Resources Available to Managers to Manage Employees through Mergers

Resources Available to Managers to Manage

Employees through Mergers

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Business mergers or acquisitions are happening more frequently because of how

the technological advancements have opened the doors to the global market (Tavor,

2013). Technology has advanced to allow companies to join the global playing field for

supply, employee, and customer resources. The global market is putting a greater strain

on corporations to stay competitive and remain solvent. According to Tavor (2013),

technological advancement has become the center of many economic activities, resulting

in mergers and acquisitions. Through mergers and acquisitions, companies share

resources and costs so they can remain globally competitive.

With the ability to globally resource employees, companies are seeing a greater

employee turnover rate. Employees have the ability to work for corporations across the

globe, therefore opening up their opportunities for personal choices and advancements

without leaving their country. Losing employees is a continuous cost to corporations

(Campbell & Alleyne, 2002). Mergers and acquisitions are also increasing the cost to

companies because employees often feel lost during a merger or acquisition, which

results in a high employee turnover rate. While managers are responsible for managing

the employees' day-to-day activities, they are also often assigned the task of working the

merger/acquisition details. This places increased stress on the managers, often leading

them to ignore employee concerns. While there are many studies on mergers and their

effects on employees, there are very few studies focused on understanding what resources

are available to managers to help them effectively manage employees through mergers.

In this study, I focused on understanding what resources are available to managers to help

the employees through the merger integration.

The general topic of the study was the effective resources that can help managers

successfully retain employees through the merger process. In this chapter, I discuss the

study’s background, present the problem statement, purpose statement, and research

questions. Next, I discuss the conceptual framework, and the nature of the study. I

summarize the chapter with the definitions, assumptions, scope and delimitations,

limitations, the significance of the study, the implications for social change and the

chapter summary.

Background of the Study

Mergers take a toll on all levels of an organization. Hinescu (2014) noted that the

effects of mergers go beyond the stakeholders, creditors, and third parties. Managers and

employees are affected directly by a merger announcement. Rafferty (2007) discussed

how employees of acquired companies often have both positive and negative reactions

because they do not know what role they will play in the new organization. There are

many changes happening throughout a merger process, and employees can feel lost in the

mix. Taylor, Austin, and Caputo (1992) found that employees feel a loss of family

atmosphere once a merger is announced. Other losses can range from personal freedom,

communication within the company, and the availability of the managers. Komornicka

(2015) found that many employees also lose health, medical, and pension benefits once a

merger is announced.

Hinescu (2014) noted that there are both legal and psychological impacts of

mergers on employees. Merger announcements often cause extra stress as employees’

fear of job loss increases (Hinescu, 2014; Giessner, Ullrich, & van Dick, 2011; van Dick,

Ullrich, & Tissington, 2006). Merger announcements come as a surprise for most

employees, resulting in uncertainty about their future. The employees are unsure about

how they will fit within the new organization, the future of their job, and the future of the

organization that once was family to them. Hinescu explained that employees’ rights need

to be understood and explained to them to help with the merger process. Podgorski and

Sherwood (2015) and Giessner, Ullrich, and van Dick (2011) discussed the roles of

human resources and organizational development departments in helping reduce the

impact on employees during a merger. Human resources departments play a key role

during times of change and can help organizations through a merger by providing help

with “(a) target identification and strategy formulation, (b) due diligence, (c) integration

planning, (d) integration implementation and management, (e) integration evaluation”

(Podgorski & Sherwood, 2015, p.45). Giessner, Ullrich, and van Dick found that

employees’ well-being is one of the areas of least concern during the merger. Employees

often deal with pre- and post-merger organizations (Giessner, Ullrich, and van Dick,

2011). Pre-merger organizations view the merging company as enemies creating conflict,

competition, and discrimination (Buono & Bowditch, 1990; Giessner, 2009; Haunschild,

Moreland, & Murell, 1994; Terry, 2001). Post-merger has employees comparing

themselves to those in the other company (Giessner, Ullrich, and van Dick,

2011).

Managers continue to manage the employees through the merger; however, they

are often busy trying to understand the merger and what is expected of them. Marks and

Mirvis (2001) stated that three out of four mergers fail to achieve their strategic

objectives once a merger is announced. According to Rafferty (2007), mid-managers feel

caught between the expectations of their managers and the employees reporting to them.

Managers are responsible for ensuring the employees are retained while the

merger is taking place. According to Zhang et al. (2015), managing employee talent is

one of the core issues during a merger process. In their discussion of Greenleaf's servant

leadership theory, Parris and Peachey (2013) contended that servant leadership is not just

a management style but the way of life. A manager needs to have the skills and tools to

manage the employees through a merger. According to Kelly, Cook, and Spitzer (1999),

failure rates of mergers are fairly high, and successful mergers include active manager

involvement. It is also important the managers have soft skills to resolving cultural issues,

ensure effective communication, and look after the people.

Over the course of my literature review, I found a wide variety of factors that

result from a merger announcement. Many researchers have discussed the effects of

mergers on employees, and others have discussed how managers can help with the

success of the merger. The gap in the literature is in the understanding of what resources

are available to managers to help effectively manage the employees through mergers.

This study was needed to identity available resources managers can use, once a merger is

announced, to successfully retain employees through the merger process.

Problem Statement

The failure rate of mergers is between 30-80% (Kelly, Cook, & Spitzer, 1999;

Marks & Mirvis, 2001), with the greatest effects being felt by the employees because the

people integration is poorly managed (Podgorski, & Sherwood, 2015). One of the

challenges, according to Komornicka (2015), is once the merger is announced, what

happens to employees is not included in the focus of the merger. Hinescu (2014) found

employees’ morale decreases as a direct result of a merger announcement. Managers are

given the responsibility of ensuring workers are managed throughout the merging of

companies. The general problem is that when organizations go through mergers, the

managers lack the knowledge and resources to manage employees through the merger

integration. The specific problem is that the scope of resources available to managers to

help them manage employees through the merger process is unknown. There is a lack of

studies on the resources available to assist managers with managing employees during

mergers resulting in a critical gap in management literature.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this phenomenological descriptive study was to understand the

resources available to managers to manage employees during mergers. Mergers take

place between companies on a regular basis. While a merger can be planned between

managers, there are often many aspects of a merger which go unnoticed. During mergers,

managers are not only responsible for ensuring that business performance, motivation,

and job satisfaction go on as usual, but also that the well-being of their employees does

not go unnoticed, which is often an area of less concern for upper management (Giessner,

Ullrich, & van Dick, 2011). For this study, I defined management resources as programs,

training, manpower, departmental support, and communication methods.

Research Questions

For this study, I developed one central research question with several

subquestions. The primary research question was: What is the scope of resources

available from a manager’s perception, to manage employees through a merger? I

conducted interviews using open-ended questions for 14 managers of previously merged

companies. To achieve a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study, I

developed the following additional research questions:

1. What type of special resources or skills were you provided to help manage the

employees through a merger? How did you utilize the resources?

2. Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you

utilizing the resources or skills to improve the situation? What effects did it

have on the employees?

3. What were the benefits for the employees when a manager was provided

resources/skills to manage employees through a merger? What are the benefits

for the managers? What are the benefits for the organization?

Conceptual Framework

For this study’s conceptual framework, I combined elements from Greenleaf’s

servant leadership theory (1977) and Herzberg’s two factor theory (1968). Greenleaf

introduced servant leadership after years of studying the roles of leaders and their

relationships within organizations. Greenleaf’s theory is based on the premise that the

role of leaders in organization is to lead and demonstrate their complete commitment to

serving others (Greenleaf, 1977; Parris & Peachey, 2013). As the name indicates,

Herzberg’s (1968) two factor theory involves two factors: motivation and hygiene. These

are intrinsic (motivation) and extrinsic (hygiene) factors that contribute to employees’ job

satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The factors that contribute to how employees feel about

their jobs include company policies, relationships, manager’s supervision, employee

achievement, recognition, employee growth, and responsibility (Herzberg, 1968).

Employees enter organizations with their education and previous experience.

Employees want to be successful and eventually gain enough knowledge to advance

within an organization. They rely heavily on their managers to manage and guide them to

succeed in meeting the company’s goals and achieving personal growth. Personal

achievement is high on employees’ agendas when entering organizations. Employees can

fulfill personal achievement by feeling rewarded for work, having their needs met, feeling

valued, and feeling like part of a team. If the employees feel their needs are met, they are

more likely to have job satisfaction and feel valued. This may lead to employees

maintaining performance and remaining productive, supporting the need for employee’s

needs to be met in order for them to give back to a company.

Managers play a large role in the success of their employees. Managers are

responsible for setting goals and implementing development plans for their employees.

Interaction and communication with employees on a regular basis helps to build a trusting

relationship. According to Greenleaf (1977), a trusting relationship is needed between

leaders and employees in order to have positive employee responses. Employees rely on

managers to help succeed by having the managers put their needs first. According to

Greenleaf (1977), employees see leaders as servants first.

Herzberg’s (1968) two factor theory holds that there are two factors that

contribute to employees’ job satisfaction: motivation and hygiene. These are intrinsic

(motivation) and extrinsic (hygiene) factors that contribute to employees having job

satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The motivators that contribute to the employees having job

satisfaction include employee achievement, recognition, employee growth, and

responsibility (Herzberg, 1968). The hygiene factors that result in job dissatisfaction are

company policies, working conditions, working relationships, and manager’s supervision

(Herzberg, 1968). This theory is useful for understanding the importance of managers’

supervision for employees’ job satisfaction or dissatisfaction Employees are exposed to

many company policies, procedures, and challenges that can contribute to employee’s job

satisfaction or dissatisfaction. When employees do not have job satisfaction, they will

eventually seek other sources of employment. Herzberg’s two factor theory stresses the

importance of both factors—motivation and hygiene. Managers have an impact on how

both factors affect the employees.

Employees are exposed to many company policies and procedures, including

challenges that can contribute to employee’s job satisfaction. When employees do not

have job satisfaction, they will eventually seek other sources of employment. Herzberg’s

two factor theory stresses the importance of both factors motivation and hygiene.

Managers have an impact on how both factors affect the employees.

Managers who recognize the importance of both factors for employee

development can maintain job satisfaction and security for employees through a change.

Mergers create an atmosphere of uncertainty. Herzberg’s two factor theory and

Greenleaf’s servant leadership theory become more important in times of change. The

employees heavily rely on their managers to help guide them through the merger process

and to give them needed information. The employees want to know their managers are

looking out for their best interest. According to Greenleaf (1977), employees will not

respond to all people in authority; rather, they respond to the leaders or managers who

have earned their trust. Greenleaf’s servant leadership and Herzberg’s two factor theory

support my study to understand the importance for managers to manage the employees

through a merger process.

I chose Greenleaf’s servant leadership and Herzberg’s two factor theories as the

foundation for this study because when mergers are announced, employees rely on their

managers for regular communication and guidance. Managers have the responsibility for

managing the employees through the merger process. Herzberg’s two factor theory

supports the importance of the role of a manager and their management style during a

merger. The employees rely on the managers to guide them through the process and help

them be successful. Employees who do not trust their managers will have a challenging

time once a merger is announced. Many factors can affect how a manager manages the

employees through the merger process.

In Chapter 2, I offer a more detailed explanation of other studies that have used

Greenleaf’s servant leadership and Herzberg’s theory to compare management styles and

factors that affect employees once a change is announced. In this study, I focused on what

resources are available to managers to manage employees during a merger. The study

was concentrated on answering the three supporting research questions that will

ultimately answer the overall central question for the study: What is the scope of

resources available from a manager’s perceptions to manage employees through a

merger? Interviews were conducted using the developed questions and analyzed through

the QSR Nvivo 11 program uncover themes, or resources, that managers can utilize when

managing employees through a merger process.

Nature of the Study

This qualitative research included gathering data from interviews. Qualitative

research is focused on understanding some aspects of social life (McCusker & Gunaydin,

2015). My research questions were focused on obtaining a better understanding what

resources are available to managers to help them manage employees through a merger.

The questions helped me explore the resources used by managers to manage employees

through mergers.

I used a phenomenological descriptive study design. Englander (2016) stated that

using phenomenological research is best suited for understanding issues in human

science. According to Sousa (2014), researchers conduct descriptive-based

phenomenological studies to describe, understand, and clarify human experiences. In this

study, I interviewed 14 manager participants who had lived through a merger and could

share their experiences. A phenomenological study was appropriate for this study because

I was interested in collecting data from the experiences of the participants (Smith, 2014).

I conducted the study by bracketing, analyzing, intuiting, and describing to

produce an understanding of the phenomenon being researched (Colaizzi,1978; Giorgi,

1970; Swanson-Kauffman & Schonwald, 1988). This research required me to collect raw

data, sort the information into significant patterns, and then summarize the data into

themes. There are many companies going through mergers, therefore the

phenomenological study I conduct can be conveyed as an overall manager’s experience

while working through mergers.

Definitions

This study contains seven terms. The terms included are found throughout the research

study. I have provided the following definitions for clarity and ease of understanding.

Acquisition: When an organization legally and financially obtains another

organization; (Rau & Stouraitis, 2011).

Corporate culture: The integral component of how organizations influence

employee behaviors, employee performance, and organizational performance (George,

Sleeth, & Siders, 1999; Kotter & Heskett, 1992).

Integration: The interactive process in which employees from companies involved in a

merger learn to work together to handover each company’s plans (Alaranta,

& Parvinen, 2004).

Leadership: A role within an organization that has traits, characteristics, and

behaviors to help others focus on a clear vision and collaborate (Avolio, Gardner,

Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004).

Merger: For the purpose of this study, a merger and acquisition are

interchangeable. Both activities involve company transactions where employees and

managers will be involved in change. In a merger, two or more companies are combining

(Aktas, De Bodt, & Roll, 2013).

Merger waves: “Industry-specific shocks will occasionally destabilize the existing

market structure, and mergers and acquisitions will then be one of the main instruments

through which a new equilibrium is achieved; often, a succession of mergers” (Andrade,

Mitchell, & Stafford, 2001; Andrade & Stafford, 2004, Mitchell & Mulherin, 1996).

Phenomenology: “A framework that can be used to provide language and concepts

about how to bridge differing worldviews” (Duckham & Schreiber, 2016, p.57).

Assumptions

I made three assumptions in this study. (a) interchangeability of terms, (b)

managing/supervising people and (c) research participants. The first assumption was

related to the definition and use of the words merger and acquisition. Both activities

involve company transactions where employees and managers will be involved in change.

Mergers combine companies, while in acquisitions one company acquires another. For

the purpose of this study, I treated the two processes identically because they have largely

the same effect on employees and managers. The second assumption involved managers

and supervisors who I interviewed for the study. Since managers or supervisors both

manage the employees through the merger process, I included both managers and

supervisors as participants. For the purpose of this study, managers and supervisors were

treated as having equal responsibilities of managing employees during the merger

process. The third assumption was related to the research participants. The purpose of the

study was to provide an understanding of resources available during merger integration.

To achieve this goal, I assumed that participants understood the intent of the research and

were truthful when answering the interview questions. Further, I assumed that the study

participants had experienced direct management of employees through the merger

process.

All three assumptions are necessary to consider when conducting this study. The

assumptions focus on the concept supervisors and managers both manage the day to day

interaction of activities of an employee. The employees will feel similar effects from a

merger or acquisition of the company. Therefore, the study will consider both as equal

when choosing participants for the interviews. It was also important to assume the

participants interviewed for the study understood the purpose of the research and were

truthful in answering the questions during the interview, to help contribute to the study.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope will identify what is to be considered within the study, and the

delimitation is topics not considered as part of the study. The scope will include the

personal experiences and perceptions of the study participants while managing employees

through a merger.

Scope

The scope of this study included managers in organizations that had already gone

through the merger process. Mergers have increased over the last few decades. Therefore,

there were multiple organizations available from which to draw participants. Most

mergers focus on the financial aspect for one or both companies (Marks & Mirvis, 2001),

and the employees are often left out of the overall merger process. Managers are expected

to continue business as usual; however, they are often left to manage employees who feel

disconnected to the company. According to Hinescu (2014), employees experience many

feelings during a merger. Managers want to manage their employees through a merger,

but often do not have the skills or resources to ensure employees’ needs are met.

Companies have resources available to help managers manage employees through a

merger; however, managers often do not know what resources are available. In this study,

I focused on understanding the resources available to managers to manage employees

during a merger.

Delimitations

I delimited the study to participants from North American based companies who

had managed employees through the merger process. Mergers take place with all sizes of

companies, and employees feel the effects no matter the size of their company. The study

had three delimitations (a) demographic topics (b) managers and (c) attributes that are the

results of merger integration. When recruiting participants, I did not consider several

demographic characteristics including (a) ethnic background, (b) religious affiliation, (c)

financial status, (d) sexual orientation, and (e) physical location because these topics

would not add value to the results. Further, the manager participants were required to

have been directly involved in managing or supporting employees while the merger

process was taking place.

The third delimitation was the attributes that are affected during a merger process.

These factors constituted the framework of the lived experiences of the managers through

the merger process. I focused on their personal experiences of working with their

employees once the merger was announced. Given these delimitations, my findings can

be used by future managers working through mergers, and can be generalized for future

studies on mergers.

Limitations

All studies have limitations. There were five limitations to this study associated

with (a) sample size, (b) resources, (c) participants, (d) qualitative data analysis, and (e)

researcher bias. The first limitation was that I used a sample of fewer than 20 participants.

The second limitation was the resources available to participants. While there may be

many resources available to managers to help them manage employees through a merger

process, not all managers have access to all resources. Companies may provide managers

with limited or no resources. Third, the participants I interviewed may have had access to

limited resources to assist them in managing the employees through a merger. The fourth

limitation was the qualitative data analysis. I used the QSR NVivo 11 program and an

Excel spreadsheet, analyzed the information I entered into both systems, and identified

themes as they appeared through the research. The fifth limitation was researcher bias,

which is possible with all research. I have had experience with mergers; however, I did

not discuss my experience with any of the study participants. It is important for a

researcher to maintain an open mind and not let personal experience get in the way of the

data collected. I addressed all limitations so that they did not interfere with the research

study. The study results can be used by future researchers to expand on the merger issues

that affect employees.

Significance of the Study

This study may help managers understand what resources are available to assist

managers in managing employees through a merger. Managers can have a profound

impact on employees’ attitudes regarding their job performance and motivation while

going through a company merger. This research may help future organizational leaders

better understand what resources are available to managers to ensure the success of

managing employees through a merger.

Insights on this topic could help future managers approaching a merger with

information how to work with employees so employees can stay committed, motivated,

and continue to maintain job performance through the merger process. Mergers are taking

place on a regular basis; therefore, it is important for managers to have an understanding

what resources are available to help them successfully manage employees through a

merger. This study may increase managers’ awareness of available resources and increase

the rate of employee retention through a merger process.

