[Daniel]

Has anyone any suggestions on how to assess an acquired companies culture ideally before deal close or soon after to do a contrast and compare against the acquiring companies culture? I am not talking about assessing whether it is good or bad so much as identifying where it is similar and where it is different so that this can be factored into integration planning.

I find deal teams are very hesitant to engage on the topic during the deal process as they say any form of cultural “audit” would be impractical and send the wrong message but I would like to think it is possible and could be sold as a positive step for each organisation to understand each other

Thoughts or ideally experience to share?

[Sílvia Duarte]

`Culture due diligence doesn’t have to be a “culture audit.” “Culture” often gets avoided because it sounds like judgment:good vs bad, “fit” labels, or a heavy HR exercise that sends the wrong signal. A more practical approach is to reframe culture as something operational:the shared assumptions that shape how work gets done.By framing culture in terms of operating norms, decision-making patterns, ways of working, and leadership and risk assumptions, it becomes immediately relevant to integration planning rather than an abstract HR philosophy. With that lens, you can build a meaningful pre-close view without surveys or broad employee involvement. Deal teams already see cultural signals in everyday deal activity, how leaders respond to questions, how decisions get made, what governance looks like, what’s rewarded, and where policy differs from real practice.
The goal isn’t to grade the target. Rather than assessing culture against an abstract ideal or maturity model, a contrast framework focuses on differences that matter for integration. Placing the acquirer’s and target’s operating norms side by side—such as decision speed, autonomy, risk tolerance, or leadership style, makes potential friction visible early. This approach avoids value judgements and instead translates cultural differences into practical integration considerations, helping teams decide where to standardise, where to adapt, and where to protect existing ways of working.When positioned as “operating assumptions” (not an audit), culture becomes a sensible input to integration design, not a distraction from the deal.

[Jennifer Schram]

Hi Daniel – Great question. I’ve seen this work when culture is assessed as a contrast exercise, not an audit, and when it is deliberately scoped to support integration planning rather than evaluation. Deal teams are right to be cautious: anything that looks like a broad “culture assessment” pre-close will feel impractical and send the wrong signal. But that doesn’t mean culture can’t be assessed—it just needs to be reframed and timed correctly.
Before Deal Close: Contrast, Not Diagnosis: Pre-close, the goal isn’t to assess culture in absolute terms, or to involve the broader organization. The most effective approach I’ve seen is a lightweight cultural contrast built into diligence activity that is already happening. This focuses on observable operating norms for example: 1) how decisions are made and escalated, 2) degree of autonomy vs central control, 3) risk tolerance and how issues are surfaced, 4) leadership accessibility and communication style and 5) how change is typically introduced and reinforced.
These signals are already visible in management meetings, data-room behaviour, Q&A responsiveness, and how leadership reacts under pressure during diligence. Capturing them in a structured contrast lens (acquirer vs target) makes them usable without labeling anything as good or bad. Positioned this way, culture becomes an integration risk input, not a judgment, and deal teams are usually far more comfortable engaging.
Soon After Close: Leadership-Level Alignment: Post-close is where you can make this more explicit, but still practical. Rather than surveys or audits, I’ve seen the most value from leadership-only workshops designed to surface differences that matter for execution. The conversation or workshop agendas are typically framed around “how work gets done today,” “where friction is most likely during integration” and “what behaviours will help or hinder adoption of the target operating model”. The output isn’t a culture scorecard, its a short list of integration items that directly inform governance, sequencing and change management.
Why This Works: In my experience, when culture is positioned as a mutual understanding exercise that helps both sides navigate integration more effectively, rather than something imposed by the acquirer, resistance drops significantly. Culture is always assessed informally during deals. The difference with this approach is making those insights explicit, structured, and actionable, so integration planning reflects reality instead of assumptions.

[Author]

Posts