“.......[G]overnment reorganization is one of the most enduring activities in the public sector. It continues to represent the hope that things can be made better through structural and procedural change” (Peters, 2002: 175).

Reform and reorganization initiatives

Whether the purpose is downsizing, rightsizing, restructuring, or simply attempting to reduce costs, reorganization initiatives once primarily associated with business and industry now permeate government as well. As they increasingly embrace such remedies, public agencies have similarly embarked on the pursuit of improvement through realignment that has long characterized their private-sector counterparts. At least in part, this may reflect attempts to encourage government to emulate the successful practices of profit-making companies (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Rago, 1996; Hoover, 1996; Ederheimer, 2000). Additionally, it may be traced to an outgrowth of the increased demands for government accountability and cost-effectiveness that have promoted public adaptation of private-sector performance measures (Epstein, 1984; Ammons, 1995; Burrell, 1998).

Regardless of the reasons, trends in business and industry now influence practices in criminal justice—where law enforcement agencies engaged in community policing are discussing how to better meet the needs of “customers” and “stakeholders” (Trojanowicz et al., 2002; Miller and Hess, 2002); the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM) are being translated into state prison operations (Stinchcomb, 1998; Levinson, 1999); and both police and correctional agencies are grappling with the details of demonstrating public value through “evidence-based practices” (Oliver, 2000; Gaseau and Mandeville, 2005). Particularly when a new administrator takes office, countless justice agencies have embarked on less visible but equally prolific change-oriented initiatives in concerted efforts to advance organizational practices beyond the legacy inherited from their predecessors (Stinchcomb and McCampbell, 2004).

Yet much of the literature on reorganization and reform indicates that such “fads and fashions” fail to achieve their anticipated aspirations, instead often culminating in wasteful endeavors that produce “few tangible results” (Peters, 2002: 159). The question is why such promising ambitions are apparently so unlikely to result in productive outcomes. The answers are as complex as the initiatives themselves. But ultimately, they may relate to the cultural “glue” that binds an organization together—i.e., the basic, shared assumptions that form the unwritten guidelines governing organizational life (Schein, 1992). Research indicates that as many as three out of four efforts directed toward reengineering, TQM, strategic planning, and downsizing have “failed entirely or have created problems serious enough that the survival of the organization was threatened,” and “the most frequently cited reason given for the failure was neglect of the organization’s culture” (Cameron and Quinn, 1998: 1). Attention has likewise focused on the role of culture in explaining why mergers may fail to meet their intended objectives. In that regard, organizational culture has been described as a “make-or-break factor in the merger equation” (Fralicx and Bolster, 1997: 50), and cultural incompatibility has been cited as contributing significantly to the often limited financial returns from mergers (Cartwright and Cooper, 1993: 57–69). In essence, culture often represents the key variable in the success or failure of organizational reform.

The nature of organizational culture

Culture is to organizations as personality is to people—a unique identity that sets one apart from all others. Like areas of a city, regions of a country, or groups of differing ethnicity, organizations have their own distinct culture that establishes their core identity-determining what values are upheld, norms are followed, and behaviors are expected (Schraeder and Self, 2003: 511–12). Such values, norms, and behavioral expectations are viewed by outsiders in a framework that tends to be either positive or negative. Like a person’s character, an organization’s culture therefore shapes its reputation (Freiberg and Freiberg, 1996: 144).

Moreover, in the private sector, culture also influences profitability. For example, among the top five corporate performers in the 1990s,Footnote 1 organizational culture has been identified as their “major distinguishing feature.......their most important competitive advantage, [and] the most powerful factor they all highlight as a key ingredient in their success” (Cameron and Quinn, 1998: 5). Likewise, research indicates that culture is the core of the most enduring and successful corporations—which have been driven more by ideology than profit-making, inasmuch as it is “more important to know who you are than where you are going” (Collins and Porras, 1997: 55; 221).

Yet culture is not something that is clearly and immediately apparent in an organization. Certainly, its multiple manifestations are notable in everything from how employees communicate to what they wear and why they behave the way they do. But culture itself is a theoretical construct—only its outward expressions can be observed. As a result, it is often ignored (Cameron and Quinn, 1998: 14) or people are unaware of it, simply because its underlying assumptions and unrelenting expectations are so implicitly taken for granted. Nevertheless, culture maintains an intensely explicit behavioral influence on those who are embraced (or, as some might say, enslaved) by it, with significant empirical research supporting the notion that cultural norms exhibit a substantial behavioral influence (Benson, 2001: 681).