Positive Social Change

The results of this study may contribute to positive social change for individuals,

community and the society. Merger failures have multiple negative consequences

(Himmelsbach & Saat, 2014) that may affect the stakeholders, managers, employees, and

the families of these individuals (Angwin & Meadows, 2015). Understanding what

resources are available will allow managers to be more effective in managing employees

through a merger. The improvement of employee retention will assist with greater

organizational stability by increasing employee job satisfaction and decreasing employee

turnover. Lower turnover rates can help reduce the financial impacts on organizations by

not having to hire and train new employees so often.

As a result of this study, the larger management community will have greater

knowledge of how to contribute to the success of an organizational merger through

improving employee management. Employees who feel their needs are met will continue

to be loyal to their managers and contribute to the success of the merger. Happy

employees contribute to the success of the organization by ensuring customers are

satisfied and return for future service. Understanding the resources available to managers

to manage employees through mergers can increase the knowledge in the community of

merger success.

Resources are available to help managers manage their employees through the

merger process; however, managers may not be fully aware of the availability of the

resources. Understanding the available resources will allow the managers to manage their

employees successfully through a merger and have a positive impact on the greater

management, business, and consumer community.

Summary and Transition

Chapter 1 included a detailed introduction to this phenomenological descriptive

study and included discussions of the (a) background, (b) problem statement, (c) purpose

statement, (d) research questions, (e) conceptual framework, (f) nature of the study, (g)

definitions, (h) assumptions, (i) scope and delimitations, (j) limitations, (k) significance

of the study, and (l) implications for social change.

I reviewed the background to set the stage on merger history and the impacts on

employees once a merger is announced. Managers are expected to manage employees

through the merger with the resources the company provides to them. In my problem

statement I identified that the scope of resources available to managers to help manage

employees through a merger successfully is unknown. My focused purpose statement was

to understand the resources available to management to manage employees during

mergers through the phenomenological descriptive study. I identified resources as

programs, training, manpower, departmental support, and communication methods.

My three core open-ended research questions were used to conduct the interviews

with the selected participants. I outlined the conceptual framework of Greenleaf’s Servant

Leadership (1977) and Herzberg’s two factor (1968) theories on which the study was

based. I discussed the reasons why the phenomenological descriptive method was chosen

to conduct the study, the number of participants that were interviewed for the study, in

my nature of the study section. In my definitions section, I discussed common terms

found through the study and the assumptions section identified three assumptions present

while conducting the study.

The three assumptions were (a) interchangeable of terms, (b)

managing/supervising people, and (c) research participants. In my scope and

delimitations section I identified what is within the boundary of the study and the items

that would not have an effect on the study. The three delimitations were (a) demographic

topics, (b) managers, and (c) attributes as a result of a merger. The limitations were

identified being present while conducting the study; (a) sample size, (b) resources, (c)

managers, (d) qualitative data analysis, and (e) researcher bias. Through the significance

of the study section I identified the value of the study to managers in managing

employees through a merger and maintaining employee retention. The implications of

social change apply to employees and the greater management, business and consumer

communities.

In Chapter 2 I provide a comprehensive literature review with the focus on how

past researchers have identified the effects of mergers on employees and organizations.

The beginning of the chapter focuses on the following topics; definition of a merger,

classifications of mergers, the history of mergers, why do mergers take place and the

success and risks associated with mergers. The effects on the organization are further

broken down into; Financial impacts, business development, the governance structure of

management, decision making, production and goals, technology, training and retraining

and system and management systems. I continue the chapter with a discussion on

company culture and employee retention.

Once a merger is announced, the employees are affected in many different ways.

In chapter 2 I discuss the following effects on employees when a merger is taking place at

their place of work; commitment, trust, communication, attitudes and stress, engagement

and motivation, morale, and performance and production. I then summarize by discussing

the role of human resources when a merger is announced and the comparison of five

management styles in managing employees through a transition. The five management

styles being compared are; transformational leader, transactional leader, authentic leader,

situational leader and servant leadership.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

All employees are affected by mergers and acquisitions to some degree.

Employee morale decreases as a direct result of the announcement of a merger (Hinescu,

2014). According to Komornicka (2015), once an organization announces a merger,

employees and their benefits tend to be pushed out of focus. Kelly, Cook, and Spitzer

(1999), and Marks and Mirvis (2001) have found that the failure rate of mergers range

from 30%-80%. Unfortunately, poor management of the personnel integration process

can negatively affect employees (Podgorski & Sherwood, 2015). There is little

information on the resources available to help managers manage employees through a

merger.

Leaders are given the responsibility of ensuring workers are managed and retained

throughout the merger. The problem I studied was that many managers are unaware of

the resources available to them to help manage employees through the merger process.

The lack of studies on the resources available to help maintain employees during mergers

marks a significant gap in management literature.

Mergers take place on a regular basis. While a merger can be planned between

managers from each company, there are often many aspects of a merger that go

unnoticed. Managers are not only responsible for ensuring that business performance,

motivation, and job satisfaction go on as usual, but also that the well-being of their

employees does not go unnoticed, which is often an area of least concern (Podgorski, &

Sherwood, 2015). The purpose of this phenomenological descriptive study was to

understand the resources available to managers to manage employees during mergers. In

this research, I defined resources as programs, training, manpower, departmental support,

and communication methods.

In this study, I explored the resources available to managers to help them manage

the employees through the process once a merger is announced. I examined patterns and

themes from the lived experiences of managers who managed employees from the

introduction of a merger until the completion of the merger process. Chapter 2 opens with

the literature search strategy and a summary of why Greenleaf’s servant leadership theory

and Herzberg’s two factor theory were best suited for this research. It also includes a

review of similar studies that have been based on servant leadership theory.

The remainder of the literature review serves as an overview of merger history

and the effects of mergers on both organizations and people. The review of mergers is

further broken down as follows: (a) what a merger is, (b) classifications of mergers, (c)

history of mergers, (d) why mergers happen, (d) merger success, and (e) risks associated

with mergers. The impacts on organizations are broken down as follows: (a) financial

impact, (b) business development, (c) governance structure, (d) management structure, (e)

decision making, (f) production and goals, (g) technology, (h) training and retraining,

(i) systems and processes, (j) management systems, (k) and organizational processes.

The effects of mergers on employees include: (a) organizational culture, (b)

employee retention, (c) commitment, (d) trust, (e) communication, (f) attitudes and stress,

(g) engagement and motivation, (h) morale, and (i) performance and productivity. In the

chapter, I summarize the role human resources can play during a merger and the

management styles leaders’ use when managing employees. I review four management

styles, ending in a summary of why servant leadership is best fitted as a management

style to successfully manage employees through a merger.

Literature Search Strategy

I conducted the literature search using multiple databases including EBSCO Host,

ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Sage. I started with a broad search of keywords relevant

to the study and added additional keywords that emerged from the search. These

keywords included mergers, mergers or acquisitions, merger history, merger success,

merger integration, merger effects on people, employee commitment on mergers,

employee attitude and merger, employee stress and mergers, communication and merger,

merger employee performance, employee trust, employee morale, morale, engagement,

productivity, employee performance, employee retention, and employee mergers.

Additional words and phrases included human resources, employee retention,

transformational leadership, transactional leadership, authentic leadership, situational

leadership, and servant leadership. Keywords related to effects of mergers on

organizations were financial impacts, business development, governance structure,

management structure, decision making, production and goals, technology, training and

retraining, management systems, and work processes. The key words were searched to

ensure saturation of the information.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for the study is based on Greenleaf’s servant

leadership (1977) and Herzberg’s two factor theory (1968). Greenleaf first started his

research while working at AT&T by looking into management development to meet the

needs of employees (Shirin, 2014). According to Greenleaf (1959), managers need to

continuously improve themselves to have the ability to develop their subordinates.

Greenleaf developed his theory after reading the novel Journey to the East, which was

based on one of the servant man in the plot who had the characteristics to lead without

knowing he was doing it (Greenleaf, 1977). According to Shirin (2014), the servant

character Leo maintains the spirit of the group by singing and interaction with its

members. Spears (2010) and van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) noted that a servant

leader has the ability to listen, be aware of individual’s feelings, have empathy when

dealing with people, help the individuals to heal, and be committed to individuals,

empowering employees and community growth. When Leo left the group, the group

became dysfunctional and lost (Greenleaf, 1977).

Greenleaf (1977) used Leo to describe the attributes of a good leader. He stated

that while Leo was just a servant, he realized that when Leo exercised his traits of a

leader to ensure the others’ spirits remained lifted, it resulted in the people wanting to

follow his lead. Greenleaf’s theory is that one’s natural tendency is to serve the people

one leads. Leaders who lead first before becoming a leader have the natural instinct to

serve the needs of others before themselves (Greenleaf, 1977). Muhammad, Haq, and

Kiran (2016) found that servant leadership is about serving the community they serve

first.

Herzberg (1968) spent years as a professor studying motivation. He conducted the

first investigative study with engineers and accountants; he then went on to investigate

multiple populations (Herzberg, 1968). All investigations resulted in findings that the

factors involved in an employee’s job satisfaction are different than the factors that

contribute to job dissatisfaction. He classified motivators as contributors to job

satisfaction and hygiene factors as contributors to job dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1968)

mentioned that managers play a significant role in helping employees achieve job

satisfaction.

Managers are responsible for seeing their employees through a merger. Mergers

are challenging times and employees look to their managers for guidance and support

during these times. Servant leadership theory holds that managers should practice to be of

better service to their employees. The managers’ role has a direct impact on employee’s

job satisfaction or dissatisfaction and is supported through by the two factor theory. Many

scholars have used servant leadership and two factor theories to compare how leadership

skills come naturally and can be enhanced.

Many researchers have used servant leadership to compare leadership roles and

the effects they have within organizations. Kirsch and Peters (2017) recently studied

servant leadership as their basis for developing student leadership, and Akram, UI Haq,

and Karin (2016) used servant leadership to understand organizational commitment in

high school principals. Güçel and Begeç (2012) conducted similar research on a private

university to compare servant leadership and its effects on organizational citizenship

behavior. All of these researchers found developing and practicing servant leadership

skills had a positive impact on organizational commitment. Leaders play an important

role in leading their employees through the merger process.

Jaramillo, Bande, and Varela (2015) conducted a study to explore relationships

between servant leadership, supervisor trust, and employee performance. Song, Park, and

Kang (2015) researched the role of servant leadership in knowledge sharing and team

performance enhancement. Both studies showed that when leaders are servant leaders,

their employees’ performance increased. Employee performance may increase if the

servant leaders work to establish and develop trust (Ardakani, 2012; Bartol & Srivastave,

2002). Leaders play an important role as role models to their employees; therefore,

leaders’ actions are often shadowed (Jaramillo, Bande & Varela, 2015). The benefits of

servant leadership for both the organization and employees are improved job performance

(Choudhary, Akhtar, & Zaheer, 2013).

Employees with improved job performance also show their commitment to an

organization. Leaders can help employees be committed and improve their performance

by their behavior. Doniaa, Rajab, Panaccioc, and Wang (2016) found that servant

leadership promotes better job satisfaction. Linden, Wayne, Liao, and Meuser (2013)

found that servant leadership also creates behaviors that result in benefits to the whole

team. Job satisfaction and improved performance will benefit an organization by giving

the employees the motivation to remain with a company throughout a merger. Jorge

Correia de Sousa and Dierendonck (2015) conducted a study to better understand the

effects of servant leadership and employee engagement while a merger was taking place.

They reviewed engagement, organizational identification, and psychological

empowerment and found a positive correlation between servant leadership and

maintaining employee engagement during a merger process. When leaders practiced

servant leadership in their day-to-day interactions with the employees, the employees

were motivated to serve, dedicated, and felt empowered (Jorge Correia de Sousa &

Dierendonck, 2015).

Fisher (2009) conducted a study reviewing motivation and leadership in social

work management. Social workers rely on their personal experience and practice wisdom

(Fisher, 2009). Fisher presented multiple theories to social workers to allow them to

choose the theories that fits their own style and found that managers perform better when

they work from a model, and that social workers who used theories found many benefits.

Evans and Olumide-Aluko (2010) conducted applied Herzberg’s theory to the

Nigerian school leadership. The researchers discussed the differences in living conditions

for the education staff, as compared to the western world. They concluded that while

Herzberg’s theory works when applied to the western world, it did not apply to the

Nigerian educational leaders. Because of the different workplace influences in Nigeria,

Herzberg’s motivating and hygiene factors did not affect job satisfaction or

dissatisfaction. While Herzberg’s theory does apply in the Western world, it may not

travel to other parts of the world.

This research study is based on understanding what resources are available to

managers to help manage employees through a merger. Applying servant leadership and

the two factor theory to my research questions helped me gain an understanding of what

resources or skills were used by the leadership to manage the employees through the

merger process. Podgorski and Sherwood (2015) stated that employees are often the last

to be considered in a merger process. Servant leadership theory relates to how leadership

and employees interact during a merger process.

The findings from this study will be beneficial to management teams responsible

for managing employees while a merger is taking place. Managers will have a better

understanding of the resources applied while managing employees through a merger. The

study will also expand on the servant leadership and the two factor theories by

researching the benefits of practicing servant leadership in a merger atmosphere.

Literature Review

Mergers

Mergers are a common occurrence in today’s global market. A merger is defined

as the act of two organizations combining to form one organization (Jewoo & Tianshu,

2014). Vazirani (2015) added to the definition by stating it is a circumstance whereas a

company, including all assets, liabilities, and people merge with another company. Others

refer to the wave portion as the outcome of shocks mergers have on the economy (Gort,

1969; Mitchell & Mulherin, 1996). Mergers allow two corporations to integrate and share

resources, resulting in a larger corporation with a greater opportunity to expand their

business. However, mergers can have both positive and negative impacts on companies.

Employees have to change and adapt to the newly formed combined company. The

formation of new companies through mergers is a common occurrence in today’s market

place. The merger waves first started at the end of the nineteenth century (Gaughan,

2010; Varizani, 2015) and fell within four classifications (Cartwright & Cooper, 2001).

Classifications of mergers. Throughout the years of merger activity, there are

four classifications of mergers: “(a) vertical, (b) horizontal, (c) conglomerate, and (d)

concentric” (Cartwright & Cooper, 2001, p. 3). Vertical mergers join a supplier and their

customer (Becketti,1986). A chemical distribution company merging with the

transportation company carrying their product would be a vertical merger.

Horizontal mergers are results of two companies selling the same product

Becketti (1986). Suncor Corporation (Suncor.com, 2017) and Syncrude Corporation

(Syncrude, 2017), which both sell crude oil, are in direct competition to each other. If a

merger occurred, it would be considered a horizontal merger.

Another category of mergers is a conglomerate merger. This classification is when

corporations from unrelated business areas merge (Becketti, 1986; Fish, 2007).

Expansion can help a corporation to branch out into another market such as hotel and an

airline corporation. A good example of this is EasyGroup Holdings (Easygroup, 2017).

This organization started out as an airline business but has since branched into a wide

variety of service companies; hotels, rental cars, food stores, and more.

Concentric mergers are when companies acquire businesses in a different field

(Cartwright & Cooper, 2001). This happens when corporations expand into a market

unrelated to their current business. Branching can widen the corporation’s targeted span

of the global market. The results from this type of merger can introduce new programs

and strategies the corporation may have to adopt to remain successful. An example is

when a large corporation decides to venture into another area of business; buying another

business already established in that area.

Mergers are based on the needs of the corporation, allowing the corporation to

grow within the current market, expand into another market, or do both. Tavor (2013)

found that mergers have existed for over 400 years with a focus on efficiency.

History of mergers. Mergers have been taking place over a few decades. There

were many different waves of mergers that have taken place and continue to take place

today. There are different views on what years the first wave of mergers took place.

Gaughan (2010); Vancea (2012), discussed the first waves of mergers took place from

1897 to 1904; however, Vazirani (2015) and Lipton (2006) found the first merger wave

was from 1893-1904. Becketti (1986) stressed the merger wave started in the 1890’s, but

gave no definitive timeline and Banerjee and Eckard (2001) found that it ran from

18971903. While the timelines may not align, the late 1800s was the start of the first

merger wave to take place.

This merger wave was started during the economic expansion after the depression

(Vazirani, 2015). It was mainly companies combining similar products to help improve

efficiency and reduce the overall costs (Gaughan, 2010). The nineteenth century was a

highly turbulent time for business growth (Banerjee & Eckard, 2001). Most mergers were

major horizontal mergers involving oil, mining, steel and other large manufacturing

industries (Vazirni, 2015). Becketti (1986) found that this first set of mergers contributed

to changes in the laws and regulations regarding mergers. Martynova and Rennboog

(2006) found this was the era when companies became bulk companies because of the

opportunity to grab a majority of the market. The first set of mergers allowed for

corporations to gain power, creating the need for regulations to be put in place to prevent

a monopoly.

The second wave took place from 1916-1929 (Gaughan, 2010; Vancea, 2012).

This was the result of the United States joining the World War 1 (Vazirani, 2015). In the

same era, communication was expanding and reaching multiple geographic regions. This

merger wave brought changes to the automobile industry, rail roads, and iron and coal

mines (Lipton, 2006). This era ended as a result of the stock market crash in 1929 and the

depression (Lipton, 2006).

The third wave was from 1965-1969 (Gaughan, 2010; Tanimura & Wehrly, 2012).

Martynova and Rennboog (2006) found that the third wave began in the 1950’s and lasted

for more than two decades. This era was the start of the conglomeration (Vazirani, 2015).

The passage of the new regulation of the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 reduced the

amount corporations could expand by taking over other unrelated business to expand their

market share to benefit from the larger new product market (Martynova & Rennboog,

2006). This wave ended in 1969 when the global oil crisis resulted in the global recession

(Martynova & Rennboog (2006). The conglomeration era allowed for larger corporations

to have market control and resulted in greater growth and expansion.

After the market had started to recover from the recession, the fourth merger wave

took place from 1981-1989 (Gaughan, 2010; Tanimura & Wehrly, 2012; Vazirani, 2015).

Hostile takeovers were introduced by the rise of the corporate raider, resulting in the

breakup of many conglomerations (Vazirani, 2015), divestitures and going private

transactions (Martynova & Rennboog (2006). The United States had record-breaking

mergers take place in the 1980’s (Gaughan, 2000). This era had many organizations

trying to survive but also not sure when the next change was going to hit the organization.

Some takeovers happened overnight without notice, leaving the employees wondering if

they were going to have a job the next day.

