LARGE-scale mergers are notoriously difficult to achieve, as progress is undermined by disgruntled staff worried about their jobs or concerned about having a different employer.
Tensions can emerge years after the event.
However, General Accident's merger with Commercial Union appears to have made a good start.
Perhaps insurance executives are inherently nice people or the arguments have gone on strictly behind closed doors, but the pecking order at the top appears to have been established
remarkably smoothly. This first step is the most vital.
CGU maintains that its staff are enthusiastic about the merger. This must surely be an exaggeration, and management will have done well if it avoids antagonising the rank and file.
The likely absence of compulsory redundancies will work wonders for morale, although the merger is bound to lead to disruption for some. Apart from getting staff on board, the greatest challenge is in rebranding the business, and CGU will have to tread warily if goodwill is not to be lost.
The fact that CGU will start married life with lower profits is really neither here nor there, as they merely reflect the vagaries of the weather.
However, it does underline the fact that becoming bigger will not of itself reduce volatility of earnings.
General insurance is recognised as a low-growth business and hopes lie in the life side, which is a genuine long-term growth business. But it will be years before the life ''tail'' wags the general insurance dog.
The weather is something the insurance industry has to take in its stride, but the first-quarter result also highlights the damage that could quickly occur should management take its eye off the ball while working on the
merger.
The risks of something going wrong are real, but there is a good chance that this merger will continue as it has started.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article