Unlike the concrete nature of codified policies and procedures, culture represents the unwritten “rules of the game”—the unspoken but widely shared assumptions that unobtrusively manipulate organizational members (Schein, 1992). Somewhat akin to the legal concept of stare decisis, or common law precedent (Senna and Siegel, 2002: 111), culture regulates behavior informally on the basis of the precedent of established practices. In psychoanalytic terms, it can be symbolized as the “personality” of an organization—primarily reflecting the protective, self-survival instincts of the id, and the self-preservation of the ego. Just as one’s personality strongly influences behavior, an organization’s culture defines and reinforces what is acceptable and unacceptable in the work environment (Stinchcomb et al., 2006).

Much like an individual’s personality, culture is what establishes an organization’s uniqueness. There are, for example, a multitude of commercial airline carriers in the skies today—but only one with the carefully crafted fun-loving culture that is associated with Southwest Airlines (Freiberg and Freiberg, 1996). Similarly, there are many theme parks in the entertainment business—but only one Disney World, with an employee culture collectively focused on a unified mission of making people happy (Snyder et al., 1994: 107). In fact, organizational research has revealed that “it is difficult to name even a single highly successful company, one that is a recognized leader in its industry, that does not have a distinctive, readily identifiable organizational culture” (Cameron and Quinn, 1998: 5).

The impact of organizational culture

Like oxygen or carbon monoxide, culture is an invisible environmental force—odorless, colorless, and tasteless—that blends unnoticeably with its surroundings, yet influences everything within it. Just as a whiff of fresh oxygen can revive someone who is having difficulty breathing, the influence of a positive organizational culture can be an uplifting force that energizes and inspires employees. Likewise, just as breathing carbon monoxide can be deadly, negative cultural surroundings can diminish motivation and poison an agency’s environment. In either case, everyone within its grasp is affected—one way or another.

For those working within the invisible confines of its parameters, organizational culture—while discreet and unobtrusive—maintains a powerful regulatory authority. In fact, much of its potency may well be derived from its subtle innocuousness. Even the most outspoken employees may succumb to the dictates of organizational culture without objection. At least to some extent, that is because there is no one to whom to object. There is no “cultural czar” cracking a whip to keep everyone aligned with assumed values and associated normative behavior. Attempting to protest cultural dictates would therefore be about as futile as protesting the ravages of Mother Nature.

What, then, is it that anchors cultural prescriptions so securely into the mainstream of organizational life? The answer lies in one key word—i.e., “assumed.” In essence, the behavioral prescriptions arising from an organization’s culture remain dominant because of their widespread, unquestioning acceptance as the routine way that things should be done. Whether it is the way people are expected to dress, the manner in which they are expected to speak, or to what ends they are expected to go to support the organization, culture dictates what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Thus, culture tends to be quietly acquiesced without objection. Its demure dimensions operate so discreetly beneath the surface that they are unnoticeably taken for granted.

In that respect, every organization has its own unwritten “expectations, assumptions, and constraints” that are considerably more powerful than formal rules and regulations in terms of controlling employees and enforcing their compliance with behavioral expectations (Stinchcomb, 2004: 156). These are the uniformly shared assumptions that are taught (formally and informally) to new recruits, and reinforced by veteran employees as the right things to do in order to properly fit into the prevailing environment (Schein, 1992). Directly and indirectly, they affect “one’s ability to thrive, if not survive, in the organization......” (Smith and Kelly, 1997: 204). The result is unified behavior that creates a unique organizational identity, where people bond together in collective loyalty—not necessarily to the organization itself, but rather, to the features of its cultural attributes (Stinchcomb et al., 2006).

As with formal rules and regulations, those who follow the organization’s informal cultural norms will be rewarded, while those who do not will be penalized (Kotter and Heskett, 1992: 7). Especially in government service, the tools for either rewarding or punishing employees according to the formal criteria embedded in official rules and regulations are quite limited. Unlike their private sector counterparts, for example, significant salary increments or monetary bonuses are not typically associated with public service. Nor, on the other hand, is the timely dismissal of unproductive employees as feasible as it is in private enterprise. When there is insufficient power to fully and effectively operationalize more formal behavioral regulations, it should not be surprising to find the discrete intricacies of organizational culture trumping the dictates of organizational policy. When cultural pressures must be weighed against organizational demands, employees seeking to “fit in” must balance conflicts between fulfilling the expectations of peers and complying with the mandates of policies.

Maintaining this delicate balance is especially challenging in such highly cohesive organizational cultures as those that characterize law enforcement and firefighting. While these two components of public service may differ more from their private sector counterparts than from each other, that is not to say that they share the uniformity of a standardized culture. And successfully blending unique organizational cultures in the public sector can be just as elusive as it is for mergers in private industry. Regardless of the environment in which they occur, reorganizational endeavors are inherently risky, demanding strategic initiatives to enhance the potential for implementing a productive consolidation without experiencing dysfunctional repercussions.

