1. Compare and contrast the implemented change processes between the two merger events.
There are significant differences between the two merger events. They were approached with completely separate tactics. As the case states, the initial PS merger closely followed the Kotter’s process which is an eight step system for leading change. Whereas, the PU merger hardly followed any of those steps.
The PS merger had an effective system of communication. All members had a knowledge of what was happening in between the two companies. The management team promoted an environment of excited about what was to come, and constantly reminded everyone about the celebration that was to applaud their success. They chose management based on a systematic approach, and for those who would not have a place in the new company, PS made sure to compensate them well for their time. The PS merger was a match made in heaven.
On the other hand, the PU merger was quite the opposite. The two companies had more differences than they did similarities. Communication was not made available to everyone and there was no clear goal of what was being accomplished. Training was not adequate nor was the compensation for …show more content…
Any change is difficult, but when there is not a set out, strategic plan, a company’s cultural can be tragically jeopardized. So first, there has to be a sense of need for the new initiative. Next, the leaders need to formulate teams in order to manage the entire process, and together create a clear picture of the intended outcome. From the case, by combining P and S Pharmaceuticals, there was an understanding of what future products and profits could develop, and what geographic networks would be gained to enable them to become a forefront of the global healthcare industry. When everyone was on the same page about these initiatives, the culture merged together and stayed
There are significant differences between the two merger events. They were approached with completely separate tactics. As the case states, the initial PS merger closely followed the Kotter’s process which is an eight step system for leading change. Whereas, the PU merger hardly followed any of those steps.
The PS merger had an effective system of communication. All members had a knowledge of what was happening in between the two companies. The management team promoted an environment of excited about what was to come, and constantly reminded everyone about the celebration that was to applaud their success. They chose management based on a systematic approach, and for those who would not have a place in the new company, PS made sure to compensate them well for their time. The PS merger was a match made in heaven.
On the other hand, the PU merger was quite the opposite. The two companies had more differences than they did similarities. Communication was not made available to everyone and there was no clear goal of what was being accomplished. Training was not adequate nor was the compensation for …show more content…
Any change is difficult, but when there is not a set out, strategic plan, a company’s cultural can be tragically jeopardized. So first, there has to be a sense of need for the new initiative. Next, the leaders need to formulate teams in order to manage the entire process, and together create a clear picture of the intended outcome. From the case, by combining P and S Pharmaceuticals, there was an understanding of what future products and profits could develop, and what geographic networks would be gained to enable them to become a forefront of the global healthcare industry. When everyone was on the same page about these initiatives, the culture merged together and stayed