Mergers & Acquisitions

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

------------------------------
Jennifer Lipschultz
------------------------------

Hi Jennifer

Your query sounds like the same thing could happen in many acquisition scenarios. I can share a few suggestions clients have used and a few solutions I created for them. One large insurance broker has a "white glove" service for all acquired firms and their employees. This specialized service desk provides custom support for one year following the acquisition. I've hosted weekly or monthly office hours for any and all questions, while publishing monthly newsletters, weekly blog posts, and coordinated these publications with monthly email communications for targeted audiences. Aggregating all of these digital assets, including those you mentioned, into one portal for acquired employees, guiding their search for answers, sharing common friction points and answering common questions serves to demonstrate a good faith effort to anyone struggling. 

Getting to know the acquired employees personally has gone a long way to build trust. I've had the opportunity to be on site three days per week for 3-6 months which enables me to set up time to meet everyone for 1:1s. For an financial services acquisition, I sat on their service desk for 6 weeks and supported their sales office for three months. Living in San Francisco and New York during that time was a fun incentive, and the acquired firm could see my commitment.

Another problem we encountered during a chemical industry SAP rollout was providing test and training data specific to their region. Allowing representatives from each functional area to participate in the transition team made a difference. We created specialized end-to-end process review sessions for them. This way, they can hear about new systems and processes and feel they are part of the solution. Ultimately, acquisition should be something we do with them, not to them. It says "I feel your pain and I'll be here to help you."

------------------------------
Matt Cinelli
Principal Consultant
Le Savoir Faire Consulting
matthewca@email.com

Original Message:
Sent: 2026-02-09 10:06
From: Jennifer Lipschultz
Subject: Messaging to acquired employees regarding the speed and need to integrate

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

------------------------------
Jennifer Lipschultz
------------------------------

Great question @Jennifer Lipschultz. I agree with @Matt Cinelli that this can be common across the board. There is often a lot of uncertainty and lack of trust with integrations and to Matt's point - the more that you can build that trust through empathy, conversation, and doing it with them rather than to them - the more likely you are to have a better integration. While you may be pressed that this is "slowing things down" or that "the change is happening regardless of people being on board" taking this time will pay dividends in the longer-term. 

Hi Jennifer

Your query sounds like the same thing could happen in many acquisition scenarios. I can share a few suggestions clients have used and a few solutions I created for them. One large insurance broker has a "white glove" service for all acquired firms and their employees. This specialized service desk provides custom support for one year following the acquisition. I've hosted weekly or monthly office hours for any and all questions, while publishing monthly newsletters, weekly blog posts, and coordinated these publications with monthly email communications for targeted audiences. Aggregating all of these digital assets, including those you mentioned, into one portal for acquired employees, guiding their search for answers, sharing common friction points and answering common questions serves to demonstrate a good faith effort to anyone struggling. 

Getting to know the acquired employees personally has gone a long way to build trust. I've had the opportunity to be on site three days per week for 3-6 months which enables me to set up time to meet everyone for 1:1s. For an financial services acquisition, I sat on their service desk for 6 weeks and supported their sales office for three months. Living in San Francisco and New York during that time was a fun incentive, and the acquired firm could see my commitment.

Another problem we encountered during a chemical industry SAP rollout was providing test and training data specific to their region. Allowing representatives from each functional area to participate in the transition team made a difference. We created specialized end-to-end process review sessions for them. This way, they can hear about new systems and processes and feel they are part of the solution. Ultimately, acquisition should be something we do with them, not to them. It says "I feel your pain and I'll be here to help you."

------------------------------
Matt Cinelli
Principal Consultant
Le Savoir Faire Consulting
matthewca@email.com

Original Message:
Sent: 2026-02-09 10:06
From: Jennifer Lipschultz
Subject: Messaging to acquired employees regarding the speed and need to integrate

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

------------------------------
Jennifer Lipschultz
------------------------------

Great question @Jennifer Lipschultz. I agree with @Matt Cinelli that this can be common across the board. There is often a lot of uncertainty and lack of trust with integrations and to Matt's point - the more that you can build that trust through empathy, conversation, and doing it with them rather than to them - the more likely you are to have a better integration. While you may be pressed that this is "slowing things down" or that "the change is happening regardless of people being on board" taking this time will pay dividends in the longer-term. 

Hi Jennifer

Your query sounds like the same thing could happen in many acquisition scenarios. I can share a few suggestions clients have used and a few solutions I created for them. One large insurance broker has a "white glove" service for all acquired firms and their employees. This specialized service desk provides custom support for one year following the acquisition. I've hosted weekly or monthly office hours for any and all questions, while publishing monthly newsletters, weekly blog posts, and coordinated these publications with monthly email communications for targeted audiences. Aggregating all of these digital assets, including those you mentioned, into one portal for acquired employees, guiding their search for answers, sharing common friction points and answering common questions serves to demonstrate a good faith effort to anyone struggling. 