County-wide reorganization—integrating police and fire services

Government agencies in general are well-noted for ascribing reform to a “need” for change without ever clearly defining the need itself or specifying whose need is being served (Peters, 2002: 161). In that regard, however, the initiative that is the subject of this case study differed somewhat from the norm, as its genesis and urgency were based on documented findings of the 9/11 Commission Report, which, although praising the heroic efforts of New York police and firefighters, concluded that the emergency response on September 11, 2001, suffered from the lack of “integrated communications and unified command” (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004: 319).

Thus, on the basis of the official post-9/11 investigative review, an administrative rationale was established for functionally integrating the organizational structures and operational procedures of law enforcement and fire-rescue services. The resulting 2003 merger of a large county sheriff’s office in the southeastern US, (referred to herein as the “sheriff’s office”) and the same county’s fire-rescue department was therefore directed toward enabling police, fire, and emergency medical personnel to be deployed in an integrated approach to responding to calls for service ranging from traffic accidents to personal traumas, natural disasters, or terrorist attacks. Through this reorganization, technical integration and tactical unification were accommodated within a centralized organizational command (County Commission Meeting, 2003), making it one of the few first-responder agencies in the country to integrate law enforcement and fire-rescue communications and unify command operations under a sheriff’s office.

While this merger necessitated acclimation to certain cultural differences, it was also advanced by certain pre-existing organizational similarities. Even before their unification, the sheriff’s office and the county’s fire-rescue services maintained similar structural features. For example, as with their counterparts throughout the country, both have long-held paramilitary administrative traditions (Compton and Granito, 2002: 251–254; Garmire, 1982: 84–88), including a steep hierarchy, strong chain-of-command, and rule-driven, top-down approach to management.Footnote 2 Both have also historically been male-dominated, resulting in cultures focused on a tight-knit “brotherhood.” On the surface, a merger between these two typical examples of rational-structural organizations (Bolman and Deal, 1984) might appear to be relatively straightforward, requiring minimal concern for cultural adaptation. Administrative structure, however, is not the only feature shaping organizational culture. Nor is it the most influential—especially when compared to the deep-rooted role of interpersonal interactions.

As with many technologically based initiatives, this merger placed extensive emphasis on aligning the hardware, communications systems, and technical interaction necessary to enable two independent systems to merge functionally into one. What may make it somewhat unique is the extent to which its interpersonal aspects were also addressed, especially in terms of strategies for uniting two distinct organizational cultures.

In that context, acculturation reflects the process through which divergent cultures can become integrated (Schraeder and Self, 2003: 519). On a macro level, it could be considered somewhat analogous to the process of an individual’s assimilation into a social culture, whereby, for example, immigrants gradually adapt to the values, norms, traditions, and general lifestyle of an unfamiliar country. In like manner, cultures themselves can merge, although the process is neither uncomplicated or flawless.

Somewhat analogous to the “one country/two systems” approach that has characterized the relationship between democratic Hong Kong and mainland China,Footnote 3 in the case of the southeastern sheriff’s office, it was assumed that fire-rescue was capable of achieving peaceful coexistence within the over-arching embrace of the sheriff’s office. But simmering beneath the surface of this organizational wedlock was the uncertainty of whether these divergent cultures could be effectively co-mingled in a manner that would promote acculturation. It is one thing to unite everything from the technical capabilities of dispatch operations to the structural components of performance evaluation systems. It is quite another, however, to bridge the interpersonal divide between two similar but distinct organizational cultures. From a tactical perspective, law enforcement and fire-rescue services can be merged with sufficient technological proficiency to enable both to function in unison relatively efficiently. But the interpersonal dimensions of such a merger raise the more complex issue of whether sufficient cultural compatibility can be achieved to enable each entity to blend into a well-integrated collective whole that is united culturally as well as technologically.

Background and methodology

In this case study, local circumstances within the sheriff’s office and fire-rescue services were favorable to the merger. Thus, it enjoyed the advantage of starting on a relatively strong foundation. The two agencies were no strangers to each other, already jointly located in the same building and sharing the same dispatch center. Prior to the merger, voters had overwhelmingly supported a referendum creating regional public safety communications. Moreover, the sheriff and the fire chief shared a common vision for expanding beyond their current jurisdiction into unincorporated areas of the county. While fire-rescue was losing service area through annexation, the sheriff’s office was gaining it by contracting with other municipalities for law enforcement services. Both were interested in providing consolidated public safety services throughout the county, and both had something to gain by consolidating their efforts under the jurisdiction of the sheriff. Essentially, the overall climate was ripe for change.

