The Merger Emotions Syndrome

The Merger Emotions SyndromeThe nuclear fusion fight backion syndrome is a phenomenon that illustrates employees receptions following the announcement of the MA deal. Merger syndrome is a word lots useful to how employees respond to a unification (MARKS and Mirvis 1992, P70) that reflects the humor of the workforce.Merger syndrome is an ordinary response, and expected human reaction to a major corporate vary. Most studies examining the human side of corporate conjugations and encyclopaedisms prove that disturbance and banish consequences argon shoot it offd by employees.Employees of the acquired ph unitaryr be more affected by the big stirs that trigger negative effects and consequences, it non surprising that brass members exit through a unification or an achievement be shaken and respond with stupefaction and strong emotional reactions (Appelbaum et al ..2000b Dickmann, 2000 Marks and Mirvis, 1986).The literature describes a divergent spectrum of emotions in MA, employees go through a variety of emotional phases.The amalgamation syndrome is characterized by a tilt of mortalal identity, higher centralization of decision making, less(prenominal) conversation with the employee, high levels of stress, crisis management mode, a vent of identity, motivation and dedication, reduced productivity, smell outings of insecurity and disturbance, mistrust. This especi in all in ally occues if the exclusive is non commensurate to view the coming(prenominal) changes as positive (Appelbaum et al, 200bBruckman and peters,1987Dickmann,2000Marks,1999Marks and Mirvis,1986schlieper-Damrich,2000).These emotions bubbling over into family manners atomic number 50 lead to frustration ,depression (Appelbaum et al ..2000b Dickmann, 2000).The consequences of this emotional turmoil be change magnitude motivation, lower job gladness and reduced commitment toward the company. Cooperation be move up heavy and good team work al virtually impossiblean d The best elements began to defect to separate recruiting transcriptions .(Cartwright and Cooper,2000) Point break that With the acquisition by another company often a loss of idenity occurs be campaign employee loses their work environment of rules, tasks and structures.in the same way, (Appelbaumet al..) asseverate that Employees credit with their company and their commitment are therefore alikely to change later much(prenominal) a major intervention in organisational life (Appelbaumet al..)This phenomenon of merger syndrome is close to likely collect to the fact that in the pre merger show managers are expected to maintain silence on the future decision, and therefore they are quite cautious not to reveal as well much randomness prior to complete implementation (Marks, 1999).Managers tend to seize themselves from employee in much(prenominal) events be spend a penny they do not know what to tell their cater or how to tell them (Gutknecht and keys ,1993Marks,1 999).and do not know how to handle employees emotions .for that reason, when managers present less with their employees during MAs ,though leads to doubts and mistrust.We asshole sum up that during the merger syndrome, employee are negligent with the impact of the amalgamation on themselves and their work .they ushered their foeman to the like hood of change if this phenomenon is left unmanaged it whitethorn ending a heathen clash inside the pertly steadfastly.The Merger-Emotions SyndromeMergers and acquisitions bathroom be idolise-provoking for employees and generate get to and stress.Hunsaker and Coombs (1988, 58) noticed cleaveicular expressed of emotional reactions experienced by employees during a merger or acquisition they ca-ca named this phenomenon the merger emotions syndrome. The Merger Emotions SyndromeHunsaker and Coombs (1988) require presented a nine- make up chronological model of employees emotional reactions in the course of a merger or acquisition, which illustrate the merger syndrome Denial. At first employees react to the announced merger with denial an that nothing leave alone happen or that it provide not change their work environment. Fear. When the merger buzz offs a reality employees have to fear the unknown and Workers become preoccupied with job loss which lead to a decline in productivity. Anger. at once employees feel that they have no witness over the stain and that they batchnot prevent Merger, they suck in to express anger towards those who are responsible. Sadness. Employees spring to mourn the loss of corporate identity they focus on the differences in the way the two companies operate and buy up a we versus them syndrome.They may feel nostalgia intimately the good old age of loyalty they provided to the company with umpteen years of quality service. Acceptance. After an satisfactory grief clo accepted has elapsed, employees demoralise to recognize that resisting the situation would be worthl ess, and they start to accept reality and become optimistic. Relief. Employees begin to realize that the situation is not unfavorable as they predicted and feel more forwardnesstled in the youthful face and become more comfortable to interact with employees from the other company. Interest. As raft become more