Organizational Behaviour

Project work

Topic: A Study of Barriers in Cross Cultural Adaptation

Submitted To Ms.Leela Vedantam Assistant Lecturer 316

Submitted By Amrinder Singh Roll No.

Faculty of Management BBA,LLB

III rd Semester,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
As a child, you acknowledged everything you accomplished, as you grow older and more sophisticated, you acknowledge only major accomplishments but an endeavour of this magnitude would not have been possible without the invaluable help and support of Ms.

Leela Vedantam. As always I owe sincere gratitude for her untiring and instant academic, intellectual support and guidance

But I still fail to understand the scarcity of this page to put in the efforts of all those people who helped me and guided me through this part of the paper that I have completed. Anything that I do in my life is incomplete without the blessings of God and my parents.

Amrinder Singh Roll No.316

Research Methodology
SYNOPSIS

TOPIC: A Study of Barriers in Cross Cultural Adaptation

AREA: Organizational Change

SUBJECT: Organizational Behaviour.

OBJECTIVES: 1. To identify as to how does culture act as a barrier. 2. To find out the effect of this change on the organization. 3. To determine the human aspects in a merger.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Research methodology will essentially be deductive and data will be collected from various websites, books and fieldwork. The footnoting style and citation style followed in the project will be the one prescribed by the NLU, Jodhpur. Fieldwork will be conducted in at-least two hotels and hence the project would lead to a focused, comparative, in-depth and empirical study of the data collected through the field study. The research methodology will essentially consist of five steps: 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SET- UP: Information regarding hospitality industry and identifying the best sources of information. Full information would be gathered about the organization where the field study would be conducted.

2. COLLECTING DATA: Data will be collected through the field-study and the research done from various books and websites. There will be a comparative study of the culture in a Law Firm, AZB & Partners (where the field study will be conducted.) which will shed light on the barriers in cross cultural adaptation. 3. EVALUATING THE DATA: The data will be checked for reliability and validity of the data. 4. INTREPRETING THE DATA: result in creating any barriers. Analysis of the difference in the cultural environment of the two organizations prior to the merger, find out the factors which

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the impact of the merger on the structure of the organization? 2. How does the culture of the original organizations affect the merger? 3. What is the impact of the merger on the employees at all levels? 4. How can these barriers be reduced?

CHAPTERISATION CHAPTER 1- Introduction CHAPTER 2- Organizational Culture CHAPTER 3- Functions of Organizational Culture CHAPTER 4- Culture as a Liability CHAPTER 5- Human Aspects in Merger Fieldwork regarding the Project. Analysis of the research done. Suggestions. Conclusions.

Books:
1) Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour (Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, 9th edn,/2001)

Table of contents
S. NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. CHAPTERS Introduction Organizational Culture Functions of an Organizational Culture Culture As a Libility Human Aspects in a Merger Field Study Analysis Suggestions Conclusion 9. Bibliography PAGE NO. 7 8 13 14 16 20 22 28 30 31

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This paper aims at identifying the various barriers in cross cultural adaptation. Cultures are unique to every organization and every organization has dominant as well as sub-cultures. When there is a time for change there always arises the issue of resentment among the employees, and this resentment is because of the culture that has developed in the organization. The employees feel secure in this organization culture and are not willing to have any change entertained. There are certain ways of overcoming this resentment which have to be worked upon by the management.

CHAPTER II ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE1

DEFINITION Organizational Culture refers to a system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organization. This system of shared meaning is, on closer examination, a set of key characteristics that the organization values. The research suggests that there are seven primary characteristics that, in aggregate, capture the essence of an organizations culture: 1. Innovation and risk taking. The degree to which employees are encouraged to be innovative and take risks. 2. Attention to detail. The degree to which the employees are expected to exhibit precision, analysis and attention to detail. 3. Outcome orientation. The degree to which management focuses on results or outcomes rather than on the techniques and processes used to achieve those outcomes. 4. People orientation. The degree to which the management decisions take into consideration the effect on outcomes on people within the organization. 5. Team orientation. The degree to which work activities are organized around teams rather than individuals. 6. Aggressiveness. The degree to which people are aggressive and competitive rather than easygoing. 7. Stability. The degree to which the organizational activities emphasize maintaining the status quo in contrast to growth. Each of these characteristic exist on a continuum from low to high. Appraising the organization on these seven characteristics, then, gives a composite picture of the organizations culture. This picture becomes the basis for feelings of shared understanding that members have about the organization, how things are done in it, and the way members are supposed to behave.
1

Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour (Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, 9th edn,/2001) p. 510

CULTURE IS A DESCRIPTIVE TERM Organization culture is concerned with how employees perceive the characteristics of an organizations culture, not with whether or not they like them. That is, its a descriptive term. This is important because it differentiates this concept from that of job satisfaction. Research on organizational culture has sought to measure how employees see their organization. Does it encourage teamwork? Does it reward innovation? Does it stifle initiative? In contrast, job satisfaction seeks to measure affective responses to the work environment. Its concerned how employees feel about the organizations expectations, reward practices and the like. Although the two terms undoubtedly have overlapping characteristics, keep in mind that the term organizational culture, while job satisfaction is evaluative. DO ORGANIZATIONS HAVE UNIFORM CULTURES? Organizational culture represents a common perception held by the organizations members. This was made explicit when we defined culture as a system of shared meaning. We should expect, therefore, that individuals with different backgrounds or at different levels will tend to describe the organizations culture in similar terms. Acknowledgement that organizational culture has common properties does not mean, however, that there cannot be subcultures within any given culture. Most large organizations have a dominant culture and numerous set of sub cultures. A dominant culture expresses the core values that are shared by a majority of the organizations members. When we talk about an organizations culture, we are referring to its dominant culture; it is this macro view of cultures that gives an organization its distinct personality. Subcultures tend to develop in large organizations to reflect common problems, situations, or experiences that members face. These subcultures are likely to be defined by department designations and geographical separation. The purchasing department, for example can have a subculture that is uniquely shared by the members of that department. It will include the core values of the dominant culture plus additional values unique to the members of the purchasing department. Similarly, an office or unit of an organization that is

10

physically separated from the organizations main operations may take on a different personality. Again, the core values are essentially retained but modified to reflect the separated units distinct situation. If organizations had no dominant culture and were composed only of numerous subcultures, the value of organizational culture as an independent variable would be significantly lessened because there would be no uniform interpretation of what represented appropriate and inappropriate behavior. STRONG v. WEAK CULTURES It has become increasingly popular to differentiate between strong and weak cultures. The argument here is that strong cultures have a greater impact on employee behavior and are more distinctly related to reduced turnover In a strong culture the organizations core values are both intensely held and widely shared. The more members who accept the core values and the greater their commitment to those values is, the stronger the culture is. Consistency with this definition, a strong culture will have a greater influence on the behavior of its members because the high degree of sharing and intensity creates an internal climate of high behavioral control. One specific result of a strong culture should be lower employee turnover. A strong culture demonstrates high agreement among the members about what the organization stands for. Such unanimity of purpose builds cohesiveness, loyalty and organizational commitment. These qualities, in turn, lessen employees propensity to leave the organization. CULTURE v. FORMALIZATION A strong organizational culture increases behavioral consistency. In this sense, we should recognize that a strong culture can act as a substitute for formalization. High formalization in an organization creates predictability, orderliness, and consistency. Our point is that a strong culture achieves the same end without the need for written documentation. Therefore, we should view formalization and culture as two different roads to a common destination. The stronger an organizations culture, the less management need be concerned with developing formal rules and regulations to guide employee behavior. Those guidelines will be internalized in employees when they accept the organizations culture.