But it is well-known that even some of the best-intentioned and well-timed reorganizational initiatives can go awry—often because they overlook the need to devote as much attention to accommodating cultures as to aligning structures. In an effort to explore the extent to which cultural ramifications were accommodated during this consolidation, and to determine if there are any resulting implications that can inform similar efforts, an exploratory case study of the merger was conducted in 2004. This qualitative analysis encompassed a review of documented records, as well as interviews with 10 of the 25 members of the merger transition team.Footnote 4 Those interviewed represented fire-rescue (70%) as well as the sheriff’s office (30%) and reflected a combination of management, operations, and support personnel.Footnote 5 The one-on-one interviews conducted with transition team members focused on such issues as:

  • Whether initiatives were undertaken to familiarize fire-rescue employees with their new organizational culture

  • How merged employees were integrated into the existing organizational values, norms, and customary practices of the sheriff’s office

  • Whether there were any particular strategies that helped or hindered the ability of fire-rescue workers to fit into their new organizational culture

  • What advice might be offered to assist other organizations facing similar cultural transitions following a merger

Beyond these interviews, relevant documents were reviewed, including County Commission proceedings, internal correspondence, agency newsletters, and other records. Results are organized according to their applicability to the three culture-related components of the theoretical concepts that form the infrastructure of this case study—i.e., identity formation, person–environment “fit” (cultural alignment), and reciprocal expectations.

Organizational culture and psycho-social theory

Inasmuch as the culture of an organization is analogous to the personality of an individual, both are fundamentally anchored in the maintenance of a unique identity. When two people unite in matrimony, each is expected to sacrifice something of their own individuality for the benefit of blending together in mutual harmony. In like manner, the unification of two organizational entities creates a similar expectation in terms of uniting distinct organizational cultures. Just as a marriage is unlikely to survive when partners are unwilling to compromise, the inability of organizational partners to blend their diverse cultures can produce similar incompatibility.

Since organizational culture can to some extent be considered a macro-level expression of psychological theory, the remainder of this article explores the merger of police and fire-rescue services from the theoretical perspectives of applicable psycho-social literature. Particular emphasis is placed on preservation of the distinctiveness of organizational culture during mergers, their role in altering relationships, and their psychological impact on employees (Levinson, 1976). Applying theory to practice, the sheriff’s office/fire-rescue merger is analyzed to determine the extent to which strategies were implemented to assist employees with effectively making the transition—by maintaining organizational identity, achieving cultural fit, acknowledging reciprocal expectations, and generally promoting the acculturation process (Schraeder and Self, 2003: 519).

The three major theoretical components that are relevant to this case study include the formation of work-related identity, the interaction between psychological needs and organizational culture, and the reciprocal expectations between employees and their employers. Since each is related to the psycho-social relationship between the characteristics of workers and the culture of their workplace, each is likewise related to the outcome of organizational mergers.

Work-related identity

Human identify formation is, to a considerable extent, a product of relationships that individuals gradually develop with other people, places, and things. These associations shape one’s personal growth and development and give meaning to life (Levinson, 1976: 655). For example, they lead to “I am” statements of personal identity: “I am an American.” “I am a parent.” “I am a police officer,” (or firefighter, or teacher, or whatever one’s occupation might be). When these relationships are suddenly and forcibly altered or terminated by significant emotional events, (such as divorce, separation, death, or unemployment), those involved can experience a “sense of helplessness, loss of control over the situation, and a lower self-image” (Levinson, 1976: 655).

An organization’s employees develop their workplace identity through the associations they have with coworkers, the nature of the work itself, their hierarchical status, the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards they receive, and the organizational culture to which they have adapted. As the “underlying glue” that binds an organization together, “culture conveys a sense of identity to employees” (Cameron and Quinn, 1998: 14–15) that guides behavior, provides stability, and establishes boundaries (Freiberg and Freiberg, 1996: 145). In fact, psychologists note that our fear of change is primarily rooted in the loss of such personal identity: “When a major change occurs, our internal dialogue sounds something like this: ‘I won’t know how to act’—‘I won’t fit’—‘After this change, I won’t be me anymore’” (Bethel, 1990: 100). From this perspective, significant work-related events, such as mergers, can become a threat to work-related identity as a result of the likelihood that several aspects of the foundation of that identity might be seriously altered. In order to explore that proposition further, it is necessary first to describe the nature of the two organizations in this case study prior to their consolidation.

Even before their merger with the sheriff’s office, the identity of the fire-rescue workers had already embraced “two brotherhoods”—i.e., firefighting and emergency medical services. As one fire department executive put it, although they merged in the 1980s, there are still “organizational culture differences between firefighters and paramedics.” Others went on to explain:

Paramedics are highly technical [and] patient-focused, results oriented, [with] high expectations and drive, dedication to patient care…..a feeling of a higher calling. The fire brotherhood, [on the other hand].......is more general, more universal. It’s a life vs. bricks and mortar issue...... In fire, ranks determine who runs the scene when responding to incidents........ Their motto is ‘don’t do anything unless you are told to.’ [Among paramedics] there is less rank recognition, no rank consciousness. They are alone in the units, require little direction, [and are] more individually-oriented.

