Today’s Wall Street Journal carries a front-page feature laying out the challenges facing AT&T as it moves forward with its acquisition of Time Warner.
The story focuses largely on the significant cultural differences between a company once known as “Ma Bell” and a group of Hollywood studios, broadcast networks and related assets. Right down to the political leanings of the respective organizations, the merger partners seem to be, as the headhunters would say, a “poor cultural fit”.
On top of that, the industry in which the merged company will compete has lots of moving parts, sorting out the impact of the digital revolution on entertainment and communications.
Like European military thinkers who watched, from a safe distance, as the American Civil War changed warfare forever, anyone concerned with organizational culture will view this merger as a fountain of case histories.
The Journal story rightly cites examples of huge differences between the two companies -- travel expense policies, office décor, bureaucratic decision making, pay policies and the like.
But these examples are practices, elements that do shape culture but can relatively easily be changed.
The difficult issues for all the leaders involved are values, the deeply held feelings that cause people to prefer one state over another -- safety vs risk, right vs wrong, decent vs indecent, simplicity vs ambiguity, freedom vs authority.
Whether they be countries or giant enterprises, bringing people with different value systems together requires two things for success: clearly stating the benefits of joining together, and learning how to cooperate with others who see the world through a different lens.
Said another way, all parties must calculate the long-term value to be gained by giving up some measure of their closely held values.