Keep Your Organization Sane

Reinforce

Soldiers immediately after combat are often in a highly charged state. “A commander of a victorious unit must have the self-control to prevent his troops from looting and to protect the human rights of prisoners. It is the leader’s responsibility to break the cycle of revenge,” says Damian McKinney.
Mergers and acquisitions between companies, and even changes of leadership within a company, can sometimes leave resentment behind. Leaders who continue to show respect for employees from the other organization or from different internal factions are the ones who lead the organization to success.

Damian McKinney, MBE: Former Royal Marines Commando, who founded McKinney Rogers in 1999. Born in Republic of Kenya.

Deep Dive

Throughout history, looting by armies has occurred in many wars. Well-known examples include:
・Looting, destruction, and massacres during the Mongol conquests
・The looting of artworks, valuables, and cultural property from occupied territories by Nazi Germany
It is said that soldiers who have fought with their lives at stake can become intoxicated by an extraordinary sense of release when victory finally comes. Before the modern era, looting after victory was sometimes regarded as a soldier’s right—or perhaps more accurately, as a form of reward.
That is precisely why Damian says that, in a modern military,
“Whether looting can be prevented depends on the attitude of the commander.”
Of course, words and attitude alone are not enough. Commanders must also take action and make it clear that,
“Anyone who engages in looting will be severely punished.”
Preventing looting is necessary not only from the standpoint of international law and humanitarian principles, but also because looting causes cultural and economic damage. Rebuilding a devastated country is enormously costly, and cooperation will be difficult to obtain if the people of the defeated country who are needed for reconstruction remain consumed by hatred. There have also been many cases in which the victorious side has been unable to sustain the effort required to deal with retaliatory terrorism.

There are similarities in the business world, particularly after an acquisition.
When I was young, I simply believed that,
“If a company gets bought, all its employees will be thrown out onto the street. It’s a takeover! Corporate vultures!”
Then, in my mid-thirties, I experienced my own company being taken over by a competitor in a hostile acquisition. The battle between the two American companies continued for several months, with dozens of lawsuits flying back and forth, before the acquisition was finally completed.
Immediately afterwards, the management team of the winning company came to Japan to explain what would happen next. As a member of the Japanese management team of the company that had lost, I went into our first meeting with them half expecting something like,
“Am I about to be given a death sentence?”
At the very beginning of the meeting, the CEO said,
“Let me make one thing clear from the start. This is not a merger or an integration. Our company bought your company. That is why the new company will retain our name. You, as members of management, must also make the facts of the acquisition clear to your employees so that they do not cling to the illusion that this was a merger of equals.”
My fear and dislike of them immediately intensified.
He then continued,
“We made this acquisition because we believe the two companies can work together and grow further. So what we now need to do is work together and make it a success.”
I remember thinking,
“Where is this going? Is he just saying all the right things?”
The CEO then said,
“We will make sure that you are treated fairly. Opportunities for positions will be offered fairly to employees from both companies, and anyone who loses their position as a result of restructuring will receive adequate compensation.”
I felt slightly relieved, although I was still listening with some skepticism, thinking,
“Is that really true?”

As the integration process moved forward, measures were actually put into place. For example:
・When overlapping positions were consolidated into one, an independent external organization assessed employees from both companies fairly and selected the person best suited to the role.
・Employees whose positions disappeared were given enhanced severance payments equivalent to XX months’ salary.
Some people around me voiced concerns such as,
“Of course their employees will be rated more highly than ours.”
or,
“Even if I get a severance payment and leave, I don’t know whether I’ll be able to find another job.”
But I gradually developed a positive impression of the process.
One reason was that the president of the winning company’s Japanese subsidiary repeatedly told me,
“We have to make this acquisition a success. Management has invested an enormous amount of money, and we have to prove to our shareholders that the investment will deliver results and earn their trust.”
He also told me,
“If any of my people behave disrespectfully towards you, tell me. I will deal with them firmly.”
I found myself thinking,
“Ah, this is just like the reconstruction process after a war.”
And,
“I’m like one of those Japanese government officials going in and out of GHQ after Japan’s defeat.”
To be honest, I also thought,
“I wish I had been on the winning side.”
But through that experience, I came to understand something very clearly:
“For the winning side, not looting is simply more economically rational.”