The fifth merger wave took place in 1994-2001 (Gaughan, 2010) and was

commonly referred to as the Mega-Merger (Vazirani, 2015; Lipton, 2006). This was the

era of the large formation of companies going to a global level (Vazirani, 2015;

Martynova and Renneboog (2006). Many companies signed merger deals to maintain

their stock prices (Lipton, 2006). This time resulted in a rich environment for mergers

because of the expansion of the global economy (Gaughan, 2010). This era ended with

the decrease of the stock market and the banks tightening the reins on lending to

corporations (Lipton, 2006). It was the first time corporations stretched their markets by

merging with companies in the international market. With the advancement of

technology, organizations could outsource work to countries around the globe at a

cheaper rate. The technology allowed distant workers to complete tasks through the

internet at a cheaper rate than local employees in well-developed countries. Technology

advancements forced corporations to expand beyond the domestic businesses to remain

competitive in the global market.

The Sixth merger wave began three years later, taking place from 2004-2007

(Gaughan, 2010; Lipton, 2006). Hopkins (2008) discussed the merger lasting from

20022010, whereas Alexandridis, Mavrovitis and Travlos, (2012) discussed that it started

2003-2007. This was only three years after the last merger wave. This wave consisted of

investments, buyouts and takeovers (Tanimura & Wehrly, 2012; Vazirani, 2015). The

main contributors to this era were globalization, low interest loans, and growth of private

equity funds (Ezemma-Ekeogu, 2014; Lipton, 2006). This wave ended with a large

amount of debt and financed mergers.

Since 2007, mergers have continuously occurred. According to Bouree (2016),

many think we are in the seventh wave of mergers today. The year 2015 saw the highest

recorded mergers on a worldwide scale (Thomson Reuters, 2015). With the fluctuations

of the economy, it will be interesting to see when mergers hit the ceiling in the seventh

merger wave.

With this brief history of mergers, the remainder of this section I will review why

mergers happen, the success rate of mergers, and the effects mergers have on

organizations and the employees.

Why mergers happen. Corporate groups have been merging for decades, but

each corporation may have their reasons for tackling the changes that need to be

addressed during a merger process. Rodrigues (2014) found that mergers could happen

for a variety of reasons: the value of economies, technology, or a decrease in the market

size. Mergers often happen to also expand on internal growth (Gaughan, 2000) and to

improve a company’s competitive position in the global market (Vazirani, 2015).

Bogan and Just (2009) found that financial advantage was the reason behind

mergers. Marks and Mirvis (2011) found that companies often merge in an attempt to

protect their market share. Sargent (2016) found that mergers often create the opportunity

for corporations to reach improvements in the price, quality, and service they provide to

their customers. Mergers take place to allow corporate groups to have some gain,

depending on the corporation’s initiative, such as financial protection, or growth.

Stakeholders look to have an opportunity to get a return on investments (Rossi, Yedidia

Tarba, & Raviv 2013). When mergers are announced, all original business plans are

reevaluated.

The changing of the business plans will involve managers and employees also

making some changes. When mergers are announced, the managers are responsible for

leading their employees through the merger process. The joining of two companies can

create opportunities for growth among the people they employ and the services they

provide (Bharwani & Butt, 2012; Kim, Kumar, & Kumar, 2012). Managers and

employees play a key role in supporting the success of a company merger.

Merger success. Mergers can be announced at any time, driving the managers and

employees onto a new organizational path. The success of a merger depends on many

factors. Success rates of mergers are poor and have been said to have a failure rate of

7090 percent (Christensen, Alton, Rising, Waldeck, 2011). Brinckmann, Müller, and

Rosenbusch, (2013); Dauber, ( 2012); Himmelsbach and Saat (2014) found that the

success rate of mergers is only 50 percent.

Companies involved in merging may fail due to pressure to complete the merger

without knowing what they are getting (Haransky, 1999). Marks and Mirvis (2011) found

that most fail due to financial impacts. Banal-Estanol and Seldeslachts (2011) found that

failures often happen because of the lack of communication post-merger. Francis, Hasan,

Sun, and Waisman, (2014) noted lack of communication, broken alliances, and lack of

information as leading causes of merger failure.

Van Dyke (2015) discussed that for mergers to be successful, there needs to be a

governing body to manage the financial issues and have someone lead the other parts of

the newly combined organization. May and Noether (2014) discussed that market

structure has a large impact on whether or not the merging companies will increase their

market share, price, and product output. All merger announcements will have an effect on

all levels within the organization.

Successful mergers can have a positive effect. According to Kandžija, Filipović,

and Kandžija (2014), mergers can have a positive effect on stakeholders. Hyder and

Osarenkhoe (2015) discussed that positive effects could include increase employment

rates and job opportunities for the population. Successful mergers can result in culture

change, growth within the organization, and increased compensation for management

(Bausch, Mueller, & Rosenbusch, 2013). If a merger is successful, the positive effects of

mergers may not be seen for three to five years (Ahern, 2012). There are also possible

risks and liabilities associated when a merger takes place. According to Bogan and Just

(2009), there are risks with every merger.

Risks. Merging two companies together come with risks. There is much at stake

when organizations consider merging. While there may be many benefits visible to the

stakeholders of each organization, there are many other items needing to be taken into

consideration. The structure of organizations intermingle people, processes, and all

company applications and practices (Alaranta, & Mathiassen, 2014). Mergers take time

and resources to conduct all aspects needed to complete integrate multiple organizations.

All risks should be evaluated before organizations take the plunge.

Dauber (2012); Patzelt and Schweizer (2012) found that mergers involving high

levels of risks often result in stakeholder loss because of the complex integration factors.

Stakeholders need to evaluate the risks associated with all mergers to understand the gain

or loss personally and to the organization. While it is known that merger success rate is

low, mergers still take place. Stakeholders entering into a merger agreement need to

consider all possible risks associated with the merger, the effects the merger will have on

the organization, and how the people will be affected throughout the merger process.

Mergers Effects on Organizations and People

Mergers have many effects on people and the organizational outcomes; therefore,

is it important to understand the characteristics and events often witnessed once a merger

is announced. While managers work through the motions of a merger, the managing of

employees continues to be part of their responsibility. According to Haransky (1999), a

manager can create an unhealthy environment for their employees. Managers face

massive performance improvements to ensure the success of a merger (Sirower, 2000).

A merger can have employees in a world of unknown and managers unaware of

how to manage the employees’ needs. One of the primary concerns for managers is that

most employees relate better with their current company then the merged company

(Giessner, Ullrich, & Dick, 2011). One commonly seen change is employees’

performance. Significant changes to work environment result in negatively affecting

work productivity (Duffield, Kearin, Johnston, & Leonard, 2007). There are many things

having an effect on the employees, resulting in managers having to try and manage while

working through the merger.

In a review of mergers and their effects on employees, there are many studies

conducted on job responsibilities and managers’ added responsibilities during a merger

process. Kandžija, Filipović, and Kandžija, (2014) found that previous studies have

focused on other aspects of the merger such as company culture, the effect management

style has on the success of the merger, the structure of the organizations, and technology.

There is a lack of research in understanding what resources are available to managers to

help managers be successful in managing their new responsibilities as well as continuing

to manage the employees through the merger.

Impacts on Organizations

When mergers are announced, there are many factors that need to be taken into

consideration. Cording, Harrison, Hoskison, and Jonsen, (2013) found that the integration

process is critical to the overall success of a merger. Unfortunately, the integration

process also results in the elimination of redundancies and reduction of jobs throughout

the organization (Schweiger, 2002). The integration of two companies will result in time

required, by the management teams, to help manage the merger process. This time

commitment puts extra responsibilities on the managers, causing them to give less

attention to the day-to-day activities of their employees.

The process of executing a merger, can result in managers having added

responsibilities to help work through the merger process. There are many different ways

mergers can be managed to help the merger process be smoother on the employees,

managers, and the stakeholders. Van Dyke (2015) discussed that guiding principles

should be developed to manage the integration. Most organizations have a business

strategy before entering into a merger with another company. Therefore, Gunkel,

Rossteutscher, Schlaegel, and Wolff, (2014) found that all managers need to have an

integration plan to help assist with the success of a merger. Creating an integrated

business plan should include multiple factors such as integration of teams,

communication of information, and financial impact to the organization.

Financial Impact

Mergers have been increasing on an international scale (Tao, Liu, Gao, & Xia,

2017). One of the main reasons for a merger is often financial. Kelly and Adhikari (2012)

found that most companies merge for the purpose of growth, efficiency, and equity.

While one would hope all mergers would increase finances, this is not always the case.

Mergers result in a distribution of financial assets among the stakeholders of both

organizations (Billett & Key, 2016). According to Al-Hroot (2016), Bhabra and Huang

(2013), and Poornima and Subhashini (2013), mergers do not influence corporate firm

performance. Ghatak (2012); Kumar and Bansal (2008) supported this by finding

acquired firm’s finances are negatively affected. Stakeholders need to understand the

financial impact on the corporation before choosing to merge.

Manokaran and Radharukkumani (2014) discussed that mergers are important for

corporations to grow and expand in the market. Mergers also help companies during hard

times to acquire other companies and expand their operations or expand into another field

(Manokaran & Radharukkumani, 2014). When companies are trying to survive, a merger

can help an organization to share or cut cost by acquiring another company with the

service already provided. Sharing costs can reduce the overall financial burden often felt

by organizations during hard times or when competing in a strong market.

Competition can drive organizations towards a merger in order to continue to grow.

According to Kemal and Shahid (2012), all companies want to continue to expand their

business. However, a merger may not be well received from all stakeholders of the

merging companies. Key stakeholders have a great interest in the personal financial

impact of the merger. Stakeholders often resist a takeover because they feel they lose the

ability to trade and maintain their board seats (Bugeja, Da Silva Rosa & Lee, 2009;

Gilson, 1990; Harford, 2003). In the event of a merger failure, stakeholders may not be

able to secure financing (Baker, Pan, & Wurgler, 2012). Securing finance is important to

stakeholders to allow themselves to continue to grow.

When a merger is agreed upon by the stakeholders, there is a need to make a

change in the current business plan and start working towards a new business plan. The

business plan needs to include the managers to help coordinate and carry out the new

strategy. Business plans help to set the organization up for success and set the financial

goals for the new organization. Financial decision making and impacts can add to the

stress and responsibilities of managers during a merger taking place.

Business Development

During a merger, business development plans are still needed to ensure company

goals and production continue to be achieved. Managers help the employees to ensure

company business plans are met. Managers not taking the correct actions during a merger

may affect organizational growth and financial performance (Baker & Niederman, 2014;

Gemino, Reich, & Sauer, 2012). New business plans being developed for the merging of

the new combined organization will need to include multiple factors to be taken into

consideration. Managers need to consider the impact of combining multiple programs

while taking into consideration how it will affect the employees they manage.

Governance structure. When two companies merge, a new governance structure

needs to be created to manage the new company. Goel and Sapra (2015) discussed that a

governance structure allows managers to have a route to direct all decision making.

Marcinkevičiūtė and Žukovskis (2016) found that, for managers, working in a changing

environment increases the complexity and difficulty of decision making and managing

employees. Combining companies and roles has managers in need of having a corporate

structure to help with the constant change. Having a corporate structure will also assist

managers with corporate decisions required during a merger. An organizational

governance structure will have a well laid out management structure. The management

team of the governance structure will then manage and make the decisions regarding the

new organization.

The structure of management. A newly formed management team is needed to

take on the management role for a newly combined organization. This team will help set

up the employees and the organization for success. The managers are responsible for

helping the employees get adjusted into their role within the new organization. The

management team also has a responsibility to ensure the business moves ahead by setting

targets and meeting goals.

When managers are placed in a position of managing through a merger, a great

amount of responsibility is placed on them to achieve success through creating and

meeting new targets, managing the day to day activities, and retaining employees to help

achieve the goals. To add to the responsibilities, the manager needs to make decisions on

reducing redundancies and eliminating jobs. Mergers are often responsible for a lot of

layoffs (Bellinger, 1996). These decisions can have an effect on the relationship between

a manager and their employees.

Decision making. Managers are responsible for ensuring their teams are effective

and meet the organization’s targets and goals. Decision making is a sensitive process

(Nikolić, Bukurov, Erić, & Stanković, 2016). During a merger, managers are

responsibility for carrying out decisions that have been made by the stakeholders of the

newly combined organization. Managers may not have a voice in the decision making,

even when it affects their employees. However, they still need to focus on the overall

success of the organization.

Managers continue to manage employees through a merger process, however, the

decisions being made by the managers may not seem fair or reasonable to their

employees. Implementing the decisions may cause issues between the relationship of the

manager and the employee. According to Hui-Ru, Min, and Pian-Pian (2016), knowledge

sharing is key to maintain employee performance. Managers need to be able to maintain a

good working relationship with the employees to retain the employees through the

merger. The managers have a responsibility to ensure daily goals are met by adopting

new programs and managing challenges (Shaw, Dineen, Fang, & Vellella, 2009).

Production and goals. Production and goals still need to be met while the merger

process is taking place. Managers want to keep their employees motivated while the final

details of the merger are taking place. Once the merger is complete, the new management

group of the organization will be setting new production targets and goals for each team.

This may cause an increase in stress among the employees.

Change in production and goals may cause extra stress on the employees. While

they have been given targets and deadlines, the joining of organizations may require

adjustments for some of them. According to Lublin (2001), mergers increase stress and

production suffers. The manager has to be prepared to help maintain motivation during

the merger process to ensure production is maintained.

Technology. Information technology is always one of the major challenges for

companies that are merging (Chin, Brown, & Hu, 2004). Over the last few decades,

technology has advanced greatly, creating opportunities for companies to invest in best fit

programs for their purpose. Chin, Brown, and Hu found that information technology had

changed drastically creating a critical issue for managers of merged organizations.

Merging two organizations can create an overabundance of technology programs. The

managers will have the task of deciding which programs best fit the new organization.

Choosing new technology programs can be costly. The organization cannot run all

the combined programs; therefore, decisions will have to be made on what programs best

fit the newly combined company. Once the programs are chosen, a portion of the

employees will require training on the new programs.

Training/Retraining. Training can be very expensive for a newly combined

organization. The organization will have to spend the time and money on training the

employees. Providing training to all employees after a merger can provide an overview of

the job and the structure of the organization (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Saks 1996).

Training can have a positive impact on employees’ commitment to the organization

(Yalabik, 2013). However, it will take time and planning resources from the

organizations budget.

Offering training to the employees will give the employees knowledge about the

newly formed company, the chosen programs, and the expectations of each employee.

Investing in employees helps to give the employees a sense of worth. Chandler and

McEvoy (2000) and Dalziel (2010) found investing in employee training will lower

employee turnover and result in lower turnover costs. Some employees may be frustrated

with the number of changes and the requirement to retrain on systems. Managers need to

be open about the purpose of the training and why the training is beneficial for the

employees.

Systems and Processes

All companies have established systems and processes to assist with operations

running more reliable and efficient. When two organizations merge, the managers have to

make a decision about which systems and processes should be used in the new

organization. Management systems and processes need to fit the organization needs.

Management systems. Management systems are often utilized within an organization to

guide day to day operations. Under the new organizational management team, decisions

will have to be made to choice which management systems they will continue to use to

operate the new company. According to Marcinkevičiūtė and Žukovskis (2016), the

manager’s style helped to determine the management process. The management system

chosen for the new organization will have to fit the new managers’ style and needs;

therefore there may be more training and communication required for the employees.

Organizational processes. Managers use work processes to help maintain

reliability and improve production. The combination of organizations requires

stakeholders to look at the current work processes and chose the work processes that best

fit the new company. Once again, the managers will have to communicate changes of the

current system to the employees. This will help to ensure adequate information regarding

the changes is heard from by the employees’. Employees will be familiar with their

organizational work processes. Managers will need to constantly reinforce the changes to

the processes designed within the new organization. Open communication is the key to

retaining employees.

Organizational Culture

A culture is created within a company; therefore, when two or more companies

merge, this means that two cultures merge. Muscalu (2014) discussed organizational

culture is hard to define however it can be viewed as having three key elements: beliefs,

behaviors, and attitudes of the people. Walt (2005) found that a company’s culture is not

its practices and processes, but how decisions are made, the company structure,

communication methods, teamwork, and employee satisfaction. Weber and Tarba, (2012)

found organizational cultures could have a direct impact on the manager and employee

behaviors that can lead to the success of a merger. However, leaders often do not value or

consider organizational culture during a merger process (Van Dyke, 2015).

Dealing with different cultures is a difficult task for managers. Patzelt and

Schweizer (2012) found that using methods to integrate the cultures before a merger

helps with the success of a merger. When a merger is to be announced, managers need the

support of their employees to continue business-as-usual so they can focus on the success

of a merger. Employees often commit to organizational change because they believe the

change is valuable, they feel obligated, or it would be costly to them to do otherwise

(Soumyaja, Kamalanabhan, & Bhattacharyya, 2011). Managers need to have a good

understanding of the differences of the cultures within the two companies.

Understanding the differences of cultures will help managers with the integration

of personnel from both companies and is important to the success of employee retention.

It is important for managers to create an environment where employees continue to be

motivated and have job satisfaction in order to retain them during and after a merger.

Managing cultural differences is an added responsibility for managers. When

different cultures come together, they must combine or change to form one culture for the

merger to succeed (Henneman, 2013). When joining companies with different cultures,

the personnel of the company who’s culture changes the most, have to adapt more. The

forcing of the change in culture often can leave employees and managers in a place of

discomfort and unfamiliarity. One suggestion is for corporate cultural differences to be

evaluated before the merger begins (Weber, & Tarba, 2012). Understanding the cultural

differences and similarities will help managers engage and plan the merger activities, lay

the ground rules, and have a better understanding how day-to-day operations are

managing within each culture. Differences in culture, especially if they remain unknown

or unaddressed by managers, can sometimes cause significant conflict among the

employees and managers. Managers can benefit from having the resources available to

plan for the differences and help transition the employees through the merger process.

Adjusting the organizational culture can result in negative consequence

(Fairweather and Rinne, 2012). Organizational cultures determine how the employees

interact. It is important for the employees of both organizational cultures to interact and

work together. The new organizational group will establish its own culture through

interaction of both organizational cultures. Establishing a new culture will take some

time, however, managers need to remain open and communicate with their employees

throughout the change implementation. Open communication can help improve employee

retention.

Employee Retention

Managing employees through a merger is an added responsibility for managers.

Too often employees’ needs or concerns are not addressed, and they end up leaving the

company. Employee retention is one of the largest concerns when a merger is announced.

Employees feel a sense of loss and confusion, causing them to lose the commitment they

once had. During the merger process, there is a stage of unknown, and often employees

are in the dark about what is happening to the company, their job, and their benefits.

Employee benefits are often affected when companies go through the merger

process. Merging two companies means merging two systems and programs currently

existing within the individual companies. To reduce cost through the merger, programs

need to be reviewed, and the best are to be taken from each program to create one

program for the merged companies. Sinkin and Frederiksen (2012) found that working

through the benefits and compensation packages is one of the most challenging tasks of

mergers. In the process of creating a new program, there are often benefits taken away or

added to the program. Employees are directly affected by the benefit packages. This can

result in employees being frustrated, not liking the changing of the programs, and

wanting to leave the company.