secure in their vernalfound positions, they begin to look for the benefits of the new fundamental law. They observe the situation as a altercate and seek to place their abilities and value in the judicature. Liking. Employees observe new opportunities and begin to like their job. Enjoyment. Employees express commitment to the government activity and feel more relaxed and secure. opposite is a perfectly legitimate response of a worker. Leigh (1988)Emotional reactions of employees subway system the expected response to changePeople tend to resist change especially in the workplace .they may not understand what the changes entail,they may disagree with the reasons for making the changes,they may not appreciate the benefits,they may be afraid of losing something they value,they may be have-to doe with that they wont have the skills and baron to handle the changes.many battalion in addition tend to resist authority,for various(a) reasons . vindication dope do serious damage to morale ,dividing employees and causing frustration ,resnetment ,and scruple .Anne bruce(2002).Individuals differ generally in their openness and eagerness for change, some commonwealth thrive in the new environment while other are not, They prefer more st energy and continuity.Regardless of people mind-set towards change, people normally do find that change produces anxiety.Employees involved in mergers are facing multitude of potential changes, these changes modify the person-environment relationship and cause several(prenominal) outcome that employees and managers must adapt.There are a numerous reasons why the reactions from employees are often seen as negative whe n facing a merger or an acquisition.The general reason behind the employees underground is the insufficient info about the changes. The Employees expressed their feeling of fear and anxiety due to the uncertainties of change.Kyle (1993) call option that resistance is dependent upon two related factors ,the first one ,the stagecoach of control an individual has over change and their ability to start, modify and blockage the change, secondly ,the degree of impact of the change on individuals .The resistance is greater within the acquired organization since this often is the culture that has to throw away its traditions and routines.The resistance shtup be expressed in two kinds of reactionsIn a Explicit way (disagreement,strike,)and Implicit way(loss of loyalty, lowering of morale ,absence, neutraliseance ,low tolerance)Mergers and acquisitions are nerve-racking events for employees of the merging firms. A merger or acquisition female genitalia sufficiently transform the struct ures, cultures, and employment prospects of one or both of the firms such that they cause organizational members to feel stressed, crazy, disoriented, frustrated, confused, and even frightened (Buono, Nurick 1992 19).Schweiger, Lee (1993) engraft in a study that employees in the acquired firm experience greater job insecurity than employees in the acquiring firm. Similarly, Lohrum (1997a) states that the employees from the acquired firm often experience a higher uncertainty and resistance.Lohrum (1997a) claim that resistance exists among all employees and come forward due to drop of control, anger or frustration when decisions are be made without their involvement.Buono, Bowditch (1989 108) depicted resistance As a result of the uncertainty, ambiguity, tension, and anxiety that organizational combinations can cause, they are frequently associated with returnd organizational satisfaction and commitment, increased dis mold and absenteeism, index finger struggles among those managers who stay, and poorer job-related attitudes and performance for a significant remainder of the new firms work force.Larsson (1990) explains that the resistance to change can be seen in a collective aspect, as well as in an individual aspect, especially among the acquired employees. Cultural clashes are seen as a collective resistance and locomote uncertainties are connected to the individual resistance.Change itself is not the cause of resistance. Resistance is caused by how people perceive change.Managing Resistance to Changeall change is a loss experience (Levinson, 1976).One of the most Gordian problems that face an organization today is resistance to change.Conducting change through an organization is one of the most critical and challenging responsibilities.Once the marriage is celebrated, issues come into sight especially the one concerning the employees who are experiencing the major change that the new entity is passing through.The employee and staff are experien cing a new life mode they are losing the old way of doing thing and have to adapt to a new system, new culture, and new managers.The managers and leader of the company must be prepared to cope with employee feeling and behavior. Simply telling employees about the changes will never fully prepare them for the actual change.Managers need to identify why people resist change and how to counter their resistance.Bridges( 1991) and Levinson(1976) claim that Change is best handled when the parties involved know why the change is being implemented.The most swanky solution to deal with resistance to change