Biggest blindspot in HR DD?
- This topic has 5 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What was the biggest “people or culture” blind spot you have faced after a deal closed and was not seen (or taken seriously by decision makers) during the DD?
One lesson I’ve learned from a recent acquisition is to spend more time understanding the motivations and future involvement of the previous owners. We made certain assumptions about how they would support the business after closing, and those assumptions didn’t fully materialize. Looking back, I would have spent more time discussing expectations, decision-making, communication, and post-close responsibilities before completing the transaction. Financial, legal, and operational due diligence are all critical, but understanding the people involved and ensuring everyone has aligned expectations can have just as much impact on the success of the acquisition.
One of the biggest blind spots I have seen is the underestimation of how leadership and communication styles affect employees after closing. Even when the organizations appear culturally compatible, differences in decision-making, accountability, and transparency can quickly create uncertainty and disengagement. These concerns may be identified during due diligence but are not always treated with the same urgency as financial risks. Earlier cultural assessment and a clear communication and retention plan could prevent the loss of key talent.
A common post-close blind spot is underestimating how strongly employees identify with the legacy company—and how quickly trust can erode when leaders impose new structures or ways of working without listening. It is often missed in due diligence because decision-makers focus on formal policies and leadership interviews, rather than informal influence networks, morale, and employees’ fears about what the deal means for them.
While management retention is often assessed during due diligence, the same attention should be given to employees beyond the leadership team. A transaction can trigger concerns about organisational changes, roles, and career prospects. As people are often a company’s most valuable asset, maintaining employee engagement and retaining critical talent can be a major determinant of post-transaction success
Alexandra, the replies so far focus on culture and expectations. One blind spot I’d add is more mechanical: the people risk that the deal itself creates.
Dhruv Mehra from Mercer covered this in the HR DD session. If key people hold unvested equity that vests at close, or a change-in-control bonus of one or two times salary, the deal hands them a windfall at exactly the moment competitors’ recruiters start calling. Many executive contracts also have “good reason” clauses: reduce someone’s duties or base pay, or relocate them more than 50 miles, and they can claim constructive termination and trigger a severance payment.
The trouble is that lawyers read those contracts during DD, while the new org chart that changes titles and reporting lines is drawn up later by the integration team, and nobody connects the two until a senior person leaves with a payout. I’d check every planned role change against the contract terms before signing, and treat the resulting payments as debt-like items in the price rather than a surprise after close.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.