Like their counterparts in the sheriff’s office, work identity for firefighters and paramedics is largely influenced by the complementary but distinct roles they perform as first responders. Moreover, the technical knowledge and skills required by their jobs have conditioned them to develop somewhat different work-related self-concepts, patterned after the duties they perform.

If mergers are constructed with little or no employee involvement and limited consideration of their cultural identity, it should not be surprising to find affected employees displaying signs of stress and anxiety as that identity undergoes change (Appelbaum et al., 2000: 674–675). Such was not the case, however, with the sheriff’s office/fire-rescue merger described in this case study. To the contrary, it appeared to be a carefully crafted endeavor, including an orderly dissemination of information through a variety of venues. For example, the sheriff established a transition team to coordinate the process, met with employees during union gatherings, and conducted several orientation sessions. Beyond meetings, an administrative mechanism was initiated to enable employees to submit their concerns to the sheriff and the transition team through both a newsletter and a suggestion box. Weekly updates were distributed via email, flyers, and newsletters, along with presentations and question/answer sessions. As one person recalled, “communication was a high priority.”

One of the greatest expressions of concern emerging from this process was whether or not the “fire identity” would be preserved and maintained. In that regard, fire-rescue personnel were worried about whether or not their badges, uniforms, vehicles, and other artifacts that give meaning to the occupation and generate esprit de corps would be altered following the merger:

For example, most worried about whether the sheriff’s office would require fire-rescue to change the fire patch we have worn for years. You may say that is a very inconsequential matter, but to us, the patch was part of our identity.

As reflected in his outreach strategies, the sheriff addressed these concerns in face-to-face meetings, assuring firefighters that their distinct identity would be maintained. While new shirts were issued, they preserved the traditional fire colors, (red and white), and the existing patch was retained. Nor were any dramatic identity-related changes made in other aspects of the merged workplace, which has been described as “separate but equal,” with fire-rescue personnel viewing themselves as “carrying out separate but equally important roles.” As one fire employee summarized it, “the only thing that changed, which was reasonable and expected, was the name of the agency.”

Throughout the process, the transition committee worked at keeping people informed of developments. In fact, it was noted among those interviewed that “good communication between transition members and employees was [the] key........There was no room for rumors.” As a result of the emphasis on continuous communication, fire-rescue employees had ongoing opportunities to learn about the sheriff’s office, address any questions or concerns they might have, and gradually phase into their new workplace, while still maintaining much of their former identity.

Person–environment fit (cultural alignment)

From relationships with co-workers to hierarchical status, mergers can be expected to substantially alter the workplace landscape. But perhaps no dimension of that alteration is as potent as the potential impact on organizational culture.

Employers tend to extend job offers to those candidates who are anticipated to fit best with the prevailing workplace culture. Likewise, applicants are particularly attracted to agencies whose culture is most closely aligned with their psychological needs (Levinson, 1976: 655). This mutual tendency is perhaps best expressed in the concept of person–environment “fit” (McMichael, 1978; Carroll and White, 1982; Cable and Parsons, 2001), which maintains that employees seek (and remain committed to) organizations that are a good match for them.

Mergers can make employees feel uneasy because they are not at all sure whether their existing alignment with the pre-merger employer can be maintained or whether they will be able to find the right fit within the post-merger organizational culture. As with work-related identity, research indicates that intensive, ongoing communications between management and employees can help to ease these uncertainties and address the concerns which they reflect (Appelbaum et al., 2000: 650).

In this case study, pre-merger cultural distinctions were evident between the sheriff’s office and fire-rescue. Since firefighters live at the station 24/7, the fire culture can be compared to an “extended family,” (complete, as one interviewee added, with “family feuds”). This makes the fire culture considerably more group-oriented than the individualistic nature of either paramedic or police work. In fact, the very nature of the firefighting job virtually requires teamwork. As one person phrased it, despite any interpersonal disputes, “when responding to incidents, we are one.” Thus, the group orientation of fire personnel creates a cultural environment that is quite different from the individuality of the sheriff’s office:

Fire is team-based. We say ‘I have a problem, let’s fix it.’...... The sheriff’s office is individual-based. They always say ‘everything is fine.’ They have a tough time accepting problems.

However, it was also noted that there is a sense of aloofness between fire management and operational personnel. For example, “field staff refers to management as those who live in the ‘crystal palace’ (the headquarters building). They believe management has forgotten what it was [like] to be in the field.” Likewise, there is some distance between firefighters and paramedics. Because there are more medical emergencies than fire calls, paramedics refer to firefighters as “under-worked, overpaid” employees who “think they are too good” [in comparison to paramedics].

