Merging two successful companies may seem like a dream on paper. But, if not handled right, the dream could become a nightmare. Here's an example.

The dealmakers had some concerns about bringing together two former competitors, but they didn't think the past would get in the way if everyone agreed to collaborate. As it turned out their concerns were valid. It wasn't long before the infighting started. Conflicts began popping up everywhere. Management turnover, which had never been a concern, started to rise -- good people were leaving. Grievances and complaints flooded into the human resource department. Productivity took a nosedive. Something had to be done.

An organization-wide performance survey was immediately conducted. More than ninety percent of the 125 middle managers from both companies checked conflict management as a high priority training need.

Bingo! The problem was clearly identified. A targeted training program was immediately put together and the call for sign-ups went out. Anticipating a rush to fill the slots, the corporate trainers were puzzled when only a handful of managers signed up for the first session. Puzzled by the lack of participation their immediate thought was: What a bunch of idiots, they tell us what they want and then, when we provide it, they don't show up.

Right Questions Generate Right Answers

After an intensive brainstorming session the corporate trainers realized that the respondents weren't asked whether they needed training, they were asked whether training was needed. One implies that you need training; the other implies that your co-workers need it. That's exactly what had happened. Later, when challenged to explain their preferences many of those responding to the survey admitted that they thought their skills were okay but their colleagues, especially those from the other company, were viewed as the ones who "needed help."

There's more to this saga, but let's move ahead to end of the story. Once both groups of managers were faced with the knowledge that they were pointing their fingers at each other, it was obvious that they'd all benefit from a training program. As a result these key leaders became aware they were the ones creating confusion, communicating poorly, and in general making life difficult for those around them.

They were all behaving like idiots, but didn't have a clue how they looked to each other. You can image what it must have been like for the staff to have to work for these managers.

The curriculum was revised and sent out to the management group. This time the training program promised to show the participants how to collaborate with people they don't know, don't like or don't trust. The classes filled up immediately because both management groups were now motivated to learn new skills.

Keep in mind as you promote training in your company that catch phrases like performance-driven, result-oriented and customer-focused only take root and flourish when they are introduced at a point where people are motivated to learn together.

Acquiring New Skills Is Personal

It's easy to see from this example why people avoid learning something new-it's personal. You can also see that by shifting the focus of the training to what their peers needed from them the respondent managers were able to recognize their incompetence and identify their shortcomings. When that shift occurred, bright lights illuminate problems so it became clear what, not who, needed to be fixed. And, then, all of a sudden the disinterested managers realized that by acquiring new skills they could make a big difference, that their contributions would be valued, that their jobs would be more satisfying, and, most importantly, that the two companies could actually become one great place to work.

This doesn't mean that ego hits didn't occur whenever someone made a mistake because of something he or she didn't know. No matter how good anyone gets, there's always a feeling of "Whoops!" followed by a period of discomfort when shortcomings are revealed. But this didn't keep those people from continuing the merger process. They were aware of the potential payoff at the end. They also seemed to recognize that the time they would have to spend in the learning mode would be relatively short, and that it would be worth going through the pain to achieve the gain.

Once the former competitors got used to working together in task-oriented relationships, they were able to focus less on themselves and more on what was going on in their market that might negatively impact their customers. After all, that's why they joined forces.