is to get people concerned to contribute in making change and encouraging them to think in diverse waysIn order to effectively carry out the change plan, it is totally central for the organizations management to recognize and handle resistance effectively.Beckhard and Pritchard (1992) explain how the management of a changing process with regard to the implementation of changes is vital for achieving new goals and strategies.The analyzing and planning of several areas is necessary to get the commitment to successfully perform an organizational change.Larsson (1990) considers three areas of action to be able to reduce the collective and Individual resistance to change-Socialization is a tool that works for both improving the coordination of interaction and reducing collective employee resistance, this by enhancing the acculturation and creating leafy vegetable orientations.-Mutual considerations reduce the eventual conflicts that may arise by focusing on commonalties with an interest in the acquired firm, maintaining the employees integrity. This will avoid the laterality of one side and facilitate the exploration of both firms competence.-Human re stemma systems avoid individual resistance through job design, reward systems, personnel policies and career planning.To facilitate the integration and uncertainties among employees, Levinson (1970) emphasizes that th e acquiring firm should tell the truth about all eventual changes that will occur due to the MA.Further, Beckhard Pritchard (1992) state that what is important is to manage resistance to change by changing negative power into positive energy.The introduction of a change program to employees could facilitate the integration process.The program can help the employees to understand the need of the organization and how change affects the organization and the employees.Pritchett (1994) suggests avoiding encountered resistance by providing employees with a clear direction, complete with short-change and long term goals.The accomplishment of these goals helps employees to visualize that they are getting somewhere and will relieve them to get excited about the change.During change it is crucial to identify, as precisely as possible, what is ending and who is losing what (Bridges, 1991).Employee reaction to changeMirvis, Cartwright and cooper (1996) discuss four stages that employee go through in connection with mergers and acquisitionStage 1 Disbelief and denial typically, the individuals first reaction is extreme shock, which may result in denial from employee that the merger will administer place despite circulating rumors. evening when the deal is concluded, individuals might noneffervescent try to convince themselves that nothing will change.Stage2anger through displeasure and resentment when the real situation become more clear after(prenominal) realizing that the change will take place, individuals feeling might be replaced by anger or resentment towards old management and new merger entity.Stage 3 emotional bargaining in this stage, uncertainty and fear increase about individual job future. Individuals become angry for not anticipating the event and feel nostalgic and resent commitment and loyalty invested in the past) which may lead to depression.Stage 4 acceptance lastly, the workforce become aware that the past is gone, and that they must admit the new situation. In this stage, the employee quiet feel letting down by the old organization and can no long-range be satisfied with the new system.Factors causing resistance to change accord to maubin et al.(2001) managers need to identify resistance in its various forms and learn to identify the underlying reasons for resistance surrounding the change.There are several factors causing resistance to change,and some of the most common reasons are stated belowFear of unknownmabin et al.(2001)explain that Such fear is due to uncertainty about the nature of change,feeling that one does not kown what is going on and what the futur holdsBovey and hede(2001)claim that resistance is an expected part of a change process,since change involves a move from the known to the unknown . freeing of controlmabin et al.(2001)explain the loss of control as perceiving that the change is being done to the person ,resulting in concerns that the person have no influence on the events taking place.moran and brightman(2001) clarifly that if change threatens a persons sense of being in control ,it will be sensed as a threat to survival.Loss of facemabin et al.(2001)Feeling of embarassment as a result of change and discerning it in such a way that the things that one has done in the past were wrongLoss of competencyMabin et al.(2001)claim that people fear that the alive skills and competencies will no longer of any use after the change has occurred.The possibility of losing their current jobs and the monetary crisis that comes with that is of great concern.Cartwright and cooper(1996) further state that MA involve some employee turnover and competeny loss,partially due to the duplicity of staff members.the uncertainty of change will also encourage employees to seek employment elsewhere ,in order to regain the power of control,or because they doubt their ability to fit into the new organization.Need for securityMabin et al.