Synergon Capital, a large financial-services American company, successfully makes acquisitions in a quite aggressive manner. However, after the acquisition of Beauchamp, a British financial-services company, the situation is challenging. The companies do not get on well: Synergon follows its way and imposes changes while Beauchamp continues to resist them.
A. The Beauchamp acquisition is challenging because of the cultural differences. While companies’ authorities and employees normally do culture training, they rarely focus on the locals and pay more attention to those who relocate to different cultures (Minguet et al. 4). Synergon is the company with a typically American approach: they demonstrate inclemency, vigour, and decisiveness. Every detail proves they perceive their work as war: bowie knives, “war rooms”, calling the diligence teams “commando squads”, and the “take no prisoners” approach that is reflected in firing most of the acquired company’s management staff within a year (Cliffe par. 5).
In comparison, Beauchamp policy differs in terms of power distribution: the company’s managing director, Julian Mansfield, is similar to an old-fashioned patriarch (Cliffe par. 19). As the leader, he plays a significant role for the whole company as well as the external organizations that know him for his charity. The British tend to be more reserved, formal, and stiff; they value traditions and have a specific sense of humour (Meyer 45). The use of language may be different: while the Americans are usually direct and speak up, their British colleagues are inclined to be less straightforward. As a result, the communication failure is present.
Despite the problems, it is possible to cope with them by giving Beauchamp more freedom. Synergon usually deals with acquisitions when one company is purchased by the other, but no new company is formed; however, a merger, a combination of two companies that forms a new one, might be more advantageous (Whitaker 101). Even if Synergon decides not to merge, it should allow Beauchamp to voice its opinion and carry out its policy to a greater extent.
B. First and foremost, I would thoroughly investigate the cultural peculiarities of the unknown British business culture. I would probably find some materials that pertain to the interaction between American and British partners. Later on, I would make a request and obtain the documents that can shed light on Beauchamp’s inner culture and Mr Mansfield’s leadership style. Taking into account that Synergon acquired some documents, I would look through them and select those that might help understand the way the company was run, for example, how the employees were motivated or how teams were put together.
Apart from my efforts, I would also try to make use of the previously acquired companies’ human resources. Although the majority of their staff was fired, some of them probably retained powers. In this case, I would contact them and investigate if they had the experience of international business communication with British partners. It is also possible to address Synergon’s branches that are close to the United Kingdom geographically because they could do business with their neighbour.
If time permits, it is desirable to take steps in both of these areas. In case there is a shortage of time, I would choose to concentrate on the recent information about the company and work actively to leverage my knowledge of the British business culture because the present situation is more urgent than the issues of the distant past.
C. Judging by the present case, one may conclude that acquisition of a well-known company with substantial profits and a faithful client base of wealthy persons cannot be made without appropriate adjustments. The blind implementation of the standard approach does not encourage the company management of the acquired company to collaborate.
Each case is individual. Dealing with a strong company from other countries, such as Beauchamp, requires improvements in the context of cooperation. Beauchamp’s team was well-organized and effectively acting; moreover, their leader significantly contributed to the company’s success. Under such circumstances, one should not only rely on the accustomed mechanisms but also take into consideration the traditions and methods of the acquired company.
Another lesson that can be drawn from the case concerns the importance of cultural peculiarities in business interaction. Although both companies belong to the English-speaking cultures, their traditions, attitudes, and procedures are dissimilar. Cultural features influence the way partners to address each other and their businesses. Lack of cultural knowledge and skills leads to misunderstanding and complicates partnership.
Works Cited
Cliffe, Sarah. “Can This Merger Be Saved?” Harvard Business Review, 1999.
Meyer, Erin. The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. New York: Public Affairs, 2014. Print.
Minguet, Luc, Eduardo Caride, Takeo Yamaguchi, and Shane Tedjarati. “Voices from the Front Lines.” Harvard Business Review, 2014.
Whitaker, Scott C. Mergers & Acquisitions Integration Handbook: Helping Companies Realize the Full Value of Acquisitions. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.