“IT WOULD BE EASY IF ONE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY 
WHAT TO DO” 
A case study of how middle managers handled 
organizational culture differences during a post-
merger integration phase in a Finnish multinational 
corporation 
 
 
Vilma Vaaheranta  
 
 
 
 
Essay/Thesis: 30 hp 
 
Program and/or course: Master of strategic human resource management and labour relations 
Level: Second Cycle 
Semester/year: St 2022 
Supervisor: Jordan Thomas 
Examiner: Rolandsson Bertil 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 
Essay/Thesis: 30 hp 
Program: Master of strategic human resource management and labour relations 
Level: Second Cycle 
Semester/year: St 2022 
Supervisor: Jordan Thomas 
Examiner: Rolandsson Bertil 
Report No: xx (not to be filled in by the student/students) 
Keyword: Cultural differences, Mergers & Acquisitions, Middle managers, Organizational culture 
 
Purpose: This study aimed to examine middle managers’ experiences of differences in organizational 
culture during the post-merger integration phase, to figure out what kind of problematic 
consequences the differences lead to and how the middle managers dealt with the challenges.  
  
Theory: Jordan’s (2014) inventory of the conflict potential theory was utilized to understand different 
thematic areas that can cause conflicts and which organizations need to manage effectively.  
Schweiger, Csiszar & Napier’s (1993) categorization of three organizational identities was 
applied to investigate the organizational identities described by the interviewees. 
  
Method: A case study was conducted by examining a Finnish company formed by a merger of two 
companies in 2020.   
A qualitative method was applied, and semi-structured interviews were held with 9 middle 
managers located in Finland. Pre-merger culture surveys and exit surveys conducted by the 
case company were utilized as secondary data sources. Comparative analyses were 
conducted between different data sources to improve the trustworthiness of the results. 
  
Results: Managers had experienced several cultural differences. Opinions regarding flexibility, roles, 
decision-making, characteristics of businesses, recruitment, communication, hierarchy, and 
general atmosphere varied. Several managers commented on differences in identities. As 
problematic consequences of differences respondents mentioned for example decreased 
ability to serve customers, decreased motivation, disengagement, and uncertainty. The most 
common ways of handling the challenges were discussion and communication, involving 
people, creating own new procedures, highlighting positive things, openness, and honesty, 
empathy, listening and support, and paying attention to one's own behavior. Both 
consistencies and inconsistencies were found between the pre-merger culture survey, exit 
surveys, and the interviews. 
The general perception was that company B was the more dominant party, presumably due 
to its bigger size. Generally, managers stated that there is still work to do and it will take 
several years until one shared culture will be achieved. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgment 
The author of this study would like to thank the case company for the instructive and interesting 
experience and the opportunity to study your organization. The cooperation and communication 
with HR were successful and smooth, and how HR people helped me to find the respondents was 
greatly appreciated. A big thank to all the respondents who took time out of their busy schedules 
and kindly shared their experiences, without you this study would not have succeeded. Finally, a 
big thank to my experienced supervisor Thomas Jordan for the great support, instructions, and 
proposals, all your comments and time dedicated were highly appreciated. 
 
Thank you! 
 
 
Vilma Vaaheranta 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Table of content 
Abstract 2 
Acknowledgment 3 
1. Introduction 1 
2. Aim and research questions 4 
Research questions 4 
3. The case company and the merger 5 
3.1 Goals of the merger 5 
3.2 The merged entity 6 
3.3 Culture at the case company 6 
3.3.1 Internal material 6 
4. Previous Research 8 
4.1 Mergers and Acquisitions 8 
4.1.1 Success of M&As 8 
4.1.2 Motives for M&A 9 
4.1.3 M&As in Finland 10 
4.2. Culture 11 
4.2.1 Cultural differences and their consequences 12 
4.2.2. Cultural friction 14 
4.2.3 Importance of observing cultural differences 14 
4.2.4 Acculturation 15 
4.2.5 Improving the cultural integration 15 
4.2.6 Organizational identity and mergers 16 
4.3. Role of middle managers 17 
4.4 Conflicts 18 
4.4.1 Different types of conflicts 18 
5. Theories 19 
5.1 Organizational identity 19 
Conflicts 20 
5.2 Types of conflict issues 21 
6. Method 22 
6.1 Selection of case company 22 
6.2 Primary data - semi-structured interviews with middle managers 23 
6.3 Selection of respondents 23 
6.4 Planning and implementation of the interviews 24 
6.5 Data analysis 25 
6.6 Secondary data 25 
6.6.1 Pre-merger survey 26 
6.7 Trustworthiness 27 
6.8 Limitations 28 
6.9 Ethical considerations 28 
7. Results and analysis 30 
7.1 Interviews with middle managers 30 
7.1.1 Differences experienced by the middle managers according to conflict types 30 
Distribution issues 30 
Position issues 31 
Structure issues 32 
Behavioral norm issues 34 
Conviction issues 36 
7.1.2 Strategies for handling the challenges 37 
7.2 Exit surveys 39 
Increased bureaucracy 40 
Contradictory views on hierarchy 40 
People and atmosphere – supportive, easy-going, and great colleagues 40 
Collaboration and communication – good within teams, improvements needed interdepartmentally 41 
Culture – some changes happened, still in progress 41 
Values, diversity, safety, and sustainability – overall high level of satisfaction 41 
Additional – managers praised, unclarities, high workload 42 
 
 
Summary 42 
7.3 Exit surveys compared to interview results 43 
8. Discussion 45 
Sub-cultures 46 
Identities 46 
Conflicts 47 
9. Conclusion 49 
Problematic consequences caused by the cultural differences and the merger 49 
Strategies for handling the issues 50 
Differences between backgrounds 50 
Comparing results with what the company states 51 
Perceptions of shared culture and ways of accelerating achieving it 51 
10. Contributions of this study and future research 53 
Reference list 55 
Appendix 63 
Appendix A 63 
Interview guide 63 
Appendix B 64 
Exit survey results 64 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 
This chapter presents the study’s relevance, the importance of middle managers in big 
organizational changes, differences between organizational culture and organizational identity, 
the role of conflicts in connection to mergers and acquisitions and justification for the theory 
choice. 
 
Over the last decade, the value of merger and acquisition (M&A) deals has risen globally (Statista, 
2022) despite that M&As have not lived up to the expectations (Seth, 2021). Previously strategic 
and financial aspects have been the main focus when determining the success of M&As 
(Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988; Cartwright & Cooper, 1993). However, in the 1980s, 
researchers started to notice that in order to succeed in a merger, more important than strategic or 
financial factors is integrating organizational culture and thus, cultural perspectives have gained 
attention in studies. Cultural differences have been seen as causes for failures and post-merger 
problems (Bowditch & Lewis, 1985; Cartwright & Cooper, 1993; Chatterjee, Lubatkin, Schweiger 
& Weber, 1992; Walter, 1985; Weber, 1996). According to these studies, major causes of 
organizational problems have been cultural incompatibilities and change resistance (Cartwright & 
Cooper, 1993). How different ways of thinking and behaving are managed may play an important 
role in determining the success of the whole merger (Schweiger, Csiszar & Napier, 1993). 
In many industries, M&As are regarded as necessary for ensuring continuing growth. Hence, 
organizations need to develop an organizational learning process and improve their abilities for 
the M&A process if they are aiming to sustain their market growth and long-term survival (Bingöl, 
2017). 
As discovered in previous studies, the role of middle managers during a big organizational change 
is crucial (Balogun, 2003) as they act as critical contributors during organizational change 
(Balogun & Johnson (2004). They need to act as implementers of change, to motivate their 
subordinates and sell the change to them (Rouleau, 2005). Therefore, middle managers were seen 
as interesting actors to focus on in this study.  
The terms organizational identity and organizational culture are often discussed in M&A contexts. 
However, it is crucial to notice that even if the terms have a lot in common as they are both used 
to describe how organizational norms, values, and characteristics are interpreted by stakeholders, 
the terms are not synonyms (Hatch & Schulz, 1997). While organizational culture responds to the 
1 
 
question “How do we do things?”, organizational identity answers “Who we are?” (Zaheer, 
Schomake & Genc, 2003). The focus of this study is cultural differences, but since the concept of 
organizational identity is strongly related, it will be included in this study as well. 
When two companies merge, the interaction between people from two organizations starts. 
Conflicts emerge inevitably in every organization and the expectation of a conflict-free work 
community is unrealistic. We all act, feel, and react to different things in different ways. Therefore, 
small disappointments cannot be avoided even in workplaces (Tjosvold, 2008). 
Organizations have become even more aware of the need to solve conflicts but the readiness to 
manage them is inadequate in many organizations. Conflicts that are properly addressed in 
organizations can, at best, have a huge potential to drive companies forward (Tjosvold, 2008). If 
an organization can create a culture where people are encouraged to address problems, it enables 
the creation of a developing, agile, and good workplace (Piha, 2017). 
Conflict may cause both positive and negative consequences. However, some negative outcomes 
are extremely significant since they can cause damage to organizations, huge expenses, decreases 
in profitability and effectiveness, and personal suffering. Thus, for organizations, it is not enough 
to know that culture is important, cultural differences can cause failures, and conflicts caused by 
cultural differences may cause significant losses (Lee & Nguyen, 2019). Instead, organizations 
need to understand the nature of cultural differences and the consequences such differences may 
have. They need to be aware of the differences, in which situations the differences occur, why the 
differences turn out to be problematic, what are the possible effective strategies for handling the 
conflicts, and what could be done differently to minimize the negative effects of cultural 
differences in M&A. By figuring out the risks of cultural differences, working will become more 
predictable and unpleasant surprises will not emerge as easily as earlier (Lee & Nguyen, 2019). 
By recognizing different manifestations of culture, the extent and power of the impacts of the 
culture on other things and happenings can be better understood (Martin, 2002). 
The encounter of cultures is essentially about the encounter of values, identities, and habits. 
According to Miller & Brewer (1984), for individuals, it refers also to whether they appraise their 
own culture above or below the one they encounter. Individuals decide whether they stick to their 
former culture and habits or adapt to a new situation regarding organizational culture. 
Consequently, this study will examine post-merger organizational cultural differences from a 
conflict perspective. The chosen case company was formed through the merger of two Finnish 
multinational companies which both employed thousands of employees globally. Both companies 
conducted a survey (see chapter 6.6.1) a couple of months before the merger to deepen their 
2 
 
understanding of their organizational cultures. The survey indicated great similarity in the self-
images of the companies but still, the company contact persons stated that cultural differences 
exist and thus, differences will be investigated. All this taken together invites for examination of 
whether this imagined cultural similarity holds up in daily practice and in the lifeworld’s of 
managers. 
Due to the complexity of cultures and the uniqueness of companies, one clear solution cannot be 
provided. Yet, this qualitative case study hopes to extend the understanding by investigating 
cultural differences experienced by middle managers. Perspectives of both former companies as 
well as people located in different cities and departments are investigated since different parts of 
the organization may experience the cultural change process and differences differently (Vaara, 
1999). 
As Laakso (2020) proposed, conflicts caused by cultural differences must be investigated further 
to deepen the understanding of why cultural differences cause conflicts in organizations. However, 
there is a deficiency of scientific application of conflict theories in the M&A context since 
organizational cultural theories are mainly applied. Therefore, to achieve different and fresh 
perspectives and findings, this study applies conflict theory. Conflicts have been studied in 
different environments, in organizations as well, but rarely in the context of M&A (however, see 
for example Falberg, 2019). Nonetheless, conflicts due to cultural differences emerge in M&A 
contexts as well and therefore this study will investigate which kind of cultural differences middle 
managers have experienced, how the cultural differences become problematic, and how the middle 
managers handle the conflict situations.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
3 
 
2. Aim and research questions 
In this chapter, the aim of the study and the research questions will be described. 
 
This case study seeks to investigate what kind of cultural differences middle managers in Finland 
have experienced during the post-merger integration (PMI) phase and to what extent the cultural 
differences became problematic. The study investigates the ways the cultural differences translated 
into frictions, problems, or outright conflicts. The purpose is also to identify what kind of strategies 
the middle managers used when they faced problems caused by cultural differences. Additionally, 
the study intends to reveal if there were differences between the managers depending on their 
background, meaning at which one of the merged companies they previously worked as well as 
between departments. 
 
Research questions 
Based on the previous discussion, the following research questions were formulated: 
• What kinds of cultural differences have middle managers from the two merging companies 
experienced, and in what ways did the cultural differences become problematic?  
• How have middle managers responded to the challenges related to cultural differences in 
their everyday life? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
3. The case company and the merger 
This chapter starts with a short description of the case company followed by the goals of the 
merger. Thereafter, the merged entity will be shortly presented, and the chapter ends with a review 
of how the case company depicts its culture.  
The company requested anonymity and therefore the former companies are referred to by 
companies A and B. Accurate information such as exact numbers, dates, or industry of the 
company will not be revealed to ensure anonymity. To ensure anonymity, sources will not be 
provided either. 
 
Two Finnish publicly traded companies merged in 2020. Both companies operated in the 
technology industry and were listed companies, operating worldwide with thousands of 
employees. Company B was bigger than company A. 
The focus of this study is Finland. Both companies had operations in several locations around 
Finland and due to the merger, in cities where both companies were present, operations were 
combined. Company B was divided into two parts; one part continued as an independent, listed 
company while the remaining part of the company merged with company A. 
 
3.1 Goals of the merger 
According to the company’s web pages and a stock exchange release of the case company 
published in 2019, the merger was supposed to lead to strategic, commercial, operational, and 
financial benefits. The company was assumed to gain at least 100 MEUR annual cost synergies. 
In addition to significant turnover and cost synergies, aims were wide existence in the whole value 
chain, stable capital structure, attractive share policy, wide geographical coverage, economy of 
scale in all their business areas, and to be a forerunner in all business fields. 
The companies complement each other uniquely as the merger combined the leading technological 
expertise of company A and the well-developed service readiness of company B. All the 
stakeholders, customers, employees, and cooperation partners were expected to benefit 
significantly from the global network, size, a wide technology, and service selection as well as the 
principles of sustainable development. Excellent position in utilizing the market possibilities 
globally was assumed to create strong added value for shareholders. Long-term technology 
5 
 
leadership, customer centricity, and project expertise were stated to be advantages of the new 
company. 
 
3.2 The merged entity 
At the beginning of 2022, the company reported that the integration project was completed, and 
the goals of the integration and synergy processes were exceeded. The goal of turnover synergy 
was reached almost a year before it was expected. The company now is a large-sized enterprise 
operating in over 50 countries and representing about a hundred different nationalities. The 
headquarters are located in Helsinki, Finland. 
The Chief executive officer (CEO) of the new company is the former CEO of company B and 
company A’s previous CEO is currently President in one of the Business Areas in the new 
company. The board of directors consists of six members from company B and four from company 
A. 
 