11

EXAMPLE: CONTRASTING CULTURES ORGANISATION A The organization is a manufacturing firm. Managers are expected to fully document all decisions; and good managers are those who can provide detail data to support their recommendations. Creative decisions that incur significant change or risk are not encouraged. Because managers of failed projects are openly criticized and penalized, managers try not to implant ideas that deviate much from the status quo. One lower level manager quoted an often used phrase in the company: If it aint broke, dont fix it There are excessive rules and regulations in this firm that employees are required to follow. Mangers supervise employees closely to ensure there are no deviations. Management is concerned with high productivity, regardless of the impact on the employee morale or turnover. Work activities are designed around individuals. There are distinct departments and lines of authority, and employees are expected to minimize formal conduct with other employees outside their functional area or line of command. Performance evaluations and rewards emphasize individual effort, although seniority tends to be the primary factor in the determination of pay raises and promotions. ORGANISATION B This organization is also a manufacturing firm. Here, however, management encourages and rewards risk taking and change. Decisions based on intuitions are valued as much as those that are rationalized. Management prides itself on its history of experimenting with new technologies and its success in regularly introducing innovative products. Managers or employees who have a good idea are encouraged run with it. And failures are treated as learning experiences. The company prides itself on being market driven and rapidly responsive to the changing needs of its customers. There are few rules and regulations for employees to follow, and supervision is loose because management believes that its employees are hardworking and trustworthy. Management is concerned with high productivity but believes that this comes through treating its people right. The company is proud of its reputation as being a good place to work. Job activities are designed around work teams and team members are encouraged to interact with people across functions and

12

authority levels. Employees talk positively about the competition between teams. Individuals and teams have goals, and bonuses are based on achievement of these outcomes. Employees are given considerable autonomy in choosing the means by which the goals are attained.

13

CHAPTER III FUNCTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE2

Culture is the social glue that helps hold the organization together CULTURES FUNCTIONS Culture performs a number of functions within an organization. First, it has a boundary defining role; that is, it creates a distinction between one organization and another. Second, it conveys a sense of identity to the organization members. Third, culture facilitates the generation of commitment to something larger than ones individual self interest. Fourth, culture serves as a sense making and control mechanism that guides and shapes the attitude and behavior of the employees. It is this last function that is of particular interest. As the following quote makes it clear, culture defines rules of the game: Culture by definition is elusive, intangible, implicit, and taken for granted. But every organization develops a core set of assumptions, understanding, and implicit rules that govern day to day behavior in the work place. Until newcomers learn the rules, they are not accepted as full fledged members of the organization. Transgressions of the rules on part of high level executives or frontline employees result in universal disapproval and power penalties. Conformity with the rules becomes the primary basis for reward and upward mobility. The role of culture In influencing employee behaviour appears to be increasingly important in todays workplace as organizations have widened spans of control, flattened structures, introduced teams, reduced formalization, and empowered employees the shared meaning provided by strong culture ensures that is pointed in the same direction.

Supra note 1 p. 515

14

CHAPTER IV CULTURE AS A LIABILITY3

Culture is not something bad or good, only that it exists Culture enhances organizational commitment and increases the consistency of employee behaviour. These are clearly, benefits to the organization. From an employees standpoint, culture valuable because it reduces ambiguity. It tells employees how things are done and whats important. But we shouldnt ignore the potentially dysfunctional aspects of culture, especially a strong one, on an organizations effectiveness. BARRIER TO CHANGE Culture is a liability when the shared values are not in agreement with those that will further the organizations effectiveness. This is most likely to occur when an organizations environment is dynamic. When an environment is undergoing rapid change, an organizations entrenched culture may longer be appropriate. So consistency of behaviour is an asset to an organization when it faces a stable environment. It may however, burden the organization and make it difficult to respond to changes in the environment. This helps to explain the challenges that executives at companies such as mItsubushi, General Motors, Eastman Kodak, Kellogg, and Boeing have had in recent years in adapting to upheavals in their environment. These companies have strong cultures that worked well for them in the past. But these strong cultures become barriers to change when business as usual is no longer effective. BARRIER TO ACQUISITIONS AND MERGERS Historically, the key factors that management looked at in making acquisition or merger decisions were related to financial advantages or product synergy. In recent years, cultural compatibility has become primary concern. While a favourable financial statement or product line may be the initial attraction of an acquisition candidate, whether the acquisition actually works seems to have more with how well the two organizations cultures match up.