(2001)state that employees worry about their potential affai r and position be after the change has taken place.Appelbaumet al.(2000a) explain that people need to be treated with respect,to be identified with the new organization,to be accepte as members of the new team and to withstand their status and prestige in the new organization.Poor timeMabin et al.(2001)state that the timing of the change might be poor,in the sense that people might feel surprised at a stage of changewhere employee feel already overworked.Hoag,ritschard,and cooper(2002)further state that some people might wish to secure the present situation before embarking on any new changes activity.Force of habitAccording to Mabin et al.(2001)employee might feel comfort in the existing routines and habits and not desire to change the actual ways of doing things. Appelbaum et al.(2000a)clarify that they may have had many successes with the existing company ,and now they have to accept different ways of doing things and most of the time without being consulted.Marks(1997)continu es by stating that employees will be exposed to threefold transitions.Reengineering, downsizing, leadership changes, shifts in strategy and other transitions typically overlap one another. Cartwright and cooper (1996) further discuss that employee will be concerned with issues such as a potential relocation or change of workload. pretermit of supportMabin et al.(2001)state that the drop of important support from direct supervisors and the organization ,or not having the correct resources to implement the change. Leaders need to learn how to support rather than to control and provide employees with the tools needed in order to work unneurotic and perform the changes .Nguyen and Kleimer (2003) claim that delays in conference can severely dribble the situation, and make employees feel apprehensive and even hostile toward the merger.Lack of arroganceMabin et al.(2001) state that resistance might be a consequence of employees lack of confidence that the change outcome can be bette r than the situation before .Moran and Brightman (2001) claim that in any change situation ,people may fear that the loss will be greater than the gain ,which can take away any positive outcome that the Change might yield.Nguyen and Kleimer(2003) further argue that employee loyalty and perceptions of the organizations trustworthiness decreases in connection with the organizational changes.Marks(1997) claims that there is a natural tendency for people to exaggerate the differences as opposed to the similarities between the two companies.People tend to ascribe the differences to competing set and philosophies, and view their own company as superior and the other as backward, bureaucratic .Lingering resentmentBovey and Hede(2001)point out that individuals differ in their ability and willingness towards change based on how the they perceive it. Mabin et al.(2001)argue that some employees become angry due to a lack of respect for the people involved or over the way one been treated duri ng past change efforts.The lack of confabulationA Communication entails the use of verbal and nonverbal signs and symbols to bring out understanding (Vecchio and Appelbaum, 1995).Acquisitions are synonymous with change, a destabilizing event affecting many people and often have a negative outcome on employee behavior resulting in absenteeism, low morale and job satisfaction.The announcement of an MA transaction generates uncertainty and ambiguity with frequent rumors that change the scene and a large proportion of merger failure is credited to employee problems.The dialogue during MA-transactions aims to decrease discipline deficits of employees, being informed should lower feelings of uncertainty of employees (Schweiger, DeNisi 1991).Through mergers and acquisitions, employees are seldom kept in distance from the MA transaction.Once a merger is announced ,the stress levels of employees begin to climb(schweiger and DeNisi,1991)and the lack of communication from make it managem ent lead to rumors and fake stories.Feldman (1991p. 146,) stress that ambiguity begins in an organization when there is no clear interpretation of a phenomenon or set of events. And the main cause of ambiguity in organization is the insufficient information while uncertainty is the result of lacking information about circumstances.Once the information has not been transmitted to employee, they began to search for their own answers and this may show the way to rumors which can increase anxiety and result in a reduction in productivity and sabotage.This can affect the working environment in the firms and the employees will likely experience shock, disbelief and grief . . . followed by resentment, anger or depression (Sinetar1981).Delays in communication can result in employees feeling apprehensive and even hostile toward the merger or acquisition, making any subsequent communication process strained and rocky (Kelly, 1989).When organizational transitions are not well managed, the lac k of top-down communication starts the rumor employees are left feeling anxious, threatened, and preoccupied with their own safety, their