Companies today are combining in record numbers. Executives pursue mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures as a means to create value by (1) acquiring technologies, products, and market access, (2) creating economies of scale, and (3) establishing global brand presence. There is an underlying belief that most markets can provide revenues to three large suppliers; when more than three exist the urge to merge is irresistible. That said, the business world seems littered with integrated companies that have lost value for shareholders. The question that inevitably arises is: "What forces are powerful enough to counteract the value-creating energy of economies of scale or global market presence?" Culture has emerged as one of the dominant barriers to effective integrations. In one study, culture was found to be the cause of 30 percent of failed integrations.1 Companies with different cultures find it difficult, if not often impossible, to make decisions quickly and correctly or to operate effectively.
What is "culture"?
Culture consists of the long-standing, largely implicit shared values, beliefs, and assumptions that influence behavior, attitudes, and meaning in a company (or society).
This definition has several important implications:
Culture is implicit. People who share in a culture find their culture challenging to recognize. The most insightful cultural observers often are outsiders, because cultural givens are not implicit to them.
Culture influences how people behave and how people understand their own actions. As a result, culturally influenced beliefs and actions feel right to people, even while their implicit underpinnings make it difficult for those people to understand why they act the way they do or why other ways of acting might also be appropriate.
Culture is resilient. Its elements are long-standing, not a matter of fads. The resilience of culture is supported by culture being implicit. It is difficult for people to recognize their own culture and how it exerts an influence on them. The staying power of culture is that it feels right to people; new cultural values that are imposed on people seldom replace their underlying values and beliefs in the long run.
What does this mean for integrating two companies?
If people acted solely on the basis of rational calculations — the model of behavior preferred by economists — mergers would be effective — or not — based on the soundness of their economic underpinnings. But participants in mergers are human and driven both by their shared culture and individual personalities. Cultural influences have the potential to be broad and far reaching:
Culture affects 1. * Decision-making style (for example: * consensus contrasted with top-down)
2.
* Leadership style (for example: dictatorial or consultative, clear or diffuse)
3.
* Ability to change (willingness to risk new things, compared with focus on maintaining current state and meeting current goals)
4.
* How people work together (for example: based on formal structure and role definitions or based on informal relationships)
5.
* Beliefs regarding personal "success" (for example: organizations that focus on individual "stars," or on teamwork, or where people rise through connections with senior practitioners)

Resulting in
1.
• Effective integration requires rapid decision-making.
• Different decision-making styles can lead to slow decision-making, failure to make decisions, or failure to implement decisions.
2.
• A shift in leadership style can generate turnover among employees who object to the change. This is especially true for top talent, who are usually the most mobile employees.
• Loss of top talent can quickly undermine value in an integration by draining intellectual capital and market contacts.
3.
• Unwillingness to implement new strategies.
• Unwillingness to work through the inevitable difficulties in creating a new company.
4.
• Merged companies will create interfaces between functions that come from each legacy company, or new functions that integrate people from both legacy companies. If the cultural assumptions of the legacy companies are inconsistent, then processes and handoffs may break down with each company's employees becoming frustrated by their colleagues' failure to understand or even recognize how work should be done.
5.
• Again, these differences can lead to breakdowns in getting work done. If people who believe they have to achieve goals as a team integrate with people whose notion of "success" emphasizes individual performance, the resulting situation is often characterized by personal dislike and lack of support for getting the job done.

Temperament is a configuration of observable personality traits, such as habits of communication, patterns of action, and sets of characteristic attitudes, values, and talents. It also encompasses personal needs, the kinds of contributions that individuals make in the workplace, and the roles they play in society. Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist.
Each temperament has its own unique qualities and shortcomings, strengths and challenges. What accounts for these differences? To use the idea of Temperament most effectively, it is important to understand that the four temperaments are not simply arbitrary collections of characteristics, but spring from an interaction of the two basic dimensions of human behavior: our communication and our action, our words and our deeds, or, simply,what we say and what we do.
Communication: Concrete vs. Abstract
First, people naturally think and talk about what they are interested in, and if you listen carefully to people's conversations, you find two broad but distinct areas of subject matter.
Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather -- all the who-what-when-where-and how much's of life.
Other people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies --all the why's, if's, and what-might-be's of life.
At times, of course, everyone addresses both sorts of topics, but in their daily lives, and for the most part, Concrete people talk about reality, while Abstract people talk aboutideas.
Action: Utilitarian vs. Cooperative
Second, at every turn people are trying to accomplish their goals, and if you watch closely how people go about their business, you see that there are two fundamentally opposite types of action.
Some people act primarily in a utilitarian or pragmatic manner, that is, they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible, and only afterwards do they check to see if they are observing the rules or going through proper channels.
Other people act primarily in a cooperative or socially acceptable manner, that is, they try to do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct, and only later do they concern themselves with the effectiveness of their actions.
These two ways of acting can overlap, certainly, but as they lead their lives, Utilitarianpeople instinctively, and for the most part, do what works, while Cooperative people dowhat's right.
The Four Temperaments * As Concrete Cooperators, Guardians speak mostly of their duties and responsibilities, of what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and they're careful to obey the laws, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others. * As Abstract Cooperators, Idealists speak mostly of what they hope for and imagine might be possible for people, and they want to act in good conscience, always trying to reach their goals without compromising their personal code of ethics. * As Concrete Utilitarians, Artisans speak mostly about what they see right in front of them, about what they can get their hands on, and they will do whatever works, whatever gives them a quick, effective payoff, even if they have to bend the rules. * As Abstract Utilitarians, Rationals speak mostly of what new problems intrigue them and what new solutions they envision, and always pragmatic, they act as efficiently as possible to achieve their objectives, ignoring arbitrary rules and conventions if need be.