchell Lee Marks and Mirvis have recently authored the second edition of Joining Forces: Making One Plus One Equal Three in Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances. Mirvis has
a BA from Yale University and a PhD in organizational psychology from the University of
Michigan.

References
Adolph, G., Gillies, S., & Krings, J. (2006). Strategic
due diligence: A foundation for M&A success.
Strategy & Business, 57(9), 16.
Ashkenas, R. N., DeMonaco, L. J., & Francis, S. C.
(1998). Making the deal real: How GE capital
integrates acquisitions. Harvard Business Review,
76(1), 165178.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H. C. Triandis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology (pp. 211279). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W. (1983). Acculturation: A comparative
analysis of alternative forms. In R. J. Samuda
& S. L. Woods (Eds.), Perspectives in immigrant
and minority education (pp. 6578). Lanham, MD:
University Press of Americas.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005).
Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal
effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
733753.
Bower, J. L. (2001). Not all M&A are alikeand that
matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 92101.

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brock, D. M. (2005). Multinational acquisition integration: The role of national culture in creating synergies. International Business Review, 14, 269288.
Brock, D. M., Barry, D., & Thomas, D. C. (2000). Your
forward is our reverse, your right, our wrong: Rethinking multinational planning processes in light
of national culture. International Business Review,
9, 687701.
Buono, A., Bowditch, J., & Lewis, J. (1985). When
cultures collide: The anatomy of a merger. Human
Relations, 38, 477500.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1996). Managing
mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances:
Integrating people and cultures. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cartwright, S., & Price, F. (2003). Managerial preferences in international mergers and acquisitions:
An international comparison. Advances in Mergers
and Acquisitions, 2, 8195.
Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by
leveraging culture. California Management Review,
45(4), 2034.

875

876

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2011

Chatterjee, S., Michael, L., Schweiger, D., & Weber, Y.
(1992). Cultural differences and shareholder value
in related mergers: Linking equity and human capital.
Strategic Management Journal, 13, 319334.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations:
Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
David, K., & Singh, H. (1993). Acquisition regimes:
Managing cultural risk and relative deprivation in
corporate acquisitions. In D. E. Hussey (Ed.), International review of strategic management
(pp. 227276). New York, NY: Wiley.
Elsass, P. M., & Veiga, J. F. (1994). Acculturation in
acquired organizations: A force-field perspective.
Human Relations, 47, 431453.
Ghoshal, S. (1987). Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 425440.
Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (1993). Relative standing: A framework for understanding
departures of acquired executives. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 733762.
Haspeslagh, P., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing
acquisitions: Creating value through corporate
renewal. New York, NY: Free Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and
self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1),
121140.
Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate
acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 11(1), 145163.
Krug, J. A., & Nigh, D. (2001). Executive perceptions in
foreign and domestic acquisitions: An analysis of
foreign ownership and its effect on executive fate.
Journal of World Business, 36, 85105.
Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of
synergy realization. Organization Science, 10, 126.
Leroy, F., & Ramanantsoa, B. (1997). The cognitive and
behavioral dimensions of organizational learning in
a merger: An empirical study. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 871894.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human
Relations, 1(1), 541.
Marks, M. L. (2000). Mixed signals: Dont say merger
when you mean acquisition. Across the Board,
37(5), 2127.
Marks, M. L. (2007). A framework for facilitating
adaptation to organizational transition. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 20, 721739.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1985). Merger syndrome:

Stress and uncertainty. Mergers and Acquisitions,
20(2), 5055.
Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (2000). Creating an
effective transition structure to manage mergers,
acquisitions and alliances. Organizational
Dynamics, 28(3), 3547.
Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (2010). Joining forces:
Making one plus one equal three in mergers,
acquisitions, and alliances (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marks, M. L., & Vansteenkiste, R. (2008). Preparing for
organizational death: Proactive HR engagement
in an organizational transition. Human Resources
Management, 47, 809827.
Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B.
(1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational
stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,
438453.
Mayrhofer, U. (2004). The influence of national origin
and uncertainty on the choice between cooperation and merger-acquisition: An analysis of French
and German firms. International Business Review,
13(7), 8399.
Mikulincer, P. R., & Shaver, P. P. (2007). Attachment in
adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mirvis, P. H., & Marks, M. L. (1986). The merger
syndrome: Managing organizational crises.
Mergers & Acquisitions, 20(3), 7177.
Mirvis, P. H., & Marks, M. L. (1992). The human side
of merger planning: Assessing and analyzing fit.
Human Resource Planning, 15(3), 6992.
Mirvis, P. H., & Marks, M. L. (2003). Culture in corporate combinations. In C. Cooper & R. Burke (Eds.),
Leading in turbulent times (pp. 284301). London,
UK: Blackwell.
Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National
cultural distance and cross-border acquisition
performance. Journal of International Business
Studies, 29, 137158.
Nahvandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. (1988). Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of
Management Review, 13(1), 7990.
Olie, R., & Verwaal, E. (2004). The effects of cultural
distance and host country experience on the
performance of cross-border acquisitions. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Pederit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

HUMAN RESOURCES ROLE IN MANAGING CULTURE IN M&A

attitudes toward an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783795.
Ranft, A. L., & Lord, M. D. (2000). Acquiring new
knowledge: The role of retaining human capital
in acquisitions of high-tech firms. Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 11, 295319.

Stahl, G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences

matter in mergers and acquisitions? A tentative
model and examination. Organization Science, 19,
160176.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ranft. A. L., & Lord, M. D. (2002). Acquiring new

technologies and capabilities: A grounded model of
acquisition implementation. Organization Science,
13, 420441.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of

the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity
and intergroup relations (pp. 241274). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sales, A. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1984). When cultures collide: Issues in acquisition. In J. R. Kimberly & R. E.
Quinn (Eds.), Managing organizational transitions
(pp. 107133). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Vermeulen, F. (2005). How acquisitions can revitalize companies. Sloan Management Review, 46(4),
4451.

Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schreygg, G. (2005). The role of corporate cultural diversity in integrating mergers and acquisitions. In
G. K. Stahl & M. E. Mendenhall (Eds.), Mergers and
acquisitions (pp. 108125). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Schweiger, D. M., & Goulet, P. K. (2005). Facilitating
acquisition integration through deep-level cultural
learning interventions. Organizational Studies, 26,
14771499.
Shrivastava, P. (1986). Postmerger integration. Journal
of Business Strategy, 7, 6576.
Stahl, G. K., Pucil, V., Evans, P., & Mendhall, M. E. (2004).
Human resources management in cross-border
mergers and acquisitions. In A. W. Harzing & J. Van
Ruessyveldt (Eds.), International human resource
management (pp. 89113). London, UK: Sage.

Human Resource Management DOI:10.1002/hrm

Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through

acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
457476.
Very, P., Lubatkin, M., & Calori, R. (1996). A crossnational assessment of acculturative stress in
recent European mergers. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 26(1),
5986.
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate cultural fit and performance in mergers and acquisitions. Human
Relations, 49, 11811202.
Weber, Y., & Pliskin, N. (1996). The effects of information systems integration and organizational culture
on a firms effectiveness. Information and Management, 30(2), 8190.
Weber, Y., Shenkar, O., & Raveh, A. (1996). National
and corporate culture fit in mergers/acquisitions:
An exploratory study. Management Science, 42,
12151227.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

877

Copyright of Human Resource Management is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.