Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

How to build a shared story after two companies merge

Build a shared merger narrative by comparing useful histories and agreeing on specific ways the combined company will work. Do not require one organization to abandon its identity through a slogan. Connect the account to decisions, routines, and unresolved integration tradeoffs.

Organizational identification is defining yourself partly through membership in an organization. APA’s 2023 entry, APA Dictionary of Psychology: organizational identification, supplies that meaning. In a merger discussion, distinguish an employee’s identification with their former company from a decision about which operating process the combined firm should use. An expression of pride does not settle that process choice.

A private moment that makes the issue visible

Composite scenario, not a client case: At home, you describe the merger as bringing together the best of both firms. The next morning, employees use the old company names to predict whose process will win. The public story promises combination while daily choices appear to favor one side by default.

Use the contrast between the home conversation and the next day’s decisions as a workshop question. Ask where employees can see a genuine combination and where one legacy process has become the default. Request examples from both firms. Do not ask participants to rank whose history matters more or to discard a name before discussing the work.

Use the research within its limits

Levitt and March’s 1988 review describes routines as carriers of organizational experience; Levitt and March (1988): Organizational Learning. Examine a legacy escalation practice as a possible source of useful learning, rather than treating its age as a reason to retain or remove it. This workshop is a proposed way to inspect those choices. The source does not validate a merger-narrative exercise or predict integration success.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, provides the lens for examining membership and work together. Keep the workshop focused on examples employees recognize. Avoid describing either company as a single personality or assigning psychological traits to people because of which legacy organization employed them.

State the decision before discussing personalities

The conversation must establish what the combined organization will preserve, change, and decide together. Separate cultural interpretation from contractual and employment integration questions.

Choose an integration question that the combined leadership team can resolve, such as how a shared customer escalation will be handled. Mark contractual or employment matters that the workshop cannot negotiate. The narrative should explain the operating choice and its reasons. It should not ask employees to generate a story that conceals an unresolved authority conflict.

When a participant says that one firm always moves faster, ask for the decision sequence behind that description. Who could approve the exception, what information did they have, and what happened afterward? Compare the sequence with a case from the other firm. A broad cultural label should not replace the practical difference you need to evaluate.

Use the joint-history and future-work workshop

  1. Collect concrete histories. Ask each group for examples of work they value and problems they would not repeat. Avoid assigning a single personality to either company. Invite a specific account from each side: an operating practice worth preserving and a failure they do not want repeated. Ask what made the practice useful under its original conditions. Keep employee and customer details private where unnecessary. Preserve the lesson in the story without assuming its old procedure fits the merged company unchanged.

  2. Identify useful differences. Compare how the two groups solve a real customer or operating problem. Look for conditions explaining the difference. Compare two accounts of the same type of task, such as a delivery exception. Record the different constraints before judging the response. One company may have used an approval that the other did not need. Ask which constraint will exist in the combined firm instead of deciding by acquisition status or executive preference alone.

  3. Agree on shared behaviors. Choose specific practices the combined company needs. State how a decision will be made when the old approaches conflict. Turn the agreed lesson into an instruction about who does what. Name the approver when legacy practices conflict and the information required for that choice. If leadership has not assigned authority, leave the issue open. Do not publish a shared-value statement as though it resolves the missing decision right.

  4. Test the narrative against work. Trace a joint customer case or handoff. Revise claims that the actual systems and authority cannot support. Walk through a joint customer handoff with the employees who perform it. Check system access, exception ownership, and the point at which information crosses between legacy teams. Rewrite any sentence about one company working together that this walkthrough cannot yet support. Describe the planned repair and its owner separately from the current experience.

  5. Publish the open questions. Explain what is agreed and what still requires a decision. Review the narrative as integration evidence develops. Publish agreed practices with their conditions and identify unresolved integration choices. Give employees a route to report a contradictory instruction. Explain how the next version of the narrative will change when the operating decision changes. Avoid announcing full integration merely because the workshop produced wording acceptable to its participants.

Handle urgent continuity or safety decisions through their authorized owners. Tell workshop participants which temporary arrangements those owners have imposed. Mark them as interim and set a review point. The joint-history session should neither delay necessary containment nor quietly convert a temporary acquisition measure into the permanent culture of the combined firm.

