Over the past year, we’ve been talking about how M&A IT integration is changing — and not in the ways many of us expected.
In earlier posts, we covered:
- The plumbing problem is easing — connectivity, standard APIs, and modern cloud platforms make the baseline migration simpler.
- The complexity is shifting — application dependencies, AI integration, and business logic alignment are now the real headaches.
- Value erosion risk is rising — especially when poor integration undermines the deal’s intended synergies.
This has led to an important conclusion: not every integration needs to be a full integration. Sometimes a hybrid or partial approach is faster, safer, and still effective.
But there’s a catch.
The “Hybrid Engagement” Problem
In several recent projects, we’ve noticed something new — lower engagement levels from both buyer and seller teams when hybrid integration is chosen.
It’s not just that the integration is smaller in scope; the energy, ownership, and collaborative drive are also diminished.
From what we’ve seen, this is often because:
- No clear integration leader
In a full integration, there’s usually a dominant “playbook owner” — typically the buyer’s IT lead who’s driving the plan. In a hybrid scenario, both firms remain technical peers, and no one naturally takes the reins. - Less incoming responsibility for the buyer
Without the big “lift and shift” workload, the buyer’s IT team can treat the acquired systems as “business as usual.” This can reduce the urgency to engage. - Cultural ambiguity
Hybrid models leave parts of each organisation intact. This sounds diplomatic, but it can also mean teams are unsure which processes, tools, and standards to follow.
Why It Matters
Engagement isn’t just about “feel-good” team spirit. It’s directly linked to:
- Knowledge transfer quality — disengaged teams don’t proactively share the details that matter.
- Change adoption — without strong engagement, users stick to old ways of working.
- Future integration flexibility — when early hybrid steps are done half-heartedly, they create technical and cultural debt for the next phase.
In short: a disengaged hybrid integration is a risk multiplier.
Fixing It: Keep the Energy High
We’ve seen a few approaches work, they align with the 3Cs for tech team alignment
- Assign a hybrid “integration champion”
Even without a full integration, appoint someone (buyer or seller side) whose job is to maintain momentum, resolve issues, and make decisions. - Run structured workshops
Keep both sides talking, even on topics outside the immediate integration scope. Use these to share roadmaps, discuss “what if” scenarios, and keep the lesser-used integration options alive. - Build visible milestones
Even if the work is lighter, give the project a clear set of milestones and celebrate their completion. It keeps teams focused and gives a shared sense of progress.
Hybrid integration can be a smart strategic choice — but without deliberate effort to maintain engagement, it risks drifting into underperformance. The lesson is clear: even when you integrate less, you must lead more.
