RM: I like that a lot. Culture eats strategy for lunch, so I’m really interested in this theme. You talked about engagement. What are some of the big ways to address making it work, and what are some of the big pitfalls in implementing mergers and acquisitions?

SB: I would tend to agree with Jay. I think mergers and acquisitions are actually two separate types of categories. Philosophically, an acquisition is much more of a transactional arrangement. I think when you talk about a merger, it’s much more about a partner. It’s more about who fits your philosophical approach to your organization, whether they’re going to bring value to you, and whether you’re going to bring value to them. Especially with democratic groups, they come frequently to CEP America, and they ask about our structure and our approach. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn’t, but the time and energy it takes is much more than a profit-loss margin type of discussion and, instead, more of a cultural empowerment professionalism type of discussion.

RM: I do want to make a comment on that. Do you remember Daimler and Chrysler merging years ago? The joke was, “How to do you pronounce Daimler-Chrysler? The Chrysler’s silent.” That thing fell apart because of culture.

RI: That’s the conventional wisdom, and it’s my experience also that mergers or acquisitions fail because of different cultures. I don’t think it matters whether it’s a merger or an acquisition. I don’t think it matters whether you’re the acquired or the acquirer. It’s about going into it with the willingness to have your culture change. Because no matter how similar you are, there are differences. There can’t be a need or an expectation that everything’s going to stay the same after the transaction.

Council Town Hall highlights will continue in the March issue.