Employees leave a company during a merging process because of many reasons.

Change is inevitable during a merger, and all changes will have an effect on the

employees. Leaders need to work with the employees through changes, so they remain

loyal to the company. Employee turnover is a cost that can be controlled through

managers using resources to manage the employees through the merger process.

Managers having additional resources and skills can help the employees through all the

changes. Employees feeling engaged and feel part of the merger process and can increase

employee retention.

Merger Effects on Employees

Employees can feel many effects during a merger. Marks and Mirvis (2011)

found that most mergers fail and cause a huge effect on the people involved. Mergers

cause employees to be unsure of their jobs and their futures. According to Choi, Chung,

and Du (2014) and Weber and Tarba (2012), employees behave differently once a merger

has been announced. There are many factors that make a difference in whether employees

are willing to remain with a company throughout a merger. The employees want to be

informed of the merger process as it is taking place.

When mergers are announced, employees have plenty of unanswered questions.

They look to their manager for the answers. Managers are responsible for informing the

employees on the progress of the merger and how the merger will affect them. There are

many different feelings the employee’s experience, resulting in them losing faith in their

manager and their place in the future of the organization.

Employees who are not managed well will eventually lose their commitment to

their managers. This section will discuss the effects that employees go through;

commitment to their manager and the organization, trust relationships between the

employee and the manager, open communication, attitudes and stress of the employee,

engagement and motivation, morale, and employee performance, and productivity.

Commitment. Employee commitment can be affected through the merger

process. Continuous support and setting employee expectations throughout the merger

can increase job satisfaction (Lim, 2014). Often job satisfaction and the productivity of

employees are based on the environment within the organization (Ahmadvand, Heidari,

Hosseini, & Majdzadeh, 2012). Too often, mergers have a negative effect on employee

commitment to the company (Roundy, 2010). It is a manager's responsibility to assist

employees to remain committed to the organization throughout the merger. Often

management are unaware the employees are not feeling committed; therefore, managers

need to work closely with their employees to ensure employees values are taken into

consideration when going through a merger.

Employees are involved in or affected by all changes that accompany a merger.

According to Mangundjaya (2015), change is not successful without the support and

commitment of the employees. Employees help the managers with the change logistics,

and other changes needed. Change can have a great effect on employees. When a merger

is announced, employees understand change will happen. Employees have to be willing

to commit to change, and therefore organizational trust needs to be established

(Mangundjaya, 2015).

Trust. A positive employee-manager relationship is established on trust.

Employees want to feel that they can trust their manager to have their best interest at

heart. Trust is an established agreement between the employee and the leaders of the

organization (Rousseau, 1989). A merger can be perceived as a break in the agreement

between the employees and their manager. Breaking the agreement can result in

individuals losing trust in their leaders within an organization (Bansal, 2015; Jafri, 2012).

It is important for leaders to continue to maintain an open and trusting relationship during

a merger announcement. Leaders can maintain a relationship with their employees

through open communication.

Trust is not transferable among employees or managers during a merger process

(Bargeron, Lehn & Smith, 2015). Trust takes time to be established and therefore new

managers assigned to new employees will have to spend the time to establish

relationships. According to Buono and Bowditch (1990) and Shrivastava (1986), trust is

essential to the integration process during a merger. When managers take into

consideration the integration factors of employees’ uncertainty, dealing with conflict, and

feelings of insecurity, during a merger, it helps maintain trust for the employees (Thakur

& Bansal, 2015).

There is also organizational trust. While organizations are now claiming

transparency and contributory practices, all processes need to be integrated into the

combined company, creating challenges (Bansal, 2016). The transition time for the

integration of processes can also create an atmosphere of tension and mistrust. The

integration processes can be viewed as unfair by some employees (Hopkins and

Weathington, 2006) since changes may occur in both corporate programs. Employees are

unaware of the intentions of the newly combined organization; therefore often they will

not trust the motives of the managers within the new organization. Open communication

of the intended changes will help to develop employee trust (Bansal, 2016).

Communication. A manager’s lack of communication can have negative effects

on employees through a merger. Employees often create their interpretations of what is

going to happen when a merger occurs (Bovey & Hede, 2001a). Management can help

reduce uncertainties by communicating why the merger is necessary (Giessner, Ullrich, &

van Dick, 2011). Employees may learn about the merger occurring, however, their main

concern is how the merger will affect them. Open communication can help the

relationship between the manager and the employees. According to Angwin, Mellahi,

Gomes, and Peter (2014) and Muller (2006) communication is vital throughout any

change process.

Communication during a merger can help reduce stress and increase trust and

respect for employees (Benton & Austin, 2010). Leaders need to communicate all events

involved in a merger to the employees (Roundy, 2010). To help maintain open

communication, work communication processes should be embedded throughout a

merger (Wittig, 2012). A more efficient communication process should be accepted and

implemented by managers (Gray & Laidlaw, 2002). Many times managers do not

understand the importance of communicating during a merger. Open communication of

merger activities can help reduce or eliminate the unknown and have the employees feel

they are part of the merger process.

Communication with employees must be done as the information becomes known.

Rafferty (2007) found that company managers should provide transparency as much as

possible on all decisions and dealing with changes to the employees. Often, employees

are affected by the merger through changes in benefits, job roles, responsibilities, or

compensation. Employees want to understand the impact of the changes so they have

time to digest the information and then be given the opportunity to ask questions.

Managers need to have open communication with the employees to establish a trusting

relationship with them.

Too often managers do not communicate about the changes that come with a

merger, and it causes stress among the employees. Employers who maintain open

communication channels with the employees during a merger will increase trust,

commitment, and innovation among the employee (Kim, 2011). Open communication

and information exchange are critical during a merger (Bansal, 2015; Birkinshaw,

Bresman, & Håkanson, 2000). Not communicating effectively will result in merger

failure (Aguilera & Decker, 2004).

Communicating the merger strategy will help the employees understand what is

happening around them and have them feel like part of the process. Managers need to

have the skills to know when and how to communicate the details of the merger process.

The lack of communication can add stress to the employees.

Attitudes and stress. Managers sometimes think the integration of two

organizations is an easy process; however, they often are wrong (Galpin & Whittington,

2010). The combination of employees from different companies’ results in employees

having to work together; however, trusting and working together is an issue (Yan, 2012).

People need to spend time building relationships in order to trust one another. The lack of

trust creates a difficult working environment, often increasing stress in the workplace.

Leaders need to understand the impacts of a merger on employees and take measures to

reduce the possibility of stress in the workplace (Hinescu, 2014).

Stress can lead to many things for both employees and managers during a merger

process. The stress of not knowing what is happening may lead to insecurity. Insecurities

can lead to employee competitiveness because employees are concerned about their jobs

(Hinescu, 2014). Employees fear the financial impact on the organization when a merger

fails (Wang & Wang, 2012). When stress levels rise within an organization, there is an

increase in absenteeism. Absenteeism can also be because workplace reorganization can

lead to employees having heath issues (Kjekshus, Bernstrøm, Dahl, & Lorentzen, 2014).

Long-term illnesses also increase though a merger process (Kjekshus, Bernstrøm, Dahl,

& Lorentzen, 2014). Managers who do not handle mergers correctly will see an increase

in employee concerns (Muller, 2006).

Stress is part of all merger processes (Nikandrou, Papalexandris & Bourantas,

2000). Employees’ stress levels can be managed if they feel they are informed of the

merger details, part of the process and understand how the merger will affect them.

Managers who have the resources available to them can help manage the stress levels of

the employees and themselves.

There are many different phases to a merger process. During this process,

managers need to help the employees move through each stage (Muller, 2006).

Communication and awareness of each phase of the merger will also reduce the

employees’ stress level and keep them actively engaged in the process. According to

Drzensky, Lupina-Wegener, Ullrich, and Van Dick (2013), employees experience high

levels of stress and concern during a merger. The stress levels of employees can be

managed by managers who lead through a servant leadership style.

Engagement/Motivation. Employee motivation can be affected when a merger is

announced. Frick and Drucker (2011) defined motivation as the inner drive an employee

has to do their work. According to Fowler (2015), managers are responsible for

motivating their employees, however if the employees are disengaged, they will still

leave the company. Motivation normally comes from within; however, a manager can

help with the process of motivating the employees. Motivating employees is best done

when a manager gives the employees a reason to be motivated (Fowler, 2015).

Employees need to remain motivated throughout the merger process to help

continue to meet the organization’s objectives and targets. Managers need to help

employees remain motivated by engaging and communicating the activities of the

merger. Effective manager and employee communication will help reduce potential

resistance during the merger process (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012).

Morale. Not all employees are prepared for when a merger is announced. In most

situations, employees find out by the public media or through other sources. Once a

merger is announced, employees have mixed feelings (Benton & Austin, 2010). The

morale of a person can have an influence on how they react to the announcement of a

merger. Wakeman (2016) found that one’s mindset could set the stage regarding how

they see the world and how it affects their surroundings. Announcements of a merger will

force employees to step out of their comfort zone and have to adapt to the coming change

(Wakeman, 2016). Not all employees have the abilities or skills to adapt to change.

Wakeman suggested that managers should equip their employees with the skills to adapt

to change.

According to Costello, Kubis, and Shaffer, (1963), employees with good morale

are better suited to accept the merger process. Low morale affects employees’

productivity and can affect other workers around them (Benton & Austin, 2010; Buono &

Bowditch, 1990). Employee morale is important for managers to understand and consider

when preparing to announce a possible merger. Communication of the changes to come

will be the role of the employee’s manager. According to Gutknecht and Keys, (1993)

managers can improve employee morale by communicating the changes, making plan,

and helping plan jobs for the employees in the new company. Communication of plans

will help the employees be informed so they can focus on their jobs and remain

productive.

Performance and productivity. Mergers often lead to employees feeling

overstretched and overburdened (Muller, 2006). The employees are left in the unknown

and are not sure what their future holds. Engaging the employees throughout the process

will help them remain productive and continue to perform. According to Cowart (2014),

to ensure productivity is up, employees need to be engaged. Human resources personnel

can help with engaging employees to maintain their performance and productivity

throughout the merger process. Resources are often available through the human resource

department to help the management team with engagement.

Human Resources

Human resources personnel can play an important part in a merger process. A

merger involves working with the employees from two different companies with two

different cultures. According to Marks and Mirvis (2011), human resources personnel

understand the importance of combining cultures with systems, employees, and service.

They can help facilitate the culture change needed by focusing on the changes needed and

not the merger details (Barratt-Pugh, Bahn, & Gakere, 2013). Managing cultures is a soft

skill; leaders may not understand or have the resources to do so adequately. Human

resources personnel recently have been seen as providing soft skill resources to managers

during a merger. Some soft skills are cultural differences, mismatch of leadership vision,

communication, and structuring of human resources policies (Nagar, Masih, & Badugu,

2012). These skills are not necessary skills that all managers have; therefore, having

access to these resources can help managers with having a merger go more smoothly.

Some of the resources to help managers with the merger process can be provided

by the human resources department. The human resources personnel can help managers

develop an integration plan with the resources and tools to work through the merger

process (Podgorski & Sherwood, 2015). Human resources personnel can be a resource for

the management team through all phases of the merger integration (Podgorski &

Sherwood, 2015).

Management Style

A manager’s style can have a direct impact on the employees during a merger.

Managers have the ability to directly influence the behaviors and actions of employees

(Pereira, & Gomes, 2012). Managers need to understand their employees’ needs and what

motivates them, especially when a merger is about to be announced. There are many

different management styles, and there is not one management style that can manage all

employee personalities.

According to Parolini, Patterson, and Winston (2009), Schneider and George

(2010), and Gonos and Gallo (2013), there are many factors that influence a management

style. Therefore, it is important managers, who are in charge of workers during a merger,

understand their leadership style and know how to be an effective leader to their

employees. Several management styles are predominating with management today. There

are benefits, to the employee, of different leadership styles when working through

organizational changes. The leadership styles discussed are; transformational leadership,

transactional, authentic, situational, and servant leadership.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership style can help with a merger. A transformational

leader is made up of many traits. According to Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam

(2003), transformational leaders are charismatic and consider each employee

individually. McLaurin and Amri (2008) discussed that transformational leaders create

vision and clarity to all employees, and Campbell and Gavin (2013) added that they

promote productivity. Grojean, Rsick, Dickson and Smith (2004) found that

transformational leaders have a positive effect on employees, the organization, and also

the group cohesion and employee's beliefs and values.

Not all managers have transformational leadership style; however, the managers

that do can help the employees to adapt to the merger. Managers who do not lead by

transformational leadership style need to understand the importance of how this style can

work to support and motivate employees through a merger. According to Fisher (2006),

transformational leadership is successful when an organization is exposed to change.

A merger announcement will require the leader to be able to answer the employee’s

questions about the unknown. Transformational leaders can have a positive effect on the

employees through their ability to build trust and empower them to adapt to the change

(Avolio, 2003). Employees exposed to this type of leadership will be more committed

throughout the merger process and the organization will experience improved employee

retention (Chi and Pan, 2011; Dimaculangan and Aguiling, 2012).

Transformational leaders help the employees to move through the merger process while

having a leader that allows them to be part of the process. Leaders with transformational

leadership styles can focus on the activities required during the merger while maintaining

the commitment of the employees (Swati Mittal, 2016).

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leaders differ from transformational leaders with regards to the

leader’s focus on employee achievements (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). This results

in leaders focusing on the individual achievements over team achievements (Kahai,

Sosik, & Avolio, 2003). A merger announcement will cause disruption in the daily

activities of both the employees and the manager; therefore a manager will need to ensure

their employees continue to meet their objectives while the merger is going through the

process. Transactional leaders like to focus on maintaining the day-to-day activities, even

with the announcement of a merger (Cline, 2015).

Authentic Leadership

According to Kruse (2013), authentic leaders are self-aware and genuine, they

connect with their employees, and they are focused on long term results. Mergers require

a great deal of a managers’ time, therefore, authentic leadership attributes can contribute

to the success of a merger. Fusco, O'Riordan, and Palmer (2016) found that authentic

leadership style contributed to the merger by maintaining employee engagement and

performance. Employee engagement is important for the success of a merger since

managers rely on the employees to complete the daily tasks required to meet the company

goals. Managers utilizing authentic leadership can focus on the concerns of the

employees by providing support and job satisfaction while the merger processes are

implemented in the newly formed organization.

Situational Leadership

Situational leadership theory was first introduced by Hersey and Blanchard

(1982). The theory was based on the idea that a leader adjusts their leadership style to the

development needs of their employees. With this in mind, a merger would require a

situational leader to take on multiple leadership styles to maintain the development of

their employees through the merger process. Each employee will react differently to the

announcement of the merger. Managers that manage through the situational leadership

style will be a benefit, to the employees, through the merger process. Employees’

performance during a merger is dependent on the leadership’s effectiveness (Morrison,

2010). The managers will need to ensure the employees continue to be engaged and meet

the organizational goals while the merger is taking place.

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership was first introduced by Robert Greenleaf in 1977. Servant

leadership is based on the premise of managers serving their employees first. Cline

(2015) found that servant leadership focuses on the follower’s needs. Allen, Moore,

Moser, Neill, Sambamoorthi, and Bell, (2016) found that servant leaders focus on the day

to day activities of the employees through coaching, putting employees first, and helping

them be successful. Mergers create a great strain on employees, triggering managers to

work closely with their employees. Managers who do not understand or have the

resources available to learn how to manage the employees through a merger may have a

direct impact on their employees resulting in hindering the merger process.

Managers who have the appropriate resources and skills can work with the

employees to help manage them through the merger process. Unfortunately, not all

managers have the resources or have access to someone that can help them guide the

employees through the process. According to Cowart (2014), one of the most common

reasons that employees leave companies is poor managers.

In review of multiple leadership styles, servant leadership is best suited to manage

employees through a merger because the leaders are focused on the welfare of their

employees first. Employees seem to get lost when changes occur in an organization;

however having a leader that has the best interest of the employees is best suited when a

merger occurs. The correct leadership style will be important to help guide the employees

through the steps of the merger process, communication effectively and focus on the

welfare of the employees.

Benefits of Addressing the Gap

Mergers are still taking place among corporations today. Advancement of

technology allows corporations to seek in the global market the best-fit opportunity for a

merger. While employees are still considered important to an organization, they are often

the last to be considered when a merger occurs (Komornicka, 2015). Losing employees is

a continuous cost to corporations (Campbell & Alleyne, 2002).

Mergers take place for many reasons, all resulting in managers having to maintain

day-to-day activities while implementing the merger changes. All types of mergers have

effects on the organizations and the employees. Cording, Harrison, Hoskison, and Jonsen

(2013) and Gunkel, Rossteutscher, Schlaegel, and Wolff (2014) discussed the importance

of managing the merger integration, and Van Dyke (2015) found that developing guiding

principles can help manage the process. Managers have a big responsibility to ensure the

merger’s disruptive effects on the organization and employees are minimized.

Manokaran and Radharukkumani (2014) supported the need for corporation

growth through mergers. Through the merger, there are many effects on the organization

and extra demands on a manager. Organizations require a new governance structure to

lead and manage the new organization, integration of programs, and retraining of

employees on the new systems. With a new organization comes the formation of a new

culture. According to Weber and Tarba (2012), organizational cultures directly impact

manager and employee behaviors. This can help with the merger integration process.

Recent studies have applied servant leadership to other situations involving leaders that

apply soft skill resources to understand behaviors, development of people, and

relationship and trust performance. Marks and Mirvis (2011) found that mergers have a

huge effect on employees. To achieve a deeper understanding of what resources

managers may have access to, which may help manage their employees through the

merger process, my phenomenological descriptive study focused on understanding what

resources or skills the leaders used to help manage the employees through the merger

successfully.

Understanding the resources or soft skills used by the manager to manage the

employees while a merger is taking place will help benefit future managers involved in

mergers. The questions in my study helped to identify what resources were used and the

benefits observed for both the manager and the employees. Retaining employees through

a merger is largely the responsibility of the managers. Knowing what resources were

successful will give managers the opportunity to utilize similar resources during future

merger integration processes. This will lessen the stress on the managers and help

increase employee retention. Increased employee retention will be beneficial to the

organizational success and increase the merger’s likelihood and scope of success. As

found by Parris and Peachey (2013), Greenleaf's servant leadership theory is not just a

management style but the way of life a manager chooses to serve as a servant to their

employees. Leaders that utilize resources can be better managers to their employees.

Summary and Conclusions

Corporate managers are changing the way they do business because they need to

stay competitive in today’s fast-moving world. Organizational leaders create

opportunities through merging companies to provide greater services to multiple markets.