Given the fact that they drive alone in their vehicles and typically work in only 8-h shifts, sheriff’s officers are described as “more individualistic than firefighters.” Following the merger, an administrator depicted their differences in color-coded analogies:

As far as organizational culture, there are three colors: the greens, the reds, and the blues. The greens are the road deputies. They have a no nonsense approach......They deal with high-risk situations. They work individually. They are the drivers of the organization. They can be cynical.

The reds are the firefighters who are known for their courage...... [and] work in teams. There is no freelancing. There is little room for individuality.

The blues are the paramedics.....They respond to life and death situations. They generally work in teams of two, although they are less team-focused as compared with firefighters. They are the compassionate group, but most ‘beat up’ group, since they respond to more calls than firefighters.

It was also noted that fire-rescue maintains a “softer” managerial approach than the sheriff’s office, especially in terms of how they approach authority. A number of comments from those interviewed pointed toward this distinction; e.g.:

  • “When firefighters make a request, it is usually a general request ........even includes the word ‘please.’ When sheriff’s officers make a request, it is a command. That is part of the organizational culture......”

  • “The sheriff’s office is very much a paramilitary organization. There is no democracy. No questioning. They are very structured, and there is a lot of ‘pomp and circumstance,’ but they are very predictable.”

  • “Firefighters don’t like conflict. Police are conflict-oriented. We’re [fire-rescue] accommodating and our approach is less aggressive.”

  • “Fire-rescue is a casual environment, friendly, sometimes too friendly and too lax. Sometimes the chain of command was skipped, but you were not punished [for it]. The sheriff’s office is formal, less friendly, and too strict, with a strong chain of command and you get punished for skipping [it]......”

Referring to these cultural differences, one manager noted that “in some ways, the merger was like trying to fit a square peg in a circle [sic] hole.” Among the strategies for integrating such disparate organizational cultures, Marks (1997: 278) has focused on sensitizing employees to “the dynamics of culture clash” and educating them about “each partner’s culture and ways of doing business.” Otherwise, they are left to figure things out for themselves, which can seriously jeopardize the merger’s success. That is at least in part because the tenets of an unfamiliar organizational culture can appear to be not only “different,” but actually “wrong,” (or at least inappropriate), just as the language, customs, and lifestyles of a “foreign” country may seem to be inappropriate to an outsider. Consider, for example, how predisposed Americans are to note that British drivers operate their vehicles on the “wrong” side of the road.

In this case, two complementary processes were designed to sensitize and educate newly merged employees in terms of the dynamics of the organizational culture that they would be joining. One was formal; the other informal. The formal process consisted of establishing an interdisciplinary transition team which met weekly to identify and address key issues. Team members included personnel from both law enforcement (44%) and fire-rescue (56%) representing multi-faceted specializations, including human resources, legal issues, training, policy/procedures, and operations. The informal process was comprised of various forms of internal communications, such as weekly newsletters, on-site question-and-answer sessions, and a rumor control hotline. Beyond written communications, merged employees and their families were invited to the annual sheriff’s office picnic, and efforts were undertaken to welcome them and make them feel part of the sheriff’s office “family.”

Through such efforts, an attempt was made to keep both parties informed, address their concerns, and integrate them into a collaborative transition process. It is also notable that both fire-rescue and the sheriff’s office emerged from similar paramilitary organizational structures. Thus, a common foundation was in place for establishing a compatible culture, and strategies were pursued to reduce the potential for dysfunctional conflict. But since this study was conducted less than 2 years after the official date of the merger, it is somewhat premature to determine how cultural dissimilarities might affect overall post-merger harmony or the long-term alignment of individual employees with organizational culture.

Employer–employee reciprocity (quid pro quo)

When personnel are well-matched with a particular organizational culture, the stage is set for development of a reciprocal relationship that is mutually rewarding to both. Over a period of time, workers and their employing organizations establish concurrent expectations, with each offering something that the other needs and each obtaining something of value from the other. Since it is a two-way interaction, this implicit arrangement has been described as “reciprocation.” (Levinson, 1976: 655).

On the one hand, workers expect the employer to meet their needs for equitable compensation, career advancement, training, job security, self-fulfillment, and the like. On the other hand, the employer likewise expects employees to fulfill their end of the implicit “bargain” by producing a satisfactory quality and quantity of work. This mutual reciprocity constitutes a “psychological contract,” which can generate a feeling of betrayal if the contract is violated and expectations are not being met by either party (Levinson, 1976: 655). While unwritten and certainly not legally binding, the deeply implicit nature of a psychological contract shapes organizational behavior in a powerful manner (Makin et al., 1997: 13–14).

