Click images to view larger versions

What's the best approach for leading creative people, and does it really differ from leading everyone else?
–Joe Burke, Los Angeles


In a word, yes. Leading creative types, who often don't think of themselves as employees of anyone or anything – let alone followers embedded in an organisation consisting of levels, layers and moving parts – is about as far from Management 101 as you can get. In fact, it's an art, drawing on all sorts of soft skills like empathy, nurturing and ad-hoc psychological counselling. But what a mistake if you lead creative people from your heart and stop there. Managing creative people demands a measure of authority. Nothing heavy handed, of course. You don't want your resident ‘out-of-boxers’ running for the exits. With their fresh ideas and unique perspectives, they can be, and often are, the reason for breakthrough products and new ways of working and even the impetus for whole new businesses.

Still, creative people must know that boundaries and values exist, and they have to respect them. If they don't, creative people have a way of going off the rails – and taking the workaday core of the company with them. Now, we realise that the velvet hammer part of the approach we recommend is somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom about managing creative types, which runs that you should leave alone writers, editors, artists, software designers, engineers, research scientists and even a few particularly inventive investment bankers. They're different from you and me, the thinking goes – deeper, more mysteriously wired, more fragile. Treat them like worker bees and they sting. Treat them like hallowed Yodas and their wisdom flows.

We would be tempted to blow off this view as nonsense, except that some of it is true. The most creative people can be intellectually complex and emotionally delicate; they often are. They can be odd or prickly. Some are quite anti-social. Many started hating the status quo in grade school and have never stopped. Who knows whether those traits are due to the way their brains work or the way most societies allow (and even encourage) artistic types to act. Regardless, true creatives do seem to shut down when squeezed into normal strictures, and good managers need to be wary of that.

But businesses are not museums. They don't exist to showcase creative output, but to capitalise on it. And for that to happen, something has to give – namely, the typical creative person's underlying notion that he's a free agent. It is as one creative employee – a gifted writer who used to miss deadlines with abandon – once told one of us, "You're not the boss of me." Technically, he was flat wrong, but not in his own mind.

Now, many creative types do accept basic organisational principles and procedures. They push boundaries but do not cross them, and, as a result, their teams and organisations forge ahead.

Too often, companies also contain creative types who are so exquisitely talented that their ‘buck-the-system’ behaviours get a pass: the brilliant scientist who treats his young associates like serfs. The award-winning art director who scoffs at corporate pleas for cost-cutting. The ingenious video game designer who won't talk to the marketing department.

Outrageous behaviours, yes. But when the creatives displaying them are good enough, many managers look away. Who wants to shoot the goose who lays the golden eggs? The problem, though, is that negative behaviours tend to be highly contagious among creatives.

After all, many of them are already acting against type in company settings. They're conforming far more than they'd like. And so, any hint that they can be real is seized. The next thing you know, dysfunctional behaviours start to spread. People start working when and where they want, which usually means alone. They stop sharing ideas with mainstream ‘grunts’. Often, they start sniping at each other over, ironically, creative differences. Such freedom may be a relief, if not a thrill, for the creative employees who are enjoying it. But it's usually agony for the regular employees, who start to feel like disenfranchised outsiders.

"Why do the creatives get so much slack," they wonder, "and we get none?" That's a question conducive to only two kinds of environment: chaos or stalemate. This leaves leaders in a unique, but not irresolvable, bind. To win in the marketplace, leaders absolutely must respect the individuality of creative people. They are different. But if you really want your organisation to cohere and thrive, you must make sure they keep that difference within bounds.

Yes, some creatives might balk; some might even walk. But remember, you are indeed the boss of them – and everyone else. For the sake of the organisation, you need to act that way.

What is the right cycle time for mergers and acquisitions? How do you prepare for integration? What would you do in the first 30 days after closing?
–Bernhard Klinger, Linz, Austria

Or, in other words, how do you not screw up M&A? While organic growth gets better press, and it is certainly less fraught with blood, sweat and tears, not to mention risk, M&A remains the fastest, most powerful tool a company can use to change its competitive game.

But, as your questions suggest, there's no rule book for M&A. Fifty years into intense worldwide M&A activity, with thousands of examples to learn from, companies still botch it, too often not realising the anticipated benefits of a deal. On top of that, many people who live through the ‘A’ part of the process will tell you the whole thing felt a little like a death to them, with their lives turned upside down.

Still, no company should shy away from M&A, and it doesn't sound like you plan to. Here, then, is our list of rules for avoiding the six most common pitfalls of M&A.

1) Beware of any ‘merger of equals’. The idea is noble, the reality a mess. The reason is built right into the premise. If the merging companies are so darned equal, both sides wonder, why should either adopt the practices, policies or people of the other? MOE deals routinely come undone by that question, as teams spend months duelling over who's in charge.