Put the boundary into words

A workshop sponsor could use this draft opening after confirming which integration choices are genuinely open:

Both histories contain work worth preserving and practices that need to change. We will choose shared ways of working against the combined company’s needs. Where a decision remains open, we will name it rather than describe the integration as complete.

Ask each side to identify a sentence they could explain with a work example and a sentence that still overstates the combination. Record both responses without requiring immediate consensus. Have the operating owner resolve the second category before it becomes an employee commitment. A disagreement about wording may be identifying a decision the workshop cannot make.

Work through a bounded example

Hypothetical application: Two firms use different escalation practices. A joint workshop examines a delivery failure and finds complementary strengths. The combined routine adopts clear ownership from one system and earlier customer input from the other, with an owner for the test.

Extend the hypothetical by giving the new escalation routine to people from both former companies. Ask them to handle the same kind of delivery exception. Check where the earlier customer input reaches the named owner and whether that owner can act. Keep the legacy practices available for comparison until the replacement has been inspected in use.

Choose evidence that can change the decision

Collect a small set of joint-work records before commissioning a wider internal campaign. Include the instruction employees receive, an example of the handoff, and an unresolved exception. Ask who carried the additional coordination work and whether the narrative acknowledges it. Compare the advertised shared practice with the actual authority available to each side. Where the records differ, identify the operating decision needed. Do not treat a favorable workshop discussion or the disappearance of legacy names from slides as evidence that employees experience the combination as intended.

Keep the legacy source of a useful practice visible

Suppose the combined escalation process uses a clear case owner from one firm and a customer consultation from the other. Describe those contributions in the workshop notes. Explain why each fits the combined task. Giving a practice a new corporate label should not erase the account of how employees developed it or the constraints under which it worked.

Then test the combination rather than defending equal representation as an end in itself. The merged routine may require a different approval path from either predecessor. Ask which element needs to change and who can authorize that change. Keep the history available as evidence, while making the operating decision for the company employees now serve. This gives the narrative a concrete subject: the choices that combine useful experience under current conditions.

Check the failure mode before scaling

Do not use a workshop to imply that employment or ownership matters are negotiable when they are not. Avoid cultural stereotypes and success claims unsupported by the integrated work. Obtain appropriate specialist review.

Have employment and legal advisers handle commitments about roles, ownership, benefits, or location. Explain those boundaries before employees enter the workshop. Participation must not imply that settled contractual questions are open for a vote. Conversely, do not describe a procedure as fixed if leadership is still asking teams to design it together.

Review the work, then revise the arrangement

Review whether shared behaviors appear in decisions and handoffs. Ask which group bears an unacknowledged cost and whether the narrative needs correction.

At the next integration checkpoint, examine the shared behaviors named in the narrative. Request examples from both legacy groups and from work that crosses their boundary. Check whether the same unresolved approval appears again. Update the explanation when a shared practice proves unworkable, including which decision replaced it and what employees should do in the meantime.

Allow employees to say that a useful old practice has been lost without treating the observation as refusal to join the combined firm. Ask what consequence they can demonstrate and who owns the replacement. Retain that account when reporting gains. A shared narrative can describe a tradeoff openly while leadership works on an unresolved cost.

Edmondson’s 1999 research addresses team psychological safety and learning behavior; Edmondson (1999): Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. It does not establish that employees have accepted a merged identity. Use the work as a boundary for the workshop: people must be able to question a proposed routine. Do not claim that an agreed paragraph measures trust, commitment, or the integration’s success.

Connect this decision to the next one

Use the change-story framework to explain the combined operating choices. When a merger changes a previously backed strategy, consult the strategy-reversal explanation. Use audience mapping for different employee implications and cross-functional handoff repair when the shared story encounters a concrete ownership dispute.

Start the narrative with one shared way of working that the combined leadership can support. Preserve the useful history behind it and name the tradeoff it resolves. Let employees inspect that claim in a joint task before presenting the story as the settled character of the merged company.

Sources

Steady at the Top