Post-merger integration

Letting go of previous practices can proceed differently in different areas. The architecture takes these differences into account instead of assuming a uniform degree of integration. The goal is a new ability to act, not merely the formal merging of two organisation charts.

Leadership and the units affected are given room to work through conflicts over priorities and identity. The results feed into further design and leadership decisions. An integration has only made progress once the new third entity becomes recognisable in decisions and collaboration.

Post-Merger Integration als Aufbau eines neuen Dritten gestalten: Bei einer Fusion reicht es nicht, zwei bestehende Systeme nebeneinander zu verwalten. Zuerst braucht es ein gemeinsames, attraktives Zukunftsbild für das neue Dritte. Daraus lassen sich Integrations- und Nichtintegrationsentscheidungen, notwendige Funktionen und Rollen sowie ein Umsetzungsplan ableiten. Die neue Kultur entsteht dabei im beobachtbaren Tun: durch Prozesse, Entscheidungen, Zusammenarbeit und die Klärung dessen, was aus den bisherigen Welten erhalten bleiben soll.

Arbeitsergebnisse: Gemeinsames Zukunftsbild für die neue Organisation; Geklärte Integrations- und Nichtintegrationsentscheidungen; Verständigte Rollen, Funktionen und nächste Umsetzungsschritte.

The scope of integration, who is involved and the sequence are derived from the specific merger. Legal and financial transaction advice are separate services.

Mergers involve a typical field of tension: members of the leadership may remain loyal to their former company and protect old practices, even though formal decisions have already been made for the new entity. The solution is not to ignore this attachment. Top management must develop a shared picture of the new third entity and take responsibility for it themselves. Only then can an organisational development plan be derived from the strategy.

We distinguish between formal integration and real integration. A new organisation chart can be an impetus, but actual collaboration shows whether deeper routines are changing. We use conversations with key players and concrete decision situations to observe this difference. Where are decisions still being made according to the old boundaries? What joint performance is already emerging? Which capability was lost, and which new one could emerge from the combination?

Different units may need different lengths of time to let go of old practices. The integration architecture therefore does not just set a target date, but creates spaces for joint decisions, learning and review. The new third entity becomes visible in its capacity to act, not just in a shared brand.

Finally, the shared vision of the future must be translated into understandable decisions for functions and teams. Otherwise the new third entity remains a phrase coined at the top, while everyday work continues along the old boundaries. Those involved need the opportunity to try out the new task in concrete customer and work processes and to report back their observations. Only this exchange connects the formal goal with integration as it is lived.

Integration means building a shared new organisation. A vision of the future serves as the yardstick for decisions on what is standardised and what deliberately remains separate. Leadership and the units involved must make these decisions with reference to concrete functions, roles and work processes. Different historical practices may each contain a meaningful core; the new solution is not automatically taken over from one of the previous companies.

We record which decisions are made at which level and where those involved contribute their experience. Work on the new culture takes place in these decisions and in collaboration. The result is clarified decisions on what is and is not integrated, an understandable structure for the joint organisation and next implementation steps. Legal and financial transaction questions belong with the specialist disciplines responsible for them.

The merger process itself can be planned as a cycle of six phases. It begins with conscious perception and a vision, moves via the personal interests of those involved to principles and their consequences, and leads to binding decisions with structures for action. This is followed by fostering collaboration with a shared horizon of interpretation and by the retrospective, in which the new is evaluated and what has been achieved is acknowledged. A communication concept informs all employees promptly, interim reviews give management feedback on progress, and at the end an evaluation records the most important lessons learned.

Because people and systems in organisations depend on each other, both are developed in parallel. We understand performance as the result of their interaction. On the system side, the question is which cultural conditions, known as Cultributes, are decisive for implementing the strategy and how much agility for change the system brings with it. On the people side, it is about the competencies that managers and employees need and about their development needs. Competence, performance and potential are assessed separately, because anyone who confuses potential with performance draws the wrong conclusions for staffing and development.