On paper, the proposed merger appeared a shrewd strategy to maximize the efforts of two small organizations in the same policy area.

They were volunteer-driven political reform groups, but the issues they would be forced to address in a merger were eerily identical to those encountered by trade and professional associations that navigate the minefield of organizational collaboration to formally join forces: how to combine governance, staff, volunteers, physical location, programs, and—most important—culture.

The groups professed similar ideals, but their customs differed. And they were driven to merge for selfish reasons.

Both were in decline. The larger group had dropped from 2,000 members to 800, the smaller from 800 to 200. Each wanted to preserve its identity. They had regularly combined forces on advocacy but fought over project leadership, wary of ceding control.

Founded earlier, the larger organization enjoyed greater name recognition and could marshal more substantial financial resources. It was governed by a traditional board of directors, half of whom were chapter representatives, and employed three staff members, including an executive director.

The smaller one, established more recently by a younger generation, benefited from immense volunteer participation. It invested decision-making power in its membership and generated huge turnouts for in-person votes. Its board, consisting primarily of chapter representatives, served as coordinators, carrying out the will of the membership. Officers functioned as unpaid staff. The sole paid employee was an office manager.

Except in one geographical area, there was little overlap in membership. The governing bodies shared mutual distrust. A merger, though, was seen as necessary for survival—the larger group possessing marketing assets, the smaller one volunteer muscle.

A merger should be conducted for positive reasons. Will a combined association more effectively serve its audiences?

A joint committee crafted a merger proposal and presented it for a vote by their respective memberships. The proposal was approved by large margins in both organizations, and each then appointed members to a smaller committee to draft operating procedures.

To ensure nothing important would be ceded, both groups stacked this committee with merger opponents. It occasionally appeared as if those folks were using their positions to sabotage the undertaking.

The result? Essentially, the larger group consumed the smaller one. The new organization combined the names of both predecessors, moved into the office of the larger group, and adopted its staff and chapter composition. The elected leader of the smaller organization became the head of the new group, and the board blended members of the two.

A patchwork of operational procedures, accommodating the culture of the smaller group, was adopted, but members of the larger group convened to orchestrate a reversal. They returned to their way of doing things. Factional squabbles persisted many years later.

I learned some valuable lessons from this experience—having served on the boards of both groups and the eventually merged organization—preparing me for similar episodes among associations:

• A merger should be conducted for positive reasons. Will a combined association more effectively serve its audiences? A merger should not be intended to save an organization.


• Determine whether this is a merger of equals or an acquisition of a smaller group by a larger one. A small group should not expect parity with a large one.


• Before diving into detailed negotiations, discuss how to blend the two groups' cultures. If you can't do that effectively, the merger is less likely to work.


• Realize that in volunteer-driven organizations, especially smaller ones, leaders may react emotionally, rather than professionally, to new ideas.


• Do not include merger opponents in the implementation process. You want people to help make it work, not derail the effort.


• Enlist a person with professional experience in mergers to ensure you don't do something you shouldn't. In small organizations, don't be surprised if your colleagues resist. They may feel qualified to handle it themselves and may not want to spend the money.


• The merged organization should be a new group with a new identity, possessing its own office, staff, and board. As much as possible, eliminate premerger organizational loyalties. Be willing to jettison your groups' names.

The rewards of successfully pulling off a merger can be significant—expanded services, improved educational offerings, more effective advocacy, and membership growth. But take heed of the many potential pitfalls. A poorly planned or executed marriage of two groups can set both back through internecine fighting and leave members feeling misled and alienated.