When Cultures Collide: A Leadership Reflection on Alignment, Power Distance, and Trust

Summary:

This article offers a reflection on what tends to go wrong when two culturally distinct organizations merge without intentional alignment. Drawing from firsthand leadership experience inside one such global media merger, I explore how power distance, unclear strategy, and reactive communication can quietly erode collaboration, trust, and morale. Using foundational theories from organizational behavior, I outline a pattern of dysfunction that can emerge in the worst-case scenarios and suggest practical, systems-level solutions for companies seeking to lead through complexity with both clarity and compassion.

In 2023, I was part of the leadership team at a global media company formed by the merger of two legacy brands - one based in the United States, the other in Mexico. After a year of working inside the merged entity, I was laid off during a wave of organizational restructuring. Thank God. I am now thriving in my own consultancy, working across the media supply chain with a variety of companies I deeply respect. In my spare time, I'm even finishing my Master's Degree in Management and Leadership. But I have carried a lot of reflection with me.

This is not a post about that company, though many readers may recognize it. This is about what happens inside organizations when cultures collide and what leaders can do to prevent the friction from grinding momentum to a halt.

The Setup: Two Cultures, One Vision

Mergers are complex even when values are aligned. When they are not, even the strongest vision struggles to take root. In this case, two well-established media entities came together. One operated within a high power distance culture, where hierarchy and centralized decision-making are the norm. The other leaned into a more egalitarian, collaborative structure where shared ownership was encouraged and expected.

On paper, it was a strategic consolidation. In practice, the cultural divide was both visible and visceral. Streaming versus broadcast. United States versus Mexico. Local versus national. These were not just organizational charts. They were fault lines that represented deeply rooted norms about how work gets done, who gets to lead, and how people are expected to relate to authority.

None of this is inherently bad. But when these value systems are left unspoken and unexamined, misalignment becomes the default. And employees begin to pay the price for that silence.

What Tends to Happen in the Worst-Case Scenarios

In the most difficult organizational integrations, particularly following mergers where cultural values differ dramatically, we often see a predictable sequence of dysfunction. None of these breakdowns happen overnight. They unfold slowly, subtly, and often invisibly, until the cumulative impact becomes too loud to ignore.

First, there is often a breakdown in communication and trust. Employees learn of organizational changes like layoffs, restructures, leadership shifts, through external sources instead of through their own management. Even when intentions are good, this creates a reactive environment. People don't feel informed, they feel blindsided. When communication lacks intention, employees stop expecting clarity. They start bracing for impact. And no one does their best thinking in a state of chronic bracing.

Second, silos harden. Functional, regional, or cultural groups begin to work in isolation, hoarding information and building barriers around their teams. It is not because people don't want to collaborate. It is because collaboration without alignment leads to chaos. Without clear accountability and shared objectives, teams default to protecting their piece of the puzzle.

Third, cultural mismatches around authority remain unspoken. In merged entities where one organization comes from a high power distance culture and the other from a low power distance culture, teams quickly begin to misinterpret one another.

Deference may look like disengagement. Collaboration may feel like insubordination. When leaders don't proactively define what shared leadership looks like, cultural friction turns into interpersonal tension.

Fourth, morale and motivation quietly, or loudly, erode. When teams don't know what the current strategy is, or when they have watched it change too many times without clarity, they disengage. Not because they don't care, but because caring without direction is exhausting.

In the worst-case scenario, this combination of misalignment, ambiguity, and fear leads to two particularly damaging outcomes. First, it encourages the best people to leave. High performers who thrive on clarity, alignment, and shared values often have the least tolerance for disorganized systems. When they no longer feel like their contributions are seen or supported, they exit, quietly, and often quickly.

Next, the system that remains becomes ill-equipped to challenge or contain the people who misbehave. Without clear accountability or cultural modeling from leadership, the organization creates space for behaviors that ran counter to its stated values.

To add to the stress, this company lacking a strong internal compass for strategy, begins leaning heavily on external consultants to define priorities and draw roadmaps. This reliance sometimes fills a gap for a time, but also amplifies confusion when those strategies created by outsiders do not fully reflect the on-the-ground reality employees are living every day.

Framing It Through Theory

From an academic lens, several frameworks helped me make sense of the chaos that feels incomprehensible when you're going through it.

Power Distance, first introduced by Hofstede, offers a clear view into the divide. High power distance cultures expect clear leadership and accept hierarchy. Lower power distance cultures favor collaborative decision-making. When these norms are not acknowledged or addressed explicitly, employees interpret each other’s behavior through the wrong cultural lens.

Self-Determination Theory, developed by Deci and Ryan, highlights three core psychological needs for motivation: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness. When people feel they have control over their work, that they are capable of doing it well, and that they are connected to a shared purpose, they thrive. At an organization who is not mindful of culture during and after a merger, autonomy and competence are especially difficult to access. Strategy often shifts without explanation, and people don't always have the tools to succeed. They want to do good work, but don't feel like they can.

Patrick Lencioni’s model of team dysfunction also offers insight. At the foundation of any high-performing team is trust. Without trust, there is fear of conflict. Without productive conflict, there is no commitment. Without commitment, accountability is rare. And when accountability disappears, results dwindle. This organization going through M&A can have incredibly talented people, but the foundation of trust needs diligent reinforcement.

What Companies Can Do Better

Culture is not just an idea. It is an experience created by systems and behaviors. And systems can be redesigned, and probably should when there are massive changes at the corporate level.

For any media company navigating a merger, integration, or restructuring, here are a few places to begin:

Start by acknowledging power distance openly. Different cultures view authority differently. This is not a problem unless it goes unspoken. Train leaders and teams on these differences and help them develop shared approaches. This work is not about flattening power. It is about creating mutual understanding.

Next, create internal trust systems. When news breaks externally before it is shared internally, employees receive a very clear message: They are not the priority. Build internal communication protocols that cascade information thoughtfully and in a way that honors employees’ dignity.

Then, align incentives with the stated culture. If collaboration is valued, measure it. If innovation across departments matters, make it part of leadership goals. Culture only becomes real when it shows up in how people are evaluated and rewarded.

Offer psychological safety as infrastructure, not aspiration. People need protected spaces to raise concerns, give feedback, and experiment. That means separating performance management from cultural health reporting and making sure employees know where and how to raise their voices.

Lastly, empower managers to lead culturally, not just operationally. Great managers don't just hit goals, they cultivate trust. They translate ambiguity. They recognize effort. When managers model that behavior, it becomes part of the team’s identity.

A Final Word

Leaving that role gave me clarity. I was fortunate to work with smart, passionate people and to witness the reality that even well-meaning systems can break down under the weight of misalignment.

Mergers don't fail because people are unwilling. They fail when assumptions go unchallenged, when systems aren't equipped to handle complexity, and when leadership forgets that every big strategy lives or dies in the day-to-day interactions between human beings.

When organizations invest in cultural fluency, clear communication, and thoughtful structure, they do more than improve retention or performance. They build companies where people can trust one another. They create systems that support both rigor and humanity.

The friction I saw was not failure. It was feedback. And if used wisely, that feedback could become a foundation for something even better.

These are the types of conversations I now have with companies every day. They are not about perfection. They are about progress. Because the companies that will thrive are not the ones with the fewest problems. They are the ones with the courage to face them head-on.