Mergers & Acquisitions

We have been striving for 15 years to elevate CM in the eyes of Industry and we continue to succeed.  M&A has a key role to play in the CM realm.  How can we elevate what we do to a recognized specialization?  Should we have a unique sub-certification for M&A?  What do you think?

We have been striving for 15 years to elevate CM in the eyes of Industry and we continue to succeed.  M&A has a key role to play in the CM realm.  How can we elevate what we do to a recognized specialization?  Should we have a unique sub-certification for M&A?  What do you think?

What a novel proposal! I believe we can begin with workshops and individual courses, perhaps conduct focus groups to collect data from the profession. At the same time, assembling content that could be part of a certification, would be a first step to validating what the certification would contain. Having a dedication section in the ACMP Standard (is there one now) is another step toward defining M&A expertise for the profession.

I've been a part of a few M&A projects and feel strongly that people/culture factors should be part of the due diligence phase. Many executives have expressed a "let the chips fall here they may" sentiment. They expect there will be some attrition during any transformation, and they believe those who can't or won't align and perform in the new organization should just leave. It presents a dilemma, when our roles is to support everyone's transition and performance in the future organization. 

Based on your experience, what would the conditions be for support vs. encouraging those who struggle to leave voluntarily?

We have been striving for 15 years to elevate CM in the eyes of Industry and we continue to succeed.  M&A has a key role to play in the CM realm.  How can we elevate what we do to a recognized specialization?  Should we have a unique sub-certification for M&A?  What do you think?

Hi Matt,

I completely agree that integrating people and culture factors into the M&A due diligence phase is essential for long-term success. To answer your question, I believe the condition for support should be based on alignment with future values; if an employee has the right mindset but lacks the new skills, we should invest heavily in their transition. Conversely, we should encourage voluntary departure when there is a fundamental refusal to adopt the new culture, as forcing that fit often leads to toxicity. My approach focuses on providing clear transparency about the future state so individuals can make an informed choice about their own compatibility. By setting these boundaries early, we fulfill our role of supporting the organization's health while respecting the individual's career path.

What a novel proposal! I believe we can begin with workshops and individual courses, perhaps conduct focus groups to collect data from the profession. At the same time, assembling content that could be part of a certification, would be a first step to validating what the certification would contain. Having a dedication section in the ACMP Standard (is there one now) is another step toward defining M&A expertise for the profession.

I've been a part of a few M&A projects and feel strongly that people/culture factors should be part of the due diligence phase. Many executives have expressed a "let the chips fall here they may" sentiment. They expect there will be some attrition during any transformation, and they believe those who can't or won't align and perform in the new organization should just leave. It presents a dilemma, when our roles is to support everyone's transition and performance in the future organization. 

Based on your experience, what would the conditions be for support vs. encouraging those who struggle to leave voluntarily?

We have been striving for 15 years to elevate CM in the eyes of Industry and we continue to succeed.  M&A has a key role to play in the CM realm.  How can we elevate what we do to a recognized specialization?  Should we have a unique sub-certification for M&A?  What do you think?

Hi Tanya,

 I'm in agreement and like that you establish criteria for support. However, as a change manager, I do not make my support conditional. I feel it's more effective for the organization to default toward inclusion. That means, my job is to provide every possible support to every impacted employee with a focused mission to guide them toward success in the future organization. Only when we've shown the goodwill and the sentiment that I believe they can do this, then it becomes their choice. I want everyone to see we are preserving their dignity and extending the right to choose for every employee. Once they've consciously decided "I won't do this" can we discuss an exit strategy.

In my experience, when an organization's leaders decide before the fact, that "some will not be cooperative" everyone see's the cognitive dissonance in this and we not only lose the resistant, but we lose some of the undecided. It's my job to support everyone. Whether we want to believe it or not, this default attitude of exclusion contaminates everything I do as a change manager. It's the background music for every communication and stakeholder event. The atmosphere isn't "we're in this together" but "survival of the included." If some employees have performance issues, they should be addressed inside of the performance management process, not in the change effort. 
 

I feel strongly because I'm often called upon to manage a reduction in force, disguised as organizational change. Even on modestly successful projects, I found concealing a hidden agenda behind change management is a recipe for self-limiting organizational cultures. 

Hi Matt,

I completely agree that integrating people and culture factors into the M&A due diligence phase is essential for long-term success. To answer your question, I believe the condition for support should be based on alignment with future values; if an employee has the right mindset but lacks the new skills, we should invest heavily in their transition. Conversely, we should encourage voluntary departure when there is a fundamental refusal to adopt the new culture, as forcing that fit often leads to toxicity. My approach focuses on providing clear transparency about the future state so individuals can make an informed choice about their own compatibility. By setting these boundaries early, we fulfill our role of supporting the organization's health while respecting the individual's career path.

What a novel proposal! I believe we can begin with workshops and individual courses, perhaps conduct focus groups to collect data from the profession. At the same time, assembling content that could be part of a certification, would be a first step to validating what the certification would contain. Having a dedication section in the ACMP Standard (is there one now) is another step toward defining M&A expertise for the profession.

I've been a part of a few M&A projects and feel strongly that people/culture factors should be part of the due diligence phase. Many executives have expressed a "let the chips fall here they may" sentiment. They expect there will be some attrition during any transformation, and they believe those who can't or won't align and perform in the new organization should just leave. It presents a dilemma, when our roles is to support everyone's transition and performance in the future organization. 

Based on your experience, what would the conditions be for support vs. encouraging those who struggle to leave voluntarily?

We have been striving for 15 years to elevate CM in the eyes of Industry and we continue to succeed.  M&A has a key role to play in the CM realm.  How can we elevate what we do to a recognized specialization?  Should we have a unique sub-certification for M&A?  What do you think?