Mergers & Acquisitions

@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[
------------------------------

@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[
------------------------------

@Marilyn Wamalwa, I am wondering - would change practitioners ever actually own change? As far as I see it, the ownership stays with the leadership/sponsor. We are only delegated to help see it through. That's my perspective

I have experienced, in more than one merger of large corporations, situations where the overall lines of authority are blurred because there are more than one person in most management positions, at least initially -2 Ceo's, 2 IT directors, 2 HR directors, etc.  Many of those individuals are competing against each other for the final position.   The CM is the one position that is shared by both companies.  While not officially the sole lead, it almost every respect everyone reports to the CM during the change.  The CM reports up to both senior staff but doesn't get interfered with unless a crisis arises. It is ownership by default at least until the new leadership structure is in place which usually happens well into the overall chang.  At that point, there are so many other distractions for the new leadership that they continue to let the CM implement their original plan.  It's too disruptive to stop and re-tool.  Of course, this is not always the pattern,  It's just one I have experienced