Governance & Leadership
- This topic has 12 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
That very much depends on what you mean by delegated. In any large company there is a balance of letting employees close to the work have the autonomy to make decisions in their jobs while having governance and guardrails in place.
My view is that during integration, decision rights should be structured to centralize what protects value, delegate what accelerates execution, and hybridize areas where both alignment and flexibility matter. This balance creates clarity, preserves the deal rationale, and enables the new organization to operate with both discipline and agility
Patricia’s framework — centralise what protects value, delegate what accelerates execution — is the right principle. Let me add a finance-specific angle.
In my experience, three things must stay centralised during integration: cash (who can commit spend above a threshold), synergy tracking (one methodology, one baseline, one reporting line to the SteerCo), and external communication (one voice to customers, regulators, and investors). Everything else benefits from delegation — functional workstream leads who are empowered to make decisions within their charter move faster than those who escalate everything.
The trap Micah hints at is real: “delegated” without guardrails becomes chaos. The IMO’s job is to set the guardrails (scope, budget, milestones, dependencies) and then let workstream leads run. If the IMO is making every decision, it becomes the bottleneck. If it makes none, integration fragments.
Centralise the what. Delegate the how.
In line with Lorian’s reply I would add that there should always be a tiered approach to governance. The Workstream Leads should be empowered to make decisions where appropriate and should manage upwards where needed to ensure decisions get made at the right level.
For us this means
1. Tier1 – Workstream Leads being responsible with accountable Workstream Owners providing those guard rails (workstream stand-ups)
2. Tier 2 – Where decisions have a cross workstream impact they should go to the IMO for visibility and to determine who and how to make a decision which then would usually be signed off or at least visible at a Steer Co level (Monthly cross stream programme reviews with workstream leads and Steer Co’s with workstream owners)
3. Tier 3 – Finally if the decisions are significant enough that they need exec sign-off we would get those decisions ratified at an Integration Board (monthly Exec steering)In my view, strategic and high-impact decisions should remain centralized, while operational execution should be delegated.
Centralized decisions typically include:
Integration strategy and target operating model
Synergy targets and prioritization
Major organizational and leadership changesThese require alignment at the top to avoid conflicting directions.
On the other hand, day-to-day execution should be delegated to functional teams, as they are closer to the operations and can act faster. This includes process integration, system alignment, and local implementation decisions.
The key is having clear governance and escalation paths, so teams can move quickly while still staying aligned with overall objectives.
I agree with all the comments above —centralizing what protects value, delegate what accelerates execution—is the absolute right principle.
In my experience, as the integration moves ahead, leaders must master the art of constantly reassessing what still needs protection. Boundaries shouldn’t be set in stone; as the new organization stabilizes, things that once needed tight centralization should naturally transition into execution mode.In my experience, strategic decisions should remain centralized during integration, while operational execution should be delegated to functional leaders and integration teams. Areas such as organizational structure, capital allocation, synergy targets, risk management, and major policy decisions require centralized oversight to ensure consistency and accountability. At the same time, local managers and workstream leaders are often best positioned to make day-to-day decisions because they understand operational realities and can respond quickly to issues as they arise. The most successful integrations I have seen establish clear decision rights early, allowing leadership to focus on strategic direction while empowering teams to execute effectively.
I agree with the principle of centralizing strategic decisions and delegating operational execution. One additional consideration is the impact on employee engagement during integration. If too many decisions remain centralized for too long, local leaders and employees may feel they have little influence over the future organization, which can slow adoption and reduce accountability.
In my experience, the most effective integrations establish clear decision rights early and gradually increase delegation as the organization stabilizes. This not only accelerates execution but also helps build ownership within the combined company. The challenge is finding the right balance between maintaining control over value-critical decisions and empowering teams that are closest to customers, operations, and day-to-day business realities.
Ultimately, successful PMI governance is not only about decision speed and control it is also about creating trust and commitment across the new organization.
I agree with Daniel’s response above, Decision-making should remain centralized for major integration choices that affect the overall deal value, such as strategy, organization structure, leadership appointments, culture principles, financial targets, systems/platform decisions, and risk management. These decisions need consistency and senior alignment.
However, decision-making should be delegated to workstream or functional leaders for day-to-day execution, process design, local team implementation, communication details, and solving practical issues. This allows faster action and gives teams ownership.Great insights from all — in my experience, decision‑making during integration works best when the choices that define the direction of the combined organization stay centralized. Operating model design, synergy targets, financial controls, enterprise risk, and core system strategy require unified leadership so the organization moves with clarity and consistency.
At the same time, many decisions should be delegated to functional teams who are closest to the work. Processes, workflows, and system configurations within HR, Finance, IT, Supply Chain, and Commercial Operations often move faster when owned by the experts in those areas. Delegation prevents bottlenecks and allows teams to adapt integration activities to their operational realities while still operating within enterprise guardrails.
Operational sites, especially in industries like international mining, manufacturing, or energy, typically continue running as normal unless the integration introduces specific requirements. Health and safety standards, regulatory reporting, environmental compliance, and critical risk controls may require immediate alignment. But day to day production, maintenance routines, and local management decisions remain delegated to preserve stability. The balance is simple: centralize what sets direction, and delegate what enables safe, efficient execution.
Decision-making should remain centralized through a C-suite-led integration task force when it affects the direction, risk, or consistency of the combined organization. This includes strategic priorities, integration scope, major investments, regulatory matters, the target operating model, and key synergy decisions. Centralization provides an enterprise-wide view, prevents conflicting decisions, clarifies accountability, and allows disagreements between the two organizations to be resolved quickly.
Operational decisions should be delegated to the teams closest to the work. These teams understand customers, employees, processes, and local constraints better than senior leadership. Delegation also involves employees in the integration, gives them greater ownership of the changes, and helps reassure them that their expertise is valued. In practice, the C-suite task force should centralize direction and major trade-offs while allowing operational teams to adapt and implement decisions on the ground.
I agree with the comments above, particularly the principle of centralising what protects value and delegating execution. One additional lens I’ve found useful is to distinguish between reversible and irreversible decisions.
Decisions that are difficult or costly to reverse, such as leadership appointments, organisational design, ERP platform selection, legal entity structure, or major customer-facing changes should remain centralised because they have long-term consequences and affect multiple parts of the organisation.
In contrast, decisions that are easily reversible—such as meeting formats, local process improvements, reporting routines, or team workflows—can be delegated to workstream leaders. Allowing teams to experiment and adjust quickly often accelerates integration while avoiding unnecessary escalation.
This approach also helps prevent governance from becoming a bottleneck. Instead of asking “Who should make this decision?”, the IMO can ask “How expensive would it be to undo this decision if we get it wrong?” The answer often determines the appropriate level of decision-making better than the organisational chart alone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.