Cultural Fit Between TEL and its Partners | Computing Information Technology: The Human Side

Table 4 shows there are significant differences between TEL and the other partners. A strategic alliance in this situation would require a careful evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each firm, and detailed planning of what the reorganized alliance would look like. The IT architectural planning would not only present the overview of future challenges, but would also provide the chief information officers (CIOs) a summary of the nature of human related activities they would be faced with once the alliance became a reality.

Table 4: Structural and Behavioral Differences
Factors	TEL	Partners
Company organizational structure/size	Very complex and large in sales volume	Small to medium size, relatively simple structure
Employee work habit	Flexible work hours	Relatively rigid work hours
Customer relations	Good relations with existing customers - excellent customer services	Indifferent to customer complaints
Employee training	Good opportunity for skill upgrading	Reasonable opportunity to technical skill development
IT system compatibility	Highly developed IT system	Manual or primitive IT systems
Employee satisfaction	Highly motivated, well paid work force.	Competent, but low paid work force
Employee turn over	High turn over	Relatively low employee turnover

Before companies agree to participate in the strategic alliance, they should first determine if their organizations can work together harmoniously. To determine whether they can work well together, each company should attempt to determine what type of organization it is, i.e., what is TEL's unique personality or culture? As shown in Table 4, both TEL and its partners exhibit a different cultural setting, and this observation suggests further investigation to make the proposed alliance effective.

Though not utilized in this case study, we advocate the deployment of organizational character index (OCI) tool (Bridges, 1992) to TEL and its partners to investigate the cultural fit issues. To determine whether they should work together on possible strategic alliances, the American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) wanted to discuss their organizational cultures in a "nonthreatening and nonjudgemental way," and felt the OCI tool would be an effective measurement tool for this situation (Maron & VanBremen, 1999). Bridges (1992) explains how OCI can be used to categorize organizations, similar to the way the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator describes the characteristics of the individual. OCI, a public domain tool, consists of a written questionnaire that takes 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Bridges stresses that there are not right or wrong types of organizations; it merely brings out organizational personalities. OCI categorizes organizations for the following types (Maron & VanBremen, 1999):

Its orientation or source of energy (extroverted or introverted).
How it gathers information or what it pays attention to (sensing or intuitive).
Its way of processing information, how it judges situations, and how it makes decisions (thinking or feeling).
How it deals with the external world (judging or perceiving).

The OCI tool was most useful in its ability to stimulate constructive discussions about the two company's cultural differences. Using the OCI tool ASCP and CAP accomplished the following objectives:

It promoted better understanding between the two associations.
Fostered an appreciation for what both partners could bring to an alliance.
Identified "underdeveloped" qualities in both associations that could inhibit the success of an alliance.

The OCI provides valuable insights into difficulties organizations, with certain characteristics might face, in a joint venture such as a strategic alliance. It also highlights the underdeveloped qualities of an organization. These qualities might then be improved. Improving on the qualities can increase the likelihood that a joint venture will be successful.

Maron and VanBremen (1999) stress the "OCI is not a definitive diagnostic tool. It is best used as a way to stimulate discussion, largely because it helps potential partners better understand and articulate their own, and each other's values and expectations."

To use the OCI tool, the following set of simple steps could be followed:

Administer the OCI questionnaire.
Tabulate the responses.
Use the results as the basis for discussion by volunteer leadership and staff.

The OCI could assist the organizations in determining whether their organizational cultures might work well together, but there are other human factors to consider. Burrows (2000) discusses problems he encountered after he became involved with a joint venture and was given the responsibility for handling the people issues.

He quickly realized the joint venture had no real chance of success and discovered the following problems:

Reticence on the part of local or senior management to permit one-on-one meetings with employees was determined.
Employees were fearful about talking openly about what it was like to work at the company.
Employees felt no significant affiliation with, or affection for, the company.
The owner of the company and employees were vague or evasive when asked specific questions about the on-site operations manager.
Management at all levels did little to build trust and a sense of framework.
Management was concerned about safety, but only because accidents were expenses that lowered profitability.
Turnover was high.
Employee relations were non-existent.
The attitude regarding new hires was sink or swim.

Burrows stresses the importance of understanding the "people situation at the target company," if a successful long-term relationship is to result. One of the situations he highlights are "pre-existing people problems." He indicates most companies misunderstand, ignore, or minimize these problems. He states, once the joint ventures are created, man problems reveal themselves, which undermine value-creation opportunities, jeopardize relationships with customers, and reduce productivity.

Burrows provides positive outcomes associated with fully investigating the target company:

Substantiate a discounted offer you might make to acquire the company, based on potential people problems.
Help keep target management honest.
You are able to discover both the target company's people problems and strengths.

Dixon and Marks (1999) provide many reasons why partnerships fail. Three reasons related to human behavior factors are:

Inattention to the human resources issues. Make a conscious effort to retain top managers. Explicitly let them know they are an important part of the organization.
Organizations fail to plan for other human resources issues. Employee consideration, including the process of aligning benefits plans and related legal/actuarial, asset management and plan design factors. Factor in training for new systems and procedures. Allocate time for the employees to transfer their identity and loyalty to the new organizational unit.
Poor communication. Develop a communication system that allows the employee access to information regarding what is happening regarding the merging of the two organizations. Attempt to minimize confusion and uncertainty. Treat employees with respect.

Three ways to increase the odds the partnership work:

Build the culture. Attempt to develop a plan to minimize the shift from the old to the new organization.
Create a learning environment. For the employees to feel comfortable with the new firm, opportunities for learning must be available. The fast pace associated with mergers, acquisitions, and alliances do always allow for formal training, but it should allow time and opportunities to learn during the conversion to the new organizational unit. The company leadership should stress a "learn at all times" mentality.
Balance achieving results with concern for people. If employees do not feel they are an important part of the organization, they will have little motivation to assist with the success of the new organization.