MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

not do so when PCS was created because of lack of agreement with its
merger partner. UNiFI's attempts to manage its merger to create a new
organisation were hampered by the union's retention of three head office
sites, but what it did do appears from the evidence to have been
something of a success. CWU did not engage in overt merger
management, except that it regarded the new head office as a major step
to integration, but without managing the process to achieve it. Exhibit 9.1
summarises some activities that occurred. The first four columns refer to
various corporate approaches to merger management. Column 6 deals
with the converse – where managers were left substantially on their own
to integrate staff. Column 7 notes whether either of these processes were
participative. The last two columns indicate whether the space
components of merger management were seen as important.
1. Change
awareness
event(s)
2.
Corporate
strategies
on working
together
3.
Managers
reinforced
integration
message
347
4.
Corporate
approach
to physical
integration
5.
Individual
managers
manage
integration
6. Integration
participative
7. Impact
of building
utilisation
on merger
perceived
as
significant
CWU √ X √ 2 X √√√ √√ 3 √√ √
PCS X √ X √ √√√ √√√ √ √√
UNiFI √√ 4 √√√ √√√ √ √√ √ √√√ √√
UNISON √√√√ √√√ √√√ √√ 5 √√ √√√ 6 √√√√ √√
Key: X = not at all. √ √√ √√√ √√√√
Degree of attention given: Weak………………….Strong
EXHIBIT 9.1. Merger management
Any exhibit of this kind is necessarily subjective to an extent.
This is not a statistical project and estimates of 'strong' and
'weak' attention given to merger management are therefore of
necessity imprecise. It does, however, go some way to
explaining why comments in the CWU suggested that merger
management was poor and that the new union had not
integrated some years after merger; also why comments in PCS
suggested that management of the merger was less than
successful, partly because, it seems, of the conflict which
continued to occur in the union for some years after merger. In
those unions, integration activities relied to a significant extent
on individual managers so that the degree of integration
depended on how those managers had gone about the task.
2
After new General Secretary elected
3
Different approaches because of individualistic nature of central policies
4
In old unions
5
At regional level; no evidence at national level
6
Principally at regional level; limited evidence at national level
8. Impact of
layout on
work
patterns
perceived
as
significant