Supra note 1 p.516

15

A number of acquisitions consummated in the 1990s already have failed and the primary causes conflicting organizational cultures. For instance, AT&Ts 1991 acquisition of NCR was a disaster. AT&Ts unionized employees objected to working in the same building as NCRs non union staff. Meanwhile, NCRs conservative, centralized culture did not take kindly to AT&Ts insistence on calling supervisors coaches and removing executives office doors. By the time AT&T finally sold NCR, the failure of the deal had caused more that $3 billion. Similarly, WordPerfect Corporation bought Novell Inc. in 1994 to give it a viable word-processing product to compete against Microsoft. But employees and managers from the two organizations could never see eye to eye on important issues. When WordPerfect was sold to Corel Corp. in 1996, Novell got $1 billion less than it had paid just two years earlier. Sometimes, astute executives can see the culture problems during the dating stage and cancel the marriage before tying the knot. Thats what happened between recent merger plans between American Home Products and Monsanto. Despite the potential advantages from research efficiencies and a larger pool of scientific talent it became clear to executive at both firms that trying to merge a frugal, rigidly run company like American Home with a high spending, risk taking one like Monsanto was a potential disaster in the making.

16

CHAPTER V HUMAN ASPECTS IN MERGER4

Often perceived as a soft or ambiguous concept, organizational culture is critical aspect that must be addressed in corporate merger. Combining two very different cultures can be chaotic as both parties try to blend. Most often the process is expensive-in monetary terms and in employee loss. Yet, frequently, in the intensity of deal little attention is paid to potential cultural differences or-even more important-to the lack of agreement ideal culture should be. Focusing, as most deals do, on key financial, legal, and structural issues, organizations fail to examine the values, beliefs, leadership styles and other key issues to have a critical impact on how people work and perform-both as individuals and a group. Even if there is an awareness of culture, when companies begin to think about integration it is not necessarily translated into tactics for dealing with the culture issues. Why does culture act as a barrier as a merger process? It is not the culture but difference in cultures that plays the spoilsport in the post-merger integration process. Mergers and acquisitions bring forth the problems of cultural integration of two disparate organizations, each with its own unique history, systems, and structures. Such changes, while inevitable, also carry a subtle implication the relationship between the acquiring and the acquired organization is that of victor and the vanquished. Even the terms used for describing takeovers- e.g. sharks, targets, bidding war, massacre, white knight, etc. are based on metaphor of battle in which one party wins while the other has to lose. True, not all mergers and acquisitions are hostile. But even the friendly mergers face culture integration problems. A transfer of ownership even at its minimum calls for changes in the performance criteria reporting procedures and control mechanisms. Even though such changes are based on sound business logic, they are usually imposed, and, hence, alienate people. The feelings which mergers and acquisition arouse among employees, may not be expressed openly but they are very much evident in a number of common post mergers and acquisitions symptoms, e.g. increase in executive turnover, breakdown of lines of

S. Subramanium, Managing Human Issues in a Merger, Vol. III, The ICFAI Journal of Organizational Beaviour, July 2004, p. 34

17

communication and control, general apathy or resistance among executives to implement changes, etc. It is also important to appreciate that the human fallouts of mergers and acquisitions are, by no means, merely accidental by products of an otherwise straightforward business strategy. Rather, they are embedded in the very logic mergers and acquisitions. Mergers and acquisitions are based on larger partners (acquiring companys) belief done currently. To achieve this hoped for efficiency, it is but natural for the acquiring company to redesign the work systems and reporting procedures of the target company. These changes, in turn, interfere with the existing cultural equilibrium, and give rise to many potentially dysfunctional human issues. MERGER STRESSORS Many of the stressors that accompany merger activity are obvious most people in the workforce can easily expect job loss, loss of security and transfers. Some other stressors have been identified as new performance evaluation criteria, changes in reporting relationship, and loss of control over ones professional life. In Indian context, three major stressors have been identified, viz. 1. Power, Status and Prestige Changes 2. Loss of Identity 3. Uncertainty POWER, STATUS AND PRESTIGE CHANGES The post merger and acquisitions phase is usually characterized by changes in strategic stance (and therefore, in operating systems) of the acquired company. For example if the acquisition is to achieve backward integration, it is a logical necessity for the company to lose its market orientation. It must become a mere feeder unit, and must pan and produce to suit the priorities of the acquiring company. Even when the new management does not change the internal operating control and coordination systems (e.g. in conglomerate takeovers), the targets and budgets are still decided by the holding company. Such changed conditions have the potential for generating a sense of powerlessness among the employees, and often kill the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of the acquired company

