When you’re working as an external consultancy on M&A integration, one big piece of the puzzle is how many meetings the buy-side team should actually have. A lot of folks on the buy-side are juggling integration on top of their usual workload, which naturally means they’re suddenly in a lot more meetings—like at least a weekly Integration Management Office (IMO) sync, functional workstream meetings, Steering Committees, vendor catch-ups, etc. There’s pressure to create a meeting cadence to demonstrate everything is in hand.
The result? Meeting fatigue. Confusion. Slower decision-making. And worst of all: execution drift.
The Real Purpose of Meetings
Meetings should only exist to create alignment, remove blockers, and accelerate execution. If they’re doing anything else—like status reporting or box-ticking—they’re probably a waste of time. Integration moves fast in theory but often drags in practice because decision rights aren’t clear and people are waiting for someone to “sign off” in a meeting that’s still three days away.
You can’t execute at pace if you’re coordinating via Outlook.
Three Cadence Models (and When to Use Them)
Here are three common cadence models we recommend—each with trade-offs.
1. Weekly Everything
- What it looks like: Weekly IMO, weekly functional meetings, weekly Steering.
- Pros: Maximum alignment, fast feedback loops.
- Cons: Time-heavy, risk of decision bottlenecks in meetings.
🧠 Use this if: The integration is complex, the deal is large, or you’ve had past failures due to misalignment.
2. Fortnightly Workstreams + Weekly IMO
- What it looks like: Core IMO meets weekly; workstreams meet every two weeks.
- Pros: Gives teams more time to execute, reduces meeting fatigue.
- Cons: Delays surfacing blockers unless the IMO is proactive.
🧠 Use this if: You have relatively autonomous functional leads who know how to escalate asynchronously.
3. Asynchronous-First Model
- What it looks like: One weekly stand-up (IMO only); everything else async via shared dashboards, Slack/Teams, and rolling status docs.
- Pros: Ultra-efficient, empowers teams, keeps meetings for real-time problem-solving only.
- Cons: High trust needed; demands digital maturity.
🧠 Use this if: Your teams are experienced, digitally literate, and aligned culturally on decision-making.
Hybrid Models Work Too
Don’t be afraid to mix and match. For example, Finance and Legal might meet weekly, while Product & Tech meet every 2-3 weeks but update async. The Steering Committee might move to monthly if things are stable. It’s dynamic, not static.
The key is to design your meeting rhythm like a product. It should evolve based on how the integration is progressing.
How to Know If Your Cadence is Broken
- People save decisions for meetings instead of making them.
- More than 30% of attendees in any meeting aren’t speaking.
- Updates are being read out instead of shared ahead.
- Meetings are mostly about status, not about solving.
If you’re seeing these patterns, your cadence is costing you execution speed and morale.
Meeting Cadence Has a Hidden Cost to Integration
Integration is a race against time—but it’s also a marathon. The right cadence helps you run smarter, not just harder. And smart teams know that meetings are just tools—not milestones.
