Psychologically people are resistant to change out of the fear that it would adversely affect their prospects. Naturally they want the status quo to continue for good. However change is the most unchanging thing in the world. Any organization that refuses to change will be wiped off by the winds of change. Accordingly to survive in this fiercely competitive world a corporate house has also to continuously reposition and restructure it with changing times and also ahead of times in a planned manner.
Different forms of corporate restructuring including mergers and acquisitions are responses to the challenges and opportunities thrown by the dynamic environment in this era of globalization. Further such response should rather be pro active instead of being just reactive to make most out of the unfolding chances.
In management of change including mergers the people on whom the change would be enforced and the people by whom the change would have to be implemented must be taken into confidence. Through participative management in the decision making process by and with the concerned people, such corporate re-engineering process should be made acceptable to them to secure their whole hearted support for its success. People have to be convinced that such restructuring is not only in organizational interest but also for their common good. Effective communication in this regard will also remove their suspicion and distrust. Otherwise such process is doomed to be counterproductive resulting in failure.
In all corporate restructuring schemes there is a stipulation to the effect that the transferee company will take over all the employees of the transferor company, as its own employees, without any break or interruption in service on terms and conditions not less favourable.
Occasionally as a bargain for reassurance of service conditions, enabling clauses for transfer or postings elsewhere etc. is inserted.
Sometimes it is complained that merger results in two or more sets of employees under the umbrella of the transferee company with discriminatory sets of terms and conditions. However, no denying such salary and wage differential is a legacy of the past and part and parcel of the scheme, which could not be avoided. Restoring parity is an uphill task. In any event, that the synergies and benefits of the scheme far outweigh its disadvantages must not be lost sight of.
Last but not the least; integration and synchronization of the human resources of the transferor and transferee companies, with different ethos and culture, have to be achieved.