3.3 Culture at the case company  
According to the case company’s web pages, culture is one of their four main focus areas when 
implementing the strategy. At the company, proactive service culture, innovativeness, and 
solution-oriented mindset are appreciated. Learning new things and developing own career 
actively are encouraged. Both companies had joint cultural values including a strong commitment 
to sustainable development. 
3.3.1 Internal material 
Based on the case company’s values and culture presentation, the values that guide the company’s 
way of working are stated to be at the heart of the culture. Performance culture is the company’s 
top priority since it enables strategy delivery. It is highlighted on the web pages as well. It is 
defined as having high ambition in all they do, putting the customer in the center, celebrating 
successes, and learning from mistakes. It also means active and open communication, supporting 
and empowering each other, and having an inclusive environment, growth, and learning 
opportunities for everyone. The company states that its hierarchy is low, issues are not hidden, 
diversity is seen as a strength, difficult decisions are taken without delay and silos are broken to 
perform together. They argue performance culture is an inspiring and energizing work 
6 
 
environment, “a culture that people aspire to be a part of.” This is how they would like their culture 
to look, sound, and taste in everyday work life. 
The company has also launched “Culture Ambassadors”- a training program that is targeted at a 
group of people willing to influence the culture journey and to make a positive change. It aims to 
strengthen cultural awareness, influence building an inclusive, respectful, and open work 
environment, and observe and influence the direction the company wants to go. “Often, it’s the 
small things that matter and when we start to have thousands of these small moments, we have 
created a big impact”. The program started in autumn 2021 and 25 ambassadors were selected 
representing as many countries, market areas, and parts of the organization as possible. The 
ambassadors were trained to host culture workshops for teams and are sharing their learnings and 
observations in blog posts which are available on the company’s internal channels, and everyone 
is encouraged to read, comment, and share their own experiences there. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
4. Previous Research 
This chapter presents an overview of previous related studies. To begin with, the term M&As will 
be explained followed by a presentation of success of M&As, motives for M&As and M&As in 
Finland. Thereafter, previous research of cultures, including cultural differences and their 
consequences will be presented as well as cultural friction, the importance of observing cultural 
differences, the term acculturation, and ways of improving cultural integration. A brief overview 
of previous studies of organizational identity and mergers as well as the role of middle managers 
will be provided. Lastly, previous studies of conflicts will be presented. 
 
4.1 Mergers and Acquisitions 
M&As is a widely used term when talking about corporate acquisitions. The terms are often used 
as synonyms even if they differ in meaning. As a term, it does not differentiate between mergers 
and acquisitions, but it is rather a general term for corporate acquisitions. In mergers, two, possibly 
similar size and equally strong, companies combine their powers by creating a new company and 
simultaneously the previous companies cease to exist. In mergers, it is relevant that by combining 
their resources, parties strive to create a new corporation and thus both companies are the target of 
change (Teerikangas, 2008). 
Instead, acquisitions refer to a situation where there are acquiring and acquired parties. The 
acquirer integrates operations of the acquired company to some extent into its business activities. 
Depending on the integration strategy of the acquirer, the business of the acquired may remain 
completely independent, partly independent, or become completely merged with the acquirer’s 
business.  Sometimes the buyer can adjust its operations to be compatible with the acquired 
whereupon in practice, the acquisition can become a merger (Teerikangas, 2008). Nonetheless, the 
buying party usually exercises greater authority in the combined company (Alaranta, 2008). In 
other words, acquisition refers to a situation where one company buys another and is its owner 
while a merger means that one company is created from the two existing companies (Hayes, 2021). 
4.1.1 Success of M&As 
Since the 1980s M&As have been an increasing trend in many fields worldwide (Barmeyer & 
Mayrhofer, 2012), and could be stated that they are even institutionalized. M&As impact deeply 
not only the companies themselves but also economic sectors, industries, and national economies 
(Angwin & Vaara, 2005). Even if a lot of studies have investigated M&As it has been argued that 
50 % (Waldman & Javidan, 2009), 55-70% (Carleton, 1997), or even 50-80% (Hakonen, 
8 
 
Lipponen, Kaltiainen & Kupiainen, 2015) of M&A fail and do not reach their goals. There are 
arguments that about 75% fail in creating value for shareholders in the medium term and the 
profitability of acquired companies decreases (Ravenscraft & Scherer, 1989). Despite the high risk 
of failure, the number of mergers increases (Hakonen, Lipponen, Kaltiainen & Kupiainen, 2015). 
Many scholars have claimed that the high failure rate is caused by cultural differences (Chatterjee, 
Lubatkin, Schweiger & Weber, 1992; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988; Weber, 1996). Cartwright 
& Cooper (1993) explain that inconsistent cultures are the main reason for failures and decelerate 
the achievement of financial benefits. According to Walter (1985), 25-50% of M&A failures are 
caused by cultural and workforce integration problems. Angwin, Gomes, Tarba & Weber (2013) 
claim that the main reason for failure is poorly implemented or inadequate integration. Therefore, 
planning and implementing the integration phase plays a significant role in terms of the success of 
M&As. Integration refers to the period after corporate acquisition (post-acquisition integration 
phase) when operations of the acquired company are integrated into the operations of an acquirer 
(Teerikangas, 2008). The general finding of previous studies is that organizational integration 
processes are long-lasting and burdensome (Vaara, 2002). The integration period is recognized to 
be extremely critical in terms of successful corporate acquisitions (Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991; 
Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999). 
M&A can be done domestically, or cross-border and it is argued that cross-border M&As are more 
difficult due to the different national cultures than the domestic ones. In contrast, Teerikangas & 
Very (2006) disagree. They state that differences in organizational cultures are maybe even more 
difficult to integrate than national ones. Cultural differences may appear as well in the same 
industry as between different industries and integrating cultures when companies operate in the 
same industry may as well be very challenging (Buono, Bowditch & Lewis, 1985). 
4.1.2 Motives for M&A 
The major motive for M&A is to achieve rationalizations and to realize synergy which often leads 
to difficult integration processes including powerplay, resistance, and conflicts of interests 
(Angwin & Vaara, 2005). Larsson & Finkelstein (1999) examined empirically 61 mergers and 
focused on synergy realization. They discovered that the most important factor explaining synergy 
realization was organizational integration. They also noticed that if companies had complementary 
operations, the success was higher. More resistance among employees occurred in mergers 
between similar companies in comparison to companies having complementary operations. 
Other aims are to gain growth and diversity and achieve financial and operational synergies such 
as in compensation systems, marketing, and production. Several obstacles have reduced the speed 
9 
 
of achieving desired operational synergies such as resistance to structural changes (Pitts, 1976), 
the unwillingness of employees to adapt to other company’s practices and culture (Jemison & 
Sitkin, 1986; Lubatkin, 1983), and different compensation systems or management styles 
(Lubatkin, 1983). M&As may also be conducted as a response to changing market environments 
and globalization (Weber, Shenkar & Raveh, 1996) or as means to achieve dominant market 
positions and higher returns, as a way of decreasing risk, economies of scale & scope, acquiring 
products, technologies, and expertise. Companies may also use M&A as tools to access new, 
desired fields, sustain competitive advantage, to improve product portfolio, technology, or 
scientific knowledge (Lodorfos & Boateng, 2006). 
4.1.3 M&As in Finland 
Between 2013 and 2017 about 3,000 M&As took place in Finland. Amiri (2017) investigated the 
success of M&As in Finland and used data gathered from 61 different Finnish companies. All the 
companies had conducted at least one M&A during the last five years. The revenue of the 
companies varied from 50 million euros to several billion euros. 32 companies were publicly listed 
companies. Amiri proposed that the three most common reasons for M&A were to expand product 
or service offerings, to gain revenue synergies, and to expand the customer base. When the study 
compared Finnish companies with global ones, it was revealed that the Finnish companies had 
similar challenges as non-Finnish had. Even if the main goal of the acquisitions were to grow, 
about 50% reported personnel reductions – often due to overlapping functions. The respondents 
reported that the following five factors will be given attention when conducting the next M&A: 
internal communication, culture integration, integration planning, choosing the integration team, 
and better performance management. The most important functions to integrate were operations 
as well as sales and marketing. 
Communication should be accurate, meaningful, and regular and to avoid misunderstandings, it 
should be appointed to appropriate people by the right channels. Companies reported that they 
would prefer face-to-face communication rather than emails or other online communication tools. 
They also underlined the importance of clarity, not only for the managers but also for everybody 
else. Further, openness was emphasized, and employees should not be underestimated (Amiri, 
2017). 
The culture was reported to be a crucial improvement area. The major findings of the study were 
that insufficient attention is paid to cultural issues or the company’s lack of appropriate tools for 
correctly addressing cultural issues. Already during the negotiations, cultural alignment should be 
taken into consideration. Moreover, the clarity of the roles needs to be highlighted. According to 
the study, 56% considered culture alignment to be one of their top seven targets (Amiri, 2017). 
10 
 
4.2. Culture 
The definitions of” culture” in the scientific literature are ambiguous. Definitions have different 
focuses and levels of analysis (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Many definitions are based on 
the definition by Tylor (1871, p.1) who define culture as ”that complex whole which includes 
knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man 
as a member of society”. Hofstede (1991, p. 6) sees culture “as the collective programming of the 
mind which distinguishes the members of one group of people from another”. Nowadays culture 
can be seen as a broad umbrella covering routines, rules, values, emotions, practices, beliefs, and 
norms (Angwin & Vaara, 2005). 
Erkkilä (2001) states that sociological definitions act as a foundation for organizational culture. 
Values and attitudes, organizational structure and rules, corporate policies, selection of personnel, 
training, management’s transactions, communication, parties, and other events are part of 
corporate culture (McGrath, 2011). Erkkilä (2001) complements these with clothing, general 
atmosphere, and the ways how employees are treated, and customers are dealt with. Thus, 
organizational culture is the way how an organization acts or the common behavior model guiding 
the activities. However, the bigger the company is, the more subcultures exist in different 
countries, divisions, and units. Those can differ greatly from the culture seen and experienced by 
the management. When talking about different cultures, it is crucial to keep in mind that it is not 
about having the right or wrong way to act, but rather about different ways of acting (Erkkilä, 
2001). 
Also, Sathe (1985), talks about subcultures. He agrees that there exists one main, shared culture 
but most probably, there co-exist several subcultures simultaneously. Different subcultures may 
exist among functional, product, geographical, or occupational lines (Sathe, 1985). It is crucial to 
recognize not only the dominant but also the subcultures to be able to understand how the 
subcultures impact decision-making and organizational behavior (Nahavandi and Malekzadeh, 
1988). 
Buono, Bowditch & Lewis (1985) examined the anatomy of a merger in the USA in the banking 
sector from a cultural perspective. According to them, culture is unique in every organization 
including objective and subjective dimensions and it powerfully determines the behavior, 
interaction, assumptions, and satisfaction of individuals as well as groups. This applies also during 
normal times even though those are not so visible. When the culture is threatened this comes more 
clearly visible. The more people get shared experiences, the faster people start to identify 
themselves with the new culture. 
11 
 
Objective organizational culture indicates the artifacts that the organization has created. Examples 
of objective reflections of cultures are office locations, comfortable rest break areas, coffee rooms, 
saunas at the office, the type of leasing cars, and office decorations. Subjective organizational 
culture instead refers to assumptions and beliefs shared by organizational members and how they 
understand norms, environments, values, and roles of the organization and it is unique for each 
company (Schwartz & Davis, 1981). It also includes the so-called managerial culture which refers 
to mental frameworks, how problems are solved, behaviors as well as leadership styles that the 
organization supports (Peters, 1980). 
4.2.1 Cultural differences and their consequences 
In the contemporary globalizing business environment, paying attention to cultural differences 
affecting M&A is increasingly important (Teerikangas &Very, 2006). Examples of organizational 
culture differences are dissimilarities in practices such as flexibility (adapting to change, trying 
out new ideas, trying new ways of doing things, the flexibility of management (Kitchell, 1995), 
customer orientation (customer satisfaction drives business objectives (Deshpandé & Farley, 
1998)), innovation orientation (whether the culture is innovative, challenging, pressurized and 
stimulating, (Oliver & Anderson, 1994)), supportive culture (whether relationships are valued, 
culture is equitable, trusting and collaborative) management philosophies, strategic directions, 
autonomy (Lu, Plewa & Ho, 2016), future orientation (planning is valued, management 
continuously makes plans for the future (Kitchell, 1995)) and empowerment (initiatives are 
encouraged, employees are trusted and encouraged to use their judgment when making decisions 
(Hartline & Ferrell, 1996)). Other examples are social atmosphere (Van den Berg & Wilderom, 
2004) and relationship performance such as interdepartmental coordination (informal talks are 
enabled, employees feel comfortable calling between departments, people in other departments 
are accessible, and everyone can talk to anyone despite their position (Menon, Jaworski & Kohli, 
1997)). 
The list below summarizes the above-mentioned organizational cultural differences 
• Dissimilarities in practices 
• Customer orientation 
• Innovation orientation 
• Supportive culture 
• Management philosophies 
• Strategic directions 
• Autonomy 
12 
 
• Future orientation 
• Empowerment 
• Social atmosphere 
• Relationship performance 
Existing literature has studied the impacts of cultural differences, yet with different outcomes. For 
example, Chatterjee, Lubatkin, Schweiger & Weber (1992) propose that the bigger the differences 
are, the more problems will appear leading to smaller profits and worse performance in the 
markets. Also, Vaara (2000) claims that cultural differences, referring to values and beliefs, cause 
problems. Buono, Bowditch & Lewis (1985) noticed in their study that during post-merger 
integration, different cultures often lead to competition among employees instead of the 
“honeymoon” phase. Negative stereotypes are very common, and people may wonder why the 
communication is so poor, why the manager is not treating them fairly or why things do not happen 
as they should. Ambiguity can be strongly present; it is unclear who is for instance in charge of 
the new department, and this will lead to dysfunctionality. Due to cultural differences, people can 
feel that they do lose accessibility to management (Buono, Bowditch & Lewis, 1985). 
Martin (1983) claims that in so-called boundary drawing processes, individuals make sense of 
their own and the cultures of others and hence draw barriers between different cultures. People 
tend to see their own cultures as unique even though the uniqueness is often an illusion when 
looking from a more realistic perspective. 
Vaara (2003) studied post-acquisition decision-making challenges from a sensemaking 
perspective after a merger between Swedish and Finnish companies in the furniture industry. He 
found four different characteristics; issue politicization, organizational hypocrisy, cultural 
confusion, and inherent ambiguity, which may act as barriers to effective post-M&A integration. 
Organizational hypocrisy refers to inconsistency between decisions and actions (Cho, Laine, 
Roberts & Rodrigue, 2015). Vaara (2003) argues that differences in communication and decision-
making will cause cultural confusion and ambiguity which instead would lead to organizational 
hypocrisy if the ideas and actions are not aligned. 
Instead, Krishnan, Miller & Judge (1997) found that cultural differences may create unique value 
for the organization which is, in turn, one of the most important motives for acquisition (Salter & 
Weinhold, 1979). More specially, different backgrounds of managers are mentioned as an example 
of a source of unique value. These may strengthen the merged company by compensating for the 
weaknesses of both companies and this may consequently enhance maintenance or even creation 
of competitive advantage (Porter 1987). 
13 
 
4.2.2. Cultural friction 
Luo & Shenkar (2011) state that even though there is a distance between cultures due to their 
respective differences, when meeting people representing different cultures and working together, 
it would be more appropriate to talk about cultural friction. The term cultural friction does not 
include as negative associations as cultural distance since as individuals cooperate, cultural 
differences enable not only synergy disruption but also synergy (Shenkar, 2001). The disruption 
caused by cultural differences is beneficial for a company when it provides novel and different 
ideas but if it swells too big and uncontrollable, it becomes destructive. In its bad form, it is usually 
based on the pursuit of power between the cultural groups (Cox Jr, 1991). Socialization, adaptation 
to the dominant culture, human resources, and communication are lubricants for decreasing 
cultural friction. Yet, Luo & Shenkar (2011) propose to consider the extensive implementation of 
those if cultural friction is not causing big problems, rather may even eventually improve the 
performance of teams. 
4.2.3 Importance of observing cultural differences 
In a corporate acquisition, the personnel of the acquired company are suddenly employed by 
another company. The values and culture of the new employer may differ significantly from the 
customary values and culture. Being aware of and observing these cultural differences during the 
integration phase is extremely important to be able to get the personnel of the acquired company 
committed. Usually, the organizational cultures of both companies change during the integration 
phase. Nevertheless, the level and scope of integration, profitability, and management style define 
whether the cultures change as much or if one of the previous cultures becomes dominant (Erkkilä, 
2001). Lodorfos & Boateng (2006) agree that noticing cultural differences is extremely important. 
They argue that to create value and enhance the success of M&A, sufficient planning before a 
merger and keeping cultural integration at the heart of strategic planning and implementation are 
crucial, already before starting any consolidation. 
When determining the new vision and strategy of the combined company, the management of the 
acquirer company should have a clear perception of both parties´ corporate cultures, values, and 
operating models. If the vision of the future of the combined company and the strategy required 
for its implementation is significantly in contradiction, it is assumed that the transformation 
process will be long and challenging. The earlier the management of acquiring a company can 
create an understanding of the organizational culture and operating models of the target company, 
the better it can plan the integration structure and preliminary organization structures (Erkkilä, 
2001). 
14 
 
