Change management is a natural process following mergers and acquisitions. From the Board to operations, people are required to realign themselves with the new founded entity. The process may involve reshaping, restructuring, new hires, as well as disengaging personnel, regardless of the length of their tenure or contract. These changes are not only smart but essential – as separate entities objective and goals would have been different but as one merged entity, business needs must be redefined across the board.

Most times change management is a challenge. People fear the unknown and act to preserve their interest and long-held authority within an enterprise by resisting change. The reality though is shareholders’ interest boil down to bottom-line: profitability. Rightfully so since it is their dollars on the line when businesses bear losses. Those losses, or gains, are directly attributed to how and who run the shows, from the Board of Directors to senior executives to rank and file. As owners, shareholders appoint the Board and entrust them with certain authority to execute in the best interest of the entity – ideally. Unfortunately, too often, that is not what transpires in reality, as we have seen with AIG, GM, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to name a few.

The question then is what steps should shareholders take to protect their interest and essentially, the business? How are they assured that past mistakes will not be repeated by the Board and their executives? Owners are not involved enough to ensure success, regardless of the reason(s). On the other hand, executives who are hired and entrusted with the well-being of an enterprise must make executive decisions that exclusively benefit the business. If that process require re-aligning their own positions and/or compensations, engaging independent entities for objectivity and proficiency and/or new hires as well as disengaging people, so be it.

People mistakenly credit their positions more than what they really are. The longer a position is held, the more that misconception. Extremely few people are indispensable in the working world. The sooner people grasp this concept, the stronger and more efficient the work force will be. Carl Icahn said it best -

…….. managers have been awarded lavish retention bonuses. In my view, very few managers are irreplaceable, especially in this economy.

On the other hand, shareholders may boost their work force by assuring easy access to them by all on board, be it at AGM or direct discreet communication without the fear of retaliation and/or loosing their jobs. Not the complaint department, where it’s essentially handled by legal to avoid lawsuit, but direct access to share ideas and/or to present business proposition for profitability. Wouldn’t owners (shareholders) be open to ways their business may reach greater heights by accelerating performance, doing more with less (cutting cost), boosting efficiency? As a shareholder, I would.

Mergers and acquisitions bring forth complex problems because the competition within is doubled to protect own self interest – human nature. Shareholders must be more involved, demand more answers – at least during the months following the acquisition. One greatest tool to their advantage is technology – it should be used to strategize, partner and execute.

Tags: acquisition, AIG, Business, change management, enterprise, entity, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Goldman Sachs, mergers, Morgan Stanley, owners, shareholders, Technology
Posted in Best Practices, Business, Technology |

illustration source – Wikipedia

I admit I’m one of those people who roll their eyes – as Oliver Marks put it in his most apt post on ZDNet – when I hear Twitter, Facebook (two examples for this post) and the likes for enterprise collaboration. My pupils probably totally disappear when I hear “social media”. Add “expert” or “guru” – let’s not leave the “influencers” out of that equation – to that sentence and I’m transformed into an eye-rolling-face-cringing individual. It’s not a pretty sight, mind you. The Pied Piper of Hamelin – illustrated above – comes to mind if I were to observe the social media mayhem from Hanover.

Now, now children, before you start throwing tantrums, bear with me a little.

The word social is so overly used in the context of emergent technologies that I doubt most people comprehend the message they themselves wish to deliver by the usage of that term. Applications that provide platforms for communities to seamlessly interact and engage in dialogues no doubt should be embraced. But, by whom and for what purpose?

Twitter and Facebook are excellent mediums for branding, advertising or marketing of a product or service. With real-time interfaces and very little cost, both platforms allow instant response and communication between clients and customers. They should be utilized by marketing, customer service or advertising guys or gals, of any size business. The trick though? Have a clear message, same one as you’d normally use in traditional medium.

Confusion has arisen because some of the same category of people mentioned above, have evangelized social media, for their own gain, to the point that they claim the entire company should actively use Twitter and Facebook while at work. In other words, if your employees or you aren’t tweeting or updating your status – about work maybe (?), to the entire world – during hours that you are paid top dollars to complete assignments, you aren’t embracing “revolutionary” tools, never mind that in the process your productivity declines – multiply your employees with time spent on Twitter and/or Facebook unrelated to work, I guarantee the numbers will be staggering. Emergent technologies are now tools for employees to cheat the very company that feeds them? Really?!

By now, I should probably reveal that I’m an advocate for enterprises. Since I’m coming clean, let me also add, aside from a fleeting boost of ego, number of followers or “friends” on Twitter or Facebook is absolutely meaningless, even if you see some self-proclaimed heavyweight Twitterers claim otherwise. Personally, this popularity contest would have been fun if I were still in middle or high school. But alas, I’ve matured since then – my family may dispute though.

It goes without saying if all of Twitter and Facebook employees are tweeting or updating their Facebook statuses, it’s to their advantage: they benefit directly and have vested interest. Now, if our coders did the same, I wouldn’t be a happy camper, not when we have demanding clients paying us top dollars to take care of their problems. Would you?

Perhaps I’m one of the child who didn’t quite hear – or just stopped following – the Pied Piper of social media. Now if you are an Enterprise 2.0 conference goer, you too decided not to follow the Pied Piper and are in Hanover shaking heads with me…

There, children, so I’ve finally said it. Still tantrums?

Tags: Collaboration, enterprise, enterprise 2.0, Facebook, Pied Piper of Hamelin, Social Media, Twitter, ZDNet
Posted in Social Media, Technology |