“That’s not how we did it”: two organisational cultures after a merger

The scene: two companies, two ways of making decisions

After two companies merge, Marta, a project manager, asks the team to quickly sign off a change to the product. Paweł, who comes from the former company Alfa, replies: “We need the director’s approval – that’s how we’ve always done it.” Lena, from the former company Beta, rolls her eyes: “Where I come from, the team made decisions like that. We can’t be asking about every single detail.”

At the meeting, an argument breaks out over who “knows the proper rules”. Marta reminds everyone that the two companies have been operating together for a month, but she can’t point to a new rule. Paweł hears in Lena’s words a disregard for risk; Lena sees in Paweł’s procedure a lack of autonomy. Each of them is trying to protect a way of working that used to deliver results.

A week later, the same problem comes back on another project. People from Alfa write lengthy justifications, while people from Beta make informal decisions in the chat. Because there is no shared rule, everyone understands what has been agreed differently. So the conflict is not only about Paweł’s and Lena’s temperaments. The two companies’ structures have been combined, but the boundaries of responsibility have not been set.

Marta may feel that both of her colleagues are overreacting. Yet the recurring dispute points to the lack of an agreed procedure, not just to differences in temperament. Each side is defending a solution that used to give them predictability. For Paweł, a quick decision without a signature may mean risk. For Lena, waiting for a signature can be proof that the organisation does not trust the team’s competence.

What really happened

Paweł and Lena are not arguing solely about the director’s signature. Paweł wants to keep predictability and clear accountability, while Lena wants speed and the team’s freedom to make decisions. When Marta says, “We’re one company now,” she doesn’t solve the problem, because the formal merger has not yet established a procedure. The differences become more visible because people judge others’ behaviour by the standard they are used to.

There is no need to look for a culture to blame. For some decisions, excessive control will slow work down; for others, a lack of sign-off will increase risk. You need to pin down which decisions are really at stake and what their consequences are.

If Marta lets the conversation descend into mutual grievances, the problem will remain unsolved. She needs concrete examples of decisions: ones the director used to sign off and ones the team used to make itself. Only by comparing them will it become clear where there is a real legal, financial or client-related risk. It is also not worth asking whether people prefer freedom or control in general. You need to ask which activities their expectations relate to.

What the research says

Research on team diversity shows that different perspectives can bring both benefits and coordination costs. The meta-analysis by Stahl and colleagues does not justify a simple division of people into those who “like hierarchy” and those who are “modern”. What matters for successful collaboration is the rules, the complexity of the tasks and the way disagreements are resolved. These were precisely the elements missing after the merger.

Short meetings reviewing specific cases are also useful, provided they lead to decisions rather than a public reckoning with the old companies. Research on team debriefing provides grounds for this practice, but it does not guarantee a particular improvement in every merger.

The diversity of experience after a merger is neither an automatic advantage nor an inevitable source of conflict. Whether it helps depends on how people work together and on the quality of the shared rules. That is why findings on culturally diverse teams should not be used as simple proof that empathy training is all it takes. Sometimes a change of procedure is needed, sometimes a better explanation of the reasons for the controls – and usually both.

How to approach it

Marta might start: “We’re not deciding today which company had the better culture. We’re agreeing who signs off three types of decision.” The team then describes examples: a low-risk decision, a change that affects the client and a change that requires a compliance check. For each one, they set an owner, an escalation threshold, a deadline and how the outcome will be recorded.

When Lena says, “I don’t want more bureaucracy,” Marta asks at what point the procedure causes a real delay. When Paweł says, “Without approval, we’ll be held responsible for mistakes,” she asks which decision needs a formal safeguard. After two weeks, the team goes back to what was agreed and checks what is still unclear. Shared working rules take shape through everyday actions, not by simply putting up a poster of values.

For low-risk decisions, you can set a threshold within which the team can act on its own. More significant matters will need an approval path, but also a clear deadline, so that controls don’t hold up work indefinitely. For each case, write down who makes the decision, who is consulted and how everyone else is informed. A single table of roles can be more useful than a long presentation on organisational values.

How Marta can lead the conversation between Paweł and Lena

Marta begins: “Both companies had rules that were meant to solve specific problems. Before we choose a shared way of working, let’s look at what each of them was protecting.” Paweł explains why a signature mattered for decisions involving higher costs. Lena gives an example of a delay caused by waiting for approval of a minor change. This way, they talk about consequences rather than about who is more modern.

Marta then proposes three categories of decision and asks for real examples from the past month. When Paweł says, “Without a signature, there’ll be chaos,” she asks about a specific situation. When Lena claims that “everything will get stuck”, she asks about a decision that actually was delayed. The conversation should end with a written record of the rules, the decision owners and a review date – not with a declaration that from now on everyone will be more flexible.

One working culture comes from clear decisions, not from a poster

After two weeks, it is worth reviewing a few matters that have gone through the new decision path. How long did approval take? Was responsibility clear? Did anyone take an unnecessary risk or wait too long? Questions like these make it possible to improve the procedure without blaming either of the former companies. The results are worth sharing with both teams so that they know why the rules are changing.

If another dispute arises, it can be treated as a sign of a missing rule rather than as proof of bad faith. A shared culture grows when people get similar answers in similar situations, regardless of which company they came from. Differences in approach can become an asset if the organisation is able to combine fast decisions with control where it is genuinely needed.

After two companies merge, different decision-making habits easily turn into a conflict over competence. The solution is a shared rule that defines responsibility, the level of risk and the approval route. The new rules then need to be tested in practice, rather than relying on a slogan about unity alone.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Before the meeting, Marta describes to Em the source of the conflict and examples of decisions on which the teams cannot agree. In the team context, she can compare preferences regarding control, autonomy and how differences are discussed; in the organisational culture view, she can also see the gap between the expected and the practised working style. This helps Marta talk about ways of working and responsibility instead of pinning rigid labels on people. Em helps her phrase neutral questions and propose escalation rules.

Marta prepares a sentence: “I want to keep things fast where the risk is low, and keep responsibility clear where a decision affects the client.” After the meeting, she comes back to Em with a description of an unresolved case to check whether the new rule is clear to both sides. Personalised micro-lessons strengthen the ability to talk about differences without judging people.

Marta can practise with Em how to run the meeting so that neither side feels judged for its previous habits. She can also compare how the same rules will sound in messages to different teams and, after two weeks, describe the problem cases and prepare proposed changes. In this way, Em supports not just one difficult conversation but also the everyday work of building collaboration after the merger.