[Didrik Moe]

In the course, it’s recommended to use an internal integration director, and I completely understand why. An internal person already knows the company, the people, the culture and the way decisions are made. That can save a lot of time and confusion in the early phase. The slides also mention that the integration director should stay neutral — not get involved in politics, gossip or take sides.

But I keep wondering how realistic that really is in practice. If the person comes from one of the two companies, they already bring some company baggage with them — habits, relationships, and loyalties. How easy is it then to stay neutral and not favour “their” company when decisions are made?

I’ve seen cases where this can actually increase the risk of merger syndrome, because one side feels that the integration is being led by “the other company.” An external integration director might be less biased and seen as more objective, but then they don’t have the same internal knowledge or network.

So my question to the group is:
How neutral can an internal integration director really be in practice, and where have you seen this work well (or not)?

[Ernie]

From the first assignment we submitted, Northrop’s Acquisition of Grumman, the success of PMI is to compare the HR plan, business process and strategy and select the one bringing the best outcome for the integrated entity. Given the “Director” grade, that candidate holding this position should show the professionalism on such evaluation and bring up the decision to management board. Unless s/he has to be bias due to some political concerns…

[Author]

Posts