- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 18 hours ago by .
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
When performing the integration of the target, how do you make sure when looking at the different functional streams, you remain objective and not biased against the target you are integrating. Some of the processes of the tagets might be better than yours…but this would then imply changing on the acquirer side.
This is a bit hard, as it will definitely be biased to which company is the biggest shareholder. The company with a bigger brand would want its system to be intact.
Bias during integration is definitely a challenge, especially when the acquirer has more influence or a bigger brand. One way to minimize this is by taking a best-of-both-worlds approach, where each process is objectively evaluated based on data, efficiency, and alignment with the merger’s goals.
For example, using external consultants or a neutral integration team to assess processes can help keep things fair. Tools like benchmarking and KPIs also help identify which practices—whether from the acquirer or the target—are more effective without leaning on subjective preferences.
It’s also important for leadership to set the tone that integration isn’t about dominance but about creating a stronger, unified organization. Open communication with teams on both sides and a focus on measurable outcomes can go a long way toward reducing bias.
Have you tried specific methods or tools to stay objective during integration? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
When integrating a target company, it’s important to acknowledge that there is always an acquirer and an acquired company. However, integration should not be a one-size-fits-all process. Depending on the level of integration, some processes of the acquired company may remain untouched or require minimal adjustments, especially when local specificities or market peculiarities come into play.
Even in cases of full integration, the acquirer should conduct a thorough analysis of the “as-is” situation in the acquired company. This analysis isn’t about imposing the acquirer’s way of working but about identifying opportunities to leverage the target’s processes that might be superior or more suited to the local market.
Trainings
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
In order to become a charterholder you need to complete one of the IMAA programs