Originally Posted by
uanj
Respectfully I am not following your point. Marriott was much larger than Starwood which is why they could buy Starwood. Marriott management interviewed senior executives at Starwood for roles in the newly merged company and most were made redundant. Survival rate of Marriott executives was much higher. I do not see how "Starwood Culture", good or bad, could have had much influence on the larger merged company.
Sorry, I wasn't clear - when two organizations come together - even if a larger organization buys a smaller organization, there's a culture change. It's inevitable. Having suffered through many acquisitions and "mergers" both on the side of the big fish gobbling the smaller fish and the smaller fish being gobbled, I know well that, at the end of the day, despite any "corporate speak" of "bringing the best of the two organizations together" or "finding synergies that maximize value" or any other BS, the usual result is a bunch of petty little power struggles, masked in whatever the PC dialog of the era is and a new culture that is a random amalgamation that results from the different "winners". Nothing more and nothing less. And I'm sure the Marriott we know today really is no different. The only way this doesn't happen is if a behemoth absorbs something minuscule. Say Apple dropping a couple hundred million for a company that has some novel technology they want (Siri anyone
)
And I was absolutely wrong on Moxy - I stand corrected. It was an experiment by Marriott to be "hip" in Europe and launched well before the Starwood merger. My bad.