Lodorfos & Boateng (2006) claim that managers do not analyze cultural fit sufficiently before the 
actual integration phase. If the company does not have a clear integration strategy available already 
early in the integration process, the manager does not have a coherent strategy about how they 
could deal with potential conflicts, or they could optimize benefits or culture-related issues could 
be solved reactively instead of proactively. In some cases, strategies may exist, but managers may 
fail implementation which can lead to big problems. Consequently, attention should be paid to 
culture in all stages since culture fit is key to successful M&A (Lodorfos & Boateng, 2006). 
4.2.4 Acculturation 
Researchers adopting a process perspective have focused on “acculturation processes” and applied 
integration perspectives (Vaara, 1999). Larsson & Lubatkin (2001, p. 1574) define M&A 
acculturation as “the outcome of a cooperative process whereby the beliefs, assumptions, and 
values of two previously independent workforces form a jointly determined culture”, while Berry 
(1980, p.215 in Bingöl, 2017) describe it as” changes induced in (two cultural) systems as a result 
of the diffusion of cultural elements in both directions” Most often, one party tries to dominate the 
other even if this should be two-sided. 
According to acculturation theory, most probably the level of resistance will be lower if both 
parties find the deal satisfying. The feelings of employees about the deal may vary during the 
process. Their feelings may for example change to be more negative if the acquiring company 
handles the process poorly even if they had been positive at the beginning (Teerikangas & Very, 
2006). Teerikangas & Very (2006) note that organizational culture differences are not static since 
according to acculturation theory, cultures change when they are in contact with each other. In the 
beginning, the cultures might be very different but over time, after successful integration, they 
may become very close to each other. Expectations of personnel, their perceptions of how the 
progress has advanced as well as companies´ preferences of acculturative modes will have an 
impact on this. 
As mentioned earlier, it is common that various subcultures to exist simultaneously, and thus, 
different acculturation modes may be active at the same time. Therefore, it is important that 
management understand the various subcultures and that those may demand different management 
(Shrivastava, 1986). 
4.2.5 Improving the cultural integration 
A lot of studies have been made on how the mergers would be successful and organizational 
culture is pointed out as one important factor. Both before and after the merger, several 
organizational culture-related aspects should be considered (Schraeder & Self, 2003). Potential 
15 
 
problems should be noticed as soon as possible and therefore it is recommended to consider the 
post-merger integration process already during the pre-merger stage. Instead of focusing on 
symptoms, emphasis should be put on the root causes (De Noble, Gustafson & Hergert, 1988). 
Less resistance, dissatisfaction, and more trust will occur if employees are allowed to participate 
in the pre-merger stage (Lodorfos & Boateng, 2006). De Noble, Gustafson & Hergert (1988) found 
that it is very important to involve line managers in the process and to invest in organizational 
culture and people. 
Larsson and Lubatkin (2001) investigated 50 M&As that took place in Sweden and the US. They 
propose how the management of acquiring companies manages the informal integration process 
impacts the success of acculturation. Authors argue that by participating in different activities such 
as socialization rituals, training, celebration, and introduction programs, acculturation is best 
achieved. This will, no matter the size of the organization, expectations of synergies, or the 
differences between cultures or nationalities, lead to the joint organizational culture created by 
employees. 
The perceptions of Larsson & Lubatkin (2001) are in line with the suggestion of Teerikangas 
(2018) as she argues that people from both companies should be in contact with each other as 
much as possible, interact, have joint projects, workshops, and training. These all will lower the 
cultural barriers. This differs from the understanding of Cartwright & Cooper (1993) as they argue 
that the pre-merger cultural attribute defines mostly the post-merger acculturation and 
consequently management would not have control of it during the integration process. 
4.2.6 Organizational identity and mergers 
Organizational identity can be determined as an individual’s perceived feeling of oneness with the 
organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). According to Hatch & Schulz, 1997 and Scott & Lane 
(2000) it refers to the organizational members’ shared beliefs about the distinctive characteristics 
of the organization. Organizational identity provides a sense for employees of how people are 
supposed to behave, internally and externally (Zaheer, Schomake & Genc, 2003). On the other 
hand, for customers, organizational identity depicts what kind of people work at the organization, 
what the company does, and how the people work there (Gioia & Thomas, 1996). In this regard, 
it is not surprising that organizational identity issues are present in most mergers (Zaheer, 
Schomake & Genc, 2003). 
It is common that even for a long time, people may identify themselves with their former team and 
manager (Buono, Bowditch & Lewis, 1985). Tajfel & Turnel (1979) studied identity construction 
processes. Questions such as “Who are we?” and “Who am I?” tend to lead to “we typification” 
16 
 
(Dahler-Larsen, 1997). Individuals who do not identify themselves with the organization will act 
more out of self-interest instead of contributing strongly to the collective goal (Scott & Lane, 
2000). 
“Us versus them” thinking and power struggles are common when integrating two companies. 
Original identities can be seen even for a long time after the formal creation of a new common 
culture has started. In and out-groups are formed when cultural differences are expressed in 
language, way of working, and dressing which strengthens the boundaries between groups and 
consequently leads to decelerated psychological integration (Olie, 1994). As an example of 
expediting psychological integration, Olie (1994) states it is important to remove former 
identification symbols. He also proposes that common goals are crucial since they may get people 
to consider them as one big group instead of two separate ones. 
Organizational identity is constantly reshaped by how organizational members understand the 
organization (Brunninge, 2005). Identity is hard to change and changing it becomes even harder 
the longer the identity has remained intact (Daniel & Metcalf, 2001). Resistance will probably 
emerge if the way how employees perceive organizational identity is not aligned with strategic 
efforts (Brunninge, 2005). 
 
4.3. Role of middle managers 
The role of middle managers during a big organizational change is crucial (Balogun, 2003). 
Balogun & Johnson (2004) concluded that middle managers act as critical contributors during 
organizational change. One of the main challenges for middle managers is, regardless of their 
experience, to successfully perform several roles simultaneously requiring various behaviors and 
skills (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Middle managers must ensure that the business runs as 
seamlessly as possible while implementing the change (Balogun, 2003). They need to act as 
implementers of change, to motivate their subordinates and sell the change to them (Rouleau, 
2005). Nevertheless, middle managers usually have not been part of formulating the change and 
therefore it is possible that they do not support or believe in it (Valentino, 2004). 
From the individual point of view, the role of middle managers can be seen as more important than 
the higher management since the manager is present in daily working life and thus guides the 
change every day (Erämetsä, 2003). Middle managers are in an important position since they 
represent the aspirations of top management and their work community simultaneously (Kotter, 
2012). 
17 
 
It is important that managers first understand the change and process their feelings before they 
transfer the project forward. If they are unable to tell and justify the background for the change 
clearly and plausibly, they are unable to receive the trust of employees and the change process 
starts slowly (Järvinen, 2001). 
 
4.4 Conflicts 
When it comes to causes of conflicts, a general statement is that conflict is caused by 
dissatisfaction, disparate interest, values, and norms of beliefs between individuals or groups. In 
addition to contrasting organizational cultures, causes of conflicts may be insufficient management 
practices, experiences of inequity or loss of status, or those can be inherited from conflicts existing 
in previous organizations. Conflicts may be also caused by controversies between managers or 
employees or between two managers (Bingöl, 2017). 
According to Corkindale (2007), unclear organizational structures, increased competition for 
resources, and general confusion caused by managers striving to create an appropriate 
management style may lead to conflicts. Piha (2017) mentions unclear roles, unclear work 
distribution, and unclarity in responsibilities. Mutual trust may be weak, and cooperation practices 
may be insufficient and biased. Consequently, self-interest is unilaterally driven, boundaries are 
highlighted, and the own domain is defended (Piha, 2017). 
4.4.1 Different types of conflicts 
There are different types of conflicts. Role conflicts have gained attention among scholars. Role 
conflicts refer to a situation where incompatible demands are targeted toward an employee. 
Unclear roles, referred to as “role ambiguity” may cause role conflicts and this may lead to 
additional anxiety and stress (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964). Both interpersonal 
and intergroup conflicts can be triggered by role ambiguity. How an employee is capable of 
handling stress caused by change and the changes in status and job description may be influential 
for success (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Baillien & De Witte, 2009). Consequently, role conflict may 
become a significant cause of conflicts (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964), leading 
to loss of human capital, and decreasing the success of integration (Mueller and Price, 1990; 
Schweiger and Denisi, 1991). 
18 
 
5. Theories 
The theory chapter starts with a justification behind the choice of conflict theory. Secondly, three 
terms to describe organizational identity will be provided. The chapter concludes with Jordan´s 
(2013) definition of emergence of a conflict and Jordan’s (2014) type of conflict issue 
categorization including descriptions of distribution, position, structure, behavioral norm, and 
conviction issues. 
  
In previous studies, it has been suggested that financial and strategic perspectives are inadequate 
when studying the success of M&As (Weber, Rachman-Moore & Tarba, 2012). As a solution, 
theories such as organizational culture theory have been used since it underlines more human 
aspects (Sarala, Vaara & Junni, 2017), and the general understanding has been that by applying 
culture theories, the success of M&As can be adequately justified. Still, possible constraints of 
this kind of approach have seldom been noticed. Research conducted by Felicia Falberg (2019) 
provided contradictory results showing that compared to applying traditional financial, strategic, 
and organizational theories, a lot of different findings can be discerned by applying conflict 
theory. The selection of conflict theory in her study assumed that it could be possible to utilize 
the theory that has been previously used mainly when investigating organizational conflicts other 
than in the context of the merger. The findings of the study revealed different causes of conflicts 
at individual, relational and systemic levels as well as between different types of conflict, and 
complex interrelations were uncovered. Therefore, inspired by the fresh perspective of Falberg’s 
(2019) research and her encouraging findings, conflict theory was applied in this study too to 
provide different contributions to the field of M&A and cultural integration. 
Schweiger, Csiszar & Napier’s (1993) categorization of three organizational identities (see 
below) was applied to investigate the organizational identities described by the interviewees. 
Conflict theory was applied to pinpoint what concrete problematic consequences cultural 
differences led to by examining the specific blocked desires the respondents reported. Thomas 
Jordan’s (2014) inventory of the conflict potential model was utilized for classifying the issues 
middle managers mentioned that had blocked them or their subordinates to achieve their desires.  
 
5.1 Organizational identity 
Schweiger, Csiszar, and Napier (1993) differentiate three terms to describe what integration is 
about: assimilation, novation, and structural integration. Assimilation refers to a situation where 
19 
 
one organization adopts the identity of the other company either voluntarily or forced. It is often 
thought that assimilation would be the best alternative even though it usually causes resistance and 
cultural clash. Most often the acquirer or otherwise the stronger party drives assimilation. 
However, sometimes, in situations where the other party has performed poorly, forced assimilation 
is required. 
The second alternative novation refers to a situation where a new identity, new practices, and a 
new culture are created, and the best of both parties are selected. On paper, this sounds great, but 
this is an expensive option as changes and adaptations in both parties need to be planned and 
implemented. 
The third alternative is structural integration where people in different departments retain their 
own identities even if the units are combined. Only a few changes are made but everyone is 
required to tolerate differences as no one is forced to change. Structures are integrated, but the 
cultures are only to a small extent changing. 
 
Conflicts 
Jordan (2013) refers to a conflict as someone, or several people having a desire that they are not 
willing to relinquish. People feel frustrated as they feel that someone is blocking them from 
reaching their desire. Consequently, one or both parties start to react in some way towards the 
other party. The figure below demonstrates Jordan’s (2013) perception of how a conflict arises. 
 
 
Figure 1. Jordan’s (2013) definition of the emergence of a conflict. 
Since conflicts emerge continuously in all M&A processes, those are very concrete ways of 
pinpointing emerging conflicts in post-merger integration. Organizations have different 
capabilities to manage these conflicts and find and utilize their positive aspects. When companies 
merge horizontally between competitors, the risk of intergroup conflict is higher in comparison to 
vertical mergers. Success can be reached in financial terms, but a loss in human capital may occur 
(Bingöl, 2017). 
 
20 
 
5.2 Types of conflict issues 
Jordan (2014) argues that a conflict potential exists in all organizations and situations may occur 
where individuals and groups have desires which become blocked by somebody else. Thus, he 
presented a list of themes that organizations may have to manage effectively and constructively.  
The first theme is called distribution issues. This refers to issues where different parties have 
different opinions about the distribution of time and attention: how much time and attention should 
be dedicated to various issues and tasks. The distribution of workload (customers, patients, tasks, 
etc.) is another example. Money is also included in this category as well, including prioritizing in, 
for example, budgeting, wage negotiations, the amount of money devoted to training, and 
decisions about overtime compensation.  
The second category is position issues. This refers to certain placements, roles, positions, and tasks 
that people in the organization may want to get or respectively avoid.  
The third category is structure issues including disagreements about routines, regulations, methods 
and roles, and responsibilities as well as the delegation of authority, strategic orientation, and 
organizational structure.  
The fourth category is behavioral norm issues. This refers to desires people might have about 
others’ attitudes, ways of performing assignments, ways how people tend to communicate, and 
interpersonal treatment inside the organization. 
Jordan (2014) calls the last category as conviction issues. With that he referred to situations when 
people have deep convictions regarding what is allowed or prohibited, right or wrong, good or 
bad, appropriate or inappropriate. Tensions between core perspectives, different opinions about 
what works and what does not, and the relations between different departments are included in this 
theme as well. Those are long-lasting, deep-rooted intrinsic values and can be linked to 
professional identities, values, and belief systems. 
When cultural differences become problematic and create friction, this typology may be used to 
pinpoint exactly what issues are involved. This may allow the observer to arrive at a more concrete 
analysis of the consequences of incomplete integration of organizational cultures. 
 
 
 
 
 
21 
 
6. Method 
The method of this study is qualitative, and this chapter involves reasoning for the selection of the 
case company, description of the primary data, selection of respondents, planning, and 
implementation of the interviews, and data analysis. Thereafter, secondary data will be presented 
including results of the pre-merger survey conducted by the case company. The chapter ends with 
trustworthiness, limitations, and ethical considerations. 
 
A qualitative data collection method was chosen because the research aimed to gain an in-depth 
understanding of the phenomena and the complexity of culture supported the choice. The 
qualitative method is suitable for exploring questions of “what” and “how” (Bergström, 2021, 10). 
Charmaz (2006) notes that one of the advantages of qualitative methods is that changes can be 
done during the research project. In data collection, the scientific criterion is not the quantity of 
the collected data but rather the quality. This is one of the foundations for qualitative research and 
therefore comports with the nature of the study (Eskola & Suoranta, 1999). 
Yin (2014) states that conducting a case study refers to implementing a current empirical study in 
its natural context by using multiple data sources. In a case study, one case, situation, or limited 
entirety, for instance, an organization, is investigated. The aim is to describe and examine the 
research object by using questions about how and why. 
 