Leaders are responsible for assisting with implementing changes and continuing to

manage the employees during a merger. Managers need to ensure that their employees are

continuously informed and continue to be motivated through challenges. Managers who

can manage their employees and the merger process together will have a greater chance

of employee retention. Those managers that do not have the resources available to help

with the process will have a greater chance of employees leaving the company for better

opportunities.

Managers can feel extra pressure, during a merger, as a result of managing

employees through a merger and continuing business as usual. Managers often focus

more on the integration of company assets and resources and forget to include the needs

of the employees. Employees feel lost in the process and seek to find another company

that can meet their personal needs. Losing employees is costly to all organizations

because of the retraining and downtime. Both managers and employees try to understand

how to make things work; therefore, it is important for managers to continue to focus on

the employees throughout the merger process through resources available to them.

It is important to understand what resources are available to managers to help manage

the employees through a merger. Utilizing resources to manage employees through a

merger will assist the managers in helping the employees work through the merger, less

stress on the employees, and maintaining employee job satisfaction. Employees who

have their needs met will remain happy, and the result will be an increase in employee

retention. This will benefit the management team due to decreased costs, as employee

turnover can cost organizations millions of unnecessary dollars. My research can

provide insight into what resources are available to help leaders manage the employees

more effectively.

My study will have positive social impacts on the employees, managers,

organizations, and business community involved in mergers. Understanding what

resources are available to managers to help manage the employees through a merger will

allow managers to understand how to improve their management of employees during

changing times. The employees will benefit by establishing and maintaining better

relationships with their managers and by experiencing a smoother transition during a

merger. This will result in better employee retention. The improvement of employee

retention will assist with greater organizational stability. Lower turnover rates can help

reduce the financial impacts on organizations by not having to hire and retrain new

employees so often.

As a result of this study, the larger manager community will have greater

knowledge of how to contribute to the success of an organizational merger through

improving employee management. Employees who feel their needs are met will continue

to be loyal to their managers and contribute to the success of the merger. Understanding

the resources available to a manager will allow them to manage their employees

successfully through a merger.

In this chapter I reviewed the history of mergers, classifications of mergers, and

the successes and risks associated with mergers. I then discuss the effects of mergers on

both organizations and the people. To explore organizations, I reviewed financial

impacts, business development, decision making for management, meeting production

and goal achievement, and technology requirements. I also discussed the effects of

mergers on employees related to training and retaining of the employees, systems and

processes, employee commitment, trust, communication, attitudes and stress, engagement

and motivation, morale and performance and production.

This chapter also captured how human resources personnel can assist the

managers with soft skills to manage the employees effectively through a merger. A

review of employee retention was also discussed. A leader’s style will make a difference

in how an employee can relate to their manager, especially when a merger is taking place.

I discussed five leadership styles and summarized with the reasoning of why servant

leadership is a good leadership style to be practiced by managers during a merger.

In Chapter 3 I will outline the research design and methodology of the research

study. It will include the differences in research design, the rational for the chosen

research design, and the role of the researcher. I also review how the participants are to be

selected, confidentiality of the study and interviews, how the interviews will be

conducted, and the method of analysis. I end the chapter with a review of the credibility,

transferability, dependability and confirmability of the study. Ethics procedures are

included in the chapter to ensure the protection of the participants identified and

information collected.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Mergers take place between companies on a regular basis. While a merger can be

well planned, there are often aspects of a merger, such as employee wellbeing, that go

unnoticed. Managers are not only responsible for ensuring that business performance

goes on as usual, but also responsible for ensuring that the wellbeing of their employees

does not go unnoticed, which is often an area of least concern (Giessner, Ullrich, & van

Dick, 2011). The purpose of this phenomenological descriptive study was to understand

the resources available to managers to manage employees during mergers. For this

research, I defined resources as programs, training, manpower, departmental support, and

communication methods. Chapter 3 includes detailed discussions of the research design,

the rationale for the design choice, the role of the researcher, the methodology used in the

research, and the procedures for recruitment, participation, data collection, and

triangulation.

Research Design and Rationale

Researchers use three primary research methods: qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed-methods. In the following section, I outline my reasoning as to why I chose a

phenomenological, descriptive study design among the choices of qualitative study

methods. The section will end with a review of the key supporting questions and how I

conducted the interviews.

Research Methods

Qualitative research. According to Hays and Singh (2012), Morrow (2005), and

Singh and Shelton (2011), qualitative researcher requires skills similar to those of a

counselor in regards to interviewing, social atmosphere, and reaction to the situation.

Greenhalgh and Russell (2010) and Ramiller and Pentland (2009) reported that

qualitative study is about exploring and interpreting the social aspects of life. Qualitative

studies consist of a researcher collecting data through observations, documents, or

interviews. There are times when more than one data collection technique is required.

This type of research requires that a researcher wants to explore an area and therefore

asks questions for further clarification. Qualitative methods are better suited to

explorative research (Hope & Dewar, 2015).

Quantitative research. Quantitative research differs from qualitative in that it

uses surveys and experiments to gather research data. According to Hope and Dewar

(2015), the quantitative method requires the collection of extensive data, especially when

testing associations among factors. This research requires a much larger population to

ensure the sampling can reach numerous people to ensure saturation. Quantitative studies

start with a hypothesis and variables to prove or disprove. My research study did not have

a hypothesis; therefore a quantitative method was not suited for this study.

Mixed method research. Researchers first used mixed methods research in the

1980s (Tashakorri & Teddie, 2003). Mixed methods research consists of using a

combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Using mixed methods allows

researchers to obtain data from several perspectives (Bulsara 2015; Jirojwong, Johnson,

& Welch, 2014). Researchers can decide to conduct each phase simultaneously or as

separate phases. A mixed method will take longer to complete than a qualitative or

quantitative method because a researcher is analyzing two different sets of data.

There are multiple categories that can be used to make up the design of a mixed

methods study. Wurtz (2015) reported six categories of mixed design that researchers

use: (a) sequential explanatory design, (b) sequential exploratory design, (c) sequential

transformative design, (d) concurrent triangulation design, (e) concurrent nested design,

and (f) concurrent transformative design. All six designs require data collection and then

analysis by numerical and data interpretation. According to Strudsholm, Meadows,

Vollman, Thurston, and Henderson (2016), a mixed method is a point of integration of

data and how the researcher approaches and integrates the results of the study. While this

is a very thorough method, the lack variables prevented me from using this method for

my study.

Research Rationale

After reviewing the three possible research methods, I chose the qualitative

method for this study. There are multiple designs for a qualitative study: (a) narrative

research, (b) case study, (c) phenomenology, (d) ethnography, or (e) grounded theory. I

will describe all possible qualitative studies choices and why I ultimately selected a

phenomenological descriptive study design.

Narrative research. Narrative research is a form of research in which a

researcher explores the meaning of participants’ life stories (Gockel, 2013). The events

are then put in chronological order to tell the story of one’s life (Bruner 2004; Sarbin

1986). In this research, I was not focused on describing the lives of the managers;

therefore, narrative research was not suited for the study.

Case study. Researchers first used case studies in the1800s (Nock, Michel, &

Photos, 2008). According to Yin (2009), a case study is “an empirical inquiry that

investigates a contemporary phenomenon in-depth and within its real-life context” (p.

19). A researcher uses a case study to study a person or situation while observing them in

their nature environment. I could not use a case study for this research since the mergers

studied necessarily took place in the past.

Ethnography. Kriyantono (2012) reported that ethnographic research focuses on

participants’ perspectives of their lives in a specific culture or group. Researchers collect

data through interviews and often live within the culture or group during data collection

(Kriyantono, 2012; Lee & Broderick, 2007). Since I was focused on managers’ past

experiences and not on their culture, ethnography was not a suitable design for this study.

Grounded theory. Strauss & Corbin (1998) noted that Glaser and Strauss first

introduced grounded theory in 1967. Grounded theory is a research process in which a

theory is created inductively through data collected from interviews with participants who

have shared a lived experience (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967;

Leedy & Ormrod, 2009; Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers, 2010; Lee & Broderick, 2007).

Grounded theory researchers develop a new theory from the data collected (Miller &

Salkind, 2002). The purpose of my research was to obtain knowledge on lived

experiences of managers, not to create another theory from the collected data. As such,

the grounded theory method was not appropriate for this study.

Phenomenology. Morse (1994) noted that Edmund Husserl is the founder of

phenomenology research. The purpose of phenomenological inquiry is to research

participants who have personally lived through a situation (Finlay, 2009; Moustakas,

1994; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). This study design was best suited for my research

because I sought to understand the personal experiences of managers who managed

employees through a merger and the resources available to them.

Research design selection. I used a qualitative, phenomenological research

methodology for this study. I designed semi structured interview questions to obtain the

participants’ perceptions of the phenomena that occurred while they managed employees

through a merger. Data was collection through one-to-one interviews. The intent was to

research the lived experiences of managers who managed employees through a merger.

The phenomenological research method was the best design to conduct my research

study.

Research questions. To conduct this research, I designed on one central question

with three subquestions. The central question was: What is the scope of resources

available from a manager’s perceptions to manage employees through a merger? The

interviews were conducted using open-ended questions for 14 managers of merged

companies. To achieve a deeper understanding for the phenomenology descriptive study,

additional research questions were:

1. What type of special resources or skills were you provided to help manage

the employees through a merger? How did you utilize the resources?

2. Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you

utilizing the resources or skills to improve the situation? What effects did

it have on the employees?

3. What were the benefits for the employees when a manager is provided

resources/skills to manage employees through a merger? What are the

benefits for the managers? What are the benefits for the organization? A

qualitative phenomenological descriptive study was the best fit for the

purpose of this study. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) described qualitative

studies as interview driven. I used semi structured interviews in which I

focused on the three fundamental questions above. The three questions

were supported by 14 additional interview questions to help the

participants describe their lived experiences.

The interviews were held face-to-face, via Skype, and by telephone. The

interviews lasted no longer than 1 hour. I recorded all interviews using two recording

devices: Autonotes2 and Amolto. This information was then transcribed into a Word

document and crossed checked for accuracy. In the interviews, I focused on obtaining a

better understanding of the participants’ lived experiences of managing employees and

the resources available to help them through the process. Managers play a critical role

when mergers are announced. I thus interviewed managers who had directly managed

employees during the merger process. All data collected was then analyzed for trends and

themes.

Role of the Researcher

The role of a researcher is collect, analyze, and interpret. It is also critical that I

allowed the data collection to drive the study results to reduce any possible researcher

bias. I have been in the oil and gas energy sector for over 25 years as a health, safety, and

environment manager. Throughout these 25 years, there have been many mergers of

organizations I have interacted with. In my role as a leader in a variety of companies, I

have managed employees. I have been involved in one merger while I was a senior leader

of a merger process. The merger process took place over a period of 2 years, however, I

did not have the responsibility of selecting employees who were to be retained or released

from the combined organization.

The participants for my study were managers, who met the selection criteria,

chosen through the snowball sampling method. I conducted an initial purposeful sampling

of participants that fit the study criteria, who then referred other potential candidates

through their professional association. There were candidates that I worked with during

my years in the role as a leader in the industry. To reduce my bias, I ensured that I did not

have a current co-management relationship with any of the participants. I ensured the

questions chosen would allow the participants to drive the content of the interviews. I

also ensured I had not managed the participants throughout my career as a manager.

I was responsible for the development of the interview questions and ensuring the

participants drove the content of the interviews. My relationship with participants

remained focused on the interview content and responses to the research questions. The

participants were assured that all information collected would remain confidential.

The role of a researcher is to ensure the protection of the participants and the data

collected. All participants were required to sign an informed consent form before being

interviewed, so the participants were informed of the purpose and intention of the study.

All participants understood they had the option to withdraw at any time throughout the

study with no negative consequences. During the research study, there was no intention

of placing the participants in a risky situation. To ensure the participants were protected,

all interviews were conducted in a neutral, private agreed upon meeting place and time.

The interview was limited to one hour to reduce the inconvenience of possible meeting

and travel time. I ensured the participants were comfortable and fully understood the

interview process before, during, and after the interview.

Methodology

Participant Selection Logic

Phenomenological studies are based on participants that have lived through an

event (Finlay, 2009; Moustakas, 1994; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). These types of studies

consist of interviews and observation of the participants who have lived through an

experience of interest. Participants for this study were selected from mid-level managers

who had worked in a North American corporation while a merger was taking place.

Midlevel and front-line managers were excellent candidates for the study since they are

the ones who give direction and have immediate contact with their employees. The

purpose of preselection of participants was to ensure they were present when a merger

was announced and continued to manage employees through the merger process. To

qualify for this study, the participants were required to have directly managed employees

while a merger was taking place at a corporation.

A qualitative research study uses fewer participants than a quantitative study. All

qualitative literature reviewed in preparation for this study used a low number of

participants. Wolff (2002) recommended eight to 12 participants, whereas Miller and

Salkind (2002) and Polit and Hungler (1999) both recommend 10 or fewer. To ensure

data saturation, I conducted 14 interviews. According to Prendergast and Chan Hak,

(2013), semi structured interviews should focus on information collected instead of a

number of interviews to be conducted.

Purposive Sampling

The participants were chosen by using the snowball sampling method. Snowball

sampling starts with selected participants that meet the study criteria. The participants

then refer possible candidates that have a similar background. The participants in this

study used a participant referral form (Appendix A). The referred participants then

referred another potential participant. All participants were first contacted through a

phone call or email to explain the reason I was contacting them. I then emailed a consent

form to the participants. Those who were interested signed and scanned the form and sent

it back to me. Once I received the signed form, I contacted the participants to arrange a

mutual date, time, location and choice of interview style. The preference was to conduct

face-to-face interviews; however other options possible were Skype or telephone

interviews. I conducted one face to face interview, two through Skype and the other 11

interviews through telephone calls.

Confidentiality

I maintained confidentiality during the data collection and all information will

remain confidential for the duration as required to be maintained for this research study. I

protected participants’ identities by assigning a numbered code to each participant. The

participants’ names were not included in the study. The data collected was stored under

the participants’ assigned codes. Shank (2002) discussed the need for all information

collected for research studies to be in a controlled environment for the protection of the

participant. DuBois, Beskow, Campbell, Dugosh, Festinger, Hartz, and Lidz, (2012)

discussed the Institute of Research Board (IRB) is responsible for ensuring researchers

are protecting all participants in the study.

I recorded all interviews and had those all transcribed to ensure accuracy. All

written and recorded participant data was assigned to the participants’ codes and will

remain stored on my private OneDrive cloud folder with controlled access for a minimum

of five years. My private OneDrive cloud is limited to only me having access. I stored the

notes in a locked file cabinet and will shred five years after the study has been approved.

Instrumentation

Qualitative studies involve collecting data through observation, document

collection, and interviews. I used a questionnaire to collect research data for this

qualitative study. In this study, the data was collected by me through interviews. The

interviews consisted of open-ended questions focused on collecting information to answer

the research questions. The interviews were recorded through the AudioNote2 and

Amolto.com applications and all notes were transcribed. All handwritten notes and

uploaded recordings were cross checked for data accuracy. All equipment was checked

before each interview to ensure it was in functioning order.

Once the information was collected, and transcribed, I entered it into the QSR

NVivo 11 program and an Excel spreadsheet to analyze for common themes. The goal of

the interviews was to get a better understanding of the lived experiences of the

participants’ involvement in managing employees through a merger. Holding the

interviews in person allowed me to establish trust with the participants. Establishing trust

was important for the participants to feel comfortable, allowing them to freely discuss

their real life experiences of managing employees through a merger.

The QSR NVivo 11 program was developed to help a researcher to organize and

analysis data collected through interviews. The program allows data to be coded and

reorganized into themes noted from the collection of data. This instrument is a good tool

to use for qualitative studies. An Excel spreadsheet also was used to enter the data and

code for trends and themes. Both instruments allowed me to enter all collected data and

analyze for trends and themes.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

Participant protection is vital to the success of a study. The IRB controls all

applications for a research study. No participants were contacted prior to IRB approval.

Once I obtained IRB, approval number 06-23-17-0556120, I obtained possible candidate

recommendations from industry colleagues. They recommended other colleagues they

thought could be potential participants for the study. I excluded anyone I worked with, at

the time of the study, from participating in the study. Participants who met the research

criteria I contacted by email to see if they were interested in contributing to the research

study. The snowball sampling method was used to obtain further participants. The first

participants referred participants with similar backgrounds, and then the selection of

further participants continued until 15 participants were identified for interviews. I

emailed a consent form to the referred participants. The form contained all pertinent

information to allow the participants to make a decision about whether to take part in the

research or not. Once the consent forms were consolidated and 15 participants were

available, the interviews were scheduled.

Fifteen participants allowed for saturation of information to be obtained for the

research study. The participants were interviewed over a period of two months. I

developed the interview questions and conducted the interviews myself.

Prior to the interviews being conducted, I developed the data collection criteria to

include the following considerations (a) the questions were developed without bias (b) the

questions were worded to allow the participants to answer all questions openly, and (c)

each interview would last no longer than one hour.

I conducted the interviews in a mutually agreed private location to ensure to

maintain confidentially. The beginning of the interview I reviewed the contents of the

consent form and the purpose of the interview. DuBois, Beskow, Campbell, Dugosh,

Festinger, Hartz, and Lidz, (2012) found that all participants must fully understand any

risks associated with all research. The participants were reminded of the recording of the

interviews through both AudioNote2 and Amolto. To help create a relaxing atmosphere

and to establish rapport with the participants, I began the interview with some general

information to ensure the participant met the study criteria. I then conducted a brief

introduction and social interaction to allow the participant to feel comfortable. If at any

time the interviewee had wanted to stop the interview, I would have stopped it

immediately.

I remained neutral and did not contribute any thoughts or opinions during the

interview with the participants. In the event follow up interviews were needed, both and

the participant and myself agreed on the location and time of the interview. I did not

require any follow up interviews.

Once the interviews are completed, I thanked the participants for their time and

participation in the study. Once the interview notes were transcribed, the participants

verified the notes for accuracy. I reminded them of the confidentially of the information

collected.

I analyzed all the data collected for themes. This analysis was conducted using the

QSR NVivo 11 program and an Excel spreadsheet with me identifying the common

themes from the lived experiences of the participants. Saturation of information was

needed to conduct the research study. If I had not collected an adequate sample size, my

backup plan was to continue to reach out to other possible participants for more

recommendations on possible participants until saturation was reached, however,

saturation was achieved through the current population.

Data Analysis Plan

In phenomenological studies, the purpose of the research is to describe the

phenomenon of the lived experiences of the participants (Finlay, 2009; Moustakas, 1994;

Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). The participants in this study described their experience of

managing employees through a merger. Following the research principles, I conducted

the research seeking a deep description of the lived phenomenon from each participant.