18

LOSS OF IDENTITY Another common merger stressor is the feeling of loss of identity of the acquired company. Employees build their identity around the relationships, which they build with their organizations, its culture and people. When two companies come together through a merger or acquisition these relationships suddenly undergo a dramatic change. At the most obvious level in the post merger and acquisition period there are changes in the companys name, market strategies and control systems. Besides these, employees also have to contend with many other minor changes like transfers, new superiors, which make their daily experience of working strange and alien. Very often, mergers and acquisitions also accompany reduction in the benefits for the executives, while for the labor there are changes in the bargaining rights and contracts etc. the consequent demands for the personal and professional adjustment take heavy psychological toll on the employees. UNCERTAINTY For the employees the news of takeover (even when it is termed as merger by the new management), implies many things. The perceptions range from having been betrayed by the previous management to the possibilities of large scale retrenchment. Being taken over is seen as proof of the ineffectiveness of the previous ways of working. For those managers who choose to remain with the company, the takeover is also felt as ones own inadequacy and lack of capability to manage. This feeling is further compounded by the fact that, following the takeover, many talented and committed executives either leave the organization or are removed by the new management.

19

MERGER IMPACT MODEL

MERGER STRESSORS Job Uncertainty Loss of Identity Job loss or demotion or transfers Compensation/benefit changes Power, status and prestige changes Leadership strife New rules and regulations New evaluation criteria Change in reporting relationships New employees and co-workers

PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Insomnia High blood pressure Trembling Muscle pain Headache Increased accident rate Increased sick leave Increased alcohol/drug use Gastrointestinal difficulties

PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Insomnia High blood pressure Trembling Muscle pain Headache Increased accident rate Increased sick leave Increased alcohol/drug use Gastrointestinal difficulties

CORPORATE AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS

Derails primary corporate focus Decreased productivity Lowered morale Increased disloyalty Increased turnover Higher absenteeism Increased stealing Sabotage Increased wrongful termination lawsuits

20

FIELD STUDY
AZB & PARTNERS AZB & Partners is a partnership between lawyers who have come together to offer their expertise to clients under one name. The merger took place between Ajay Bahl and Associates and Zia Modys firm CZB. These partners share the profits of the firm as well as the risks (liabilities), and engage other lawyers to work with them as associates. These associates work at the firm for a period of time, and, provided they establish their competence at work, can even become partners at the firm and share in the profits and management of the firm. This firm caters to the interests of companies and private individuals alike, though most of the large law firms deal exclusively with corporate houses, i.e. companies. The two firms merged in 2004, enhancing their position in the legal field further. Because of the merger, AZB has influence now in both New Delhi as well as Mumbai. Recently, an office in Bangalore was setup. I spoke with Senior Associate Mrs. Neha Kapoor5, who has been at the firm before the merger took place and has seen the organization change in every way since the merger took place. I had a telephonic conversation with her regarding various aspects of the merger and the effect on the work culture and the organization. I asked the following questions: Q.1) Q.2) Q.3) i) When the merger was being contemplated, what was the general feeling? Did a feeling of insecurity prevail? ii) Did this feeling of insecurity compel certain persons to leave the organization? Q.4) Q.5) How did the little information of the merger (before it taking place) affect the work environment? How did the merger affect the work culture of the organization? (timings, deadlines, methodology) If possible few examples.
5

What was the reason for the merger of the two firms? Was there a dominant party in the merger? If yes, how has this dominance affected decision making in the organization?