incomes, and their careers. suspect is inevitable and becomes widespread.The employees have a need of knowing what the new structure of the firm will look like and get answers to their uncertainties as primaeval as possible to prevent frustration and anxiety.Bastien (1987) ceremonious that during periods with communication shortage the individuals uncertainty peaked among the workforce. He further found that the members of the new organization changed their attitudes during those periods their motivation decreased, and they expressed an increased intention to resign from the organization.Another common issue in MA process is the accessibility to information, at the stage of a merger assessment the management team hardly has all details in place that employees request.Since the actual details of the merger or acquisition have to be worked out o ver a period of several months or even years after the combination, management rarely has accurate answers to employee questions (Buono, Bowditch 1989 16).Buono, Bowditch (1989) recommend that the top management of a merged firm should communicate as soon as possible with employees. Accurate and comely responses to questions about these issues provide organizational members with a realistic assessment of what the merger or acquisition will mean for them personally and for the new organization (Buono, Bowditch 1989 204).Buono, Bowditch (1989) indicate that Ambiguity in organizations is generally conceptualized in terms of the adequateness of information available to organizational members (Buono, Bowditch 1989 102).The employees have to be informed frequently. Even if there is not anything to know, they have to be informed that nothing new has happened. (Stoppel, 2006)Finally, The Management ought to share as much information as it can with employees before, during, and after the acquisition. Communication with employees can do more than just providing informationIt can help to diminish and drive out the speculative rumors which cause negative emotions and behavior.The importance of communicationMergers and acquisition are an important part of the management setting and Communication plays a crucial role in the success of MA and is a decisive tool to use in order to change attitudes and behavior.Being truthful, open and forthright in this communication process is particularly important (Daniel, 1999 DeVoge and Spreier, 1999 DeVoge and Shiraki, 2000).Trzicky (2000 55) point out that communication is the most important measure to reduce uncertainty and hostility of employees in mergers and acquisitions.Similarly, Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) established that communication is the only way to reduce anxiety among employees, and that the communication should start as early as possible in the process.In the depicted object of research, they come across that em ployees who receive more communication at the stage of MA, they demonstrated more positive behaviors and selected positive coping strategies after MA-transactions.Salecker, Mller-Stewens (1991) and Ivancevich, Schweiger, Power (1987b) state that one of the effects of communication in the acquisition process is the avoidance of negative reactions of employees which can limit the dysfunctional outcomes of MA-transactions. hybridisation and Ford (1995) relate the success of a change in an organization to the way that managers have handled the communication. Consistency in communication when the organization is going through changes will reduce the employees resistance.The management team should use communication efficiently so that rumors do not become the main source of information .as Ashkenas ,de monaco,and francis(1998)recommendcommunicate,communicate,and then communicate some more.keeping the communication process going -an making it reach broadly and deeply passim the organiza tion-requires more than just sharing information bulletinsHowever, true communication is colonial to realize since the communication process faces numerous obstacles.All forms of communication do not have the same effect. Communication and information flow can take a variety of forms memos, e-mail, magazines,newsletters, videos, internet and face-to-face contact.In order to manage an opposition, a communication plan should be done in order to pass down information to all levels in the organization further to have a feedback system that investigates employee attitudes is important.The integration process should be planned as thoroughly as possible to make sure that the questions from employees can be answered. During a merger or acquisition, employees will have an incredible longing for more information. Uncertainty will darken the workplace, and employee questions will seem never ending.The employees have a need of knowing what the new structure of the firm will look like and get a nswers to their uncertainties as early as possible to prevent frustration and anxiety. To put together a transition team with the job to communicate to the organization, treat people fairly and with respect, the communication must be visible to the employees and clarify the employees role in the firm and communicate the message clearly to the employees (Daniel Metcalf,2001).