Data was collected from the participants through answering the interview questions. I

protected all participants through the coding system mentioned in the participant

protection section of this study. All recordings were transcribed and entered into the QSR

NVivo 11 program and an Excel spreadsheet. Once I conducted all the interviews and

they were transcribed, I then was able to analyze for trends and themes. The use of NVivo

and an Excel spreadsheet fits the phenomenon study because it allowed me to group

trends and themes gathered from the interview notes.

I recorded hand written notes to compile summary notes after each interview. The

notes were dated and coded in corresponding participant’s assigned codes. The purpose

of the notes was to summarize the participant’s interview and to link common themes

with other participant interviews. I maintained the notes in a journal during the interviews

and then kept the notes into a secure file cabinet. My research notes were used in

conjunction with the data collected during the interviews to summarize my research

findings.

Interview questions. The central question for the study was: What is the scope of

resources available from a manager’s perceptions to manage employees through a

merger? To achieve a deeper understanding for this phenomenological descriptive study,

three additional sub questions were used to explore the phenomenon of the central

question:

1. What type of special resources or skills were you provided to help manage the

employees through a merger? How did you utilize the resources?

2. Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you

utilizing the resources or skills to improve the situation? What effects did it

have on the employees?

3. What were the benefits for the employees when a manager is provided

resources/skills to manage employees through a merger? What are the benefits

for the managers? What are the benefits for the organization?

To ensure the central question to the research is answered, there were 14

openended phenomenological questions asked during the participant interviews. The

questions that will be asked were:

Manager Responsibilities:

1. Please tell me your job responsibilities with the company that eventually

merged?

2. How many employees did you manage as part of your day to day

responsibilities and how would you describe your relationship with your

employees before the merger was announced?

3. What type of special resources or skills have you taken or were provided to

help manage employees?

Merger Announcement:

4. How were you notified about the merger of the organization you were

working with? What communication methods were utilized to inform yourself

and then the employees of the merger announcement?

5. How did the employees react to the announcement of the merger? What

feeling did you witness among the employees?

6. Once the merger was announced, what type of special resources or skills did

you have access to, to manage the employees through a merger?

7. Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you

utilizing the resources or skills to manage the situation?

8. What skills or resources did you find made a different when trying to manage

the employee through the merger process?

9. Did you notice any difference in the employees while the merger was taking

place? What changes did you notice in the employees? How did the changes

affect the employees?

10. What differences did you notice in your manager- employee relationship

during the merger implementation?

11. Please describe any changes you witnessed by having resources available to

you during the merger, to help manage the employees through the changing

times of a merger?

12. Please describe any changes you witnessed from the employees, through the

availability of using resources to manage them?

13. Please describe any benefits you witnessed for the organization?

14. What suggestions do you have for managers who manage employees during a

merger, in the future?

Issues of Trustworthiness

Researchers need to make sure their research studies are credible, transferable,

dependable and confirmable. To ensure my research study was in adherence to the four

conditions, the following conditions were enforced throughout the duration of my study.

Credibility

Credibility is required to be established for all research so other researchers can

ensure the research was conducted as per the required standards. Hays, Wood, Dahl, and

Kirk-Jenkins, (2016) discussed that credibility is when a qualitative study is believable

based on the information of how the research process was conducted. To ensure the

credibility was established, I asked peers to conduct peer reviews on the notes and the

interview data collected to ensure no bias was present in the notes. All data collected was

conducted by me to ensure its uniformity. The transcribed data were also available to the

participants to ensure data collected and transcribed was correct and accurate. Any

discrepancies in the data collected were corrected in the notes and the NVivo program.

Transferability

Transferability is required as part of a study to help ensure the study can be

transferred to other contexts. Hays, Wood, Dahl, and Kirk-Jenkins, (2016) discussed that

transferability refers to the generalization of how the study is conducted including

participants, location, and time. The participants in my study were managers who had

direct supervisor of employees through a merger. There was no limitation of gender, age,

type of merger, or industry.

I collected the data and entered it into the NVivo program and an Excel

spreadsheet to analyze trends. Detailed interviews, ranging from 25 minutes up to an

hour, were used to collect data that was then analyzed to discover patterns and trends. As

information was collected, I entered the data into the NVivo database and continuously

compared the information collected to the other information collected. To help reduce

bias and maintain focus on purpose of the research study, I referred to the research

questions to conduct the interviews.

Dependability

Dependability is when a study can be repeated by other researchers and yield

similar results (Hays, Wood, Dahl, & Kirk-Jenkins, 2016). There are several ways a

researcher can ensure dependability in a research study. LeCompte and Goetz (1982)

discussed that to ensure dependability, the researcher should record all observations

accurately during the interview. Eisenhardt (1989), Mitchell (1993), and Yin (1994)

discussed that a researcher should conduct pilot studies. LeCompte and Goetz (1982) also

discussed the use of peer reviews would help to ensure dependability.

My interview questions for this research were reviewed by the University of

Walden dissertation committee and University Research Review (URR) to ensure they

were free from bias and would obtain the data needed to answer the research question. All

interviews were recorded using two recording devices. The data collected during the

interviews was transcribed into a word document and organized into the NVivo program

and an Excel spreadsheet. Observations of participant body language and facial

expressions were observed and recorded immediately after each interview, where

possible. Ryan-Nicholls and Will (2009) stated that triangulation could be obtained by

using multiple methods to obtain data. In this research, both interviews and observations

were used to obtain triangulation within my research study.

All participants’ identities were protected by assigning a numeral code to each

participant. All participants’ interview data was locked in a controlled electronic file and

stored in OneCloud storage. All written notes were transcribed into a controlled

electronic file and the notes were then being stored in a locked file cabinet. Once the

notes were transcribed and confirmed by the participants, they were scanned and

uploaded into my OneCloud file.

Confirmability

Riege (2003) discussed that confirmability is when a researcher interprets the data

in a logical manner while ensuring they remain impartial to the data collected. To ensure

this was maintained, all participant identities remained confidential through the coding

process discussed in this chapter. Bias is present in all research; however, I had peers

review my notes to ensure bias does not enter into the transcribed notes. Hays, Wood,

Dahl, and Kirk-Jenkins (2016) stated that confirmability is when all data collected from

participants is transcribed without a researcher’s bias of interpretation.

Ethical Procedures

Ethical issues are vital to consider in all research. Researchers need to ensure

ethical protection is taken into consideration for all aspects of participant protection, data

collection, and data storage. All protection methods for data and participant were

approved by the IRB before the participants were contacted and the data collection

commenced.

Consent approval. All participants were sent an informed consent form that

contained all the information about the purpose of the study, the benefits of the study, the

protection of participant identity, and data collected. I informed all participants of their

option to withdrawn from the study at any point. Each participant was given a consent

form to fill out and send back. Once the form was received, I then contacted them to

arrange the method, location and time of the interview.

Participant protection. I treated all participants equally and assigned a coded

number to protect their identities. The participant’s name, associated code, and

information are stored in a private locked file cabinet in my home office. A master list

with participant information is stored in a separate file and maintained in an OneCloud

account with restricted access.

I conducted the interviews where the participants chose, and all interviews were

held in private. Confidentially was maintained throughout the study. Each interview was

identified by the coded number, and no other identification was used in the interview

instrument.

The recorded interviews did not include the participants’ personal information.

The interview started with the participant’s coded number. All recorded interviews were

transcribed into data notes containing only the coded identification of the participant. The

transcribed notes will remain in my private file in the OneCloud until five years after the

research study has been approved. During the five year storage time, the confidential

transcribed interviews and the hand written notes will remain in my confidential files and

OneCloud storage.

Participants had the option to withdraw from the study at any time before, during

or after the research commenced. If at any time a participant chose to not participant in

the study, the data collected would be erased from the data collection. The identity of the

participants is and will be always remain confidential. No participants chose to withdraw

from the study.

Summary

Conducting research has many important steps; however ensuring the study is

conducted using the correct method allows me to explore the subject thoroughly.

Research involves careful consideration of the type of study, how to conduct the study,

and protection of all participants from any risks and exposure. As the researcher, I needed

to ensure that all research conducted did not put the participants at risk of harm.

Careful consideration needs to go into all research studies. Chapter three reviewed

all three research methods and explained why the qualitative method was best suited to

obtain data for my research question. I then discussed the designs for a qualitative study:

(a) narrative research (b) case study (c) phenomenology (d) ethnography or (e) grounded

theory. Concluding with the reason why the phenomenological design was best suited for

my research study.

This chapter then discussed the role of a researcher, participant selection, how the

sampling selection was conducted, maintaining confidentially for the study, and the use

of a questionnaire to complete the interviews. I then reviewed the 14 questions that were

used to collect the data for my study. The chapter then discussed the procedures for

recruitment, employee participation, data collection, and how the data will be analyzed.

The NVivo program and an Excel spreadsheet, which was used to analysis all data

collected, were reviewed.

I ended the chapter with a discussion of the categories of trustworthiness in

research studies. The four topics of transferability, credibility, confirmability and

dependability were discussed. Lastly, I discussed the ethical procedures regarding the

protection the participants identify and how the information will be stored.

In chapter 4 I will review the demographics of the study, details of the data

collection including number of participants, location of interview, and how the interviews

were recorded. The details of the data analysis will include the specific codes, categories,

and themes that will emerge from the data collected.

In conducting this study, I had to take into consideration all aspects mentioned in

this chapter to ensure the study can be considered relevant and applied to further research

in the management community and other applicable areas. This study may allow for great

improvements in the management and organizational communities. Employees and

managers will benefit from the improvements gained through manager-employee

relationships during changing times. Managers within organizations will benefit from

smoother transitions of mergers, less employee turnover, and reduction in cost. The

business community will benefit by having a reduction in merger failures through

improved management of people and systems.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this phenomenological descriptive study was to understand the

resources available to managers to manage employees during mergers. In this chapter, I

present the themes and perceptions that emerged from 14 interviews conducted with

managers who had direct management of employees during mergers of North American

organizations.

I conducted the interviews in order to answering the primary research question:

What is the scope of resources available from a manager’s perception, to manage

employees through a merger? This was answered with three research questions: RQ1.

What type of special resources or skills were you provided to help manage the

employees through a merger? How did you utilize the resources?

RQ2. Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you utilizing

the resources or skills to improve the situation? What effects did it have on the

employees?

RQ3. What were the benefits for the employees when a manager is provided

resources/skills to manage employees through a merger? What are the benefits for the

managers? What are the benefits for the organization?

There were a total of 14 participants, included in my study, which provided

information through private interviews. I gave all 14 the opportunity to answer

openended questions, allowing for further input as needed. All participants were also

given the opportunity to review all recorded interview notes and verify the data collected

during the interview. The participants confirmed and approved the accuracy of all data

collected on their lived experiences. The chapter is organized as a general review of the

research setting, data collection, and participant demographics. The chapter concludes

with the actual findings from the data I collected.

Research Setting

The data was collected from interviews of 14 managers who worked with a

variety of North American companies that eventually merged or were involved in an

acquisition. The managers all were responsible for the day-to-day management of

employees. The criteria for inclusion in this study required participants to (a) be managers

who worked in a supervisory position at the time a merger or acquisition was taking

place, (b) have managed employees during the merger or acquisition implementation, and

perceived coercion. I emailed (Appendix C) possible participants who may have met the

criteria, and then followed up with a consent form to fill out and send back to me. Once

received, I contacted them through email to arrange the time, method, and location, when

required, to conduct the interview. Interviews were conducted according to the schedule

of the participant.

Once the interview was completed, I asked participants if they could recommend

others who could meet the three inclusion criteria for the study. I then followed up with

the participant referral form (Appendix A). Once I received a participant referral form, I

contacted the referred participants with a consent form. If they agreed, the process

continued until all participants were interviewed and saturation was achieved.

Demographics

I conducted the interviews through face to face interviews, via telephone calls and

Skype. All interviews were recorded through two recording devices; Autonotes2 and

Amolto. The interviews ranged from 25 minutes up to an hour.

Fourteen participants took part in the study. The study consisted of two female

managers and 12 male managers. The participants held a wide range of management

positions (Table 1). All managers were responsible for direct employees ranging from a

minimum of two up to a maximum of 400 employees. The participants, while not directly

asked, referred to at least one merger while a manager, but in several interviews,

involvement in multiple mergers was mentioned.

Table 1

Participant Demographic Data

Participants Gender Title Number of

employees

Participant 1 Male Human resources manager 12

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

Female

Male

Female

Male

Director of environmental

affairs

Engineering manager

Business development

manager

Manager of application

developers and technical

support Sales

manager

Senior manager

Director

District manager

Marketing and operations

manager

Vice president

Regional manager

Engineering manager

Vice president and

general manager

15/20

400

140/100

Data Collection

Data were collected from 14 participants through planned 60-minute interviews. I

collected resumes and reviewed profiles to ensure the participants should be included in

the study. To be included the participants had to have managed employees when a merger

was announced at the company in which they were employed. Once the potential

participant met the study requirements, I conducted an interview through the preferred

method chosen by the participant; telephone call, face to face interview or Skype. While

15 interviews were conducted, during one interview, I realized that there could be a

conflict of interest; therefore, I eliminated the interview from the study, resulting in 14

participants for the study. Interviews were conducted in a variety of ways. One interview

was conducted face to face in Canada, two through online Skype video calls, and all

others through telephone calls. Most of the interviews were conducted while I was in a

different time zone than the participants, therefore time consideration was a factor when

booking the interviews. The interviews were conducted over a period of two months. I

conducted all interviews in a method, time, and date that best suited the participant’s

schedule. All interviews were conducted in private atmospheres and private calls to

maintain confidentially.

All interviews were recorded using two recording devices; Autonotes2 and

Amolto. While the interviews were planned to be conducted using the Livescribe pen,

hand notes were found to be more efficient for note taking. The interviews ranged from

25 minutes to 1 hour. Only three interviews involved facial and body visuals, therefore

body and facial expressions recordings had very little bearing on study results.

Once the interviews were completed, I uploaded the recordings into OneCloud as

m4a audio files. I then sent the files to a professional organization, which transcribed

them into a Word document. Once I received this document, I checked the information

for accuracy and sent it back to the participant to verify the content of the conversations

recorded. All participants’ comments and corrections were incorporated into the final

interview notes. The participants were reminded of their right to withdraw from the study

at any point at every point of contact. No participants asked to have their notes

withdrawn.

I had originally intended to interview a minimum of 18-20 participants; however,

once the study was in progress, only 15 interviews were conducted, one of which I

eliminated because of a possible conflict of interest. While data saturation was

established at around interview eight, participant’s agreement to participate and the need

to ensure saturation was reached encouraged me to continue until 14 interviews were

completed.

I began the interviews by establishing rapport with the participants and continued

by thanking all participants for taking part in my study. I then informed the participants of

their voluntary participation in their commitment to the study, and offered details on the

purpose of the recordings, the process to verify all the notes, and the purpose of the study

including the main research question. I also reminded them that there was no

compensation for taking part in the study.

I did not discuss any history of my past positions or involvement in mergers to

ensure that no bias was introduced into the study. The focus of the interview was on

information gathered from the participants in accordance with the interview questions

(Appendix B). All data collected during the interviews was entered into NVivo and an

Excel spreadsheet and then hand coded to allow for data analysis.

Data Analysis

This was a phenomenological descriptive study. Englander (2016) noted that

phenomenological research is best suited for understanding issues with human science.

According to Sousa (2014), researchers conduct descriptive-based phenomenological

studies to describe, understand, and clarify human experiences. In this study, I researched

the experiences of participants who lived through a merger and shared their personal

experiences while managing employees through a merger. A phenomenological approach

was appropriate for this study because it allowed me to collect data from participants who

had firsthand experience in a merger and witnessed the effects, of the merger, on the

employees they managed, the organization, and themselves as managers. All managers

interviewed were present in the company when the merger was announced.

The interviews were conducted around the three primary research questions with

additional supportive interview questions. (Appendix C) allowing for open-ended

responses. The participants were encouraged to answer the questions on any or all of the

mergers they experienced as managers. All participants were reminded of the

confidentially of the interviews.

The data were collected and entered in NVivo 11 software to organize the

interview results, allowing me to organize and analyze them for themes and trends. The

data was also hand coded using an Excel spreadsheet to ensure validation of the data

collected. The data while collected over a period of two months, it was not broken down

into individual interviews, but the interview data was looked at as a whole.

One of the first steps was to ensure my personal bias or views remained neutral

throughout the data collection and analysis stages. I reflected upon my personal

experience as a manager while a merger was taking place, and put all my feelings and

thoughts aside from this study. Putting aside my reflections allowed me to be open and

accepting of the participants’ personal experiences.

I began by listening to each recorded interview in an individual seating. This

allowed me to relive the conversation with an open, objective view. Listening to the

recordings multiple times allowed me to hear what the participants said and also to ensure

there was no leading questions or bias introduced into the interview. Once the recordings

were completed, I read the translated scripts to get an overall meaning of the interview, in

relationship to the research questions.

Once all the recordings were listened to and read, I uploaded each transcribed

interview data into the NVivo 11 programs. I then found key meanings or concepts that

were in line with the research and supporting questions. I highlighted all meaning or

concepts found and assigned it a code. Each code had its own reference of a short phrase

of word. I repeated the process until all 14 transcribed interview notes were entered into

NVivo.

Hand coding the interview notes was completed in a similarly manner. I used an

excel spreadsheet to enter the answers to the questions. Once entered, I highlighted key

comments and phrases that were pertinent to answering the interview questions.

The coded notes were then taken and broken down into categories. The categories

were made up of a combination of nodes that were brought together to create an overall

category. Once the categories were created, higher categorizations of themes were

exposed. There were a total of seven themes that resulted from the study. The themes are:

1. The managers-employee relationships were maintained throughout the merger

process.

2. Managers were not provided any resources to manage employees during the

merger. However, there were resources or skills available within the

organization and the management team.

3. Notification of the merger was different for both managers and employees.

4. Employees reacted differently to the announcement of the merger.

5. Situations that arose during the merger was handled more efficiently with

resources.

6. Having resources available benefited employees, the managers, and the

organizations.

7. Majority of participants were willing to pass on advice to future managers of

mergers.

Further, in the chapter, the themes are discussed in detail. The themes help to

support the findings of my study and answer the primary research question: What is the

scope of resources available from a manager’s perception, to manage employees through

a merger?

Evidence of Trustworthiness

It is important to ensure all studies are believable and can be transferred to other

studies. My study was conducted under the requirements of the International Review

Board guidelines. I conducted the study myself to ensure all elements of trustworthiness

were practiced throughout the study.

Credibility

Hays, Wood, Dahl, and Kirk-Jenkins, (2016) discussed that credibility is when a

qualitative study is believable based on the information of how the research process was

conducted. To ensure the credibility was established, I conducted all the interviews

myself to ensure uniformity of all data collected. I took notes during the interviews and

taped all interviews. Interviews were taped by using two devices; Autonote 2 and

Amolto.