Mrs. Neha Kapoor, Senior Associate AZB & Partners, F40 South Extension I, New Delhi Ph No. 9810002461

21

Q.6) Q.7) Q.8)

Were there any efforts made to reassure employees? Was the merger transparent to a certain extent? How has the merger affected your clientele? Since the time the merger took place, do you feel that it has only reflected in the balance sheet or have the two firms truly merged with respect to work culture and organizational behaviour? I also had a very brief telephonic conversation with two Associates who wanted to be referred to as anonymous, for reasons known to them alone. They answered the questions in a strikingly similar manner; therefore I have referred to them as one entity. I asked the same questions as I wanted to draw a distinction between the views of the seniors and juniors at the firm, which shall be analyzed in each question step by step. While speaking to the three respondents, I felt that overall that the merger took place keeping in mind the best interests of the organization, Including employees and clientele.

22

ANALYSIS
Q.1) What was the reason for the merger of the two firms? Ajay Bahl & Associates were a Delhi based law firm which and Delhi alone, whereas Zia Modys Firm, CZB & Partners were solely a Mumbai based firm. Both the firms had a view to expand, therefore the two firms merged becoming one of the biggest law firms of the country. Ajay Bahl wished to expand in Mumbai, whereas Zia Mody wished to get a foothold in Delhi as well, thus the merger. Q.2) Was there a dominant party in the merger? If yes, how has this dominance affected decision making in the organization? Both the firms wanted to expand to places where they did not have a presence. According to Mrs. Neha Kapoor, there was no dominant party in the merger, which in turn has not affected the decision making in any way. She also reiterated that since the two firms were going to benefit so much from the merger that it was in the best interests of both the firms to have a smooth merger. Therefore, no party tried to dominate the other in the present merger. Whereas the juniors felt that Ajay Bahl & Associates were getting the worse end, this is a common phenomenon among the employees at the lower level because of the little information that had percolated. People tend to view change negatively from the outset, as enumerated below the sense of insecurity is high when such sort of information reaches employees. The employees tend to feel more insecure in a merger or acquisition when their parent company is the one to whom the terms are dictated. It is also important to appreciate that the human fallouts of mergers and acquisitions are by no means, merely accidental by-products of an otherwise straightforward business strategy. Rather they are embedded in the very logic of mergers and acquisitions. Mergers and acquisitions are based on the larger partners (acquiring companys) belief done currently. To achieve this hoped for efficiency, it is but natural for the acquiring company to redesign the work systems and reporting procedures of the target company. These changes, in turn, interfere with the existing cultural equilibrium, and give rise to many potentially dysfunctional human issues.

23

These may lead to Power Status and Prestige changes, in the acquired party, which is a cause for huge stress among employees. Changed conditions have the potential for generating a sense of powerlessness among the employees, and often kill the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of the acquired company or the company who is has been dominated. But here there has been no dominant party because of the fact that both the firms were equally big in their respective cities. Q3.) (i) When the merger was being contemplated, what was the general feeling? Did a feeling of insecurity prevail? When the two firms merged, it was kept a secret and no one except the top management knew about the merger. One fine evening everyone was summoned to the conference room where the news was broken that the CZB and Ajay Bahl had merged. But due to informal relations among the employees of an organization the news of a merger does leak out, no matter how little the information, which was confirmed by the two junior associates. Whereas Senior Associate Mrs. Neha Kapoor, told me something to the contrary, that the whole merger was a top secret. It is very rare that such major decisions do not filter down in some way. The feelings which mergers and acquisition arouse among employees, may not be expressed openly but they are very much evident in a number of common post mergers and acquisitions symptoms, e.g. increase in executive turnover. Such uncertainty in an organization regarding the future structure, working etc. tend to create various feelings among the employees, but most of all a feeling of uncertainty prevails. Nothing conclusive came from the associates either they just repeating that the organization was feeling that there was a need for a change. For the employees the news of takeover (even when it is termed as merger by the new management, because one party is always the dominant party) implies many things. The perceptions range from having been betrayed by the previous management to the possibilities of large scale retrenchment. Being taken over is seen as proof of the ineffectiveness of the previous ways of working. For those managers who choose to remain with the company, the takeover is also felt as ones own inadequacy and lack of capability to manage. This feeling is further compounded by the fact that, following the takeover, many talented and committed executives either leave the organization or are removed by the new management.

