e ladder, and reduce the ability for the smaller organization to maintain their lean operation and production goals. Employees of the smaller company begin to get confused by the overwhelming changes to their environment and working style, as the management sends mixed signals on goals and intent. When the local management loses the argument for continued autonomy, and is forced to conform or leave the company, employees are further shaken by the sudden departure of familiar faces, and forced to adapt toThere is a different kind of company experience lurking in corporate America that awaits the unsuspecting candidate who is hoping to find a stable and beneficial work environment. With the advent of today’s large corporation environment, there are many smaller companies caught up in the practice of being purchased and absorbed by big companies that are looking to stifle competition or increase their own market share by acquiring successful small business operations.

Often, when these small to middle sized companies are absorbed by the corporate giants, the attraction for selling out is to tap into the financial resources, brand recognition, and marketing success of the larger company, and to bring the operations of the smaller organization to the next level. Employees of these smaller companies are assured that they will be able to continue with doing business as usual, and operations will be smoothly transitioned into adapting to the new world of benefits from a far reaching business venture. This image is reinforced by the impression that the small business was selected because of their lean operating style and quick response to customer expectations.

As the dust settles from the back slapping and big promises offered on both sides of the deal, the reality of acquisition presents a starkly different picture. Just as it is not practical to try to fit a round peg in a square hole, the consequences of merging two very different styles of organization begin to surface. As the large corporation assesses its new assets, the company may start out by allowing the smaller company to continue operating at arm’s length from the more cumbersome practices of the conglomerate. Over time, the larger company by nature will begin to impose its own views on how the smaller operations should be carried out, and will introduce procedures and policies for business practices that meet the large scale tenets for accountability. These requirements create more bureaucracy, push decisions higher up on the corporate ladder, and reduce the ability for the smaller organization to maintain their lean operation and production goals. Employees of the smaller company begin to get confused by the overwhelming changes to their environment and working style, as the management sends mixed signals on goals and intent. When the local management loses the argument for continued autonomy, and is forced to conform or leave the company, employees are further shaken by the sudden departure of familiar faces, and forced to adapt to

sized companies are absorbed by the corporate giants, the attraction for selling out is to tap into the financial resources, brand recognition, and marketing success of the larger company, and to bring the operations of the smaller organization to the next level. Employees of these smaller companies are assured that they will be able to continue with doing business as usual, and operations will be smoothly transitioned into adapting to the new world of benefits from a far reaching business venture. This image is reinforced by the impression that the small business was selected because of their lean operating style and quick response to customer expectations.

As the dust settles from the back slapping and big promises offered on both sides of the deal, the reality of acquisition presents a starkly different picture. Just as it is not practical to try to fit a round peg in a square hole, the consequences of merging two very different styles of organization begin to surface. As the large corporation assesses its new assets, the company may start out by allowing the smaller company to continue operating at arm’s length from the more cumbersome practices of the conglomerate. Over time, the larger company by nature will begin to impose its own views on how the smaller operations should be carried out, and will introduce procedures and policies for business practices that meet the large scale tenets for accountability. These requirements create more bureaucracy, push decisions higher up on the corporate ladder, and reduce the ability for the smaller organization to maintain their lean operation and production goals. Employees of the smaller company begin to get confused by the overwhelming changes to their environment and working style, as the management sends mixed signals on goals and intent. When the local management loses the argument for continued autonomy, and is forced to conform or leave the company, employees are further shaken by the sudden departure of familiar faces, and forced to adapt to

image is reinforced by the impression that the small business was selected because of their lean operating style and quick response to customer expectations.

As the dust settles from the back slapping and big promises offered on both sides of the deal, the reality of acquisition presents a starkly different picture. Just as it is not practical to try to fit a round peg in a square hole, the consequences of merging two very different styles of organization begin to surface. As the large corporation assesses its new assets, the company may start out by allowing the smaller company to continue operating at arm’s length from the more cumbersome practices of the conglomerate. Over time, the larger company by nature will begin to impose its own views on how the smaller operations should be carried out, and will introduce procedures and policies for business practices that meet the large scale tenets for accountability. These requirements create more bureaucracy, push decisions higher up on the corporate ladder, and reduce the ability for the smaller organization to maintain their lean operation and production goals. Employees of the smaller company begin to get confused by the overwhelming changes to their environment and working style, as the management sends mixed signals on goals and intent. When the local management loses the argument for continued autonomy, and is forced to conform or leave the company, employees are further shaken by the sudden departure of familiar faces, and forced to adapt to

assesses its new assets, the company may start out by allowing the smaller company to continue operating at arm’s length from the more cumbersome practices of the conglomerate. Over time, the larger company by nature will begin to impose its own views on how the smaller operations should be carried out, and will introduce procedures and policies for business practices that meet the large scale tenets for accountability. These requirements create more bureaucracy, push decisions higher up on the corporate ladder, and reduce the ability for the smaller organization to maintain their lean operation and production goals. Employees of the smaller company begin to get confused by the overwhelming changes to their environment and working style, as the management sends mixed signals on goals and intent. When the local management loses the argument for continued autonomy, and is forced to conform or leave the company, employees are further shaken by the sudden departure of familiar faces, and forced to adapt toe ladder, and reduce the ability for the smaller organization to maintain their lean operation and production goals. Employees of the smaller company begin to get confused by the overwhelming changes to their environment and working style, as the management sends mixed signals on goals and intent. When the local management loses the argument for continued autonomy, and is forced to conform or leave the company, employees are further shaken by the sudden departure of familiar faces, and forced to adapt to directives from absentee management in a difficult to reach layer of the larger corporation.

When the lean and mean structure of rapid response begins to grind to what seems like a screeching halt, the larger corporation begins to assess whether or not the current operations of the smaller group are optimal for their own corporate success. Rumors and truths about moving functions to other areas of the large corporation begin to circulate, and long time employees of the small operation begin to read the writing on the wall and bail out for greener pastures. Work loads increase dramatically, and then suddenly evaporate into what appears to be indecision. Talk of outsourcing responsibilities to more cost effective business centers are circulated, and employees begin to wonder if they will be part of the changes to come. While all this chaos continues, the people who were responsible for earlier successes are culled from the work force, and the remaining employees fight to maintain their value and identity.

For any new employees that are brought into such environments, the security and benefit of working in this atmosphere is questionable from the start. It is difficult for anyone to absorb the confusion of working for a combination small and large company at the same time and rapid turnover becomes an obvious consequence. This scenario is becoming a more prevalent aspect of working in today’s business environment, and for those people who are considering an offer of employment; the dynamics are well worth considering before accepting a position.