Mergers & Acquisitions

Hi Dawn,

Not me specifically, but definitely the situation when I'm working with local teams on integration execution. Everyone is doing integration, and change management, on the side of their desk. It creates a tough situation on every deal and requires early conversations with leadership. Well before we get to close and integration planning, we have an overview discussion with the Integration Executive (IE) that is accountable for deal attainment so they're clear on what the teams will be asked to deliver. IEs are accountable to achieve the deal metrics so they should be resourcing appropriately. Is this the reality? Usually not. Our departments are all running lean right now too, with additional squeeze on a number of them. As a result, I'm usually banging my drum to keep change management conversations and planning a priority with time and attention to it. The conversations almost always start to lean towards shortcuts. The way I've shifted my approach is to focus more on the desired outcomes and less on my process. This has meant that tools have gone out the window in some cases. I try to keep that to a minimum and work within the competencies and comfort of the local teams to create different pathways to positive outcomes. 

This is my reality, but I know it's not a great or direct answer. I'd love to hear if others have found a better way to address.

Becky

Hi Dawn,

Not me specifically, but definitely the situation when I'm working with local teams on integration execution. Everyone is doing integration, and change management, on the side of their desk. It creates a tough situation on every deal and requires early conversations with leadership. Well before we get to close and integration planning, we have an overview discussion with the Integration Executive (IE) that is accountable for deal attainment so they're clear on what the teams will be asked to deliver. IEs are accountable to achieve the deal metrics so they should be resourcing appropriately. Is this the reality? Usually not. Our departments are all running lean right now too, with additional squeeze on a number of them. As a result, I'm usually banging my drum to keep change management conversations and planning a priority with time and attention to it. The conversations almost always start to lean towards shortcuts. The way I've shifted my approach is to focus more on the desired outcomes and less on my process. This has meant that tools have gone out the window in some cases. I try to keep that to a minimum and work within the competencies and comfort of the local teams to create different pathways to positive outcomes. 

This is my reality, but I know it's not a great or direct answer. I'd love to hear if others have found a better way to address.

Becky

Dawn, 

Very thought provoking question. As you are pulled into other areas, I would consider having a proactive discussion about prioritization of the work yu are being assigned to versus what you have with M&A including capacity so that you understand out of the gate the expectations, have the support of your leadership to shift gears if needed back to M&A Integration. Also, so you can communicate expectations effectively with the 'other projects' about what to expect and what's coming for you in the M&A world. It may trigger resource need discussions that aren't as comfortable but it keeps everything transparent and proactive. 

In my experience, the reactivity is what causes more angst and burnout and we can help our leadership make more conscious decisions about resource allocation/prioritization by asking the questions up front.