Getting to know the acquired employees personally has gone a long way to build trust. I've had the opportunity to be on site three days per week for 3-6 months which enables me to set up time to meet everyone for 1:1s. For an financial services acquisition, I sat on their service desk for 6 weeks and supported their sales office for three months. Living in San Francisco and New York during that time was a fun incentive, and the acquired firm could see my commitment.

Another problem we encountered during a chemical industry SAP rollout was providing test and training data specific to their region. Allowing representatives from each functional area to participate in the transition team made a difference. We created specialized end-to-end process review sessions for them. This way, they can hear about new systems and processes and feel they are part of the solution. Ultimately, acquisition should be something we do with them, not to them. It says "I feel your pain and I'll be here to help you."

------------------------------
Matt Cinelli
Principal Consultant
Le Savoir Faire Consulting
matthewca@email.com

Original Message:
Sent: 2026-02-09 10:06
From: Jennifer Lipschultz
Subject: Messaging to acquired employees regarding the speed and need to integrate

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

------------------------------
Jennifer Lipschultz
------------------------------

This is the most troubling part of what we do.  How do we help the individuals who are not making a parallel move, not being promoted, or, worst of all, being left behind adrift?

If you use outside counselling, you should monitor the employee reactions to it with one on one follow up.   Some may need a different type of help.  You may find that for some persons, this is their first career set back, or even their first unemployment.   Identify these groups as early as you can and try to identify their needs.  You may find that as they move through the process, they find that their needs change.

Great question @Jennifer Lipschultz. I agree with @Matt Cinelli that this can be common across the board. There is often a lot of uncertainty and lack of trust with integrations and to Matt's point - the more that you can build that trust through empathy, conversation, and doing it with them rather than to them - the more likely you are to have a better integration. While you may be pressed that this is "slowing things down" or that "the change is happening regardless of people being on board" taking this time will pay dividends in the longer-term. 

Hi Jennifer

Your query sounds like the same thing could happen in many acquisition scenarios. I can share a few suggestions clients have used and a few solutions I created for them. One large insurance broker has a "white glove" service for all acquired firms and their employees. This specialized service desk provides custom support for one year following the acquisition. I've hosted weekly or monthly office hours for any and all questions, while publishing monthly newsletters, weekly blog posts, and coordinated these publications with monthly email communications for targeted audiences. Aggregating all of these digital assets, including those you mentioned, into one portal for acquired employees, guiding their search for answers, sharing common friction points and answering common questions serves to demonstrate a good faith effort to anyone struggling. 

Getting to know the acquired employees personally has gone a long way to build trust. I've had the opportunity to be on site three days per week for 3-6 months which enables me to set up time to meet everyone for 1:1s. For an financial services acquisition, I sat on their service desk for 6 weeks and supported their sales office for three months. Living in San Francisco and New York during that time was a fun incentive, and the acquired firm could see my commitment.

Another problem we encountered during a chemical industry SAP rollout was providing test and training data specific to their region. Allowing representatives from each functional area to participate in the transition team made a difference. We created specialized end-to-end process review sessions for them. This way, they can hear about new systems and processes and feel they are part of the solution. Ultimately, acquisition should be something we do with them, not to them. It says "I feel your pain and I'll be here to help you."

------------------------------
Matt Cinelli
Principal Consultant
Le Savoir Faire Consulting
matthewca@email.com

Original Message:
Sent: 2026-02-09 10:06
From: Jennifer Lipschultz
Subject: Messaging to acquired employees regarding the speed and need to integrate

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

------------------------------
Jennifer Lipschultz
------------------------------

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?

Hi Jennifer, your situation highlights the classic tension between operational necessity and the "people side" of M&A integration. While the speed of system migration is non-negotiable for global scalability, acknowledging that their legacy processes are being "retired" rather than "ignored" can significantly validate their experience. I suggest shifting the narrative from justifying the speed to actively involving them in a "Process Preservation" session where they can identify high-value workflows they fear losing. By demonstrating how their unique insights will specifically inform the post-integration continuous improvement roadmap, you bridge the gap between their current resistance and future adoption. This approach honors their expertise without compromising your timeline, helping employees feel like partners in the transition rather than just subjects of it.

I lead M&A integration at a 2000 person software company.  Each year we acquire approximately four companies between 10 – 350 people.  I often get feedback from acquired employees that they feel we rush through integration; if we took more time to get to know their processes better, we'd make different integration decisions.  I point to the many articles that promote quick integration in order to reduce anxiety and distraction that integration efforts cause.  And I mention the many venues we have for employees to share continuous improvement ideas once integration is complete.  The reality is we need to migrate them to our systems and processes to facilitate reporting and scalability.  It's not possible to retain their systems or their unique data fields and maintain business in fourteen countries across five major business lines.  Additional time would not change the outcome.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this message feel heard and accepted by acquired employees?  Or must I accept this recurring resistance as a natural part of the integration process?