[Jamie M]

Should an acquiring company be transparent pre and/or post-closing on retention of employees, leadership etc. What are your experiences on experiences, best practices, pros and cons.

[Melissa Lehman]

Yes – I think you should disclose your intentions of leadership roles and include any key individuals as part of the closing. On the larger level, I don’t think you can promise that the organization as a whole will not be impacted but being transparent in your goals of the acquisition should be shared

[Hedwig Duronic]

I also think transparency is a must.
Thinking of layoffs etc. it of course can be a disadvantage to communicate that too early. But if you don´t appear trustworthy to the employees/management of the acquired company the best employees will leave anyway

[Dana Hoernke]

In my experience, not being transparent initially helped boost participation in short-term projects immediately after the acquisition where we really needed the legacy knowledge. However, it did lead to poor company reviews later on. Being upfront about retention plans and leadership continuity can build trust and alleviate uncertainty among employees… but it is a delicate balance to not overshare sensitive information early on either.

[Francisco Aires]

Depends on each acquisition and its risks, but I consider yes, it must be in place a clear communication which will address all the “me” issues in a faster and clear way. Executives may be tempted to soften the message, which could lead into a meaningless message, think employees respect and prefer more transparency as the integration process need to be done in a prudent speed, which means the harder decisions must be taken and addressed during the communication otherwise that could lead to a lack of credibility.

[Tack Kitanaka]

I would be clear of the expectations for key management/employees pre-closing as these people frequently are the key drivers of the business values and without retaining them often times the acquired company fails to deliver; and then post close, will be transparent on retention/severance to avoid uncertainty causing doubts amongst the employees and keep the motivations and drivers for business integration at the optimal level. That said, retention/severance is a delicate issue from both legal/non-legal perspective and I would be cautious in the timing of transparency and how those are communicated to best avoid can of worms of legal/non-legal issues jumping out.

[Todd Erickson]

IMO, any acquired company should do so with a realistic expectation that it may result in redundancies of positions. What then becomes important if you are from the acquired company is to decide early on if you are going to be a willing participant, if you can find ways to align with the goals, objectives and values of the acquiring company and become an asset to the ultimate success of the integration.

Admittedly, while employee rationalization may be a foregone conclusion, there is still an opportunity for the acquiring company to assess the talent level that they are acquiring, and should be open and willing to believe that there will be opportunities from the new team to bring new ideas and a fresh perspective along with critical historical context.

[Jiaxin Alethea Hong]

Transparency or future plans should be provided as best as possible as it gives the existing employees some form of certainty or direction on where their department or role will eventually land. This gives employee time to react as each employee have their own commitments too.

[Author]

Posts