The real problem
The commercial half of an integration is the half that leaks
Systems get integrated because somebody owns that. Legal entities get merged because somebody owns that. The commercial organisation frequently gets left to work itself out, because the people who could fix it are the same people being asked to keep hitting a number through the disruption.
That is where revenue leaks. Accounts fall between two owners. Two sales processes run in parallel and neither is followed. Incentive schemes reward different behaviour on either side of the same business. And underneath all of it sits the question nobody will say out loud, which is which side actually won.
Scope
What has to be resolved
- Overlapping teams. Two of everything, and a structure that has to become one without losing the people worth keeping
- Account ownership. Who owns which relationship, decided explicitly rather than by whoever calls the client first
- Sales process consolidation. One process, chosen on merit rather than by whoever acquired whom
- Reporting. A single set of numbers both sides trust, which is usually the first thing to build and the most underestimated
- Incentives. One scheme, aligned to the combined business, without a transition that quietly cuts somebody's earnings
- Leadership structure. Named roles and real accountability, and honesty about how the senior appointments were decided
- Commercial operating model. How the combined function is meant to work, written down
- Market integration. Doing all of the above simultaneously across several countries with different laws and norms
- Revenue momentum. Keeping the business selling while every one of the above is in flux
Worked example
Six markets, four business units, 25 people
I led the commercial integration of two merged businesses across the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Poland, the Netherlands and Mexico. Every senior manager in the merged structure came from one side of the merger. The other side noticed.
I listened before changing anything, sitting with every team lead across the six countries. Three problems came up consistently: almost no commercial process, poor reporting, and in several cases real conflict with a line manager. I fixed reporting first, restored direct client contact that had drifted to a third party agency, and only then addressed the culture, which was the actual problem.
+20%
Fourth quarter of year one, against the prior year
5 of 6
Markets growing double digits by that quarter
+44%
Combined commission the following year
0
Legal issues arising from the exits
Four people left, on both fit and performance grounds. Integrations cost people, and I would rather say that at the outset than discover in month four that we disagreed about it.
The sequence
Culture last, and that is deliberate
Most integration advice puts culture first, and it sounds right. In practice, culture work before the basics function is a conversation about feelings in a business where nobody can see their own numbers. It does not hold.
Reporting first, because both sides need a shared set of facts before they can have a shared conversation. Then the commercial motion, because activity restores confidence faster than any message from leadership. Then a visible win, which converts the people who were waiting to see whether this was serious. Then culture, which sets around evidence of progress rather than around intention.
I was straightforward about the fact that the senior appointments had gone one way, and why. The smaller side already knew. Pretending otherwise would have cost me the only thing that makes integration possible, which is being believed.
Questions
Common questions
When should we bring someone in, before or after completion?
Before, if you can. The commercial integration plan is far cheaper to write while both organisations are still describing themselves honestly to a third party. After completion is more common and entirely workable, but the first month is then spent recovering information that was freely available a quarter earlier.
How do you keep revenue moving during an integration?
By deciding account ownership early and explicitly, resolving the incentive scheme quickly even if imperfectly, and protecting the small number of client relationships that carry disproportionate revenue. Most integration revenue loss is not competitive, it is self inflicted through ambiguity.
Do you work for the acquirer or the acquired?
For the combined business, which sometimes means saying uncomfortable things to the side that appointed me. Integrations where the acquirer's every process is assumed superior tend to lose the acquired company's best people within a year.
Is this relevant for private equity buy and build?
Very. Repeated bolt on acquisitions create exactly this problem several times over, and the commercial integration is usually the part with no dedicated owner. Longer hold periods have made it more consequential rather than less.