Momentum Case Analysis

Introduction

Change management situations call for transformational leadership. In the merger of Momentum and Metropolitan, two long-standing, large firms in the financial-insurance industries, there was a need for clear vision, commitment, communication, and supportive guidance. The merger worked and as a result it serves as a great case study for how to implement transformational leadership on a large stage.

What?The Situation, Key Players and Main Problem

The merger of Metropolitan and Momentum seemed a good idea for the banking-insurance-health companies. The operated in different target markets and could benefit from the merger in terms of reducing costs. However, some reservations existedsuch as the idea of whether this was a soft takeover and, if so, which company would be running the operations? Another issue was whether the cultures of the two corporations were complementary to one another or whether the differences might represent a problem.

At the start of 2009, Wilhelm van Zyl, CEO of Metropolitan, began thinking about how to spearhead a new future for the corporation. He met with Kruger, CEO of Momentum, to see what could be done about bringing the companies together. The question they had for one another was this: both companies operated on different ends of the spectrum of the market, and the nature of the partnership had to be clarified while the business model they would have needed to be defined.

Additionally, the two CEOs had to convince their respective boards that the merger made sense. Risks and rewards had to be weighed. Mergers were booming in South Africa at this time, where nearly a third of all global mergers were happening at the time (Scheepers & Swart, 2015). The companies also had to maintain strict confidentiality, because if word got out, other players could respond and derail the merger hopes. At the same time, the CEOs helped to develop a bottom-up restructuring of their portfolios to help focus the merger.

Trust, integrity and purity of intention were needed at the top levels, as there was no initial clarity on how the two companies could come together. The two CEOs and their executive teams developed scenarios and visions, discussed them, and had long, in-depth conversations with one another to see where the best possible direction was. Additionally, the two CEOs had to make deep, personal sacrifices in order to guide this process. It was a merger that required intense transformational leadership and master of the ego. Once merged, there could only be one CEObut during the process of brainstorming and integrating the two CEOs never allowed their egos to get in the way of the vision and the drive needed to achieve the plan (Scheepers & Swart, 2015).

The main problem was for these two leaders to work together to bring two different companies with different cultures into one company, and to lead with a vision and a discipline that would inspire others to want to commit to the process. It required conviction, devotion, and communication on a tremendous scale, as these were two very large, very old, and very successful businesses.

The idea of the merger was to create value and to guard against destroying value, while retaining the very best of both corporations in the process. It required having a steering committee to guide the process. The steering committee had to enunciate the vision that would serve the process. Decision-making power and integration, along with creating a bottom-up strategic development process was then needed. No duplication of effort could be tolerated. Difficult decisions would have to be made, but for the merger to succeed the company would need leaders who were not afraid to make such decisions for...

…firm would take step by step, so that it was impossible to say as of now what changes would be made exactly but that everyone should know that their job could be affected in some way down the line.

For me this is about being an authentic leader. I think authentic leadership can overlap well with transformational leadership, as it lets everyone know that the reality of the situation is exactly as it is being communicated, nothing is being hidden, and everything is being shared. I want my followers to know that they can trust me because I am not out to deceive or mislead them just so I can obtain some short-term victory. I fear that this is the approach Kruger has taken, but if he has built up enough good will with his staff it may not be as big a problem as all that.

The key to creating a winning culture of change is to make sure everyone is always on the same page and that feedback is always being sought and that it is always welcomed. People want to know that they have a voice and the best leaders are those who appreciate that voice and want to hear it. I would want my workers to feel that even if change is constant, their voices and opinions will always be just as appreciated.

Conclusion

The merger of Momentum and Metropolitan showed that even the biggest changes can be successfully undertaken if the leaders have a vision, a will to achieve it, the support network to execute it, the communication skills to get others involved, are willing to accept feedback, and know how to share responsibility. The values of the new firm were developed thanks to feedback from staffers, and that is key to growing the right culture. Authentic leadership, in my…