6.1 Selection of case company 
There were several reasons why the specific company became selected for this research. The 
author has studied international business and is highly interested in multinational businesses. The 
author considered the industry of the case company to be interesting and values the high emphasis 
the organization puts on sustainability. Further, she has previously worked in another listed 
company during a merger and found it fascinating. Thus, studying this company during the post-
merger phase was very interesting. The topic, organizational culture differences, and integration 
served both parties’ interests. 
The company is in an interesting stage since, at the point when this study was completed, almost 
two years have passed since the merger. As stated earlier, different estimations of the duration of 
integration have been suggested; from a couple of months up to twelve years. 
22 
 
Representatives from the case company agreed that cultural integration is still incomplete and 
therefore the topic is highly relevant for them. As widely agreed among researchers, the company 
also recognizes cultural integration to be a very challenging process. 
 
6.2 Primary data - semi-structured interviews with middle managers 
The primary source of data in this study was semi-structured interviews conducted with nine 
middle managers located in Finland. Semi-structured interviews were chosen since they enable 
spontaneous discussion and follow-up questions but ensure that certain relevant topics and 
questions are discussed (Saaranen-Kauppinen & Puusniekka, 2006). The risk in using semi-
structured interviews is the possibility that answers are not consistent which in turn may affect 
reliability (Denscombe, 2016). Nevertheless, semi-structured interview was perceived as the most 
suitable method for this study. 
 
6.3 Selection of respondents 
The choice of respondents was discussed with the case company contacts from the HR department. 
We ended up choosing middle managers since they operate between top management and 
employees and their position is hence interesting and challenging. Middle managers from both 
former companies were selected to figure out if there are differences in their experiences 
depending on their background. Managers 2, 3, 4, and 5 were from company A and 6, 7, and 8 
from company B. Seven respondents were men and two women. The respondents represented 
different departments: IT, HR, Communications, Research & Development as well as several 
company’s business areas, and the titles varied between vice presidents, directors, senior 
managers, and managers. The majority, seven out of nine, interviewees had worked at the company 
already before the merger allowing them to reflect and compare organizational cultures between 
previous and current companies. Two interviewees (managers 1 and 9) who had joined the 
company after the merger were selected as well to see if they have experienced cultural differences 
and integration differently. Middle managers located in different cities were selected to be able to 
investigate whether there were some differences in how they have experienced cultural differences 
as in some locations, there are only people from one of the previous companies, and in some 
locations, both companies had already previously operations. Thus, it could be assumed that more 
concrete cultural clashes have happened there. 
23 
 
This can be called a purposive, heterogeneous sampling strategy since the aim was to choose 
people who possess the relevant information and have different characteristics and can hence help 
to answer the research questions and to reveal possible differences between their experiences 
(Dudovskiy, 2021). 
 
6.4 Planning and implementation of the interviews 
An interview guide (see Appendix A) was created based on the aim of the research, previous 
research, and the case internal material (pre-merger cultural survey and exit surveys) received from 
the case company. The interview guide was checked with the supervisor and the case company 
contact person. Topics in the interviews were background and current position, the merger, culture, 
perceived cultural differences, problematic consequences of the differences, ways of handling the 
challenges, the current state of the company, and the future. 
The questions were formulated in advance, but reordering was possible, and the format of 
questions and exact wording may alternate between respondents (Ojasalo, Moilanen & Ritalahti, 
2015) and some questions could be added or excluded depending on the respondent’s answer. 
Dialogue around the topic is allowed rather than obeying strict verbatim questions. Both open-
ended closed questions were used as well as follow-up why and how questions (Adams, 2015). On 
the other hand, the disadvantage of interviews as a research method is that it is labor-intensive and 
time-consuming; it takes time to prepare the interviews, find suitable participants, transcribe the 
interviews and analyze the results (Adams, 2015). Nonetheless, interviews served best the aims of 
this research. Throughout the interview process, the interview guide was continuously reassessed. 
Directly after the first interview, it was evaluated critically what worked and what did not, and 
some of the questions were modified, clarified, removed, and combined. 
The duration of the interviews varied between 30 and 75 minutes. Eight of the nine interviews 
were carried out in Finnish since it is the native language of these respondents. This allowed them 
to feel more natural and comfortable and consequently more profound discussion and further 
explanations occurred. If English had been used, some answers could have been shorter and less 
descriptive. One interview was held in English since it was the respondent’s wish and his working 
language. All the interviews were held one to one via Zoom due to the ongoing global pandemic, 
relatively tight schedule, and different residences of the parties. 
24 
 
6.5 Data analysis 
All the interviews were recorded with the interviewees’ consent to be able to fully concentrate on 
listening during the interviews and to extract direct quotes. Furthermore, since recordings enabled 
re-listening, the possibility of misunderstandings decreased as well. 
Recordings were listened to carefully while trying to understand the main content. According to 
Saaranen-Kauppinen & Puusniekka (2006), when transcribing, the researcher needs to choose the 
level of transcription. In this study, the main interest was the content of the interviews, what did 
the respondents tell instead of the way how they told it. Consequently, transcriptions were made 
by focusing on the most relevant things, the content of interviews while styles of speaking, tone 
of voice, or expletives were not observed). 
After transcription, data were categorized according to themes to facilitate making analysis. 
Similarities, synonyms, and related concepts as well as differences were explored. Differences 
mentioned by respondents were categorized according to Jordan’s (2013) categories while the 
strategies to handle the challenging situations were created by the author. 
Content analysis was applied as a method for analyzing the collected data. Tuomi & Sarajärvi 
(2018) note that content analysis can be seen as a loose theoretical framework that can be mirrored 
by different theoretical frameworks. In content analysis, the focus is on predetermined subjects. 
During the research process, interesting topics may emerge which may lead the researcher away 
from a predetermined path. Then the researchers need to accept that all interesting things cannot 
be investigated. A researcher should mirror his/her data to research problems continuously. Thus, 
it will be easier to remain with the topic (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018). 
This study is grounded on an abductive research approach meaning that previous knowledge 
guides and helps with analysis but the aim of the analysis is not to test the theory, rather to open 
new thoughts. When applying abductive analysis, the researcher continuously discusses data and 
theories (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2009). Abductive analysis was best suited for this study since the 
aim was to answer the research question by using previous knowledge as well as the collected 
data.  
 
6.6 Secondary data 
Several secondary data sources were used to increase the validity and reliability of the study. Peer-
reviewed scientific articles, books, webpages, and various companies’ internal materials were 
used. Company web pages, stock exchange releases, the company’s internal value, and culture 
25 
 
presentations were utilized to see how the culture was described there and to be able to compare 
if the respondents experienced it similarly. Exit surveys were used to examine possible culture-
related reasons for dissatisfaction and hence decisions to leave the company and to see if there 
were connections between exit surveys and experiences reported by middle managers during the 
interviews. Further, findings of a survey conducted by both former companies for a couple of 
months before the merger were also used to gain a deeper insight into the pre-merger opinions, 
examine possible changes, and to compare with how the culture is stated to be by the company. 
The reliability of sources was continuously assessed. Comparison between different data sources 
was conducted as they could support each other and consequently increase the validity of the 
research. 
6.6.1 Pre-merger survey 
Culture integration was identified as one of the most important success factors for the merger. To 
understand the current company cultures, both companies conducted a culture survey in February 
2020 just before the merger as a first concrete step in the culture integration work. The response 
rate (62%) was relatively high and approximately 7,500 responses in total across the companies 
provided a comprehensive view of the cultures across geographics, functions, and businesses.  
The survey included questions related to employees´ current company culture and seven different 
dimensions were included. Moreover, questions related to engagement and possible perceptions 
about the other company’s culture were included. The results indicated that the cultures of both 
companies were very similar. The seven dimensions included were structured vs flexible, 
controlling vs delegating, cautious vs risk-permitting, planning vs doing, diplomatic vs direct, 
individualistic vs collective, and internal vs external. A 7-point scale was applied and almost all 
the average responses fell between 3.8-4.2and indicated no strong leaning. Some minor exceptions 
were that both companies rated the cultures to be more cautious than risk-permitting, a bit more 
individualistic than collective, and slightly more internal than external. All the dimensions except 
structured vs flexible were aligned, as company B members evaluated their culture to be more 
structured. The global footprint of the companies and differences in the country mix may have 
been reasons behind the differences in that one dimension. 
Regardless of the similarities between the two cultures, results indicated that in both companies, 
the assumption about companies’ cultures differs when compared to their self-assessments. The 
company interpreted this as important learning, reminding them that the perception of others may 
not correspond with reality. Consequently, willingness to get to know new colleagues and open-
mindedness were interpreted as important success factors for the integration. 
26 
 
The companies cooperated with a consulting company and an integration expert commented this 
strong cultural match is rare in an integration. Based on the consulting company’s experience with 
similar M&A culture surveys, the case company was in the top quartile on cultural alignment 
meaning that 75% of other companies received lower results. 
Engagement-related questions indicated that employees perceived both companies to be 
supportive, trusting, great places to work, and usage of individual skills and abilities is enabled. In 
comparison to benchmark companies, the scores on all these dimensions were either in the first or 
second quartile. Instead, results from accountability and performance questions were revealed to 
be future development areas since the scores were lower compared to the benchmark figures. 
Yet, the survey was not Finland-specific. Instead, it was sent out to all the employees at both 
companies worldwide. Regardless, the results can be used as a good base for further investigation. 
Despite that the cultures seemed to be similar, according to the company’s contact person, culture 
integration is incomplete after almost two years, and therefore they wanted challenges caused by 
cultural differences to be investigated. 
 
6.7 Trustworthiness 
Both primary and several secondary data sources were used to increase the trustworthiness of the 
study. Usage of results in the previous survey conducted by the company before the merger and 
finding from exit surveys contributed to the trustworthiness of the study. A comparison of info 
from different sources was conducted and similarities in findings strengthened the reliability. 
Interviews are a desirable way of collecting material when the purpose is to gain detailed and in-
depth data. Still, it is important to keep in mind that interviews are based on verbal statements 
rather than doing. Cameras were used in all the interviews to increase the sense of presence, to 
decrease talking out of turn, and to increase interaction as one sees each other’s gestures and facial 
expressions. 
The respondents were provided with an opportunity to make any corrections or additions afterward 
which increase validity. The fact that the author had worked at the company cannot be disregarded. 
Nevertheless, the respondents were unfamiliar since, especially due to corona, the author had not 
met them earlier. Therefore, it can be assumed that this did not lead to significant biases or 
decreased trustworthiness. 
27 
 
Trustworthiness could have been improved if several researchers have participated and 
consequently the number of interviews would have been higher and potentially middle managers 
located in other countries were also interviewed. Since this was not possible, several secondary 
data were used as support material. 
 
6.8 Limitations 
As usually in qualitative studies, the sample size was relatively small. Given the limited time and 
resources, the research relied on a small sample size; only nine middle managers out of hundreds 
of organizational members located in Finland were interviewed which deteriorates wider 
generalizability. However, the aim of the study was not to achieve generalized data, but rather to 
deepen the understanding of the experiences and perceptions of the interviewees. In other words, 
a small sample size including purposively sampled respondents deepened the analyses and 
consequently contributed to the aim of the study. 
 
6.9  Ethical considerations 
Ethical principles according to Lund Research Ltd (2012) were applied throughout the project 
including five principles: minimizing the risk of harm, obtaining informed consent, protecting 
anonymity and confidentiality, avoiding deceptive practices, and providing the right to withdraw. 
The participants should not be harmed by the research. Types of potential harms are physical, 
psychological discomfort, and distress, social disadvantage, anonymity, privacy, and financial 
status. The probability of these can be minimized by complying with ethical principles. 
Informed consent forms were sent to all participants which means that all the participants need to 
understand what is required from them. Moreover, the voluntary nature of participation was 
highlighted. All the interviewees were provided the purpose of the study and asked for their 
consent for recording in a written form before the interviews. The anonymity and confidentiality 
of participants were protected throughout the study. To ensure promised de-identification, any 
information that could be associated with them was not revealed in the final report. HR 
representatives provided suitable interviewees. To prevent them from being able to combine 
answers and middle managers, departments, locations, or titles of the interviewees were not used. 
Instead, interviewees are referred to as “Manager1”, “Manager2” etc. They were asked if it was 
okay to record the interviews and the recordings were promised to be deleted afterward. Moreover, 
28 
 
all the respondents were provided a possibility to ask questions or to add or make some corrections 
afterward. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
29 
 
7. Results and analysis 
The result chapter is divided into four chapters. First, the interviews conducted with nine middle 
managers will be presented and analyzed by applying Jordan’s (2014) inventory of conflict 
potential theory. In this section, all types of problematic issues mentioned by the respondents will 
be reported and then it will be pointed out, which of them are related to cultural differences and 
which depend on other aspects of organizational change. Secondly, the strategies managers used 
to handle the challenging situations will be presented. Thereafter, the results of exit surveys will 
be presented and lastly, exit survey and interview results will be compared. 
 
7.1 Interviews with middle managers 
In this section, answers from manager interviews will be presented and analyzed by applying 
Jordan’s (2014) inventory of conflict potential theory. The chapter includes what were the 
differences managers have faced and why the differences became problematic. 
7.1.1 Differences experienced by the middle managers according to conflict types 
Distribution issues 
Manager 2 explained that in company B bigger investments have been made to systems while 
company A has invested more in “talent-type of things”. Manager 3 explained he was used to share 
resources in his organization according to who had the tightest schedule. This can be interpreted 
as a behavioral norm issue and a conviction issue as well.  
Manager 4 claimed that in company B, people have used to work overtime without agreeing 
separately and without receiving any additional compensation while he has used to agree each time 
with his manager about the overtime work and the compensation. However, he did not mention 
this would have led to any conflict situations, rather it has been his observation of cultural 
differences between the companies. Manager 6 verified this as he explained that in company B 
they have used to work overtime to serve customers and he mentioned nothing about additional 
compensation or agreement with managers. 
Interestingly, managers did not comment directly on salaries. Manager 7 mentioned there have 
been different practices related to what the company has offered in company’s events and manager 
8 told that in company B, when employees have worked at the company for 30 years, they have 
gotten three weeks of paid holiday while in company A people have just paid a couple of hundred 
euros. Manager 3 stated that personnel in company A have felt that all that has been harmonized 
has changed to be more negative from their point of view. Manager 6 mentioned the company has 
30 
 
still not harmonized travel allowances and hence in his team, people are treated differently even 
in the same positions, and this feels unfair. 
Still there exist some separate agreements for company A upper white collars that do not apply to the 
ex-A. And in my team, we have both people so it is an absurd situation that people from company B 
can get travel allowance and ex-company A people don’t get even though they do the same job and have 
been almost two years same company. [M6] 
However, this is not a cultural difference, but rather a common cause of organizational 
change.  
Position issues 
Manager 2 explained that some people may have felt uncertain, dissatisfied, or had a bad mood if 
their role is not more than it used to be. She continued by stating “surely people have left because 
the new world has not pleased in the same way as the old one”. This can be interpreted as position 
conflict according to Jordan. 
Another example of a position issue was the example Manager 3 provided. He explained that he 
needs to reposition himself since the company does not seem to have similar needs anymore as it 
has before the merger. Manager 3 explained he had quite a clear shared understanding with his 
previous managers about what the rest of his career would look like but in the newly merged 
company, his career prospects are unclear.  
Probably the thoughts I had, the tasks or roles, the company probably do not have that kind of needs 
that I thought I could best respond with my experience and thus I need to reposition myself and to see 
what this company really needs and what experiences and skills can be found in my toolbox collected 
along my journey which could be utilized for effectively developing the company. [M3] 
In the quote below, Manager 3 explains how other people have struggled with similar issues: 
I know people who have stated this is not anymore the company they joined. Tasks or the future of 
own professional development has changed radically because in the new company the roles people 
were about to grow and the roles people have thought they would be able to reach as they develop 
themselves, suddenly the roles do not exist anymore. And thus, some people have been required to 
reconsider whether they really want to achieve these roles and if yes, they need to work at some other 
company. [M3] 
All these above-mentioned issues are common causes of organizational changes rather than 
cultural differences. 
31 
 
