At first sight the activities of the two organizations appear very complementary. To what extent should the merged organization now be integrated? For example, should it reassign responsibility for each major activity to whichever structural unit already has the most capability? Or should its main activities continue to be decentralised in multiple units?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The Charity Commission website shows that Age Concern existed as a federation of many hundreds of
local, sometimes quite fiercely independent-mind units all registered as charities as well as a national
entity. Individual ‘branches’ declared differing mission statements, ranging from very specific, hands-on
services to support the elderly to broader aims of influencing local and regional government policies and
service provision. Many local branches would have had (and may still have) multiple aims, objectives
and degrees of effectiveness. Help the Aged began partly in response to perceived shortcomings in the
effectiveness of other charitable organizations concerned with the elderly. Founder Cecil Jackson-Cole
(also co-founder of Oxfam) conceived of a legitimate role to campaign and be influential over issues
affecting the elderly (such as poverty and age discrimination) at a governmental level and its national
structure reflected this intent.
Thus, at the time of their merger, these organizations had distinct missions, although both campaigned on
behalf of the elderly, provided a variety of information and other services (many being user-paid-for – in
effect competing with other aged-related enterprises such as Saga). Research projects were also
sponsored. Services involving local staff and volunteers were determined by local branches and it is
probably fair to describe geographic coverage as uneven. Post-merger integration and rationalisation
therefore has national implications to do with potential compromises in mission definition, priorities, and
organization structures.