Once the interviews were conducted, I sent the taped interviews to a professional

organization to be transcribed. Once I received the notes back, I compared the transcribed

notes to the audio recorded interviews for accuracy. Any discrepancies were corrected

and then the transcribed notes were forwarded to the participants to be verified. The

participants checked all transcribed notes, corrected any errors and then confirmed the

information transcribed was accurate. All data collected was transcribed into the NVivo

program and Excel spreadsheet once it was verified by the participant.

Transferability

Transferability is required as part of a study to help ensure the study can be

transferred to other studies. Hays, Wood, Dahl, and Kirk-Jenkins, (2016) referred to the

generalization of how the study was conducted including participants, location, and time.

To ensure transferability of the study when used by others, I provided a detailed analysis

of the selection of the participants, recruitment of participants, how the data was

collected, and how the information was verified to ensure the accuracy of the data

collected. The participants in this study were managers that managed employees through

a merger. The participants had no limitation to gender, age, and type of merger, or a

number of direct employees in which the participants managed the employees through a

merger. This study should be easily transferred to future studies in similar research area.

Dependability

Dependability is when a study can result in similar results among other

researchers (Hays, Wood, Dahl, & Kirk-Jenkins, 2016). To ensure dependability in this

study, I recorded all interviews by using two devices. All recordings were then

transcribed by an independent company, and all transcribed notes were verified against

the recordings. The participants also had an opportunity to review all transcribed notes. I

provided a detailed collection of data, transcription, and verification of the data in the

study. Most interviews, except for one face to face and two Skype video calls, all were

conducted through telephone calls. Body language and facial expressions were very

limited therefore they were not part of the research and will not influence the

dependability of the study.

To guarantee dependability within the study, the participant’s identity was

protected by assigning a numeral codes. The participants were chosen by meeting the

criteria outlined in the study and involve purposeful initial sampling of participants that

fit the study criteria, who then referred other potential candidates through their

professional association.

Confirmability

Riege (2003) discussed confirmability is when a researcher interprets the data in a

logical manner while ensuring they remain impartial to the data collected. To ensure

confirmability was maintained throughout the study, all participants identities were

protected and assigned numerical codes. The identity of the participants will remain

stored in a separate locked file cabinet.

Hays, Wood, Dahl, and Kirk-Jenkins, (2016) found confirmability is when all data

collected from participants is transcribed without a researcher’s bias of interpretation. To

maintain confirmability, all data collected through the interview questions (Appendix B)

was transcribed by an independent company and information confirmed by the

participants. Once the transcribed data was reviewed and approved by the participants,

the interview notes were stored into the NVivo database and continuously compared the

information collected to the other information collected. An Excel spreadsheet was used

to sort the responses to the interview questions in a similar manner.

Study Results

In this section I describe in detail the results of the data collected in reference to

the interview questions asked of 14 participants. I presented the focus on the questions

and the relationship to the themes that emerged from the interview data collected, not

necessarily in order of importance.

Research Question 1

What type of special resources or skills was provided to help manage the

employees through a merger? How did you utilize the resources?

Question one explored if any special resources or skills were provided to the

managers to help manage the employees through the merger. Table 2 shows that 100% of

the participants stated they were not provided any special resources or skills to manage

the employees through the merger. Participants responded with comments such as “just

internal stuff with the company, but I wouldn’t say specific to managing people”

(Participant 4). Participant 8 responded, “I had the opportunity to take on a number of

leadership courses, some of which has a managerial element, but I would say most of it

emphasized leadership.” Other participants (Participant 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 13) responded

with “No” to the interview question.

Theme two. Theme two uncovered that while participants were not provided any

special resources or training to manage their employees during the merger, they had

resources available through the organization along with their own experience. Forty-three

percent of the participants stated they have some level of training related to management

or other technical training. Table 2 also shows that 21% of the participants interviewed

mentioned their own education as a resource that helped towards managing employees

through a merger (Participants 1, 11, & 14). Participants responded with comments such

as, “nothing provided to me. But I didn’t expect it either…I had a degree in business with

a major in HR” (Participant 1). Participant 11 responded, “I finished my MBA a little

while ago, which helped me maybe mature as a leader as much as anything.”

Seventy-nine percent of the participants stated there was a resource or multiple resources

available (Table 2). Of the 79% of the population stating resources were available, the

resources available to the managers were; Human Resources department

(36%), information provided to them (36%), access to information on a website (36%),

external teams assistance (18%), access to their leadership or manager (27%) and access

to the other merging company (9%), (Table 3).

Table 3 outlined the percentage of participants that stated having a specific

resource available against the total amount of participants. Three participants responded

they did not have resources available to them. In comparison to the overall participants

interviewed, 14 participants, they responded with having the following resources; Human

Resources department (29%), information provided to them (29%), access to information

on a website (29%), external teams assistance (14%), access to their leadership or

manager (21%), and access to the other merging company (7%), and no resources (21%).

Theme five. The participants responded to using the resources available to them

in different situations (Table 2). Some participants stated they used the resource to assist

for talking points to their team, whereas other participants responded they utilized human

resource personnel to help work through questions from the employees. Participant one

responded, “So I created a cheat sheet for them of things they could say, things they

should say, and basically said, put yourself in their shoes.” Participant six responded,

“There was on the websites, there were talking points and scenarios on how to deal with,

you could answer the question, and then they could call the HR people and talk to HR.”

Other responded they relied on management to ask questions when needed. Participant

13 responded, “. The CEO was very approachable and was always open for employees to

ask questions.” The resources that were available, the managers utilized to help manage

the situations that arose among the team.

Table 2

Participant Managerial Experience and Resources Available

Participants Participant response to

resources taken or

provided to manage

employees

Resources available within

the organization

Participant 1 Nothing/HR degree Human resources

manager/cheat sheet

provided

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

Management courses

Nothing from the

company

Managing processes

not people courses

Technical training

but

no management

training

Very little

Classic management

courses

Nothing was provided

Management training

No/MBA

Some administrative

training/previous

experience

Communication talking

points

Human resources

Website

Human

resource/organizational

change management team

Human resources,

websites, and leadership

Nothing provided

Supervisor

No resources

Information packages

Integration team

Nothing provided

Information provided on

intranet/Senior management

Senior management

presentations/access to other

company

Table 3

Type of Resources Available within Organizations

Type of Resource Participant

responded having

resource available

Percentage of

participants that

responded to having

resource available

(79%/11

participants)

Percentage of

participants that

responded to

having resource

available against

overall participants

Human Resource

Information provided

Website/Intranet

External team

Leadership/manager

1, 3, 5, 6,

1, 2, 10,14

4, 6, 11,13

5, 11,

6, 8, 13

36%

18%

27%

29%

14%

21%

Access to other company

No resource

7, 9, 12

27%

21%

Research Question 2

Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you utilizing

the resources or skills to improve the situation? What effects did it have on the

employees?

Question two explored any possible events or situations that may have arisen

while managing the employees, resulting in utilizing any resources or skills that they had

access to. According to the participant responses, (Table 4), 43% had situations that

occurred that were handled with resources available. Participant ten stated, “There were

situations that came up that I think are somewhat unusual or abnormal where when you

had entire crews walk out and go work for a competitor.” Participant five responded,

“each department would have its own set of angst over the merger…We didn’t expect

them to come to us with their fears and concerns, and they did.” Another participant

responded, “Some cultural differences arose” (Participant 14).

Theme five and six. The participants that had resources available to them

responded positively in regards to having resources available to handle a situation when

one occurred. When situations arose, the managers utilized the resources they had

available to them to address the issues. The effects of having some availability of

resources resulted in a variety of responses. Theme five (Table 4) and six (Table 5) both

referred to situations running smoother and benefits for the employees.

Participant one had created a cheat sheet (Table 2) to handle situations or

questions that had arisen and when asked, responded, “I think that the merger went quite

smoothly. I think it'd be way more smooth than if I hadn't done it.”

If you had that experience that helps… And then you have people that had been

through mergers before; they can answer questions. And we all have that group

that we're connected to that's been through several mergers. Especially if you've

been around as long as I have. (Participant six)

“Communication is the number one skillset” (Participant 9). Participant 11

responded, “Oh, it was great. You know, what they tried to do is they tried to keep as

more questions came up and as they were able to release more information, they kept it

pretty fresh.”

Table 4

Employee Situation and Resource Management Effects on Employees

Participants Managing situations/events

with resources

Resources effectiveness

Participant 1 No problems Merger went quite

smoothly

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

Handled all issues with

standing monthly agenda topic

Human resources managed all

No situation

Each department had its own

angst against the

departments- fear of adapting

new systems No

real issues

No situations

Questions from employees

No situations

Questions/Entire crews walk

out

No situation

Cultural differences

Follow through on

commitments

Resources only used on

people that left the

company

Background skills helped

My experience helped

Discuss with boss

Communication helped

Communicate effectively

Sharing information

helped

Research Question 3

What were the benefits for the employees when a manager is provided

resources/skills to manage employees through a merger? What are the benefits for the

managers? What are the benefits for the organization?

Question three explored the benefits to employees, managers and the organization

when resources or skills are available during a merger process. According to the majority

of the participant responses, there are benefits in all three areas (Table 5). Even in some

situations where the participants stated there were no resources provided, they discussed

benefits to one or more of the three groups.

Theme five and six. Theme five and six related to research question three.

Seventy-nine percent of the participants responded with positive benefits to the

employees when resources or skills are available to the managers. Seven percent of the

participants (Participant 1) stated “I don’t think the employees would’ve known. I think

they would just saw their manager doing whatever they were doing and wouldn’t know

any better.” Fourteen percent of the participants (participant 4, 12) stated there were no

benefits as they also stated there were no resources or skills provided for managing

employees through the merger (Table 2).

Twelve participants responded positively and stated the benefits to employees of

having resources or skills available to the manager. Participant six responded, “They were

a little more calm.” Participant 10 responded that “they sense that there’s a strong

presence at the helm, and that you’re part of a flow of information and direction.” Other

comments were, “helped to put people at ease” (Participant 8) and “gained a certain

amount of confidence in the new organization (Participant 11).”

Twelve participants (86%) discussed the benefits to managers when resources or

skills were available. Two participants (Participants 4, 12) did not see any benefits for

themselves as managers because they also stated there were no resources or skills

available to them. One participant responded with “Communications I think was helpful

and I think that gave me the opportunity to follow through on what my plans already”

(Participant 2).

“The people that worked for me knew that I had a good relationship with those

people. So when I would convey a message back down, down to the troops, they knew

that it was, it has some merits and should do it” (Participant 7) Participant 14 “Stated you

could answer employee’s questions.”

Table five also captured the responses from the participants in regards to benefits

to benefits to the organization. Twelve participants (86%) responded with their

experience of having resources available in relationship to beneficial to the organization.

Participant one responded, “The mergers were very smooth, and very little disruption.”

Other participants stated, “We continued to maintain a high level of productivity”

(Participant 5) and “Some new thinking, new ideas” (Participants 3). Participant eleven

responded with, “I would say more employee confidence and positive aspects of the

culture.”

Table 5

Participants Benefits to employees Benefits to managers Benefits to organizations

Participant 1 Employees would not have

known

Self-learning Smooth and less

disruption

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

Maintain their sense of

direction

Resources available when

they were released

No benefits for the

employees

Remained productive,

brought team closer

Calm employees

More comfortable about the

information

People at ease, assured people

Open communication

Felt more confident with a

strong presence at the helm,

more secure

Gained confidence in the

new organization

People use it, look at it and

ask questions Happy

to get the

information

Communicate with the

employees

Learned a lot

Employee retention and

employees were focused on

tasks

Being able to give more

information to staff

Relationship with senior

manager

Able to communicate with

their employees

Having Human resources

available

Informing employees that the

world is not turning upside

down

Made it easier to communicate

information with the

employees

Having plans to provide people

with information

Communication increased

Communicate information with

employees

Kept people sane

New thinking and new

ideas, senior managers

can handle situations

better

Maintain high levels

of productivity,

continue steady state

Retain people, keep

customers satisfied by

providing products

and services and more

resources Good

trusting relationships

among managers

Send the message “we

care about you” Help

informing employees

that the world is not

turning upside

down,

Provided practical

answers to employees,

more organization,

generating work

Employee confidence and

positive aspects to the

culture

Communicate effectively

Employees get back to

work sooner

Benefits for Employees, Managers and the Organization When Resources were Available

General Themes

There were four general themes, outlined in the list of seven themes (Page 97).

The themes 1, 3, 4, and 7 that emerged from the study that is worth mentioning. The

themes are 1) the managers-employee relationships were maintained throughout the

merger process, 3) notification of the merger was different for both managers and

employees, 4) employees reacted differently to the announcement of the merger, and 7)

majority of participants were willing to pass on advice to future managers of mergers.

While the themes were not the focus of the study, I feel the information can help benefit

future studies related to merger activity surrounding managers and employees.

Theme One

One hundred percent of the participants revealed that they had an excellent

relationship with all of their employees before the merger announcement (Table 6).

Participants described the relationships with comments such as “Very good. Helpful.

Good communication between us” (Participant 4), “Strong collaborative culture”

(Participant 5), and “We had a good work relationship. I think we had open, honest lines

of communications” (Participant 8). Once the merger was announcement, 93% of the

participants stated that their relationship remained the same. Participant 12 stated there

was a change, “Yes, a big change. Employees realized I was leaving and got frustrated”.

Table 6

Manager and Employee Relationship Before and After Merger

Participants Manager-employee

relationship before the merger

Manager-employee relationship

after the merger announcement

announcement

Participant 1 It was great Remained same but

communication increased among

the team

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

Everyone was comfortable

knowing the direction of the

team

Professional, open and

inclusive

Very good. Helpful. Good

communication between us

Strong, collaborative culture

Fantastic

It was good

Good working relationship

Good to excellent

I have always been hands on

It was open and easy

Very good relationships

Collegial, open, fairly close

team overall.

Good

Yes I tried to maintain the

relationship

No difference in relationship

Nothing in my direct reports,

however access to my manager

was limited because he was tied up

Same boss, very open and

transparent Same

relationship

There wasn’t much change We

still communicated in an open

honest mechanism method

Yes the same

It changed to more interaction with

your employees

A positive change, they would

want to engage and talk a little bit

Yes, a big change. Employees

realized I was leaving and got

frustrated

No change in my relationship with

the employees

Good relationship, however my

interaction with them increased

for information sharing

Theme Three

Notification of the merger varied between participants. The method used to notify

the managers was not always the same as the employees (Table 7 and 8). Thirty-six

percent of the respondents stated they first heard of the merger through the public media

(Participant 2, 9, 10, 11, &14). Participant two responded, “There was a news leak.”

Twenty-nine percent of the respondents stated they found out in a face to face method,

varying between individual face to face meetings with their supervisor, or a meeting

where they brought a group together (Participants 3, 5, 8 & 13). Participant eight

responded, “Our direct line managers told us face to face.”

Twenty-one percent were notified through an internal email or memo (Participants

4, 6 & 7). Participant six responded, “Through an internal memo.” Seven percent

responded that the manager called a group meeting with all the managers to inform them

of the merger announcement (Participant 12). Participant one ( seven percent) responded,

“I knew what was happening from day one.”

The participants responded that the employees involved in mergers did not

necessarily hear about the merger announcement in a similar manner as themselves.

Thirty-six percent of the respondents stated the employees first heard of the merger

through the public media, as they did themselves (Participant 2, 9, 10, 11, &14).

Twentynine percent of the respondents stated that they held meetings with the employees,

through team meetings, public town halls (Participants 1, 4, 5, & 13). Participant 13

responded, “Officially there were town hall meetings.” Twenty-one percent were notified

through an internal email (Participants 6, 7 and 12). Participant 12 responded, “It was a

phone call to managers and then the general email to all staff.” Participant six responded,

“So after the initial contact and the email that was sent out.” Seven percent (Participant

eight) responded, “A similar exercise the next day....similar meetings with the direct line

reports and then a global video conference. One participant (7%) of participants

responded;

That was done face-to-face as best I could. Some people were away, but we tried

to communicate with them. Some people are on vacation out of the office for personal

reasons and so we tried to make sure they were aware.” (Participant 3) Employees were

contacted but the method varied, depending on the merging company’s method of choice.

Table 7

Participant Notification of the Merger

Participants Notification method for Notification method for

managers employees

Participant 1 Employee owned, part of

the process

Face to

face/shareholder

meeting

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

News leak

Face to face

Internal email,

Face to face

Internal memo

Group meeting

Media

Group phone call for

managers

Town hall meeting

Media

News leak

Personal calls from the

manager and then a

communication email

Face to face

Email and town halls

Global conference call

Media

Town hall meeting

Media

Table 8

Method of Notification

Method Participant

response to

manager

notification

Percentage of

managers

notified by

method

Participant

response to

employee

notification

Percentage of

employees

notified by method

Media

Face to face

Internal email or

memo

Team meetings,

town hall

Global conference

call

Personal call

Manager group

meeting

Personally involved

2, 9, 10, 11, 14

3, 5, 8, 13

4, 6 & 7

36%

29%

21%

2, 9, 10, 11, 14

6, 7,12

1, 4, 5, 13

36%

21%

29%

Theme Four

The announcement of a merger saw different reactions among the employees.

While the media notification to the employees and managers may have varied, the

employee’s response to the merger announcement equally varied (Table 9 and 10).

Emotions that were stated to have been witnessed, once the merger was announced was

trepidation, fear, nervous, and concern. Fifty percent responded that the employees felt

concern for their jobs, fear of the unknown and losing their jobs, and skepticism, along

with a combination of multiple feelings about the whole merger. Participant three

responded, “Everyone was nervous of course because they didn't know whether or not

someone might be coming in to take their job.” Participant seven responded with, “there

was a lot of skepticism and fear, obviously, of the unknown, and change.” Participant

five responded, “a lot of fear and skepticism, because what we were hearing about the

other company was their culture was completely different from ours, and we knew that

our culture was unique. Fear of losing jobs.”

Twenty-one percent of the employees were excited and had a feeling of belief.

Participant one responded, “They were happy to be bought by a Canadian company.”

Participant eleven responded, “They were very excited about it.”

Fourteen percent of the participants stated the employees were in shock and

somewhat numb about the announcement. Participant eight responded, “A little shock….

All those kinds of things, and then I think people who were just naturally a little more

settled, a lot of curiosity, and a lot of wanting to know what about the path forward.”

Participant 13 responded stating the employees expressed uncertainty in their job and

their benefits.” “Uncertainty is certainly the feeling that people exhibited…. They have

more questions that they expect, what about my benefits, are there layoffs, or any like

that.”

Seven percent of the participants expressed that the employees were more curious

about the new company. “I guess, probably, they were certainly curious about what the

new company, the acquiring company was all about (Participant 14).