Structure issues 
During the interviews, a lot of differences that can be interpreted as what Jordan calls structure 
issues emerged. Workload was mentioned by almost all the interviewees, and it is a typical 
example of a structure issue. However, workload is not caused by cultural differences, but rather 
a common consequence after a merger. 
Reasons behind increased workload were for instance new IT systems, familiarization with the 
systems, inadequate resources due to resignations, and difficulties to recruit new employees. 
Manager 4 argued all the time more and more tasks are placed on his table. 
Change of environment to the direction where all the time more and more tasks are placed on your table 
has been quite significant what I have noticed. [M4] 
To exemplify, Manager 4 mentioned that previously HR has been responsible for the monitoring 
of working hours overtime and after the merger, the responsibility was transferred to managers. 
This can be interpreted as a structure issue. 
Manager 8 agreed and added that prioritization must be done all the time and still some of the tasks 
are not completed. For him, this has caused feelings of inadequacy. 
Manager 4 explained workload has increased steadily all the time and consequently led to burnouts 
and resignations. He even explained that people are getting used to the increased workload and 
have noticed “it does not help to work 12 hours per day and during weekends”. Both managers 4 
and 6 explained they have had difficulties in finding substitutes for the resigned employees and 
they have had positions open for several months. This has caused even more workload for the rest 
of the team. Manager 6 explained that certain tools and enterprise resource planning systems were 
not integrated until Christmas, and invoicing practices were renewed not until just recently. Hence, 
all these caused additional workload. The quote below demonstrates how Manager 1 has 
experienced the causes of increased workload: 
As the acute things have been handled, now it can be seen how much it has taken and at the moment, a 
high turnover rate can be seen, and we are paying for it right now. [M1] 
Manager 7 justified that his team has suffered from increased workload as the company decided 
to continue using the systems company B has used to use and thus company B people have been 
required to familiarize new colleagues from company A with these systems. Manager 6 claimed 
that system integration failed completely, and it has caused more additional workload.  
Manager 2 disagrees as she thought that things have become easier. She explained that in her 
organization, last year was still very challenging, and “everyone was lost during a lot of time” but 
32 
 
now they do things for the second time, people are distinctly more peaceful, and the workload is 
much smaller since everything does not need to be figured out separately. People have basic 
security and even if things are not working 100% wisely, they still know what they do, what works, 
and whatnot. On the other hand, she also guessed workload would still be heavy in some 
departments, for instance in the IT department due to the merger. Manager 5 stated that an 
extremely huge amount of work was already done before the point was reached when the new 
organization started working. She believed the workload was “gigantic probably everywhere 
around the organization after the merger” since every process was required to be reassessed. 
Manager 6 claimed that one cultural difference is that company A had a more centralized structure 
as the decisions were made far away from customers. To exemplify, he stated that in company B, 
the seller who is responsible for the customer has decided whether the guarantee will cover some 
damages while in company A the decision was made somewhere higher. Manager 6 saw the 
negative and positive sides to both practices. He justified that if that kind of decision-making is 
too close to the customer, one easily gives up on everything. On the other hand, if it is too far, it 
is very rigid and takes a lot of time to respond to the customer. This could be also interpreted as a 
conviction issue as this may represent companies’ views on where the decisions should be made. 
Company B has wanted to run things more decentralized while company A more centralized. This 
corresponds with the perception of Manager 9 as he explained some people feel that they were 
closer to customers previously and therefore were able to provide value while now there are several 
layers and extremely filtered sales information. The following quote demonstrates how the 
Manager 9 described the consequences of this:  
Based upon that one we should be expected to be able to develop the future success of the business. Not 
the easiest of the tasks. And this pulls down the motivation of all the people. [M9] 
Manager 2 agreed as well and described this is caused by the different speeds of the companies’ 
businesses. She explained that people from company A, it is difficult to do small things quickly as 
they are used to doing big projects patiently while people from company B feel things happen 
slowly. Still, Manager 3 justified that they had used to make decisions locally in company A.  
Manager 6 reported one cultural difference to be different requirements for recruitment. According 
to him, company A has recruited based on assumptions in their department while company B, they 
have had stricter requirements to get recruiting approval. Manager 6 saw company A’s practice as 
problematic since the organization at company A has not thus been effective as they have recruited 
people based on assumptions even if they have not necessarily had anything to do. This is somehow 
incoherent as Manager 6 still claimed that company A has been more systematic and cautious but 
still recruited based on assumptions. However, Manager 6 saw this has changed in a better 
33 
 
direction as nowadays requirements for recruiting are higher. He explained that the company has 
had wide roles and hence has been person dependent. Manager 9 also noted that in company B 
people have had wider roles and responsibilities while in company A people have had expert roles. 
Most of the respondents agreed that most processes and systems have been taken from company 
B. Manager 7 explained that members in their team who came from company A have been required 
to learn the new ways and first some resistance has occurred but after a while, people from 
company A have noticed the new ways are better. Manager 2 saw that both companies have had 
well-functioning procedures but some people who were responsible for them may have changed 
and therefore people have been required to do things for the first time, sometimes without proper 
instructions. She explained that all processes were required to be reassessed which has caused a 
gigantic workload for everyone. 
Manager 9 saw that the companies had different business models and approaches to business. Both 
managers 2 and 3 agreed. Manager 3 described that company A had long projects while company 
B’s business was fast-paced. According to Manager 2, the disparity of businesses has led to 
misunderstandings. Manager 9 described another company working more on processes while the 
other one was more based on products. He argued the current environment is more process-
oriented although several processes are still broken. The following quote illustrates how Manager 
9 described that the adaptation process varies significantly between people: 
People are still adapting and learning. Some are doing that faster than others, some seem to be extremely 
stuck in the past and think that there is still only their way that is the way. [M9] 
Additionally, he suggested that it may be difficult for people who have been extremely tight to 
products and not structured processes, to get on board in the new settings. 
Behavioral norm issues 
According to Jordan (2015), issues related to communication are included in behavioral norm 
issues and communication differs between cultures. 
Several interviewees underlined the importance of communication. A couple of critical comments 
about top management’s communication occurred.  
For quite a long time, we have been kept in darkness about what has happened. And when we have had 
these calls where the purpose is to clarify everything thoroughly, just vague things have been driveled. 
[M7] 
The quote above outlines how Manager 7 criticized that in management information calls, only 
vague information was provided even though the purpose was to clarify everything. Manager 3 
explained that from the employee’s perspective, things always proceed too slowly. As an example, 
34 
 
he claimed that it took a far too long time before the merger was announced before they were told 
what would really happen. Consequently, uncertainty among employees increases. At the same 
time, some people have been satisfied with communication since Manager 5 told several people 
had given positive feedback on communication. Even if communication is part of a culture, the 
issues described above are very common in M&As generally. 
Both managers 2 and 5 stated that one clear cultural difference is that in company A it was easier 
to go and ask questions from the top management due to the lower hierarchy. This is a perfect 
example of what Jordan calls a behavioral norm issue. Manager 5 further described how in the 
current culture more hierarchical lines are obeyed while in company A, they have used to challenge 
and question. She proposed this would possibly be caused by the fact that company A was clearly 
smaller. 
At company A-side, we provided possibilities for personnel to ask things directly from the top 
management and to challenge them, to ask difficult things as well. This wasn’t the situation at company 
B’s side. It is possible that once again, we were so much smaller company that for us it was much easier 
to arrange but this became visible already then, this is how it is. At company B side, people have been 
more obedient. People there have done how they are told to do. And maybe we have had a company A-
side questioning culture, it has been possible to disagree and challenge without losing faces. People 
have been braved to say things in another way. [M5] 
Moreover, Manager 5 mentioned that the culture in company A was more informal. Nevertheless, 
she stated that they still discuss and decide the procedures with their team. Manager 8 agreed and 
explained that they do not need to arrange meetings in the morning where tasks would be 
delegated. However, Manager 1 described that he has said to his team that they have always a 
possibility to challenge prevailing ways, procedures, and culture. Manager 7 claimed hierarchy to 
be low and he felt that it is easy to approach his own manager’s manager.  
Manager 4 felt that willingness to help in general has decreased. He provided an example that he 
has faced several times situations where he would have needed help from someone but people 
from company B have not been willing to help him if the question is not included in their 
responsibilities. He told that in company A, people have at least tried to help to find someone who 
can help if they have not themselves known the answer. This cultural difference is a clear example 
of a behavior norm issue which was outlined by Manager 4 as follows: 
In our organization, we still have, if somebody comes and asks for help and if you don’t know but you 
could guess who could know, just thinking with common sense, then the one who asks is directed in the 
right direction or is helped to find the assistance. But very often after the merger, I have received an 
answer “it is not included in my field, look for somewhere else”. Not any kind of hint of the direction 
35 
 
where to start. This is a significant cultural difference also as previously; I didn’t experience that we 
would have even a possibility to answer like that. [M4] 
Manager 6 claimed that one visible cultural difference he has noticed in how people behave is that 
people from company A do not take ownership. Instead, they have used to go behind others’ backs 
or other organizations.  
Manager 9 explained some people use abbreviations and talk about past projects. He stated this 
disengages people and increases the feeling of exclusion.  
And people who have been in professions for many many years have a lot of memories. And people 
using three-letter acronyms or four-letter acronyms totally lose the new member of the team in these 
discussions, not having any clue. Referring to old projects that have been delivered, you remember what 
we did there. There are all kinds of classical failures to disengage people from the discussions. [M9] 
Conviction issues 
Managers 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 commented on identities and these issues can be interpreted as what 
Jordan (2014) called conviction issues as those are tensions between core perspectives. Manager 
2 argued company A had a technology company identity and company B machine shop company 
identity as the quote below demonstrates: 
Company A has identified itself earlier as a technology company so yes, the identity is still visible. And 
in company B, it has maybe been more distinctive as a machine shop corporation but still international. 
[M2] 
Manager 3 agreed and stated company A has always identified itself as a technology company. He 
claimed both companies have quite strong legacies. As the following quote illustrates, Manager 3 
described that values, procedures, and personnel practices are similar, but the problem is that the 
identities behind the values differ: 
When we start to become closer, suddenly it is noticed that the what kind of values companies have, 
what kind of operating models, personnel practices, what kind of things are valued – those seemed to 
be similar as we both are Finnish companies, successful and sure of own existence. When we start to 
become closer, suddenly it is noticed that the identities behind the values are not necessarily exactly 
similar. There are two different identities that are about to bring together. [M3] 
Manager 3 estimated that people in their unit have quite a strong identity. He explained that now 
they need to learn to look at what the identity is locally in comparison to what the identity is from 
the company’s point of view. He said the contradiction between his own and the company’s 
identity is probably the longest journey everyone needs to grow. He continued by stating that 
people need to accept identity is changing and can be modified which appears in the following 
quotation: 
36 
 
And one can, little by little find own identity at the new company and is enabled to develop the new 
identity of the new company in the framework of the new company as it gradually becomes own, internal 
and one starts to feel like they are part of this company and now I have a chance to impact what the 
company does. It is a growth story. [M3] 
He also justified that the sorrow of losing one's own identity takes time and people have their ways 
of working with it. Little by little it comes from there, but it is a very individual thing. Manager 7 
said he still talks about himself as a company B employee. Manager 9 proposed that identities are 
created based on where people are, where their home offices are as well as according to 
departments. He also noted that people should be allowed to be proud of their history, but everyone 
should always remember that currently, they are working for company X. He added that it is 
honoring and learning from the past and doing better for the future. 
Jordan’s typology was very useful as all the cultural differences as well as other issues mentioned 
by the middle managers could be divided into the different categories proposed by Jordan. Issues 
were identified in all the five categories. The most often reported problematic issues caused by the 
merger fell under the category of position issues (lost career opportunities). Structure issues were 
reported to be caused by both merger (workload) and cultural differences (centralized vs. 
decentralized structure, speed of businesses, business models, and recruitment criteria). 
Additionally, respondents reported several cultural differences related to communication and 
hierarchy which belongs to the behavioral issue- category. 
7.1.2 Strategies for handling the challenges 
The respondents had used a lot of different strategies when handling the problematic situations 
caused by cultural differences and the merger. The most common ways of handling cultural 
differences and challenging situations are presented in Table 1. 
The most often mentioned strategy mentioned by the middle managers was discussion and 
communication as this was mentioned by all the respondents. Discussions were held with 
subordinates, colleagues, and own managers. Managers reported that they had for example 
justified decisions to subordinates and tried to highlight and clarify the common goal and the 
importance of own teams’ work in a bigger picture. Additionally, the managers had increased the 
frequency of meetings and reminded that the previous companies are past now. 
Listening, supporting and empathy were popular strategies as well since five managers mentioned 
those. Four managers told they have handled problematic issues by involving team members and 
together created new ways of working that would be suitable for the new company and team. Four 
respondents mentioned highlighting and being positive has been their strategy. Transparency and 
37 
 
honesty were mentioned by four managers as well. Managers told they tried to be as open as 
possible themselves and as well encouraged their subordinates to be honest and transparent as well. 
Two managers reported that they had paid attention to their own behavior when dealing with 
challenging situations.  
 
Discussion & Communication (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 M6, M7, M8, M9) 
• More team meetings, more communication channels 
• Relieving pressures by discussing and noticing the situation may not be so bad 
• Reminding that companies A and B are past now 
• Discussing and agreeing on shared practices 
• Discussing with own team, manager, and colleagues 
• Justifying decisions 
• Emphasizing and clarifying the common goal and the significance of the team’s work 
in a bigger picture 
Empathy, listening & support (M1, M2, M3, M4, M9) 
• Being present and calm 
• Listening to concerns 
• Holding hands, being a shoulder to cry on 
• Supporting, helping, and coaching colleagues 
• Increasing sense of belonging 
• “We are in the same boat” 
Involve team members and create own new ways (M1, M3, M5, M8) 
• Possibility to create own new procedures on own team 
• Go through what has worked in everyone’s previous company and teams and what not 
and thus agree together team’s new procedures 
Highlight positive things (M1, M2 M3, M8) 
• Observing and highlighting the positive sides 
• Seeing changes as positive challenges and learning experiences 
• Being positive and supportive 
• Underlining the team’s strengths 
Openness & honesty (M3, M1, M4 M7) 
• Being transparent about what is going on, advancing transparency 
• Encouraging people to share their thoughts and concerns 
38 
 
• Telling the truth instead of glorifying 
Own behavior (M2, M3) 
• Not transferring own worries to subordinates 
• Being impartial, fair, and objective 
• Distributing responsibilities as equally as possible 
Table 1. Most common ways of handling the problematic issues caused by cultural differences 
and the merger. 
 
