In mergers and acquisitions and other major transformations, weak signals often appear early on: decisions that slow down, meetings that drag on, rules that change without being understood, teams that continue to produce but with less energy, less fluidity, and sometimes less confidence.
These signs are not merely indicative of temporary discomfort. They often signal that the organisation is beginning to fall out of step. And at the heart of this imbalance, one group finds itself particularly vulnerable: managers.
During a merger or any transformation period, they are expected to reassure teams, keep business running, absorb tensions, communicate decisions, maintain customer relations and ensure performance. But they do not always have the clarity, resources or leeway needed to fulfil this role over the long term. What they are looking for, then, is not yet another inspirational speech. What they are looking for are the right conditions to do their jobs properly.
When managers become the system’s shock absorbers
In all my years of supporting organisations undergoing transformations, I have never come across managers or teams who give up out of disinterest. Those who burn out are not necessarily the least committed. Very often, they are the ones who have done the most to compensate, to absorb the strain, and to try to keep the system afloat despite its inconsistencies.
They do not always leave because they no longer believe in the company. They leave because they can no longer see how to do their job properly under the given circumstances. In many organisations, managerial fatigue is still interpreted as a sign of personal weakness: lack of resilience, resistance to change, difficulty adapting. But in the context of mergers, what is termed resistance is often a reaction to an environment that has become too ambiguous, unstable or contradictory.
The manager then becomes the system’s shock absorber. They are on the front line of human issues: fatigue, misunderstandings, loss of bearings, cultural tensions, concerns about the future. At the same time, they must ensure operational continuity: deadlines, service quality, productivity, and team engagement.
This dual expectation becomes problematic when governance remains unclear. Managers must explain decisions they do not always fully understand, apply rules that are still in flux, and arbitrate between priorities that are sometimes contradictory. For a while, they compensate. They smooth things over, find informal solutions, and protect their teams. But when this compensation becomes permanent, it leads to attrition: delayed decisions, eroded trust, more frequent tensions, the departure of talent and a decline in the quality of execution.
Cultural differences exacerbate this phenomenon. Corporate culture is often discussed as an abstract concept. In a merger, it becomes a tangible reality. Two organisations may have different approaches to time, risk, autonomy, quality or customer relations.
One organisation may prioritise speed of processing, whilst another favours personalisation. One may operate with standardised processes, the other with a more bespoke approach. One may view escalating a problem as a professional reflex, the other as an admission of failure. These differences influence deadlines, decision-making processes, cooperation and customer relations. Often, managers deal with the consequences even before they have been addressed at a strategic level.
Before the purpose, the conditions for working effectively
When you listen to managers, their requests are often more concrete than one might imagine. First and foremost, they seek clarity. Who decides what? What are the priorities? What rules apply? What is negotiable, and what is not? They then seek consistency. The messages sent by senior management, the objectives set, the resources allocated and the expected behaviours must all tell the same story.
They are also seeking recognition. Not merely symbolic recognition, but genuine recognition of the complexity of their role. Managing in stable times is already demanding. Managing within an organisation undergoing a merger, with shifting reference points and cultures in flux, is even more so.
Finally, they are looking for room for manoeuvre. A manager without room for manoeuvre becomes merely a conduit for constraints. Yet teams need more than just a conduit. They need a leader, a point of contact capable of adapting, prioritising and restoring clarity.
Listening to managers means steering the transformation
In times like these, spaces for dialogue are essential. But they must also be useful. A space for expression that leads nowhere can have the opposite effect. Teams speak, problems are identified, but no decisions follow. Speaking then becomes a ritual, not a lever.
A constructive space for dialogue should enable us to articulate what is actually happening, to clarify what can be clarified, and to identify concrete short-term actions. What has gone wrong since the merger? What is causing the most confusion: roles, priorities or decision-making processes? What do we need most urgently: resources, clarity, support or arbitration? Which two or three simple decisions would immediately improve day-to-day operations?
These questions are not about managerial comfort. They directly affect performance. For an organisation that does not listen to its managers gradually loses its ability to understand what is really happening on the ground.
Sustainability cannot be imposed. It depends less on individual motivation than on the quality of the system in which individuals work. Managers do not seek to be shielded from all difficulties. They know that transformation involves tensions, trade-offs and sometimes sacrifices. But they need these tensions to be acknowledged, for trade-offs to be clear, and for the resources provided to be consistent with the stated ambitions.
What they are truly seeking are the right conditions to work well together. And this is perhaps one of the best indicators of the maturity of an organisation undergoing transformation: its ability not to ask its managers to shoulder alone what is the responsibility of the collective.
Read more articles:
When The Ground Speaks Before The Crisis: The Human Impact Of Mergers And Acquisitions
