Bias during integration
- This topic has 11 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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.
It starts with communication across the IMO functional teams to approach the integration with openness and objectivity. Instead of approaching IMO work streams with a “how can we make them be like us” mentality, IMO teams need to agree on striving to implement the best process from either AcquireCo or TargetCo. It’s much easier to take this approach in the PMI phase instead of later down the road.
I use the Six Sigma approach to help take the subjectivity out of the equation. Instead of defaulting to “this is how we’ve always done it,” we use this framework to evaluate processes across both organizations. It allows us to compare apples to apples. We define the key metrics up front, measure both sides against those metrics, and then make informed decisions based on results—not assumptions. If the target’s process is stronger, we don’t just acknowledge it—we seriously consider adopting it.
I’ve found this approach not only leads to better integration outcomes, but also helps build trust and mutual respect across teams. It shifts the conversation from “whose process wins” to “what’s best for the combined organization.”
This is a bit difficult. However, during an integration, my team (at least) is not the decision-maker. We will share the necessary information with them, i.e., the pros and cons (which may have bias based on the number of differences). However, we know that it will ultimately be the executives who make the decisions, which we will then follow.
That’s a critical point — and one I’ve seen make or break the success of integrations. As a CFO, I’ve learned that objectivity during integration requires both discipline and humility. You start by establishing cross-functional teams that include leaders from both the acquirer and the target, and you frame the process not as a one-way transfer of best practices, but as a mutual discovery. When assessing functional streams — whether it’s finance, HR, product, or go-to-market — we anchor evaluations on measurable KPIs and business outcomes rather than legacy preferences. If the target’s process clearly outperforms ours, we acknowledge it and escalate the case for adoption on our side. It takes maturity to admit that the “smaller” company might be ahead in certain areas, but if value creation is the real goal, the better solution must win, regardless of where it originates. Leadership alignment on this principle from the start is essential; otherwise, bias creeps in under the guise of control.
One mindset I alway guided my clients when approaching “integration” topics is shifting from “ours vs. theirs” to “what’s best for the future business.”
I think that, if looking for best practice should be the aim of each company, for practical reasons it is difficult to achieve it during integration process, particularly if the two companies differ in size and the acquired company is smaller. Costs and timing also play a role. Let’s think for instance to the IT side or complex processes. Changing system in the acquiring company is much more expensive and imply higher risks. Yet, maintaining humility and avoiding biases in the acquirer when evaluating the target processes and tools can bring important improving opportunities also for the acquirer.
I was actually reading an article about this topic, and I found it interesting how they divided into the different groups, so I wanted to share this for a perspective:
Management Bias: Managerial biases can influence the integration process, affecting decision-making and outcomes.
Confirmation Bias: Individuals may seek information that validates their preconceived notions, leading to biased decisions.
Cultural Differences: Pre-existing cultural differences can create resistance during the integration phase, impacting overall performance.
Overall, the recommendation is to Evaluate processes based on data and alignment with merger goals can help minimize bias. Understanding and managing these biases is crucial for a successful integration process.
To stay objective across functional streams during integration, it’s essential to adopt a fact-based, collaborative approach. Begin by benchmarking both organizations’ processes using measurable KPIs, not assumptions. Encourage cross-functional teams to evaluate practices jointly, recognizing that the target may offer superior methods worth adopting. Objectivity also comes from leadership setting the tone, valuing improvement over ownership. When the acquirer is open to change, integration becomes a two-way learning process, not just assimilation. Structured governance, third-party assessments, and transparent decision-making help ensure fairness and optimal outcomes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.