In the past few years, my Acquistion experience has been that the acquiring company is intending to spin off the acquired company or acquired business unit combined with their own internal counterpart organization.
I entirely agree with your model and have used it in the past. I also agree that the model breaks down after a few months. At that point the decision has been made about which managers up to the C level are staying and which are going. The employees of the managers who leave may feel rudderless and betrayed. The Change Manager needs to step in and fill the gap to keep morale up. A difficult task at best.
In a planned spinoff there is a 3rd set of managers - the management team of the entity to be spun off. If that group is not named quickly it can lead to some chaos as priorities shift. That management team will have a lot on their plate. The Change Manager must work closely with them as the original management teams lost interest fast once the new structure has begun to take the reins.
Original Message:
Sent: 2025-05-05 15:57
From: Lisa Jackson
Subject: Who Owns Change in M&A?
@Marilyn Wamalwa - essential question "Who owns change" in a merger/acquisition. Often the ownership role of "one sponsor" is not quite as clean or relevant (as when just one organization is enabling a change initiative). Most M&A deals are done for efficiency and/or synergy; rarely are both organizational structures left intact (is this your experience?) Too often, the deal is the focus, and the aftermath is not give attention until the papers are signed - and confusion devolves into chaos.
In my experience, the ideal structure for a merger/acquisition change process is a Merger Steering Committee - who charters a "Sponsorship Team" that includes the roles you cited (CEO, Ops Leader, HR, etc.,) AND that the Sponsor role and Leadership Team structure (who will fill those roles, or if they're hired outside) is agreed upon before the closing. I have not seen "Co-CEOs" as an effective model, other than a transition period of 3-4 months. The cross-functional Integration Steering Committee should also ideally define:
--> The combined or new organizational Mission (what is the purpose of the merger),
--> Vision (what does success look like in concrete terms, in 6, 12, 18 months and who will play what roles),
--> Core Integration workstreams (operation strategies, leadership team, core values: What remains intact from which "side" and what changes and how) and
--> MOST IMPORTANT: What is the organization structure, and when will any changes occur. It's imperative to define this up front, before the deal closes - at a level of specificity that includes decision rights, not just general "duties and responsibilities."
I've been engaged (mostly) 12-18 months after the deal closes, when the lack of these answers is creating chaos and confusion internally - and the cultural fallout is erasing the potential benefits and value of the merger.
Really great question. I look forward to hearing what others have seen and think about this.
------------------------------
Lisa Jackson[
Original Message:
Sent: 2025-05-02 00:55
From: Marilyn Wamalwa
Subject: Who Owns Change in M&A?
In the high-stakes world of mergers and acquisitions, one question often goes unanswered: Who really owns change?
Is it HR, with its pulse on people and culture? Leadership, with the vision and decision-making power? Or change practitioners, orchestrating the strategy and execution?
Sustainable change in M&A requires shared ownership. HR brings insight, leadership sets the tone, and change professionals connect the dots-turning disruption into opportunity.
Clear roles. Aligned goals. Unified action. That's how transformation sticks.
What's your perspective? How should organizations define ownership during M&A?
Let's discuss ⇓⇓
------------------------------
Marilyn Wamalwa
------------------------------