If not managed effectively, mergers can be perceived by employees as a breach of this psychological contract. Even if they anticipate similar (or even improved) work-related conditions and expect to find compatibility within the new organizational culture, the compulsory nature of mergers has a tendency to make employees feel helpless and vulnerable (Marks, 1997: 268–269, 273). Moreover, the very nature of change itself is psychologically threatening and physiologically stressful (Kotter, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1985), whether it is the addition of another new family member or the absorption of another agency. Just as the relationship between two people is forever changed with the arrival of a child, the relationship between employer and employee is altered with the addition of an outside organizational entity. In both cases, adjusting to the impact requires revising roles and routines, as well as “renegotiating” implicit contracts.

One way to revise the implicit (and explicit) contractual details in a merger is to “sweeten the deal” for affected personnel, which was among the strategies pursued in this case study. In that regard, the newly absorbed employees were offered very tangible benefits—i.e., more affordable health insurance, greater job stability, and more opportunities for personal growth and development. In addition to pay incentives and better insurance coverage at lower rates, an effort was also made to maintain employees’ position status following the merger.Footnote 6 As one person interviewed remarked with regard to these efforts to address the safety and esteem-related needs of employees, “the sheriff must be very familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy.....”

In exchange, the sheriff’s office required personnel to meet certain standards. For example, fire-rescue employees had long ago abandoned the practice of rising to their feet when the fire chief entered the room. However, in the post-merger reciprocal “contract,” employees are compelled to stand up “as a sign of respect:”

One of the first things we were told in a meeting was that we were to stand up when the sheriff entered the room and that we would sit at his signal. In the fire culture, there was no expectation to stand up for anyone, not even the fire chief.

Likewise by way of reciprocation, fire-rescue employees are now supposed to extend themselves above and beyond the call of duty, no `longer simply waiting to respond reactively to emergency calls. In the proactive spirit of community policing that has been embraced by the sheriff’s office, they are now expected to become involved with the community by attending neighborhood meetings, becoming aware of local concerns, and addressing related issues:

For example, if there is trash in a vacant lot, we are supposed to report that to the proper agency...... We are not just there to fight fires. If we see any problems, we are there to fix them by calling the right agency. The sheriff......demands excellence from everybody.

In fact, demands for employee accountability have extended into domains ranging from requiring random drug testing to justifying requests for supplies, with employees expected to follow policies and procedures “to the letter” and adhere to the chain of command “at all times.” The outcome has been so far-reaching that some have termed the transition a “culture shock”:

There is more accountability. For example, now the chief officer’s signature is required for all requests for supplies,......and there is better fiscal management of inventories...... But the most significant culture shock was the.....random drug testing.......required of firefighters and paramedics. We were told that they had a zero tolerance about drug use. Those who tested positive would be fired....

Fire-rescue employees interviewed for this study agreed that while the expectations have been raised, they have also been provided with additional resources to accomplish them, including a greater sense of job security and a brighter future. Additionally, early exit opportunities were provided within the first 12 months of the merger for those employees who did not find the new organizational culture compatible with their individual needs. As the sheriff himself admits, “I am very demanding,” but at the same time, “I will give you the tools you need”—essentially, an unwritten quid pro quo agreement.

Summary and conclusions

As with any organizational change, mergers introduce turbulent times for all of those involved (Moxley, 1998). It therefore stands to reason that the more organizations can do to reduce the disruption of mergers, the less disturbing they are likely to be. With attention consumed by technical details and administrative complexities, however, it is tempting to venture headstrong into such an endeavor with a blind eye toward its less apparent interpersonal dimensions. But uniting two organizations fiscally and functionally are two quite different things.

Despite their increasing prevalence in both private industry and public service, reorganization initiatives such as mergers often fail to fulfill the grandiose expectations that inspire them. While the reasons range widely, a considerable body of research has been pointing toward insufficient attention to the impact of such subtleties as organizational culture. Based on emerging evidence that culture is a key variable in the outcome of organizational mergers, this exploratory case study analyzed the culture-related dynamics of consolidating fire-rescue services within a county sheriff’s office. In addition to expanding the limited availability of literature addressing public sector mergers, findings may provide insights of value to government agencies that are in the preliminary stages of merger planning and analysis.

Given the unwritten assumptions that it communicates and the unstated requirements that it generates, organizational culture can be a strong normative force in the workplace. With the implicit capacity to reward as well as punish, it establishes a firm foundation of informal criteria for governing employee behavior. Although unofficial, because the influence of culture tends to exceed the regulatory capacity of conventional policies and procedures, it can become a significant make-or-break factor in achieving organizational change.

While the nature of culture is somewhat elusive, consolidating the operational procedures of two agencies is a relatively straightforward, (although not uncomplicated), endeavor. Thus, when the functions of a southeastern county’s law enforcement and fire-rescue services were merged in concert with overall recommendations of The 9/11 Commission Report, tactical unification was objectively facilitated with integration of the communication systems and command operations of the two agencies involved. As this case study demonstrates, however, it requires more than a structural integration of hardware to harmoniously merge two organizations.

