Getting ALL aboard the brand train
For those who want to go, that is
Picture the scene. Doug has worked at the same company, a local ‘institution’, for the past twenty years. He has worked his way up to a management position, having started as an apprentice in the manufacturing plant. Doug lives and breathes the company – he knows nearly everyone at work – his family have grown up with him working there.
Suddenly, the company he knows and loves is acquired by a global conglomerate. His job is at risk, the office is filled with new faces, processes, products and cultures. Doug is confused at his position within this new world. His productivity goes down, absence goes up and he feels disengaged – he is far from being aboard the brand train. This is an all too common, yet almost entirely avoidable, situation.
During mergers and acquisitions, the brand and culture of each company is just as important as the financial papers. The integration of brands can make or break a successful takeover, as we saw between Unilever and Kraft Heinz in 2017. It’s said that a ‘clash of culture’ was a key driver in the breakdown of merger conversations.
But if the importance placed on brand is true, why are situations like Doug’s so prevalent? The answer is communication – or a lack of it. Salem presents a myriad of communications behaviours which can contribute to change ‘failure’. The truth is, senior leadership can project all the words of wisdom they like about their own company culture and brand, but if there’s nothing to back this up further down the org chart, it means nothing. If employees like Doug don’t feel the same, that ‘culture’ doesn’t exist, and they aren’t on board with the change.
Three of the quotes that stuck with me were:
“… change of internal organisation and processes and procedures had a major impact on morale. I understand that the cultural change made a few look for other employment.”
“… a friend quit due to the change in the culture of the organisation.”
“… we weren’t sure who we were dealing with – Company X or Company Y.”
These snippets highlight both the internal and external impacts that mergers have on an organisation which should be vital considerations for communications professionals. It presents an important point – which I’ll revisit later – that your employees have a significant influence on the external presentation of a company.
The only way around this is to implement an all-encompassing communications strategy – both internal and external – which ensures that employees are as informed as possible about significant organisational changes such as mergers.
At the time of carrying out my original project, there was a paucity of content on the topic. Fast-forward five years and the wealth of information available makes it clear that organisations, academics and thought leaders are recognising the issue – but we’re still seeing situations like Unilever and Kraft Heinz, so something is still awry.
A key consideration is timing. The majority of literature uses terminology like ‘during’ and ‘post’ merger. That’s too late. Doug’s process of disengagement began when he read about it in the news months ago. Informing team members as early as possible helps them prepare for change, even if they don’t know the full extent. It also helps your external communications efforts – as soon as your news is out there, your customers and suppliers will be asking your staff what’s going on.
This is backed up by Staffbase, who use the following useful visual from Deloitte University Press. They state that communication must outpace change. Whilst the graph is rather expansive, decision makers and strategists could repurpose it in line with their own organisation’s timeline.
Equally as important as timing is content. Numerous studies have shown that employees value transparency more than any other organisational characteristic – this should be viewed as a great PR opportunity, not a challenge.
As far as possible, you should aim to share as much detail as you can with your employees.
The introduction of internal brand ambassadors means that you can begin to communicate in other ways, branching out from typical hierarchical, topdown communications.