24

Q3.) (ii) Did this feeling of insecurity compel certain persons to leave the organization? No employee felt the need to leave the organization. Due to the strong work culture present at Ajay Bahl and Associates and the feeling of job security which was quite evident while speaking to all three of the respondents. If there was a weak culture at the organization and the employees did not reflect the core values of the organization, many employees would have been overwhelmed with the size of the take over that they would have been driven out of their organization, out of sheer insecurity. But this was not the case in the present organization Q.4) How did the little information of the merger (before it taking place) affect the work environment? Mrs. Neha Kapoor was adamant that she was unaware of the merger, which according to me cannot be bought. A contemplation of a merger between the two firms here is a matter which cannot be kept a secret for a long time, which is because of the sheer size of the two firms in question. To thrash out a merger deal a lot of time is consumed therefore in the time used up for the same, information definitely had passed down in however little amounts. Whereas the associates gave a different reflection, although nothing conclusive. When asked whether they knew about the merger they again denied the same, and again reiterated that they felt that it was time for the organization had to change and grow. Therefore I rephrase my question in a manner asking what they felt about the change that the organization needed. They diplomatically sidestepped my question and themselves rephrasing the earlier response, modifying that there was a sense of excitement and insecurity by thinking about growth opportunities. It was very difficult to read into such a situation, therefore relying on the theory on mergers and acquisitions and the environment in which this merger took place I concluded that very little information did percolate, but it was not enough to cause any sort of discomfort. This, according to me is due to the strong work culture in the organization. Q.5)How did the merger affect the the organization? (work culture, policies, methodology) When asked this question Mrs. Neha Kapoor at first said that nothing much had changed except for the fact that overnight they become a firm of 25-30 lawyers to a firm of 70 odd

25

lawyers, which is a huge number for a law firm. The merger happened at a time when there was no growth as such, as the two associates said they did expect growth. Reaffirming my presumption that they knew about the merger. Mrs. Neha Kapoor said that the moment the merger was announced there was an immediate reaction of excitement among everyone at the firm. This could be seen from CZB as well. But when the initial excitement ended people sat down to think Aage kya hoga? (Now what next?). Although there was no reassurance about the jobs of the employees, but this I feel was not needed because the two cultures would not have been affected due to the geographical distance between then. And also, because the firm already had a very strong culture from before therefore there was no need for any reassurance. This is also substantiated by the fact that there were no sub-cultures in the organization which have the core values of the dominant culture of the organization. This is because there were no teams or units, the lawyers used to come together for a particular task and then be with new members for the next task. There were a few changes in policies, e.g. earlier there was no fixed time period after which an associate became a senior associate. But, now the period was fixed at four years, also dependent on performance. Te revenue of the merger has increased manifold, and AZB & Partners lawyers have the highest per capita income earning in the country. The work cultures of the two firms were not affected in any way as mentioned before earlier because of geographical distances, but this does not mean that there is no interaction among the two cultures. Every week there is a meeting held among the two branches (now three because of the one in Bangalore) with the help of video conferencing. The associates answered that there was no affect on the day to day working of the organization, it was just as if coming for work everyday but the name of the firm had changed. Q.6) Were there any efforts made to reassure employees? Was the merger transparent to a certain extent? According to Mrs. Neha Kapoor and the two associates there was no effort on the part of the management to immediately reassure the employees about that their jobs are safe. I feel that

26

there was no need for any reassurance as there was a strong culture in the organization already prevailing. As stated in the earlier question the merger was top secret therefore the issue of transparency does not arise. But inferring from the facts and theories the merger does not look to be transparent due to Mrs. Neha Mehras adamant dismissal of the fact that the merger was bound to be known by few employees. And the associates also saying that they just felt that there was a need for growth. Q. 7) How has the merger affected your clientele? Mrs. Neha Kapoor stated that the clientele base grew as now they have access to earlier CZBs databases as well. The clients earlier did not have representatives in Delhi, whereas now when they travel to Delhi they are not in the wilderness and have someone to turn to in the time of any legal aid or advice and vice versa. More clients are attracted due to the sheer size of the organizations. The revenue of the organization has also grown manifold due to the increase in the number of clients. The client base has quadrupled since 2004.

