[Finn Staal]

In post merger integrations I often experience that focus on the change management aspect of the integration often “loose” in the battle of getting time and resources between the different integration workstreams. Despite the fact that most agree in the importance of focus on change management strategy, plan, and activities.
What is the best way and best arguments to secure the needed focus on and resources for a dedicated change management workstream and to execute change management activities?

[jeffreestar]

The point about change management competing for time and resources is very relatable. Keeping people and culture visible throughout integration seems essential, and Basketball Bros would be a nice quick break after a discussion like this.

[Alicia]

I can relate to this as well. From my experience, change management can easily get less attention when the integration is mainly driven by functional workstreams. For me, it helps to have someone responsible for the overall change perspective, while making sure that change-related activities are also part of the individual workstreams. Otherwise, topics like communication, stakeholder engagement or resistance can easily be treated as “nice to have” rather than part of the integration itself.

[Mary Gachanja]

I agree, change management often receives less attention than operational integration. The strongest argument in my view is that poor change management directly affects employee retention, productivity, business continuity and ultimately the realization of synergies.

[Mi Vo Storch]

Very relatable Finn! I’ve also seen that change management works best when it is embedded across the workstreams rather than treated as a separate activity

[Ross Van Allen]

I agree Finn. Change management is often thrust to the side when it comes to being viewed as a workstream wholistically. I’ve seen different approaches to change management, and one that I like the best is treating it like an embedded business partner vs its own stand-alone workstream. This can be difficult to balance from a headcount and workload perspective, but having 1-2 focused individuals who are change management practitioners embedded into the various workstreams helps to drive thought leadership in the overall space, while balancing the tradeoff of “responsible” workload vs “accountable” workload. I’ve seen instances where the change management individual will own a few things such as trainings and documentations across several other workstreams, but the otherwise service as a planning and advisor to balance all the changes across a bunch of interconnected wider workstreams. As their focus is fully on the end-user, this viewpoint allows them to see the ways in which the activities of one workstream are benefiting or challenging the activities of another, particularly with an eye on end user experience.

[Pui Ying (Annie) Chan]

I think change management should be both a dedicated workstream and embedded across all workstreams. If it is only embedded, it often loses priority as functional teams focus on systems, processes, and synergy delivery. If it is only a standalone workstream, it can become disconnected from the actual changes being implemented.
Practically, I agree to have a dedicated change management lead that reports to the IMO, but at the same time each functional workstream should be incorporating change management activities and be hold accountable for adoption in its area.

[Author]

Posts