Speaking only for myself....
Lets just say I was a member of an organization, and was asked to vote on a decision to join, in what was described as a merger, with another organization who was in a similar business or industry.
Here are some things I would need to know to decide what is best for the future.
Firstly, I know what the organization I am apart of offers. It is strong, organized, has a solid brand, operates as it states it will, is transparent, is democratic, allows for equality through membership. It has a clearly defined set of goals, and an open pathway and mission statement on how to reach its goals. All of which are determined by the membership as a whole. They have a list of things that they set out to achieve, and continue to takes steps to get all action items checked off the list. They also add new items as needed to ensure that they are adapting to the needs of business and the industry. So I know what the ASSETS are, of the organization I am apart of, and I know what those assets mean, and how they are important to my future as a member.
The organization on the other side of table………
As a member, I would like to know everything about them before I decided to agree to, what essentially would give them control of 50% of the direction we were headed in.
- Who are they and what is the name of their organization? Are they officially registered, have insurance, a constitution and other standard documents between the partners, officers and members?.
- What is their brand like? Do they have a strong brand, website, solid reach for the perception of the organization?
- What is the marketing like? Do they have consistant and cohesive ideas for the modern business world, like a good online presence, facebook, twitter, etc. Are their members combined in the effort to promote the entire brand for the greater good of all individual members.
- What are the operations levels like? Do they operate in good facilities?
- How many customers, supporters, etc, do they have?
- Do they have a mission statement, set of guidelines, and other "visions" for the future, which can be considered to see if they are similar to ours?
- Is their membership working in harmony and are their members committed to develop and grow the business in a progressive way?
- What is their leadership structure like? How did their leaders rise to power? Do their leaders have total support from all their current members? What are the democratic processes in place that allow people to speak on behalf of the entire organization?
- Are there any silent partners in the organization who are not visible? Do they OWN everything they claim too?
- What is their track record of achieving the items in their mission statement in the past?
In essence what are their assets? Do they have any liabilities? Any debts? Are there any past partnerships that may affect them in the future? Is there a clear and VERIFIABLE system in place to show that the merger is best for both parties?
Sometimes after laying all the ASSETS on the table, and asking the membership of the organizations to weigh all the pros and cons, some members may decide to consider it more an "acquisition” rather than a merger. It is in no way a political move, it is simply a business move. One organization may have verified all its assets and have a track record of continued progress and success, and its members don’t want to break up the organization, if not everything from the other organization looks attractive. They may be very happy with their current progress and 100% believe that the business model they have used on the past has worked very well.
But they do want everyone, in both organizations, to be apart of greater success in the industry they are in. So they want to invite the members of the other organization to join under the banner of success and move forward as a larger more combined force.
One organization gets more members and more locations to do business.
The members of the other organization get strong progressive leadership, which provides them with a pathway to democratically rise into management positions, using the same pathway that is open to all current members. “Equity through participation” and “Equality for all members through Democracy”.
If this was a real business meeting, I think the natural thing that would occur is that the more structured organization would be looking to acquire the other one in an effort to unify the members of both groups, and allow the power of membership progress everyone as a whole.
Of course it is just a hypothetical scenario, but it certainly would be one that was made solely for the greater good of the BUSINESS operations, and not one that was worried about the politics. It is simply a consideration of the ASSETS of each, and the future management direction of how to utilize those assets.
Of course, as with all business meetings, it takes the members of both parties to be able to have a common view of what the assets are, and what the best way to manage them are.
