The smouldering issues in a PMI


The due diligence phase of a business acquisition is designed to ensure that the acquiring party understands and agrees to what they are buying.

No matter how hard the due diligence team tries there will be things that are missed or underestimated. In the contract for sale, the seller often provides some warranties in order to close the deal. There is no deception here but rather the seller is demonstrating confidence in what they are selling.

Large organisations are complex and the people working on both sides of the deal have limited knowledge, limited access to the full resources of both organisations and limited time.  From experience the parties act in good faith with an adequate process under the circumstances but it is unlikely to be the complete solution.

It begs the question as to why some of these issues are not uncovered during the due diligence process? A number of things could be at play such as:

  • The individuals responsible for the due diligence, don’t know the issue exists.
  • The acquired organisation operate at a different performance standard to the buyer. As far as the seller is concerned it is business as usual and they are compliant with their own standard.
  • The issue is controlled by a particular process that is not formally recognised or documented and may  be broken during the integration process.
  • Down the chain there may be fear, ignorance or avoidance of the issue.
  • Those with the knowledge are unaware that the issue may be of interest to the Due Diligence team.
  • The acquiring organisation and its representatives don’t appreciate the consequences of the information provided during  due diligence.
  • A truncated sale process forces the acquiring party to prioritise due diligence activity not realising there is a smouldering issue in the de-prioritised area.
  • Due diligence fatigue and reaching a point of “just get the deal done”

For whatever reason, the bed has been made and the deal done. It is now up to the Integration Manager to make it work. An experienced integration manager would insist as part of the integration design phase that effort be made to uncover those smouldering issues. For all the reasons above the issues are still invisible and require special attention to make them visible.

Firstly it is critical to create an environment of trust where it is  safe to provide information without inappropriate ramifications. This is difficult enough to achieve under normal circumstances but it is doubly hard under M&A conditions. The best integration managers see this as a real opportunity to build and demonstrate trust and forge the desired business relationship with the acquired organisation. The leadership here may define the success or otherwise of the integration. Do you establish amnesty conditions or reinforce accountability? Wherever the response falls on the continuum, success is achieved if the outcome is fair and is seen to be fair under the circumstances.

The next thing is, to appropriately define the scope and materiality threshold. The goal here is to achieve a clear, common and agreed understanding of what is being sought. The more clearly and unambiguously the requirement is defined the better the quality of the outcome. Don’t fall into the trap of expecting people to know what you are looking for or leave the brief too vague in the hope that something turns up. From experience neither approach yields a good result. But, by far the worst situation is assuming that all has been identified during due diligence and ploughing on regardless of what is smouldering under the surface.

Finally, wrap a process around the objective, ideally managed as part of the integration design phase; since all the infrastructure to achieve the right outcome should already be in place. Having this information gathered early in the integration puts the acquiring organisation in the best possible position to call upon any seller’s contract warranties.

In summary, giving this issue early and sufficient attention as part of the Post-Merger Integration will help avoid some much bigger surprise later in the process. It is an early opportunity to build trust with the acquired organisation, able to deal with the issue before it gets worse  and offer the best hope of calling upon any seller warranties that may exist.


The smouldering issues in a PMI

The Missed Phase of Post-Merger Integration


Despite well documented processes to execute a Post-Merger Integration (PMI), there is still serial under-performance against expectations of this transformation strategy. Some estimates are as high as 70% of mergers and acquisitions fail to meet their original business case. Various studies suggest that the strategic logic, financial assumptions, cultural fit, implementation execution etc. all play a role in that under-performance.

However, even if all these things are done well, there is still a critical phase not addressed in many  PMIs.

You need to have experienced a PMI first hand to understand how challenging an environment it really is:

  • The intense pressure to achieve the estimated synergy targets embedded in the deal whether they are reasonable or not.
  • The fast paced nature of analysis and decision making inherently means many suboptimal decisions are made.
  • The necessary breaking of many well-established operational processes and relationships and the establishment of new ones.
  • The dealing with cultural challenges of fierce competitors now expected to collaborate effectively.
  • The need to remove uncertainty quickly to reduce the anxiety within the combined organisation and move to a more normal operational footing.

By necessity it is an imperfect process and numerous things are left to be done. Unfortunately, many organisations declare victory once the financial synergies are achieved, move to a “Business as Usual (BaU)” footing and fail to reach optimum performance. However, BaU conditions are rarely conducive to completing the remaining activity.

It is important to recognise and agree there is unfinished business, agree the priorities of what to achieve next and how to achieve it, an ongoing sense of urgency, an effective process to execute and most importantly broad empowerment to act. This should be identified as the business optimisation or business improvement phase of the integration.

The tragedy is that by the time the Executive Committee recognise there is a problem the PMI infrastructure has been dismantled and implementation momentum is lost.

To improve your PMI performance consider the following:

  1. Define PMI success internally as “reaching optimal operating conditions.” It is important to go beyond the achievement of synergy targets.
  2. Design into the PMI process an optimisation/ operational improvement phase so the whole organisation understands this to be the end goal and will work towards it. Allow the design and execution of the early phases to be refined with this objective in mind.
  3. Celebrate success at each phase of the PMI to mark the milestone, allow closure and refresh for the next phase. This is important to manage change fatigue.
The Missed Phase of Post-Merger Integration

Create the conditions for success

Success ladder

What does it mean to create the conditions for success? On the surface it sounds vague or even a motherhood statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose is to cause reflection on the situation. It is about leverage, impact and not doing the work of others.

How often as a leader do we get stuck in a behavioural pattern and not recognise it? Or if we do recognise it, do something about it? I constantly observe the leader solving other people’s problems for them. This may be because the leader can, it may be that the leader sees it as part of their valuable contribution or that it is just expedient to do so.

As a behaviour pattern is this the best you can do? It may work for a while but at some level it can be seen as a selfish pattern in that it does not encourage development in others and limits your availability to do the work that you are uniquely placed to do. Eventually it will limit your own growth path. In summary the full potential of the individual is thwarted. You may be OK with that but this is not sustainable long term and results will be under par.

The real leadership work is to ensure that the question is answered with a demonstrable YES.

Yes could mean:

Yes the right brief. The right objective and solving the right problem is obviously critical to success. Defining it in an empowering way will stimulate a better understanding of the challenge and will be approached in a more effective way.

Yes the right resources are allocated. This is both a quantity and characteristic question. Here skill, motivation, knowledge, time etc come into play.

Yes the right measure is in place. it is important to project into the future, picturing real success. Then construct appropriate measures to reflect the  identified success is actually the  outcome. For instance, a call centre . A common measure of success is call duration. This encourages operators to make each call as short as possible. Whereas real success maybe first call resolution and customer satisfaction. Be on the lookout for behaviour distortions.

Yes the right support is in place. The predominant posture will encourage and question, rather than make statements and direct action. This should flow, assuming you have addressed the above effectively.

Yes you are monitoring the situation. As time goes by the nature of the situation may change and therefore the cycle should begin again and the YES retested.

If I had to make a single statement to characterise the above it would be to create and maintain a success system rather than a point solution unnecessarily dependant on your management. Success for you is keeping out of the flow!

Create the conditions for success