Just as the unification of two people in matrimony produces life-altering changes for both of them, organizational mergers can produce a similarly deep-seated impact on the work-related lives of those involved. Integrating the interpersonal dynamics of two unique organizational cultures is therefore a critical ingredient in successful mergers. Using a combination of personal interviews and documentary analysis, the exploratory case study presented herein analyzed the cultural dimensions of this merger through the lens of three interactive psycho-social theories—i.e., work-related identity, person–environment fit (cultural alignment), and employer–employee reciprocity.

Identity formation is so inherently a feature of one’s employment that experiencing a significant alteration in the workplace can be as traumatic as experiencing a significant emotional event in one’s personal life. Organizational culture provides an anchor that not only promotes individual identity, but also binds individuals together in collective unity. When the customary cultural context is threatened by merger with an unfamiliar culture, employees envision their workplace anchor symbolically drifting away, resulting in stress and anxiety. Providing an outlet for staff to express their concerns, phasing them gradually into the new workplace, and preserving at least some aspects of their prevailing cultural identity all represent strategies that can offset such adverse reactions, as illustrated in this case study.

Not only is work integral to identity formation, but the psycho-social relationship between people and their place of employment is so mutually interactive that prospective employees find themselves attracted to a workplace that harmonizes with their personal predispositions. When such congruence is achieved, the needs of the individual and those of the organization become well-aligned, creating a comfortable level of person-environment fit, whereby the employee is able to seamlessly mesh with the organization (and vice versa). Over time, this reciprocity deepens to the extent that the arrangement becomes an unwritten quid pro quo psychological contract between the worker and the organization, with each implicitly agreeing to fulfill the unmet needs of the other. Mergers, however, alter that well-balanced alignment, revoke that unwritten contract, and expose the now-unprotected employee to uncertainty and instability. By upsetting the existing state of equilibrium between employer and employee, mergers create confusion, anxiety, and a perception of vulnerability.

As described in the sheriff’s office/fire-rescue case study, this imbalance can be manifested by any number of means—from the degree of formality expected when communicating between ranks, to the level of conflict that typically characterizes the work setting, to whether the job itself is approached in an individualistic or a group-oriented manner. Regardless of the specific dimensions, someone who has chosen a particular workplace because of its compatibility with that person’s values, preferences, lifestyle, or whatever may not fit equally well within the altered environment that inevitably follows a merger. After such a substantial alteration, it is a considerable challenge to preserve the strength of the pre-merger alignment between employees and their employing organization.

In this case, strategies pursued to maintain a secure person–environment fit included efforts to familiarize employees with the culture of the new work setting, address their uncertainties, respond to their concerns, and integrate them into a collaborative transition process. In terms of their unwritten quid pro quo contract, both benefits and expectations were raised in a manner reflecting the reciprocal nature of this concept—i.e., in exchange for better benefits and job security, more accountability and productivity were expected.

These were among the initiatives pursued in order to integrate the two distinct cultural “brotherhoods” of police and fire-rescue services during their merger within a southeastern county’s sheriff’s office. While the strategies described herein are presented in an effort to assist other public agencies in the process of considering mergers, there are acknowledged shortcomings that limit the utility of this case study, including its exclusive reliance on information from transition team members and official publications. A more comprehensive point of view would encompass feedback from a broader sample of employees that was not feasible to obtain within the time and resource constraints of this study. Moreover, findings reported herein were based on information gathered somewhat early in the merger process, when both entities were still undergoing a “honeymoon” period that can cast a somewhat favorable light on outcomes. Thus, an agenda for future research would include a more comprehensive follow-up with a broader range of employees at a later period of time, when they have had more opportunity to experience the full impact of the merger over a longer time frame. Likewise, it would be beneficial to direct further research toward additional strategies that paramilitary organizations could apply during mergers to become more responsive and employee-friendly, to reduce power and status disparities during merger negotiations, and to enhance the cultural compatibility and organizational identity of those involved.

While there is no foolproof formula for successfully preventing post-merger breakdown of the cultural alignment between employees and their employing organization, blindly ignoring the dynamics of potential culture clashes, arrogantly dismissing the necessity to involve affected personnel, or simply expecting people to sort things out for themselves are almost certain to produce undesired consequences. In essence, consolidating such structural features as communications and command centers is technically necessary but tactically insufficient for a successful merger. Because they strike the most sensitive nerves of the psycho-social relationship between organizations and the people they employ, mergers are inherently painful to those involved. The antidote to such painful dislocations is being sensitive to organizational culture. The alternative is to continue being painfully disappointed with the outcome.