7.2 Exit surveys 
Due to the author’s limited resources and therefore a limited number of interviews, data from exit 
surveys was used to add a complementary perspective. They were used to compare if the current 
middle managers have experienced similar cultural challenges that the exit interview respondents 
have been dissatisfied with and the reasons behind their decisions to leave. The utilized exit 
surveys were responded to by 44 employees who had left the company between July 2021 and 
February 2022 in Finland. Consequently, they had worked in the merged company for a year or 
more and their experiences and opinions of the new organizational culture are valuable for this 
paper. A chart of the results with all exact numbers, questions, and scales can be found in Appendix 
B. 
The survey consisted of questions such as the length of employment, main reasons to leave, 
opinions of management, opportunities for training, learning and development, adequacy of 
provided resources and tools, communication in teams, recognition of achievements, work 
atmosphere, career development opportunities, compensation, work-life balance, leadership 
culture, diversity and inclusion, culture, values, internal communication, safety culture, and 
sustainability. Additionally, there was free space for respondents to describe organizational 
culture, to tell what they would change at their job at the company, and to give any other feedback. 
The exit surveys revealed that clearly, the three most common reasons for leaving the company 
were better offers from another company (mentioned by 18 respondents), lack of career/promotion 
prospects (14), and did not see meaning in one’s work (12). Lack of autonomy, recognition, 
compensation, company culture, and workload were mentioned by six to eight respondents. Less 
than six of 44 respondents mentioned work-life balance, family or personal reasons, lack of 
challenges, training opportunities, unclear job description, company strategy, or relationship with 
39 
 
the immediate manager as reasons to leave. Other reasons mentioned were for instance the need 
for change and new challenges and development opportunities. 
When the answers were compared to what was mentioned in the company’s value and culture 
presentation and their web pages, several observations were made. As mentioned above, lack of 
career or promotion prospects was reported to be one of the main reasons to leave even though 
providing growth opportunities is claimed to be one of the most important aspects of the 
company’s culture. On the other hand, lack of training opportunities was mentioned only three 
times to be among the main reasons to leave and 29 agreed or strongly agreed, 10 rated neutral 
and only 5 disagreed whether relevant training was provided. Hence, this can be said to be aligned 
with how the company wants the culture to be, “providing learning opportunities”. 
Increased bureaucracy 
One respondent stated culture to be “Old fashioned, slow to change”. Some saw the current culture 
to be more bureaucratic than previously. Procedures were stated to be more modern before the 
merger. Current procedures such as applying for access rights were explained to be time-
consuming and the decision-making process and other procedures were experienced to become 
slower. More effectiveness and modern ways of operating were wished for. This is contrary to the 
values of the company as they highlight innovativeness, courage, doing things differently, valuing 
speed, and effective actions.  
Contradictory views on hierarchy 
In the company’s culture and value presentation, hierarchy is stated to be low, down-to-earth, and 
approachable. This was supported as some reported the culture to be improved and less hierarchical 
after the merger. Contrary comments were received as some of the respondents regarded the 
company and leadership to be more hierarchical than previously. 
People and atmosphere – supportive, easy-going, and great colleagues 
The work atmosphere was evaluated to be good or very good by 40 respondents, average by 3, and 
poor according to only one respondent. Results from the question “I felt like a valuable part of my 
team”, none of the respondents disagreed. It was commented that inside the teams everything 
works well. In open comments, colleagues were praised several times. People were described to 
be amazing, excellent, and “reason to stay”. The overall attitude was commented to be good, and 
“things are being done”. Several mentioned people being supportive and always willing to help. 
The environment was described as easy-going and one commented “I also felt that I got to be 
myself”. This corresponds strongly with the company’s values as the work environment was stated 
to be inspiring and energizing. 
40 
 
Collaboration and communication – good within teams, improvements needed 
interdepartmentally 
Some respondents hoped for more collaboration with different stakeholders to break silos and 
enable more fruitful collaboration. Also, more collaboration within a department was hoped and 
one stated there is no teamwork anymore. The vast majority (34 of 44) of respondents evaluated 
communication in teams to be good. This is in line with the company’s values as it emphasizes 
active and open communication with integrity. Internal communication was estimated to be good 
or very good by 28 respondents while ten evaluated it to be average and six poor. Some hoped for 
more communication between specific departments and improvement of communication from top 
management. 
Diverging views on openness 
Many respondents commented about openness and the opinions were diverse. Some felt that 
“critical feedback or questions are not allowed, or at least not encouraged”. This is contrary to the 
company’s values as it is emphasized that issues are solved together, not hidden. Some saw the 
culture as open and felt “it was easy and safe to openly discuss both negative and positive things 
with the people around me”. 
Culture – some changes happened, still in progress 
The culture was estimated to be good by 22, average by 17, and poor by 5 respondents. One 
respondent reported culture has become better. Another respondent described culture changed to 
be very company B-oriented. 
One described culture to be still complicated over a year after the merger. Another respondent 
agreed and stated: “a bit post-merger chaos still”. It was mentioned that the culture is not totally 
integrated yet and is “slow to change” which is not surprising since previous studies show as well 
that cultural integration is a long-lasting and challenging process (Vaara, 2002).  
Values, diversity, safety, and sustainability – overall high level of satisfaction 
The company’s values were determined to be good or very good by 29, average by 13, and poor 
by two respondents. The company stated safety to be extremely significant for them and when the 
safety culture was measured in the exit survey, even 40 of 44 respondents experienced it to be 
good or very good, three average and only one poor. Diversity is emphasized to be part of the 
company’s values as it is stated to be seen as a strength. According to respondents, it is fulfilled 
well as only one estimated it to be poor while 37 good or very good.  
41 
 
Sustainability is also one very crucial value for the company. In the survey, 38 respondents 
evaluated it to be good or very good while five estimated it to be average and only one poor. Still, 
one stated that sustainability does not seem to be the focus so much anymore. 
Additional – managers praised, unclarities, high workload 
Problems with managers were reported by several respondents but also comments like “Own line 
manager is the best ever”, “Supervisor was great, she was easy to talk with, always helpful when 
needed.” One commented to be very satisfied with his manager. 
Due to the merger, some functions were transferred to another country which was reported to 
increase unclarity and complicated working. Unclarities were reported in organizational structure, 
job description, and processes. The workload was mentioned several times as well. Some 
explained that since some people have left the company, the workload has become excessive. IT 
systems were seen as a cause for increased workload as well. One respondent commented that 
despite some silos, the company is still overall a good employer and another one saw the change 
as good and would not change anything.  
Summary 
Taken all together, the clearest improvement areas are to decrease hierarchy, bureaucracy, 
workload, increase the meaning of work, recognition of achievement, and improve career and 
promotion prospects, leadership cultures, such as supporting personal growth and the way of 
management. On the other hand, people were seldom dissatisfied with work-life balance, training 
opportunities, diversity and inclusion, available resources and tools, communication (especially in 
teams), colleagues, work atmosphere, values, sustainability, and safety culture.  
Furthermore, 29 of the 44 respondents answered yes when they were asked if they could consider 
working at the company again in the future. Only one answered no while the rest responded maybe. 
Several respondents mentioned some current dissatisfying factors which have caused their 
decision to leave. Yet, many of them believed that after a while, things will get better, and they 
could consider returning and be happy to recommend the company to their friends.  
The result did not reveal which one of the two former companies’ respondents have worked 
previously but in some of the comments, the names of the companies were mentioned. Based on 
these comments, it seems like employees with a background in company A have experienced the 
new culture to be worse, more bureaucratic than the former one, “company B-oriented” and more 
hierarchical which is inconsistent with the company’s values. The respondents argued that due to 
the merger, the company has become old-fashioned, and that company A’s culture and procedures 
have been more modern. Some of the respondents who mentioned they have previously worked in 
42 
 
company B reported the current culture as better than their previous one. The same kind of 
observation was visible in the results of the survey conducted by the company as the biggest and 
only apparent difference between companies was their perception of whether their former culture 
was more structured or flexible. Organizational members of company A estimated their 
organizational culture to be more flexible while company B evaluated its culture to be more 
structured. 
However, any generalization must be done with caution since the background of the respondents 
was not visible in all the answers, and the sample size is relatively small, but the results still gave 
some trends and something to which the interview results could be compared. 
It is crucial to keep in mind that the respondents were people who had decided to leave the 
company and thus can be assumed that they represented more negative opinions than the average 
current organizational members. Some of the responses have been written already last summer and 
by now, even big changes can have happened. Furthermore, as stated in several studies, it is not 
uncommon that after less than two years of the merger, the integration is still incomplete and 
consequently impacts the opinions of people. 
 
7.3 Exit surveys compared to interview results 
When empirical findings were compared with exit survey results, both consistencies and 
inconsistencies were revealed. In both exit surveys and interviews, the dominant perception was 
that the new culture is company B oriented, procedures are inherited from company B, and more 
changes have been targeted to people from company A. 
In the exit survey, the most common reason to leave was a better offer from somewhere else, lack 
of recognition, and lack of development opportunities. This is partly in line with interview results 
as several managers claimed that after the merger, the available career opportunities and people 
have planned to achieve do not exist anymore. On the other hand, several managers mentioned 
there are development opportunities for everyone. Still, lack of recognition was not mentioned in 
manager interviews and only a few managers mentioned something that could be combined to 
“better offer from another company”, even though there is no one clear interpretation for this.  
On the other hand, eight of 44 exit survey respondents claimed workload to be a reason for them 
to leave the company, and generally, people were relatively satisfied with work-life balance while 
almost every middle manager mentioned increased workload due to the merger. Another issue that 
43 
 
was emphasized significantly more during the interviews was unclarity related to roles, structures, 
processes, and the company’s future. 
Both survey and interview respondents had diverse opinions of hierarchy, bureaucracy, openness, 
communication, and relation with their managers. Generally, managers were less satisfied with 
communication than exit survey respondents while exit survey respondents experienced culture to 
be more hierarchical than interviewed managers. Exit survey respondents were less satisfied with 
leadership cultures than middle managers. Moreover, managers gave more critical comments 
about openness than exit survey respondents. Both respondent groups agreed that there is no lack 
of challenges or training.  
However, it is important to keep in mind that the same questions were not asked from the middle 
managers as presented in the exit survey, and thus even if some matters did not appear in manager 
interviews, it cannot be directly argued that they disagree. 
 
 
 
  
44 
 
8. Discussion 
In this chapter, the results of the interviews will be compared to previous studies, and both 
consistencies and inconsistencies will be identified. The chapter included subtitles sub-cultures, 
identities, and conflicts. 
 
Angwin & Vaara (2005) claim that resistance will emerge when the company tries to realize the 
synergies. Still, the case company reached the synergy targets even before the planned schedule. 
Larsson & Finkelstein (1999) describe that this means organizational integration is reached which 
instead is the most important reason explaining the synergy realization. As Larsson & Finkelstein 
(1999) state, for companies with complementary operations, the probability of success is higher 
and less resistance to change will emerge in comparison to companies with similar operations. It 
could be argued that this applied in this case study as the companies had complementary operations 
and only a couple of respondents mentioned resistance. This study goes well in hand with Pitts 
(1976) findings as he claims that resistance to structural changes reduces the speed of achieving 
operational synergies. 
According to Lubatkin (1983), different management styles and compensation systems would 
reduce the speed of integration. Only one respondent mentioned differences in management styles 
and explained that company B has a strong tradition of leading with numbers. However, he stated 
that this has been suitable for the company as its business has been stable and predictable. He 
argued that for company B numbers have provided a plausible picture of the future while in 
company A the business is more fluctuating and thus, they need to look more forward. 
Compensation systems were mentioned only by one respondent. The respondent described that the 
companies have had different practices on how people are rewarded when they have served the 
company for decades. However, the empirical findings indicated that in the big picture, resistance 
was not strong since only a minority of the respondents mentioned it and the synergies were 
reached so fast (Teerikangas & Very, 2006). Nevertheless, Teerikangas & Very (2006) propose 
that the feelings of people may vary during the process. Several managers said that their thoughts 
have changed. For example, Manager 7 explained that in the beginning, they were clearly separate 
and when some things needed to be solved, people searched for some person who was from old 
company B but now they are exactly alike colleagues and backgrounds are not so apparent 
anymore. Manager 4 described that now it is much easier to open discussions since he already 
knows the people. He further continued by describing that now as some time has passed since the 
merger, immediate confrontations do not emerge between ex-company A and B backgrounds.  
45 
 
When comparing the interview results with Amiri’s (2017) study of M&As in Finland, one clear 
difference can be found. In Amiri’s study, 50% of respondents mentioned personnel reductions 
while in this study, only two respondents mentioned reductions. On the other hand, this study 
corresponds with Amiri’s findings as most of the respondents stressed the importance of 
communication and as highlighted by Amiri (2017), the openness of communication was stressed 
strongly. 
Sub-cultures 
Erkkilä (2010) claims that the bigger the company is the more subcultures exist. Sathe (1985) 
discovered that subcultures can exist among occupational lines, geographical locations, and 
product lines, and Bueno, Bowditch & Lewis (1985) claimed it is common that people identify 
themselves with their previous team even for a long time. Moreover, Olie (1994) argues that the 
previous organizational identities can be seen for a long time after the creation of new joint culture 
has started.  This study supports all these previous studies as subcultures were found in different 
departments, locations, and teams. Respondents explained what kind of atmosphere they have in 
their team and one respondent described the culture in their department as a “cowboy atmosphere” 
and “entrepreneurial”. The same respondent described that against the sizes of the previous 
companies, he felt that they have had ”a small company atmosphere” in their department. One 
interviewee mentioned how they have a tight work community, and they are used to sharing 
resources in their location according to whose schedule is the tightest. Some respondents claimed 
the company’s hierarchy to be high while some respondents felt it is easy to approach their own 
manager’s manager. This can be interpreted to represent their subculture. Moreover, one manager 
admitted they have different kinds of bubbles which can be interpreted as a subculture. 
Identities 
As Zaheer, Schomake & Genc (2003) argue, organizational identity issues are present in most 
mergers. Even though respondents were not directly asked about their identity, several 
interviewees commented on it. Schweiger, Csiszar & Napier (1993) differentiate three terms for 
combining units: assimilation, novation, and integration. Assimilation was the most often 
emergent category although some comments referring to all the alternatives occurred. 
Experiences of 7 managers can be interpreted as assimilation as they described that more changes 
have been targeted toward company A people and company B has dominated. Some of them stated 
that internal power relationships are still visible even if the fusion was called a merger and that in 
company A people feel that they were acquired and that after harmonization, everything has 
changed in a more negative direction and people from company A feel that they have remained in 
46 
 
a weaker position. Several managers saw that this is because company B was clearly bigger. On 
the other hand, some managers mentioned that some practices such as shorter working hours and 
top management information sessions were inherited from company A. 
Experiences of a few managers can be interpreted as novation as they described that the best of 
both cultures and practices were chosen. Few respondents reported they still identify themselves 
with their former company which can be interpreted as what Schweiger, Csiszar & Napier (1993) 
call structural integration. Also, Buono, Bowitch & Lewis (1985) claim that it is common that 
people identify themselves with the previous team and according to Olie (1994), original identities 
can be visible even for a long time after an official merger. The findings of this study go well in 
hand with these previous studies as some respondents argued people in some certain locations 
would identify themselves with the previous company while some respondents admitted they still 
talk about themselves as a member of either previous company. Respondents explained that both 
companies have quite a strong legacy and thus many people still identify themselves with the 
previous company. 
Conflicts 
As Bingöl (2017) argues, experiences of loss of status may cause conflicts. Manager 4 justified 
that few individuals have left the company since their responsibilities were reduced which can be 
interpreted as a loss of status. Manager 3 noted that people, himself included, have had plans for 
future career development but due to the merger, the roles do not exist anymore. Therefore, people 
are required to consider whether they still want to continue working in the company or if they want 
to strive to reach these positions in other companies. This can be as well interpreted as a loss of 
status. On the other hand, both Managers 4 and 5 stated that due to the bigger company size, there 
are development opportunities for everyone. Bingöl (2017) mentions experiences of inequality as 
a cause of conflict. This was not mentioned by managers except Manager 9 highlighted the 
importance of fair treatment, but he did not mention any conflicts related to it.  
Corkindale (2007) suggests unclear organizational structures as a cause of conflict and Piha (2017) 
adds unclear roles and low trust. Piha (2017) states these would lead to behavior where one's own 
interest is prioritized, and boundaries are highlighted. The experiences of managers supported 
these studies as managers claimed that both their own as well as others’ roles are unclear. Managers 
also reported that silos emerge and very easily people start looking only at their results and “own 
navel”. Additionally, responsibilities, structures, and the company’s future were argued to be 
unclear. What Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal (1964) call role ambiguity emerged as 
well in several respondents’ answers and as the authors stated, role ambiguity caused role conflict, 
anxiety, and stress to the managers. It was as well claimed that trust is low because some changes 
47 
 
happen all the time and for many people, change always means cutting costs and losing jobs. On 
the other hand, it was as well described that the merger has grown the muscles of the business, 
carrying capacity, and risk tolerance and this has increased the trust toward the future as well. 
Moreover, it was questioned whether the company has succeeded in building trust in the new 
company. It was argued that the company still must work to really build the basic trust element 
that people will trust each other regardless of their backgrounds and that there are locations where 
there has been a dramatic decrease in headcounts and thus the trust is not at the top at those 
locations. 
Overall, managers did not report a lot of huge and serious conflicts even though some of them 
admitted that there have been situations where no common tone could be found. Some managers 
compared this merger to their previous experiences and stated that they could have had extremely 
much more conflict situations. Some of the respondents proposed that the cultures have eventually 
been quite similar and therefore a lot of significant conflicts have not emerged. This is in line with 
Bingöl (2017) who claims that in vertical mergers, the risk of intergroup conflicts is lower in 
comparison to horizontal ones. Bingöl (2017) concluded that loss in human capital may appear 
even if financial targets were achieved. As stated in chapter 3.2, turnover synergy was achieved 
even almost a year before it was expected and even if any statistics of a significant increase in 
resignation were not visible, several respondents mentioned the increased number of resignations. 
However, the reason for resignations was reported to be mostly increased workload and unclarities 
rather than cultural differences. Several managers discussed the difficulties in recruiting new 
substitutive talents and consequently, their team members have been required to take care of the 
tasks of the resigned person even if they already had an extensive workload. Other concerns were 
loss of unique knowledge and the huge recruiting and familiarization costs caused by resignations. 
Can be assumed that company A was more worried about losing unique knowledge as the 
respondents described company A had very specific roles and therefore people have had unique 
knowledge.  
 