Table 9

Emotions Expressed by Employees

Participants Employee response to merger

Participant 1 They were happy to be bought by a

Canadian company

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

A lot of concern

Nervous

A lot of Trepidation

Fear and skepticism

Fearful of losing their jobs

Lot of skepticism and fear

A little shock

Trepidation

A certain amount of relief

Excited about it

Somewhat numb

Uncertainty

Curious

Table 10

Reactions to the Merger Announcement

Emotion Participant

response

Percentage of

participants response

Trepidation, fear,

skepticism, nervous, and

concern

Excited and relieved

Shock and

numb/uncertainty

Curious

2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 9

1, 10, 11

8, 12, 13

50%

21.5%

Theme Seven

All participants had the advice to pass onto future managers who manage employees

in a merger. The advice varied from participant to participant (Table 11 and 12). Fifty

percent of the participants responded that communication is important for all

managers to exercise when dealing with employees going through a merger

(Participants 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, &12). Participant three responded, “Be open and

honest. Tell them what you can. If they ask questions that you might have answers for

but it's not public, you can't put it out there.” Participants two, four, 10 and 11 all

directly responded with,

“Communication.”

Twenty-nine percent (Participants 1, 6, 7, & 8) encouraged engagement with the

employees. Participant seven responded, “Engage employees, stay on top of negatively,

and stay on top of the stress levels that people have.” Participant one responded, “Listen

to your employees and what is happening.”

Fourteen percent stated that the employees needed to be understood and checked

in on (Participant 2 & 8). Participant two stated, “Even if you feel like you've given them

the opportunity and to check in, some people need less than others as far as

communication and meetings with you, some people need more time than others among

your employees.” Participant eight responded, “I think the most important thing is to

understand on an employee by employee basis what their concerns are, what their

particular needs are, because everybody is different. Everybody is in a different spot.”

The remainder of the participants has individual suggestions (seven percent each).

Each had suggestions to share from their personal experience. Participant 14 responded,

“I think give the employees as much notice as possible of what's happening, and have

opportunities to learn about the company as early as possible.” Participant 13 responded,

“My experience is that employees during an acquisition are actually ready for change and

are open for change and expect certain things to change.”

Table 11

Manager Advice to Future Managers Involved in Mergers

Participants Advice to future managers during mergers

Participant 1 Don’t promise anything you can’t deliver.

Listen to your employees and what

happening

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 4

Participant 5

Participant 6

Participant 7

Participant 8

Participant 9

Participant 10

Participant 11

Participant 12

Participant 13

Participant 14

Even if you feel like you've given them the

opportunity and to check in, some people

need less than others communication and

meetings with you, some people need more

time than others among your employees Be

open and honest. Tell them what you can

Communication

Stay calm

Engage them positively, enthusiastically

Engage employees, stay on top of

negatively, stay on top of the stress levels

that people have

Understand on an employee by employee

basis what their concerns are

Being straightforward and honest with the

staff

Communication is everything

Communication

Don't keep even managers in the dark

about what's going to happen

My experience is that employees during an

acquisition are actually ready for change

and are open for change and expect certain

things to change

Give the employees as much notice as

possible

Table 12

Future Manager Advice

Advice for Future Participant Percentage of

participants response

Managers response

Communication

Check in often

Engage

Don’t make promises

Be open to change

Calm

Give advance notice

2*3,4,9,10,11,12

2*, 8*

1*,6,7,8*

50%

14%

29%

*Combined with other responses

Summary

This chapter presented the findings of the study through analysis of data obtained

from lived experiences of 14 managers, that managed employees through a merger while

working for a North American based company. My research was conducted through face

to face, Skype and telephone calls. All interviews were recorded using two recorders and

then were transcribed verbatim. The transcribed data was verified by the participants to

ensure accuracy of the data.

The overall research was guided by the central question for the study: What is the

scope of resources available from a manager’s perception, to manage employees through

a merger? The three primary research questions helped to understand what resources were

available to the managers during the merger process. I used the questions to explore

situations that had occurred and were managed through available resources, along with

the benefits of resources to employees, managers and organizations.

Through rigorous data analysis, seven qualitative themes emerged 1) the

managers-employee relationships were maintained throughout the merger process, 2)

managers were not provided any resources to manage employees during the merger,

however there were resources or skills available within the organization and the

management team, 3) notification of the merger was different for both managers and

employees 4) employees reacted differently to the announcement of the merger, 5)

situations that arose during the merger, was handled more efficiently with resources, 6)

having resources available benefited employees, the managers and the organizations, and

7) majority of participants were willing to pass on advice to future managers of mergers.

Trustworthiness was maintained throughout the study through credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability.

In chapter 5, I presented my interpretation of the findings from the analyzed data.

I begin the chapter with reviewing the purpose and nature of my study and why it was

conducted. I then interpret my findings, based from analyzed data collected from the

interview questions. I conclude the chapter with a review of the limitations,

recommendations for future research and social change implications.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this phenomenological descriptive study was to understand the

resources available to managers to manage employees during mergers. The participants

were required to have direct reporting of employees while working at an organization

when a merger was announced so they could share their personal experiences of

managing through a merger. According to Sousa (2014), researchers conduct

descriptivebased phenomenological studies to describe, understand, and clarify human

experiences. A phenomenology study was appropriate for this study because I collected

data from the experiences of the participants while they managed employees through a

merger. Specifically, I explored the availability of resources provided to managers to help

them manage employees through a merger. I also explored resource effectiveness when

situations arise and the benefits of having resources available to employees, managers,

and organizations.

I gathered information from 14 managers who participated in semi structured

private interviews answering a minimum of 14 open-ended interview questions. All

managers had directly managed employees through at least one merger. Data was

gathered in one-on-one private interviews, transcribed, reviewed for accuracy, and then

analyzed for codes, categories and themes.

Findings from my analysis of the data highlighted several themes that I used to

answer the overall research question: (a) the managers-employee relationships were

maintained throughout the merger process; (b) managers were not provided any resources

to manage employees during the merger, however there were resources or skills available

within the organization and the management team; (c) notification of the merger was

different for both managers and employees; (d) employees reacted differently to the

announcement of the merger; (e) situations that arose during the merger were handled

more efficiently with resources; (f) having resources available benefited employees, the

managers, and the organizations; and (g) a majority of participants were willing to pass

on advice to future managers of mergers. The remaining sections of this chapter include

an interpretation of the findings, limitations of the study, recommendations, and

implications for social change.

Interpretation of Findings

The conceptual framework for the study was based on Greenleaf’s servant

leadership theory (1977) and Herzberg’s two factor theory (1968). The results of this

study supported both theories. According to Greenleaf (1959), managers need to

continuously improve themselves to have the ability to develop their subordinates. The

findings in the study showed that managers took it upon themselves to educate

themselves or advance their education to work in their functional role as a manager.

Spears (2010) and van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) found that a servant leader has

the ability to listen, be aware of individual’s feelings, and have empathy when dealing

with people. In this study, I likewise found that the practice of servant leadership had a

positive impact on organizational commitment.

Herzberg’s two factors of motivation and hygiene played a role when the merger

was announced. The motivators that contribute to the employees having job satisfaction

include employee achievement, recognition, employee growth, and responsibility

(Herzberg, 1968), and the dis-satisfiers were company policies and administrative

practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, and salary.

Participants reported using their experience, their management team, and the

resources they had available to them to ensure employees were not dissatisfied when the

merger was taking place. Managers maintained good working relationship throughout the

merger. Managers also increased their communication with employees so that all

concerns and questions were addressed. Herzberg (1968) mentioned that managers play a

significant role in helping employees achieve job satisfaction. The results of the study

support Herzberg’s theory when a merger is taking place.

Mergers can change the environment and expectations of both the employees and

managers. My interpretation derives from the data collected, with the focus on answering

the three research questions and ultimately concluding answering my research question:

What is the scope of resources available from a manager’s perceptions to manage

employees through a merger?

Research Question One

What type of special resources or skills were you provided to help manage the

employees through a merger? How did you utilize the resources?

While exploring the types of resources or skills provided to the managers to help

them manage the employees through the merger, I found that, in the managers’

perceptions, nothing was provided for the purpose of managing the employees through

the merger. All of the participants stated that they did not receive special resources or

skills to manage the employees through the merger process. However, while managers

were not provided specific resources or skills to assist with the management of their

direct employees, they did have access to resources. The common resources available to

most participants were their past personal experiences of working through a merger,

prepared packages, human resources departments, and their management teams.

Participants discussed their personal background in regards to education and

inhouse management courses. Managers had worked their way into management

positions while taking different management courses along the way. While the courses

were not specifically focused on managing employees, the courses did provide resources

and skills with the focus of helping managers in their functional roles.

Some managers entered the workforce with a degree or decided to go back to

school once in a manager’s position. The managers obtained the degree to help provide

them with the skills needed to fulfill the functions as a manager, including personnel

management. The participants responded they made a choice to gain the education to help

themselves in their position. Education can open the doors for advancement within

organizations. When the merger was announced, human resources personnel played a

large role in assisting managers with employee issues, answering questions, preparing

standard packages, and updating websites with information. Human resources personnel

can be a resource for the management team through all phases of the merger integration

(Podgorski & Sherwood, 2015). The human resource department was a strong resource

that managers relied on for most employee-related issues. While most managers did not

consider human resources personnel a resource, when asked if they had access to

resources or skills, human resources personnel was one of the largest resources available

to managers to deal with situations.

Less than half of the participants responded to situations that arose with

employees during the merger. In the situations that did occur, managers relied on the

resources that were in place and their own experience to deal with the issues. In most

cases, the managers engaged more often with the employees to ensure employees were

informed about the latest events of the merger. Managers maintained excellent

relationships with their employees throughout the merger. Benton and Austin (2010)

found that communication during a merger can reduce stress and increase trust for

employees. When situations occurred, the managers took it upon themselves to ensure the

employees’ questions were addressed or reached out to the human resources personnel for

answers.

Managers found themselves drawing on their personal experience or those of their

colleagues. All managers had been through a merger before; they discussed the impact of

the overall merger process on all employees. They felt a personal responsibility to ensure

the employees had answers; therefore the managers helped the employees alleviate their

fears by staying closely connected with the employees and ensuring the employees’

questions and fears were addressed. When situations occurred that the managers were

unsure of, they reached out to colleagues to seek advice on how to handle the situation.

Research Question Two

Explain any events or situations that might have occurred resulting in you utilizing

the resources or skills to improve the situation? What effects did it have on the

employees?

Half of the participants reported that situations occurred where they had to use

resources to assist with the situation. The situations were mostly employees wanting to

know their fate within the newly formed organization. When the mergers were

announced, there were plenty of unanswered questions. Employees wanted to know how

the changes would impact them. The managers utilized their personal experience and

communication skills with employees on a regular basis. According to Roundy (2010),

leaders need to communicate all information during a merger. Communication of known

information is very beneficial for the employees. The employees received the information

as soon as the manager was able to share it, allowing the employees to remain calm and

focus back on their jobs. The personal experience of the managers allowed each situation

to be dealt with quickly. Managers were able to sympathize with employees because they

had experienced the impacts of a merger, and they used the resources needed to quickly

diminish any situations that came about.

The employees depended on their managers to give them the answers to their

questions. The managers personally worked with the employees to help solve any

outstanding issues. The manager’s experience, relationship with the employee, and access

to company resources allowed the employees to have some piece of mind. This allowed

the employees to continue to focus on their job while knowing their manager sought out

answers to their questions.

Research Question Three

What were the benefits for the employees when a manager is provided

resources/skills to manage employees through a merger? What are the benefits for the

managers? What are the benefits for the organization?

Resources were available to most of the participants during the merger. The

managers heavily relied on their management team and personal experience. Human

resources personnel were utilized for answering questions and informing the employees

of any program changes and to help employees that were leaving the organization.

The managers relied on personal experience and relationships to communicate

regularly with the employees as information were available. The managers maintained

personal accountability in helping the employees work through the merger. The

employees seem to view their managers as a reliable resource.

Employees, managers and the operation of the organization benefited from having

resources available to manage any situation that arose during the merger. The employees

had the support of their manager, who in turn utilized their surrounding management

members and personal experience to help coach the employees. The employees continued

to have trust in their manager; therefore remaining productive, calm and focused on their

tasks. When employees needed questions answered, they would go to their manager for

answers. Open communication and information exchange is critical during a merger

(Bansal, 2015; Birkinshaw, Bresman, & Håkanson, 2000). The employees entrusted their

supervisors to be honest and look out for their best interest.

Managers also benefited from having resources available. Communication with

employees increased because the employees had a lot of questions that required answers.

The manager’s facetime with the employees increased during the merger. The managers

were able to give the employees current up to date answers, allowing the employees to

feel a sense of ease and remain focus on their tasks. Having the resources available

allowed the managers to have a sense of helping the employees understand the direction

of what their future may look like.

The managers and the employees maintained open communication allowing the

employees to remain focused and on task. Having the employees remain on task reduced

employee issues that may rise from a change introduced within the team, and allow the

manager to focus their time on understanding the impacts the merger may have on their

team.

Managing employees resulted in many benefits in maintaining the operation of the

organization. The managers managed the day to day employees concerns, therefore

keeping the employees focused on meeting deadlines and targets. The employees

remained productive, keeping internal and external customers satisfied and resulted in

very little disruption to the daily business. Because the managers were able to maintain

open, trusting relationship, all issues were dealt quickly allowing employees to get back

to work in a shorter time.

Limitations of the Study

As described in chapter four, every effort was made to ensure the accuracy and

trustworthiness of the data collected during the interviews. The objective of my study was

to determine if resources were available to managers to manage the employees through a

merger. There were five limitations.

The first limitation was the sample size of participants of the study. The data was

collected from the lived experiences of 14 managers managing employees through a

merger; therefore it cannot be representative of all managers involved in managing

employees through a merger.

The second limitation was the resources available to individual managers while

managing employees through a merger. Depending on the merging companies, resource

availability may vary from merger to merger. I based my study on the resources the

managers had available while managing through the merger they were involved in.

Third, the participants I interviewed may have had access to limited resources to

assist them in managing the employees through a merger. Managers identified resources

available to them at the time of the interview; they may not have had access or been

aware of other possible resources.

The fourth limitation was the data analysis. I entered the data into the NVivo

program and an excel sheet. The qualitative data analysis was limited to the QSR NVivo

11 program and the data I entered from the collection of the interviews. I analyzed the

information entered into the system by using application of the program, to develop

themes from the research.

Researcher bias is considered the fifth limitation. However, recording and

transcribing the data collected verbatim reduced the possibility of any biases. The

participants verified all notes transcribed to ensure accuracy.

Recommendations

Resource availability is dependent on the organizations in which mergers are

taking place. Managers require utilizing their skills to manage the employees through

daily activities and changing times. During time of change, managers having access to

resources to manage situations and employees are very beneficial. As merging

organizations try to integrate multiple culture and systems, employees can be the most

susceptible to risk.

The purpose of my study was to explore resources available to managers to

manage employees through a merger. Several new themes evolved from the data

collected. The themes can be utilized for foundational groundwork towards future studies

in the management and business merger fields. The first recommendation is to conduct a

quantitative study, on a larger sample of managers involved in mergers, to examine the

variety of resources utilized to manage employees through a merger. This will allow for

managers from a variety of industries and geographic regions to be included in the study.

A second recommendation would be to explore manager experience level and the

impact it may have on managing employees through mergers. The study revealed that

managers relied heavily on their personal experience and other manager team members.

Conducting a mixed method study, with the focus on levels of experience and the impacts

of managing employees through change, would help to understand if manager experience

makes a difference when managing employees through change.

Implications

An organization merger can be announced at any stage of a manager or employees

career. According to Choi, Chung, and Du (2014) employees behave differently once a

merger has been announced. Employees often change their work practices when a change

is introduced. While the organization’s manager is trying to manage the merger, the

employees are left wondering, what happens to me? Significant changes to work

environment result in negatively affecting work productivity (Duffield, Kearin, Johnston,

& Leonard, 2007). The employees are seeking answers to the unknown and heavily rely

on their manager to have answers to their questions. Employees can lose interest in the

unknown and choice to seek out employment elsewhere.

The results of this study can help to contribute positively to social change for

employees, managers, organizations and the business community. Mergers affect the

stakeholders, managers, employees, and the families of these individuals (Angwin &

Meadows, 2015). Understanding the resources available to manage employees through

mergers allows managers to choose a resource that can help manage the individual needs

of the employees.

My study provides managers with an understanding of what resources are

available. My study also identified the benefits of having resources available when

managing employees through a merger. Results from this study indicate that there are

multiple resources available for managers. It also indicated that the utilization of

resources helped the employees with the transition during times of change. Managers

who utilize the resources can help address losses in motivation, productivity, absentness,

and job satisfaction and employees turnover.

My study also allows organizational leadership to understand the importance of

the manager- employee relationships during mergers, and the need to ensure resources are

availability. It also allows human resources personnel to understand the importance of

open communication and having answers readily available for the managers to share with

their teams, when a merger is taking place.

As a result of my study, the larger management community will have greater

knowledge of the importance of having resources available, to contribute to the success of

an organizational merger by improving employee management. Employees contribute to

the success of the organization by ensuring customers are satisfied and return for future

service.

The improvement of employee retention will assist with greater organizational

stability by increasing employee job satisfaction and decreasing employee turnover. Low

turnover rates can help reduce the financial impacts on organizations. Reduction in

employee turnover will allow for continuous business and customer satisfaction.

Organizations that maintain low business interruptions allows for continuous

customer satisfaction by providing continued service and products during the integration

of multiple organizations. Maintaining business as usual, will help organizations to

continue to maintain product development and revenue income.

The study provided implications for positive social change through allowing

managers to maintain employee satisfaction and engagement, profitability, and continued

customer satisfaction. Merger success will maintain a positive impact on business

development within the greater community. Business growth will increase the economy

within the local communities and throughout the global market.

Conclusions

My phenomenological descriptive study collected and analyzed data from 14

managers resulting in showing positive results and benefits of having resources available

to manage employees through a merger. The resources available were from within the

organization and also amongst the experience of the management team. Open and honest

regular communication between the employee and the manager was one of the major

resources that benefited the employees. A manager’s relationship with their employees

was crucial in dealing with issues that were raised by the employees during the merger

process.

Three research questions guided the data collecting for my study. The central

question was: what is the scope of resources available from a manager’s perception, to

manage employees through a merger? The answer is that there is a multitude of resources

available to the managers to assist when a merger is taking place. Managers have the

perception that very little resources were available; however, my study revealed that

managers themselves are a great resource, along with other organizational resources.

Manager’s personal skills are very important when handling employees through the

unknown territory of a merger. Managers should focus on their soft skills when dealing

with employees through change because in the end, the employees rely on their

supervisor to have their best interest in mind.

Resources Available to Managers to Manage Employees through Mergers

Students also viewed