2) Recognise that the cultural fit of two companies is as important as, if not more than, strategic fit. It seems exciting when a merger or acquisition makes perfect sense in terms of products, technologies and numbers. But what a disaster it will be if the two companies operate with distinctly different values. The facts are, some cultures don't combine, they combust.

3) Run for the hills if you find yourself entering a ‘reverse-hostage situation’. Sometimes an acquirer wants a company so badly it starts making concessions, and by the time the negotiations are over, the acquired company is virtually in charge. Don't get yourself in a position where you're wondering, "Why did I pay so much for something I don't really own?"

4) Be not afraid. When it comes to integration, boldness is the most sensible approach. Ideally, the integration process should be complete at the time of the closing and certainly within 90 days after; otherwise uncertainty can morph into inertia, or worse, fear. Both cripple morale – and operations.

5) Don't succumb to Conqueror Syndrome by marching into your new territory and installing your people everywhere. Look, one of the main reasons you do M&A is to get twice the talent to pick from. Of course, acquirers feel loyal to colleagues, but for the new and expanded company to thrive, it needs the best team, even if that means letting go of some of your own.

6) Don't pay too much. We're not talking about five per cent; that will be lost in the rounding if the deal really works. We mean premiums of 20 or 30 per cent, which happens too often. The culprit is deal heat, the negotiating frenzy fanned by competing bidders and investment bankers. Remember, there is no last best deal; only overheated desire that makes it feel that way.

We realise that six traps are a lot to avoid, especially in the turbulence before any deal. But if you fall into one or two along the way, acknowledge your mistake, and climb back out. Organic is great, but M&A can add real firepower to your growth arsenal.

I believe in my company's product and respect my colleagues and bosses. But I'm overwhelmed by the ever-increasing demands of work and my young family. Part of me wants to find a new job, but maybe that's shortsighted. What's your advice?
–Name Withheld, Chicago

Stay! You have got a good thing going. How often does someone say he really likes the ‘big three’ of work: company, product and people?
But we hear you about burnout. That's a problem in any high-powered job, and a dynamic certainly exacerbated by conflicting demands. A person just can't give 100 per cent to everything and everybody all at the same time. So you'll need to make a trade-off.

May be it will be working someplace less draining. May be it will be spending less time with your family. But don't decide until you've tried every strategy to make your balancing act more livable. In your stressed condition, the last thing you need is the additional stress of knowing you left a good thing behind. Give work a chance.

I have a master's degree in Public Administration and have worked in government for 13 years, but I am thinking about making the leap to the private sector. Any advice?
–Cynthia Whitbred-Spanoulis, Virginia

Forget everything you know. OK, that's an overstatement. But your question reminds us of what happened to a friend of ours. About 15 years ago, she graduated from business school and took a managerial job with a non-profit organisation devoted to preserving wildlife. For about a decade, our friend liked her job well enough. The people were interesting, the hours flexible and the cause worthy.

But about two years ago, she found herself at her wit's end with the organisation bureaucracy, not to mention the slow arc of her career trajectory and compensation. And so, armed with a resume highlighting her managerial experience and analytical skills, she applied to every consulting firm in her city. No one would hire her.

No one would even interview her. Finally, in frustration, she got one firm's vice president to talk to her on the phone. "He said public sector hires never work out," she told us. "They can cross the border into the business world, but they never seem to grasp the culture." Now, we doubt public employees never work out in the private sector. Indeed, lawyers seem to flow well between the two worlds, especially in industries like financial services, pharmaceuticals and aerospace, where it's valuable to know your way through the maze of government regulations. But we understand that vice president's view.

The difference between how people think and operate in the public and private sectors can be vast indeed. The reason, of course, is competition. Public sector organisations basically have none. In 2003, then-Indiana governor Joseph Kernan said he wanted to protect local jobs and terminated a state contract with an Indian software company. He got cheers all around. But businesspeople had to laugh. In the global marketplace, low costs and superior performance make or break you. And that changes everything. Competition also changes pacing. No doubt, over your years enmeshed in government bureaucracy, you have developed boatloads of patience. You are used to people responding slowly to requests for information or output. May be you've even come to move unhurriedly yourself. In the business world, lack of speed has a consequence. It can kill you.

Don't stop reading. The good news is that you very likely have two skills that will help you on the other side. The first is the ability to motivate people with very few tools – i.e. money – at your disposal. Companies, of course, make it easier to reward people with pay and stock options. But you will be ahead of the game for knowing how to galvanise people using just your own energy and vision.
Second, you've surely picked up the art of bringing together different groups, like, say, parents and school committees. Such interpersonal skills will translate perfectly in any business environment. In working for the public sector, you have indeed been living in something of a foreign country. But the border isn't closed if you understand where you've been. We'd say make the journey anyway. The change of scenery will do you good.

This column is brought to you by arrangement with The New York Times Syndicate. You can e-mail the authors at winning@nytimes.com, include your name, occupation, city and country.