 
  
48 
 
9. Conclusion 
The purpose  of this study was to investigate middle managers’ experiences of organizational 
cultural differences after a merger, to examine what kind of problematic consequences the 
differences have caused and how the middle managers handled the challenging situation. 
Additionally, the aim was to figure out whether the experiences differed between managers with 
different company backgrounds. This chapter will present the conclusion by answering the 
research questions. Moreover, the results will be compared to what the company states, and 
managers’ perception of shared culture as well as their proposals on how achieving a joint culture 
could be accelerated, will be described.  
 
Cultural differences experienced by the respondents 
Despite the pre-merger culture survey indicated previous cultures to be extremely similar, all the 
respondents had observed several differences. Differences were experienced in all of Jordan’s 
conflict potential themes. Problematic cultural differences were related to hierarchy, benefits, 
speed of businesses and different business models, requirements for recruiting, broadness of job 
descriptions, behavior such as taking ownership and willingness to help. Moreover, some of the 
respondents reported differences related to the formality of cultures, practices in borrowing 
resources, and easiness to approach and even challenge top management. However, most of the 
above-mentioned cultural differences were mentioned only by one or two respondents. 
Other differences 
In addition to cultural differences, managers mentioned several problematic issues caused by the 
merger such as increased workload, too slow and unclear communication, unharmonized practices 
and lost career opportunities. Most of the respondents commented on different organizational 
identities as well which is not surprising because as claimed in previous studies, it is very common 
that organizational identity issues are present in M&A contexts (Zaheer, Schomake & Genc, 2003). 
Previous identities were seen as strong and still remaining. It was stated that people identify 
themselves with previous companies as well as based on their locations and departments. In line 
with previous studies, the general opinion was that identity is hard to change (Brunninge, 2005; 
Daniel & Metcalf, 2001). 
Problematic consequences caused by the cultural differences and the merger 
Respondents mentioned several problematic consequences of cultural differences. The disparity 
of businesses has led to misunderstandings and poor, inadequate, and too slow communication has 
led to unclarity and uncertainty. Other problematic consequences of cultural differences were 
49 
 
deteriorated customer service, decreased motivation, ineffective recruitments, misunderstandings, 
and feelings of injustice. 
In addition to problematic consequences caused by the cultural differences, the most often 
mentioned problematic issues caused by the merger were unclarity and uncertainty. Several 
managers argued there is unclarity related to roles, responsibilities, expectations, procedures, 
systems, structures, and the future of the company. This has led to uncertainty. Moreover, several 
managers claimed that positions that people have planned to achieve do not exist anymore and this 
has caused uncertainty and dissatisfaction as well. Uncertainty has eventually caused resignations. 
Therefore, the workload has increased even more for the rest of the teams, the company has lost 
possibly unique knowledge, and recruiting substitutive personnel and introducing them takes time 
and causes expenses for the company.  
Strategies for handling the issues 
The most common ways of handling challenging situations were communication, discussion, 
support, involving people, and creating own procedures. Managers also emphasized the 
importance of highlighting positive things and being open, honest, and empathic.  
Differences between backgrounds 
The findings indicate that generally, the managers did not have significantly contradictory 
opinions. The mutual understanding, despite the background of the managers, was that company 
B has been more dominant, changes have been targeted most toward company A employees, more 
procedures, practices, and systems have been inherited from company B and hence people from 
company A have been required to learn them. Several respondents guessed this was since company 
B was significantly bigger than company A. However, managers from company A admitted that 
some practices such as top management information sessions and better rewards for long 
employment were inherited from company A. Moreover, weekly working hours have decreased 
from 8 to 7,5 hours.  
Some changes in managers’ experiences were visible depending on what kind of tasks they worked 
with. Managers working with support functions such as HR and communication saw that the most 
challenging times, the biggest cultural differences, and the highest workload is behind while 
managers working with the business side claimed that especially workload is still high, even 
increasing constantly. One exception for this generalization was the IT department since both 
respondents from other departments as well as a manager working with IT told that workload is 
particularly high all the time. 
50 
 
None of the managers who came from company A experienced that one shared culture exists while 
one from company B and one manager who joined the company after the merger felt so. 
Interestingly, the experiences of two managers who have joined the company after the merger 
differed significantly as the one had mostly positive experiences and reported just a few differences 
and challenges while another one was clearly more critical and saw a lot of significant challenges, 
unclarities, dysfunctional procedures, and deficiencies. As mentioned in chapter 6.3. (Selection of 
respondents), respondents were selected to represent different locations as well. The assumption 
was that the managers working in locations where both companies had already previously operated 
and thus more cultural clashes would have happened there. The study mostly confirmed this as the 
two managers who stated one shared culture already exists are located in a city where only one of 
the companies has previously operated. However, in that location, one more manager was 
interviewed but he as well as the other six managers disagreed.  
Comparing results with what the company states 
When the exit survey and interview responses are compared to what the company claims, quite 
many contradictions exist. Managers did not fully agree with the company about the possibilities 
of developing their careers and the company would provide learning and growth opportunities for 
everyone. Dissatisfaction related to career prospects was even strongly apparent in exit survey 
responses as it was one of the three most common causes for people to reassign. Claims against 
the possibility to provide proactive service culture and always put customers in the center emerged 
as well. This is contradictory to the company’s values and therefore can be interpreted as 
organizational hypocrisy (Cho, Laine, Roberts & Rodrigue, 2015; Vaara, 2003) and value clash. 
The managers also criticized that even if the company underlined active and open communication, 
the reality is not fully aligned. Further, the managers and exit survey respondents had different 
experiences of whether the hierarchy is low as stated by the company. 
Perceptions of shared culture and ways of accelerating achieving it 
Even if the aim of the thesis was not to investigate whether one shared organizational culture exists 
or how it could be achieved, these topics were discussed with respondents since the case company 
was interested in managers’ perceptions. Respondents gave different answers when they were 
asked whether they perceive one joint culture exists and if not, how much time it would take to 
achieve it, and what concrete actions would accelerate achieving it. As mentioned in the conclusion 
chapter, only two respondents stated that one shared culture already exists while other respondents 
had contradictory opinions. One respondent claimed a new generation is needed until the company 
would be one. One manager stated the culture is developing but he does not think there is any yet. 
Some guessed it would take a couple of years. One manager argued that if the company does 
51 
 
nothing, it will take 10 years to have a shared culture. Most of these opinions confirm previous 
findings as, for instance, Vaara (2002) claims organizational integration processes are long-lasting, 
lasting from a couple of months to several years (Erkkilä, 2001), even 5-12 years (Teerikangas & 
Joseph, 2012) and it may take up to 5 years until managers may fully focus on the core business 
(Yu, Engleman & Van de Ven (2005).  
Vaara (2002) also describes integration processes to be burdensome which was apparent in several 
responses as well. One manager suggested that due to all uncertainty, referring to the possible 
divestment of one business unit, one culture is not achieved yet. Interestingly, a couple of managers 
questioned whether one shared culture should even exist. 
In sum, most respondents felt that there is still a lot of work to do to achieve a joint company 
culture and it would take several years. Several respondents proposed the best ways of accelerating 
achieving the shared culture would be to meet other people physically, be together, and thus get to 
know each other. These confirm the findings of Larsson & Lubatkin (2001), Teerikangas (2018), 
and Buono, Bowditch and Lewis (1985) who propose that the more people gain shared experiences 
the faster they will start identifying themselves with the new culture. Expectedly, many 
respondents mentioned that the pandemic has delayed the process. 
Overall, the study supported previous studies as the respondents agreed that the process is long-
lasting and challenging. However, many respondents stated that backgrounds are not anymore as 
often apparent as earlier and several respondents proposed that shared culture can be achieved by 
doing “simple things” such as spending time together. This corresponds as well with previous 
studies since for example Cox Jr (1991), Larsson & Lubatkin (2001), and Teerikangas (2018) 
claim that socialization accelerates cultural integration. 
Even though managers had experienced several cultural differences and even saw some of them 
as problematic, they barely mentioned any serious and difficult conflict situations. They said that 
most often they had succeeded in solving cultural clashes by discussing. This corresponds with 
Bingöl (2017) since he claims that the risk of intergroup conflict is lower in horizontal mergers in 
comparison to vertical and with Larsson & Finkelstein (1999) as they propose that if merging 
companies have complementary operations, the success rate would be higher. Generally, managers 
did not see things in black and white, instead, they saw both advantages and disadvantages in both 
old cultures. They were aware that changing culture is not easy or quick and that almost everything 
costs. Additionally, several respondents highlighted that they know everybody does not see the 
situation similarly because changes have not been targeted toward everyone evenly. 
 
52 
 
10. Contributions of this study and 
future research 
This chapter will present the contributions of this study and at the end of this chapter, 
recommendations for future research will be presented.  
 
As mentioned previously, there is a lack of scientific application of conflict theories in the M&A 
context since organizational cultural theories are mainly applied and the limitations are omitted. 
This study therefore contributes to the limited research on using conflict theory in the M&A 
context as the findings of the study provided a clear indicator that by applying conflict theory it is 
possible to create new valuable knowledge of organizational cultural differences in the context of 
M&A. In addition, this study further contributes to the lack of studies including both merging 
parties’ opinions as managers from both previous companies were interviewed instead of only one 
party as in most of the previous studies. Moreover, this study differs from previous similar studies 
as the examined merger occurred during the global pandemic. Supplementary to the above-
mentioned contributions, this study adds on to relatively few domestic M&A studies in Finland. 
Jordan’s conflict theory helped to analyze the cultural differences and other problematic issues 
experienced by middle managers. As the company’s cultural material and exit survey results were 
used as secondary data, it was possible to compare interview results with these previous results 
and therefore make comparisons and analysis based on more comprehensive material and 
including experiences of a wider respondent group. Further, this enabled to see how general 
opinions have changed. Moreover, this enabled a comparison of their experiences. 
This studied merger was conducted mostly remotely due to the global pandemic and even if a 
covid pandemic is almost over, most probably remote work will continue widely (Economic 
Times, 2022; Dans, 2020). Thus, it can be assumed that the finding of this study will contribute 
generally to companies planning M&As. 
For the case company, the findings will be useful as they provided feedback, insights, and concrete 
suggestions on what should be done to achieve one shared organizational culture. The case 
company may utilize these findings as well when planning and implementing possible future 
M&A. 
As presented in previous chapters, this study supported most previous studies which increases the 
trustworthiness of this paper. Even if the findings were not significantly different in comparison 
to previous studies, they provided a more in-depth understanding of which differences managers 
53 
 
perceived as problematic and which strategies they perceived as effective when dealing with the 
cultural clashes. The applied strategies were not similar as suggested in previous theories. 
Therefore, in the future, it would be interesting to test whether managers in other companies, fields, 
and countries have handled the challenges caused by cultural differences with the strategies 
mentioned in this study. The same questions could be asked right after the merger and again for 
instance two and five years later to see. Since this study included a limited number of respondents, 
a higher number of participants would increase the generalizability. The case company could 
create a survey based on the findings of this study to test whether other middle managers in Finland 
as well as in other countries have similar experiences and to see if more different experiences 
appear between managers depending on their background or whether people in different countries 
have overall faced more serious and challenging conflicts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
54 
 
Reference list 
 
Adams, W.C. (2015) Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. Wholey, J.S., Harty, H.P. and 
Newcomer, K.E., Eds., Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 
492-505. 
 
Alaranta, M. (2008). "This has been quite some chaos": Integrating information systems after a 
merger: a case study. Turku School of Economics. 
 
Angwin, D., Gomes, E., Tarba, S. & Weber, Y. (2013). "Critical Success Factors through the 
Mergers and Acquisitions Process: Revealing Pre- and Post-M&A Connections for Improved 
Performance." Thunderbird International Business Review 55.1 (2013): 13-35. Web. 
  
Angwin, D., & Vaara, E. (2005). Introduction to the Special Issue. 'Connectivity' in Merging 
Organizations: Beyond Traditional Cultural Perspectives. Organization Studies, 26(10), 1445-
1453. 
  
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is Organizational Change Related to Workplace 
Bullying? Role Conflict and Job Insecurity as Mediators. Economic and Industrial 
Democracy, 30(3), 348-371. 
  
Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: creating change 
intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14, 69–8. 
  
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager 
Sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.  
  
Barmeyer, C., & Mayrhofer, U. (2008). The contribution of intercultural management to the 
success of international mergers and acquisitions: An analysis of the EADS group. International 
Business Review, 17(1), 28-38. 
  
Bergström, O. (2021). Workshop II Research design. Workshop material 2021-12-01. University 
of Gothenburg.   
 
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. Acculturation: Theory, models and 
some new findings, 9-25. 
   
Bingöl, H. B. (2017). Conflict Management Strategies in Mergers and Acquisitions: A 
Comparative Case Study of Industry-specific Human Diligence. İletiş-im, Galatasaray University 
Journal of Communication, 26, 203-245. 
  
Brunninge, O. (2005). Organisational self-understanding and the strategy process: Strategy 
dynamics in Scania and Handelsbanken. Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School, 
Jönköping University. 
55 
 
 
Bryant, M. & Stensaker, I. (2011). The Competing Roles of Middle Management: Negotiated 
Order In the Context of Change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 353-373. 
  
Buono, A., Bowditch, J., & Lewis, J. (1985). When Cultures Collide: The Anatomy of a 
Merger. Human Relations (New York), 38(5), 477-500. 
  
Dudovskiy, J. (2021). Purposive sampling. Retrieved 2021-12-22 from: 
https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/purposive-sampling/ 
  
Carleton, R.J. (1997). Cultural due diligence. Training, Vol. 34(11), 67-8. 
  
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1993). B The Role of Culture Compatibility in Successful 
Organizational Marriage. The Academy of Management Executive (1993), 7(2), 57-70. 
  
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative 
analysis (Introducing qualitative methods). Sage. 
   
Chatterjee, S., Lubatkin, M., Schweiger, D., & Weber, Y. (1992). Cultural differences and 
shareholder value in related mergers: Linking equity and human capital. Strategic Management 
Journal, 13(5), 319-334. 
  
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, 
organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 
78-94.  
  
