Will you keep talent from the acquired Company

This topic contains 26 replies, has 26 voices, and was last updated by  Karl Heinz Foertsch 11 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • #92043

    There were cases whereby in a merger and acquisition buy out, all staffs from the acquired company will be ask to leave. If you had identified a talent, what will you do?
    Hiring a specific talent will disrupt the policy of the acquiring company.


    Anne Becker

    I think if proper HR DD was done and top talent was identified, a case should be made to keep the talent. I think it’s irresponsible to ask everyone to leave. The people are generally what make a company successful.


    Ang Pek How

    If i have identified a talent during the Human Resource Due Diligence process, i think it would be good to retain the talent. The reason is that the talent would be able to assist in the acquisition process and subsequently contribute to the post acquisition operations of the acquired company. Otherwise, it would be a lost of information and organisation value if all the staffs left the acquired company.


    Fathurrahman Latama

    It would be beneficial to retain talent from the target company, as he/she has the experience in the market and the company. The acquiring company perhaps must re-evaluate its policy for future acquisition.


    Bianca Stafford

    I agree with Anne. Top talent is instrumental in the performance of the business. If one is acquiring the business, it may be safe to assume that the business is performing well.
    You would therefore want to keep those with the relevant institutional knowledge, to ensure continued and/or enhanced performance.


    Surabhi Khanna

    Retaining top talent is critical when you are buying the company with an intention to continue operations. Keeping the top talent, helps you keep the historical knowledge and continue servicing existing clients with ease.


    Matthew Au

    I would say it is deal by deal, however, from experience retaining talent is critical. Keeping the talent and retaining key employees will help with historical knowledge as mentioned above as well as navigating processes and policies. It is essential to retain key talent as well as maintaining a process for determining who to keep/not to keep.


    Andreas Pournos

    I try to figure out what could policy would dictate to lay off all employees and keep only one that is found to be a talent. You cannot simply dismiss learning curves and experience gained over time nd just replace them. It would be more rational to change key people that will probably not fit with the new culture and polices. So I presume the deal’s expected benefits weren’t including operational benefits. If this is the case, the retention of a talent would be completely pointless.


    As most of you have said it earlier, there needs to be an assessment of the human capital of the existing bought over company workforce. Other than the technical knowledge, their retention also helps from a cultural aspect.



    As said before I think that it is essential to keep talent. If the policy does not allow workforce retention in the acquiring company one possibility would be to sign the talent as external advisors or suggest them to work for a labour leasing company and rehire them.


    Bradley D. Soto

    Typically, a target company is acquired because the combined entity will provide more value to shareholders than if no deal takes place. Essentially, shareholders expect the combination to create value for them. The value chain of a company is typically derived from the people who operate the various parts of that business. Processes, procedures, formulas, IP, and other critical assets that drive competitive advantage (and are usually the reason for an acquisition) are based on the work of the people from the target company. Eliminating the staff from the target without proper HR and Commercial Due Diligence is highly unadvisable.


    Rubhen Jeya

    There was an instance in the commodities industry where it was clear that – although it was promoted as a merger of equals, there was clearly going to be a major personality take over. The commodity industry is generally opaque and I have been told that there was a clear strategy to get rid of the low performing traders. In this situation quite a few people already knew that they were going to be let go. Irrespective of this – no public information was put on how this was all handled. Those who were let go were still in the industry and had to preserve their reputations.


    Connie Howe

    There might be a special reason the buyer preferred all staff of the acquired company to leave. If retaining that talent is important, why not the buyer review its ‘policy’? At the end of the day, it is all about creating values.


    Billy Fok Kam Luen

    yes, I will keep the talent from the acquired company, provided they do understand the plan and agreed on the company future plan.

    it would be better as they understand the culture and environment and able to keep the company in BAU


    Jubran Alshahrani

    Hi everyone!

    There are two points to consider:
    1. Legal clauses that specify retaining top performers. It is best practice for a buyer to retain the bets performers from the target, hence why HR due diligence is key. So a smart buyer will put in clauses that ensures that they stay in the company (people leaving cannot pouch them and provide stock options)
    2. Ethics, the buyer paid what should a fair price to the target. If taking great talent will harm the buyer then it is not ethical to do so.

    In the end M&As have a harsh impact on employees but in some cases can help the greater good by sustaining failing companies from going under completely.

    Be safe everyone!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Loading.. Please wait