M&A professionals know that culture can derail an integration. Yet, as long as it does not feature in the Excel spreadsheet, the timetable or the immediate scope of the deal, it is often pushed back until after the deal has been signed.
Having examined mergers from the perspective of those on the ground, managers, HR and the CEO, I now approach the situation from the viewpoint of those who structure the transactions: M&A consultants, investment bankers, advisers, corporate development teams, lawyers and other deal participants.
Their position is unique. They know a great deal. They see the risks, the unspoken issues, the fragile compatibility and the promises that are sometimes made too hastily. But they operate within a framework that prioritises speed, prudence and the security of the deal above all else.
This is where the paradox begins: what the specialists know is not always what the process allows them to take on board.
What doesn’t fit into an Excel spreadsheet doesn’t disappear
When discussing culture with M&A professionals, the responses come thick and fast. “It’s not part of the processes.”
“Culture doesn’t fit into an Excel spreadsheet.”
“We want to move quickly.”
“There isn’t really such a thing as a cultural auditor. ”
These statements do not necessarily reflect a lack of interest. Rather, they reveal the underlying logic of the deal. The figures must be analysed. The markets must be assessed. Contracts must be secured. Legal risks must be mapped out. The valuation must hold up.
All of this is necessary. No one can seriously dispute the importance of financial and legal considerations in a merger or acquisition.
But one question often falls outside the scope: will these people, these executives, these teams, these decision-making cultures, actually be able to work together?
This question seems simple. Yet it is one of the most difficult to fit within the traditional frameworks of an audit.
The deal secures what we must account for today
In most transactions, what falls within the scope of the deal also falls within the scope of immediate responsibility.
We secure what we must account for today: the figures, the legal risks, the market assumptions, the financial consistency, the clauses, the warranties, the announced synergies.
Matters that will have an impact later on are dealt with differently. Not because they are unimportant, but because they belong to a different time, to other teams, to other areas of responsibility.
Culture then becomes an irrelevant issue. It is deferred to the post-deal phase, to HR, to managers, to integration teams. It is not absent. It is simply situated elsewhere.
This is perhaps the most powerful mechanism: whatever does not fit into the deal’s timetable does not really fall within the scope of the decision.
The CSR issue then becomes very concrete: what we decide quickly today – who will actually bear the cost of it later on?
Culture: a misplaced responsibility
The problem is therefore not merely methodological. It is also a governance issue.
In a merger, the decision and its consequences are not always borne by the same parties. Those who structure the deal are assessed on their ability to secure it, sign it and keep to the timetable. Those who will have to live through the integration must then deal with the human, cultural and organisational effects of what was decided before they were involved.
This separation creates a bias in the transfer of responsibility over time.
Under pressure, it becomes rational to downplay issues that will only come to fruition after the deal has been signed. Culture is not denied. It is postponed. Human risk is not ignored. It is transformed into a future problem.
Yet that future always arrives.
It arrives in the form of silent resistance, staff departures, latent conflicts, managerial overload, loss of trust or burnout. It arrives when teams realise that the narrative surrounding the deal does not match their day-to-day experience.
What the audit fails to address early enough
Incorporating culture at an earlier stage does not mean adding a layer of abstract complexity. It means asking, before the deal is signed, a few questions that the organisation often prefers to put off.
How does this manager speak about their teams? How do they make decisions when under pressure? Do they centralise, delegate, decide alone, or avoid conflict? How are disagreements handled within the target company? What do employees say in the corridors but never put in presentations? What do customers say about the way the company actually operates?
These factors are not always apparent in a data room. They require a different kind of listening, observation and questioning.
They are also disruptive.
They disrupt the deal’s timetable. They undermine the reassuring narrative of a well-managed transaction. They can bring to light areas of ambiguity that one would prefer to deal with later. They force us to look at what, within the organisation, cannot be reduced to a single line of synergy.
But that is precisely why they are strategic.
When the post-deal phase takes on the human burden
M&A specialists often see the damage when they revisit the project later on.
By that point, the teams are already worn out. Tensions have taken hold. Managers have lost some of their credibility. Trust has been eroded. HR finds itself having to deal with contradictions it did not create.
Behind the promises of synergies, however, employees are asking themselves some very simple questions: what’s going to happen to me? Will I keep my job? How will I be treated? Who really makes the decisions? What meaning will my work have tomorrow?
These questions are not peripheral. They determine genuine buy-in, the quality of execution, talent retention and the ability to cooperate once the deal is done.
Data from the Luxembourg Quality of Work Index 2025 also highlights a broader reality: when demands grow faster than resources, motivation, mental health and the ability to cope in the long term become fragile.
In a merger, this phenomenon can be amplified. What was left out of the deal resurfaces within the organisation’s workforce: fatigue, disengagement, conflicts, staff turnover and a loss of bearings.
Culture has not been forgotten. It has been displaced. And this displacement always ends up coming at a cost.
Re-articulating decision-making, responsibility and consequences
The solution does not lie in asking M&A specialists to become, overnight, experts in culture. It lies in broadening the governance framework of the deal.
Human, cultural and organisational issues must be incorporated into decision-making criteria at an earlier stage. Not as matters of communication or support, but as risks relating to the creation or destruction of value.
This means that executives, boards and those involved in the deal must ask themselves a few questions before signing: what human and cultural impacts are we actually prepared to accept? Which decisions create a debt that others will have to pay later? What qualitative information is currently missing to assess the true viability of the integration?
As long as these questions remain outside the scope of governance, responsibility will continue to be fragmented: the decision on one side, the consequences on the other.
The real question is therefore not merely: have we signed a good deal?
It becomes: did we look early enough at what will determine its true value?
M&A specialists know that culture matters. Many state this quite clearly. But as long as their expertise remains disconnected from governance decisions, culture will continue to emerge too late – as a problem to be managed rather than a risk to be anticipated.
Incorporating these issues at an earlier stage is not an ethical luxury. It is an act of responsible governance.
Read more articles:
Presence Is Performance: What Leaders Communicate Before They Speak
What If the Next Asset Class Is Content?
The CFO’s New Reality: Every Finance Team Is About To Multiply
