Post-merger friction
This is a pre-completed example output — use it to understand the style and depth, then run your own analysis.
My understanding of your challenge
You’ve completed the merger on paper, but the organisation is still operating as two companies. The visible symptoms — slow decisions, duplicated processes, unclear roles, and declining morale — are exactly what you see when operating model integration lags behind strategic integration. The tension is that leadership may be aligned on the ‘where we’re going’, but the ‘how we run the place’ hasn’t been made explicit. In this vacuum, people protect legacy ways of working, multiple approval chains persist, and accountability becomes negotiated rather than clear. This matters now because integration debt compounds: inefficiency becomes normalised, talent attrition increases, and the merger synergies you sold to stakeholders become harder to realise.
Initial diagnosis & what this really is
This is primarily an operating model and governance clarity problem. It’s commonly mistaken for ‘culture’ alone. Culture is part of it, but culture improves fastest when the organisation stops forcing people to operate in ambiguous structures. Across post-merger situations, the market pattern is consistent: where decision rights and process ownership are not defined, work expands to fill the gaps — more meetings, more approvals, more duplication. The right move is to create an explicit integrated operating model: accountabilities, decision rights, core processes, and enabling platforms — with leaders held to it.
Key risks & failure modes to be aware of
The biggest trap is attempting to integrate everything at once. That often creates analysis paralysis and ‘design theatre’, while day-to-day friction continues. Another trap is allowing decisions to be made informally or inconsistently across business units, which entrenches fragmentation. Well-intentioned efforts fail when leadership attention drifts to org charts without solving the underlying operating model choices: which processes are standardised, where local variation is allowed, and who owns end-to-end outcomes.
Suggested strategic approach
Start by picking the decisions and processes that create the most friction and cost today (e.g., approvals, finance close, customer handoffs). Define decision rights and accountabilities first, then simplify processes, then align systems and tools. Sequencing should match value: fix the handful of ‘integration choke points’ that slow the organisation, then broaden. A deeper version would add integration benchmarks and an executive integration pack (decisions, owners, milestones).
Indicative timeline of activities
Phase 1: Diagnose & Align
Focus of activity:
Identify the biggest integration choke points and align leadership on a small set of operating model principles.
Intended outcome:
Clear priorities and an explicit view of where duplication and ambiguity are hurting performance most.
Phase 2: Design & Decide
Focus of activity:
Define decision rights, process ownership, and standard vs local variations for core processes.
Intended outcome:
A workable integrated operating model with clear accountability and governance.
Phase 3: Mobilise & Execute
Focus of activity:
Implement changes, remove duplicate processes, and establish performance cadence.
Intended outcome:
Faster decisions, reduced duplication, improved morale, and measurable integration progress.
Early KPIs & signals to track
Decision cycle time
Progress signalTrack time-to-decision for a small set of recurring decisions (e.g., spend approvals, hiring, customer exceptions).
Process duplication count
Leading indicatorNumber of parallel processes/tools still running (finance systems, approval chains, policy variants).
Role clarity pulse
Adoption signalShort monthly pulse on ‘I know who owns what’ and ‘I know how decisions get made’.
30 / 60 / 90-day way forward
Next 30 days — Clarity & alignment
Run an integration diagnostic focused on friction: where decisions slow down, where work duplicates, and where accountability is unclear. Make it practical: interviews plus a quick mapping of 5–7 critical processes. Agree 3–5 operating model principles (e.g., single owner per process, standardise core controls, keep local flexibility at the edge) and socialise them as the integration ‘rules of the road’.
Next 60 days — Decisions & design
Define decision rights and accountabilities (RACI is fine if it drives real choices). Pick the top choke points and redesign those processes first, with leaders accountable for adoption. Establish a cadence: weekly integration decisions, monthly progress review, and a visible decision log.
Next 90 days — Mobilisation & early execution
Execute: remove duplicate approval chains and systems where possible, simplify policies, and embed the new operating model through governance and metrics. Make the merger feel real to employees by improving the day-to-day experience: fewer handoffs, clearer ownership, and faster decisions.
Questions a consultant would ask next
These questions expose assumptions, highlight decision points, and signal where deeper work is required:
- 1.Which 5 decisions are most painfully slow today, and what specifically causes the delay?
- 2.Where does ownership overlap (two people own it) vs gaps (nobody owns it), and what are the consequences?
- 3.Which processes must be standardised to operate as one company — and where is local variation acceptable?
- 4.What leadership behaviours are reinforcing legacy silos (even unintentionally)?
- 5.What would ‘integration success’ look like in 90 days that employees would genuinely feel?
What a deeper plan would unlock
A deeper plan would translate the operating model into a sequenced integration roadmap: which processes change when, who owns them, what decisions are required, and how you measure adoption. It would also produce executive-ready integration materials (decision log, milestones, governance) and sector benchmarks for typical integration timelines and failure patterns.