Although the pace of M&A activity has slowed since the recent financial downturn, pundits predict that it will accelerate in 2010. So it was interesting that I came across this article that discussed why so many attempts to merge companies are ultimately unsuccessful.

The article lists 3 main reasons why M&As fail:

1. Executives don’t understand the important link between business processes and systems;

2. Business leaders cannot agree on a framework for achieving commonality among the misaligned processes and systems;

3.  Finally, the inability of important decision makers to make difficult but necessary business decisions.

All of these reasons fall under the category of organizational management. However, I would suggest a fourth reason to help explain the lack of success with M&A’s, which falls under the category of talent management:

4. Failure to effectively merge the workforce and optimize the new talent pool.

Without having the right people in the right positions at the right time, a company merger can still fail even when executives have seemingly “dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s”. To avoid overlooking potential workforce pitfalls, clear visibility of talent is critical throughout the entire merger process.

Nakisa has produced a video that speaks to that visibility. I encourage you to check it out on YouTube:

The Case of the Mixed-Up Merger

Until next time, don’t forget to Visualize What Matters Most^TM

In an effort to support more sustainable practices in business, organizations are examining the value of diversity in the workforce. Besides regulatory compliance, what benefits make having a ‘diverse workforce’ good for business?

Some key outcomes of maintaining a diverse workforce (i.e. age, gender, ethnicity, religion, skill set) include the ability to:

• Enable innovation and creative thinking by bringing together fresh ideas voiced from differing points of view

• Improve your capacity to understand and serve your different customers, partners and shareholders by representing their diversity in house

• Better support market expansion by region, culture and demographic

• Encourage talent acquisition and retention

• Foster organizational adaptability by maintaining a well-rounded pool of varied skills

SAP, the highest-ranked software company in the 2009 Dow Jones Sustainability Index for two years running, has an interesting perspective on the business value of diversity in the workforce. 

To learn more about how a diverse workforce can help you achieve sustainable business performance, I encourage you to visit SAP’s Sustainability Map (and check out the Sustainable Workforce / Diversity field).

Where did they come from and where are they going?

A question I get asked a lot is “where did the org chart come from?” Well, the first Web-based  org charts came from Nakisa.  

…But I think they meant the paper-based kind.

Actually, I recently came across an article touching on this. The author dates the formal “invention” of org charts to the 19^th century, when they were developed to help “trains run on time.”

Although the article has a certain level of charm to it, my thoughts focused on how org charts will evolve into the future. The first org charts arose from the need to easily understand and communicate interrelated information – organizational clarity if you will.  By visualizing relationships and hierarchies, as opposed to describing it in a paragraph or lists of text, the basic org chart greatly accelerated insight and understanding into organizational structures. The need for organizational clarity and the power of visualization remain at the heart of tomorrows org chart.   The org chart of the future must provide the given viewer with impeccable clarity into ever-complicated organizational systems. Based on who you are and what you need to do, you’ll see the right picture to enable immediate insight and action.