27

Q.8) Since the time the merger took place, do you feel that it has only reflected in the balance sheet or have the two firms truly merged with respect to work culture and organizational behaviour? The merger at this point of time has still not taken full effect; Mrs. Neha Kapoor said that the structure that was proposed has still not come into place. The profit sharing ratio was not disclosed but, I was told that since the merger the number of partners have increased, therefore the hierarchy at the top level has still not taken a total shape. But the structures at the lower levels (senior associate and below) there has been no change at all. At the lower level of the management there was no change which is a good sign, but a hierarchy which is not defined at the top level is a dangerous sign. All the details of the top level management were denied to me, but it can be safely said that any disturbance at the top level might have repercussions throughout the structure of the organization. Any uncertainty in the structure should be removed to ensure that there are no chances of any power struggles at the top level which would harm the organization in any way. In totality it can be said and my view was shared by Mrs. Neha Kapoor that the effect of the merger is mainly reflected in the balance sheet. And no such change in the culture of the two firms.

28

SUGGESTIONS
All organizations have cultures, strong or weak. In the case of AZB & Partners the cultures of the original organization was very strong and thus the impact of the merger on the two cultures was negligible. There is minimal interaction among the two offices (now three in Bangalore as well), the only interaction that was told to me was the Video Conferencing that happens every week. Such amount of interaction is not enough to affect the cultures in a major way. 1. There is a need to develop a core culture which is unique to AZB & Partners, and not two sub-cultures (original a core culture). Such a core culture is required to give a distinct identity AZB & Partners. There is a need to assimilate the two cultures. 2. In the future there will be a need for the two offices to cooperate and work together on certain tasks, therefore the two cultures need to have certain similar traits so that it is easy for the individuals to work together and improve efficiency. 3. At the time of the merger the merging of cultures was definitely an issues and should be taken up now as soon as possible to identify something as common for the members of the two cultures to identify with each other. 4. The structure at the top of the management has still not taken its shape totally and this is a cause for concern as there could be certain negative effects if this is not resolved as soon as possible. As the norms established at the top level filter down therefore for the sake of the entire organization the top management should be defined clearly. 5. A friendly merger doe not alone the ensure the success of the merger in the long term. There arises a need for maintaining the new culture that comes about because of the merger (which should be created instead of two subcultures) for a successful culture to be established the following human values must be part of the post merger culture: Alignment- Shared commitment between individuals and groups Performance- Commitment to results and management Resolution- Search for common ground when there are opportunities or problems Relationships- Open communicating and listening Inventiveness- Creativity and finding new possibilities 29

Principles- Shared vision, values and constructive policies.

By putting the human and cultural factors on the same level of importance as the financial, legal and technological aspects of the deal, the firm may improve their chance for successful integration.

30

CONCLUSION
The corporate mergers can be compared to marriage. There is the initial attraction, the courtship the proposal, the acceptance, the marriage and then- life. When the reality of everyday life hits a marriage, the partners find themselves dealing with many issues they had not really considered. There can be differences in communication styles, in financial practices, in priorities, in personal beliefs etc. Culture is not a soft term which can be taken for granted, culture should also hold a place in the negotiations when the financial, legal, and other aspects are discussed. In the organization in which I conducted my field study there were two strong sub cultures but not one strong culture which was unique to AZB & Partners, this is not a usual practice. The firm is in the early stages of the merger and no such issues regarding conflicts in culture have come up. But with a dominant strong culture the chance of a dispute decreases drastically.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
1. Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour (Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, 9th edn,/2001)

JOURNALS:
1.

32