Corkindale, G. (2007). How to manage conflicts? Harvard Business Review, 15 December 2007. 
Retrieved 18-03-2022 from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/how-to-manage-conflict 
  
Cox Jr, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(2), 
34-47. In Laakso, M. (2020). Kulttuurierojen aiheuttamat konfliktit organisaatioiden 
työryhmissä. Aalto University.  
  
Dahler-Larsen, P. (1997). Organizational identity as a “crowded-category”: A case of multiple 
and quickly shifting “we” typifications. In Sackmann, S. (1997). Cultural complexity in 
organizations: Inherent contrasts and contradictions. London: Sage. 
  
Daniel, T., & Metcalf, G. (2001). The management of people in mergers and acquisitions. 
Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books. 
 
Dans, E. (2020). Could 2021 Be The Year Remote Working Become The New Normal? Forbes, 
30 December 2020. Retrieved 2022-05-07 from: 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2021/12/30/could-2021-be-the-year-remote-working-
becomes-the-newnormal/?sh=192a026d680b 
56 
 
  
De Noble, A., Gustafson, L., & Hergert, M. (1988). Planning for post-merger integration—eight 
lessons for merger success. Long Range Planning, 21(4), 82-85. 
  
Denscombe, M. (2016). The good research guide for small scale social research projects. 
Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.  
  
Deshpandé, R. & Farley, J.U. (1998). Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and 
Synthesis. Journal of Market-Focused Management 2, 213–232. 
   
Economic Times. (2022). Remote working new normal; 82% employees prefer working from 
home: Study. 29 January 2022. Retrieved 2022-05-05 from: 
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/remote-working-new-normal-82-employees-prefer-
working-from-home-study/articleshow/89201519.cms 
 
Enkvist, S. (2018). Ostettujen yritysten integraatio ostavaan organisaatioon – Case Brvida 
Finland Oy. LUT University. 
  
Erkkilä, K. (2001). Haltuunoton ja yhdistämisen haasteet: Integraatio yrityskaupassa. Wsoy.  
  
Erämetsä, T. (2003). Myönteinen muutos. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. 
  
Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. (1999). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Vastapaino.  
  
Falberg, F. (2019). Post-merger conflict – An explorative perspective on the application of 
conflict theories in merger analysis. University of Gothenburg. 
 
Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict 
in Strategic Renewal. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154-177. 
  
Gioia, D., & Thomas, J. (1996). Identity, Image, and Issue Interpretation: Sensemaking During 
Strategic Change in Academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370-403. 
  
Hakonen, M., Lipponen, J., Kaltiainen, J. & Kupiainen O. (2015). Fuusiot henkilöstön 
näkökulmasta. Opas onnistuneeseen fuusioon ja Case Helsingin sosiaalia- ja terveysvirasto. 
Publication of Social Sciences, (17). University of Helsinki. 
 
Hartline, M., & Ferrell, O. (1996). The management of customer-contact service employees: An 
empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 52-70. 
  
Haspeslagh, P. & Jemison, D. (1991). Managing acquisitions: creating value through corporate 
renewal. New York: The Free Press. 
 
57 
 
Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and 
image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 356-365. 
  
Hayes, A. (2021). Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions. Investopedia, 31 December 2021. 
Retrieved 2022-02-03 from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mergersandacquisitions.asp 
  
Hofstede, G.H. (1991), Culture and Organisation: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London. 
   
Jemison, D., & Sitkin, S. (1986). Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective. The Academy 
of Management Review, 11(1), 145-163. 
  
Jordan, T. (2013). Konfliktkunskapen ABC, version 2, Institutionen för sociologi och 
arbetsvetenskap, Göteborgs universitet.  
  
Jordan. T. (2014). Inventory of the conflict potential of the workplace: Themes that need skillful 
management. Partsrådet. 
 
Jordan, T. (2015). Konflikthantering i arbetslivet: förstå, hantera, förebygg. (1. uppl.) Malmö: 
Gleerups Utbildning. 
   
Järvinen, P. (2001). Onnistu esimiehenä. Helsinki: WSOY. 
 
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 
(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley. 
  
Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: A 
qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 195-205. 
  
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press. 
  
Krishnan, H., Miller, A., & Judge, W. (1997). Diversification and top management team 
complementarity: Is performance improved by merging similar or dissimilar teams? Strategic 
Management Journal, 18(5), 361-374. 
  
Laakso, M. (2020). Kulttuurierojen aiheuttamat konfliktit organisaatioiden työryhmissä. Aalto 
University. 
  
Larsson, R., & Lubatkin, M. (2001). Achieving Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions: An 
International Case Survey. Human Relations (New York), 54(12), 1573-1607. 
  
Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating Strategic, Organizational, and Human 
Resource Perspectives on Mergers and Acquisitions: A Case Survey of Synergy 
Realization. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 10(1), 1-26. 
  
58 
 
Lodorfos, G., & Boateng, A. (2006). The role of culture in the merger and acquisition 
process. Management Decision, 44(10), 1405-1421.  
 
Lu, V., Plewa, C., & Ho, J. (2016). Managing governmental business relationships: The impact 
of organisational culture difference and compatibility. Australasian Marketing Journal, 24(1), 
93-100. 
  
Lubatkin, M. (1983) Merger and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of 
Management Review, 8, 218-225. 
  
Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. (2011). Toward a perspective of cultural friction in international 
business. Journal of International Management, 17(1), 1-14. 
   
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater. Journal of Organizational 
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. 
  
Martin, J. (1983). The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational Stories. Administrative Science 
Quarterly, 28(3), 438-453. 
  
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain (Foundations for organizational 
science). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. 
 
McGrath, M. (2011). Practical M & A Execution and Integration: A Step by Step Guide To 
Successful Strategy, Risk and Integration Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 
  
Menon, A., Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1997). Product quality: Impact of interdepartmental 
interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 187-200 
  
Miller, N.S. & Brewer, M.B. (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. 
Orlando: Academic Press.  
  
Mueller, C., & Price, J. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of 
voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3), 321-335. 
  
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. (1988). Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions. The 
Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 79-90. 
  
Olie, R. (1994). Shades of Culture and Institutions-in International Mergers. Organization 
Studies, 15(3), 381-405 
  
Oliver, R., & Anderson, E. (1994). An Empirical Test of the Consequences of Behavior- and 
Outcome-Based Sales Control Systems. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 53. 
  
59 
 
Ojasalo, K., Moilanen, T. & Ritalahti, J. (2015). Kehittämistyön menetelmät: Uudenlaista 
osaamista liiketoimintaan. 3-4. Sanoma Pro Oy. 
  
Peters, T. (1980). Management systems: The language of organizational character and 
competence. Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 3-26. 
  
Piha, K. (2017). Konflikti päivässä - kulttuuri ratkaisee yrityksen kohtalon. Alma Talent. 
  
Pitts, R. A. (1976) Diversification strategies and organizational policies of large diversified 
firms. Journal of Economics and Business, 28, 181-188. 
  
Porter, M. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business 
Review, 65(3), 43. 
   
Ravenscraft, D., & Scherer, F. (1989). The profitability of mergers. International Journal of 
Industrial Organization, 7(1), 101-116. 
  
Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-Practices of Strategic Sensemaking and Sensegiving:  How Middle  
Managers Interpret and Sell Change Every Day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7): 1414– 
1441. 
 
Saaranen-Kauppinen, A. & Puusniekka, A. (2006). KvaliMOTV - Menetelmäopetuksen 
tietovaranto. Tampere: Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto. Retrieved 2022-02-08 from: 
http://www.fsd.uta.fi/menetelmaopetusthe   
  
Salter, M., & Weinhold, W. (1979). Diversification through acquisition: Strategies for creating 
economic value. New York: Free P. 
  
Sarala, R., Vaara, E., & Junni, P. (2019). Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: 
New avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions 
(M&As). Journal of World Business: JWB, 54(4), 307-321. 
  
Sathe, V. (1985) Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Irwin.  
  
  
Schraeder, M., & Self, D. (2003). Enhancing the success of mergers and acquisitions: An 
organizational culture perspective. Management Decision, 41(5), 511-522. 
  
Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business 
strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30-48. 
  
Schweiger, D., & Denisi, A. (1991). Communication with Employees following a Merger: A 
Longitudinal Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135. 
  
60 
 
Schweiger, D., Csiszar, E., & Napier, N. (1993). Implementing international mergers and 
acquisitions. Human Resource Planning, 16(1), 53. 
 
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and 
measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), 1-11. 
  
Scott, S., & Lane, V. (2000). A Stakeholder Approach to Organizational Identity. The Academy 
of Management Review, 25(1), 43-62. 
 
Seth, S. (2021). Top Reasons Why M&A Deals Fail. Retrieved 2022-05-04 from: 
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/111014/top-reasons-why-ma-deals-fail.asp 
  
Shrivastava, P. (1986). Post-merger integration. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 
65-76. 
  
Statista. (2022). Value of M&A deals globally 2010-2021. Retrieved 2022-05-04 from: 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267369/volume-of-mergers-and-acquisitions-worldwide/ 
 
Tajfel, H & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W.G. & 
Worchel, S. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.  
  
Tylor, E. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, 
religion, art, and custom. England: J. Murray, 1871. 
  
Teerikangas, S. (2008). Integraation johtaminen: Kulttuuriset voimat yrityskaupassa. Helsinki, 
WsoyPro. 
  
Teerikangas, S. (2018). Integraatio – People side of change. Johtaminen integraatiovaiheen 
jälkeen. 19-03-2018. Retrieved 06-01-2022 from: 
https://dreambroker.com/channel/icydupcq/qt7clcut  
 
Teerikangas, S., & Joseph, R. (2012). Post-Deal Integration. In The Handbook of Mergers and 
Acquisitions (pp. The Handbook of Mergers and Acquisitions, 2012-06-07). Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 
  
Teerikangas, S. and Very, P. (2006). "The Culture-Performance Relationship in M&A: From 
Yes/No to How." British Journal of Management 17.S1 S31-48. Web. 
  
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of 
Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19-28. 
  
Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. (2018). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Vantaa: 
Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi.  
  
61 
 
Vaara, E. (1999). Cultural differences and postmerger problems: Misconceptions and cognitive 
simplifications. Nordic Organization Studies, 1 (2), 59-88. 
  
Vaara, E. (2000). Constructions of Cultural Differences in Post-Merger Change Processes: A 
Sensemaking Perspective on Finnish-Swedish Cases. Management (Paris, France: 1998), 3(3), 
81. 
  
Vaara, E. (2002). On the Discursive Construction of Success/Failure in Narratives of Post-
Merger Integration. Organization Studies, 23(2), 211-248. 
  
Vaara, E. (2003). Post-acquisition Integration as Sensemaking: Glimpses of Ambiguity, 
Confusion, Hypocrisy, and Politicization. Journal of Management studies. 40(4), 859-89.  
  
Valentino, C. (2004). The role of middle managers in the transmission and integration of 
organizational culture. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49(6), 393-404. 
  
Waldman, A. & Javidan M. (2009). Alternative forms of charismatic leadership in the integration 
of mergers and acquisitions. Oxford: Elsevier Inc. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2), 130.142. 
  
Walter, G. A. (1985). Culture collisions in mergers and acquisitions. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, 
M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture. 301–314). Sage 
Publications, Inc. 
 
Van den Berg, P., & Wilderom, C. (2004). Defining, Measuring, and Comparing Organisational 
Cultures. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 570-582. 
  
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate Cultural Fit and Performance in Mergers and Acquisitions. Human 
Relations (New York), 49(9), 1181-1202. 
 
Weber, Y., Rachman-Moore, D., & Tarba, S. (2012). HR practices during post-merger conflict 
and merger performance. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM, 12(1), 73-
99. 
 
Weber, Y., Shenkar, O., & Raveh, A. (1996). National and Corporate Cultural Fit in 
Mergers/Acquisitions: An Exploratory Study. Management Science, 42(8), 1215-1227. 
 
Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousands Oaks. CA: Sage 
Publishing. 
  
Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M., & Genc, M. (2003). Identity Versus Culture in Mergers of 
Equals. European Management Journal, 21(2), 185-191. 
 
 
62 
 
Appendix 
Appendix A 
 
Interview guide 
BACKGROUND & CURRENT POSITION 
• Which one of the companies you worked earlier? 
• How long have you been at the company? What is your position now and have you had different 
positions? 
• What are your main tasks/responsibilities? 
THE MERGER 
• Do you have previous experience with mergers? 
• What have been the main changes due to the merger? 
• changes in tasks/responsibilities, workload, new subordinates, new colleagues, ways of working, 
new structures, new roles 
• How have you experienced/felt about these changes? 
• How do you think that the merger was handled; what did succeed and what should have been 
done differently? 
CULTURE & CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 
• How would you describe the current company culture? 
• Which aspects of organizational culture are apparent/visible to you? 
• According to your experience, were the previous organizational cultures significantly different? 
• What are the main cultural differences you have faced? 
o values, decision making-, leadership styles, behavioral norms, language, ways of 
working, hierarchy, communication, values, rules, practices 
o In what kind of situations have you felt that cultural differences have existed? 
• What have been the consequences of these differences and how have you handled them? 
o What kind of strategies have you used, which ones of them proved ineffective and which 
ones actually helped? 
• How has cultural integration been implemented in your team? 
o How has it succeeded? 
o What has been the most problematic, and why? 
o What kind of support have you received? What kind of support/guidance would you have 
needed? 
•  How have your thoughts and feelings changed, are things easier now, do you still have some 
cultural problems, or do you think you can already focus fully on your main tasks? 
• How would you describe the current state of the company, and how the merger (especially culture 
integration) succeeded? 
• What are your thoughts about the future/How do you see the future, and what still needs to be 
done? 
 
Which differences you have perceived as problematic? / What kind of negative consequences cultural 
differences have led to? 
• Behavioral norms (how others are treated, how feedback is given, rules are followed) 
• Structures (processes such as recruitments, goals & strategies, communication, working methods, 
authority, decision making, prioritization) 
• Roles/Positions (delegation of responsibilities, the balance between resources & responsibilities, 
training & development opportunities) 
• Distribution of resources 
• Convictions (values, beliefs) 
63 
 
Appendix B 
Exit survey results 
Reasons to leave N 
Better offer from another company 18 
Lack of career prospects and/or promotion prospects 14 
I did not see meaning in my work 12 
Compensation 8 
Workload 8 
Lack of recognition 6 
Company culture 6 
I did not have autonomy over decisions related to my work 6 
Lack of challenges in my work 5 
Relationship with immediate manager 5 
Poor work-life balance 3 
Company strategy 3 
Lack of training opportunities  3 
Family or personal reasons 1 
Other reasons 8 
 
 
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly 
agree disagree 
I was comfortable talking to my manager 19 16 4 2 3 
  
I was satisfied with the way I was 9 16 8 8 3 
managed 
My manager gave me what I needed to 8 22 8 4 2 
succeed  
I received constructive feedback from 9 18 11 6 
team members and my manager to help 
me improve my performance 
My manager supported my 8 17 10 8 1 
development/growth 
I had clear goals and objectives 6 22 8 6 2 
I received relevant training to perform 5 24 10 3 2 
my job successfully   
I had all the tools and resources I needed 3 25 9 6 1 
to succeed at my job   
I felt like a valuable part of my team 13 23 8  
I felt my achievements were recognized 5 19 9 11 
throughout my employment  
There was good communication in my 12 22 8 2 
t eam 
very good average poor very poor 
good  
Career development opportunities 2 15 21 6  
Work atmosphere 6 34 3 1  
Compensation 1 20 17 6 
Work-life balance 4 24 12 3  1 
Leadership culture 1 22 14 7 
64 
 
 
Opportunities for learning & 2 25 11 6 
development  
Diversity and Inclusion  7 30 6 1  
Company’s culture 22 17 5  
Company’s values 1 28 13 2  
Internal communication 2 26 10 6  
Safety culture 9 31 3 1  
Sustainability 5 33 5 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
65