Lessons Learned from an Acquisition
An acquisition lives or dies on the unglamorous organizational plumbing-- brand identity, staffing, tooling, shipping cadence, culture-- not the press release. I learned this managing attrition through the acquisition of a small startup called Beeswax, first as an Engineering Manager, later as a Director of Engineering. Three things made the difference, and none of them are retention bonuses: mapping ownership so gaps don't hide, treating 1:1s as the highest-leverage thing you do in year one, and defining a vision honest enough to survive being wrong. I'll touch on hiring and firing-- they matter-- but attrition is where acquisitions are actually won or lost.
This isn't a niche problem. M&A volume cratered under macro pressure in 2022 and 2023, but ad-tech had already bucked the trend by 2024-- 73% YoY growth in ad-tech M&A alone-- and by 2025 overall deal value was back above $5 trillion, ahead of the last two decades' average. If you're the acquirer trying to protect the team you just bought, or the team on the other side of that deal, this is worth reading closely-- more of you are going to be living this than at any point in the last five years.
The story starts in 2021. The founders stayed on for a year, but in truth, most of the acquisition work happened after they left.
The shape of this post. An acquisition lives or dies on the unglamorous plumbing-- not the press release.
- Why now: M&A-- especially in ad-tech-- is accelerating, so more of you are living this than at any point in the last five years.
- Diagnose first: which of the four team states you're in, and whether the problem is your team or the org around it.
- Three things that made the difference: Ownership (map the AORs), 1:1s (the highest-leverage tool in year one), Vision (a north star honest enough to survive being wrong).
Attrition's Long Tail
Every team I've run falls into one of four states: Firefighting, Treading Water, Recovering (paying down technical debt), or Driving Innovation. I've taken teams through all four, and leadership matters most in the first three-- a team that's merely fighting fires or treading water is where an acquisition either stabilizes or quietly unravels. Before you diagnose which state your team is in, though, figure out whether the problem is your team or the org around it. As an engineering manager, there's little you can do to fix the org itself; as a director, your leverage grows, and your strongest tactic becomes managing up without overstepping. People like to say impact can come from anywhere regardless of title-- true in small orgs, generally false in big ones.
Two other processes matter too: hiring (generally to meet new business objectives) and firing (a deduplication of roles and talent-- note that the mothership often chooses its own).
Botching the decision making in the first year of an acquisition will lead to a series of cascading problems with each cycle bringing an escalating reverberation of eventual failure. Regardless of the state of hiring and firing, attrition is a part of every acquisition (exceptions may be acqui-hires). Retention bonuses are only so effective-- if you want to keep your talent, keeping the founders on for as long as possible is a much stronger lever. The question of what the founders will do or how long they might stay was a consistent one. Salary was secondary and only became a larger concern after the founders departed.
Most of my early experience was centered around refueling the fire that was nearly extinguished by the journey to acquisition. In the early stages, my team would be considered small compared to the behemoth of an org I would lead a few years later-- roughly 4 employees and 4 contractors. I still believe 8 engineers is a realistic team size for one leader to run well.
With the advent of A.I., executives will push for larger teams anyway. This movement will largely fail-- not because a team that size can't function, but because there aren't enough leaders skilled enough to handle 15+ engineers moving at the speed of Claude.
For additional context, the baseline for attrition in tech has been historically high. The median job tenure for a startup employee receiving equity compensation is a mere 2.2 years, the average tenure at Big Tech is a little over a year. Oddly enough, employees tend to yield the best ROI between years 2 and 4 of their tenure. If leaders are frustrated with delivery-- retention is one of the best places to look.
While 75% of employees depart in the first 3 years, management tells an even more asymmetrical tale-- 40% of managers are lost in the first 24 months. In a hostile takeover, this rate surges past 50%.
100% of the direct reports on my initial team stayed for 2+ years-- some would go on to stay 5+ years. I managed to keep the majority of our highest achieving contractors as well. Here are a few things that made the difference:
First: ownership.
Map out individual team member's AOR.
Find the gaps, communicate those gaps with your team and your manager. If the gap is high value, assign that space to your highest available talent and determine the risk if this gap goes unfulfilled.
Acquisitions are the end goal for a lot of organizations-- the successful exit. For the people inside, though, it's just as often a beginning: a career at a startup and a career at a large parent company look very different, and this is where engineering leadership can make a difference. Your AOR document doubles as a first resource for that conversation.
Prioritize all areas; keep that model at the forefront of your mind when you talk with Product, Customer Service, Leadership and other teams. If you're asked to dedicate time and energy to something that has no mapping-- this is a red flag or an undiscovered area of responsibility.
Second: 1:1s.
1:1 meetings have the most value in the first year. I've found reports to oscillate between doubt and certainty from sprint to sprint. After expanding my team to include both Frontend and Backend engineers-- following my own advice, I met with all of them. "So many broken windows--" one engineer said, followed by a long sigh, as if he had been holding on to a sacred truth turned burden. He was referring to the constant surveillance necessary to keep the system up; the sheer volume of errors and warnings that may result in yet another late night. Complex systems and broken things weren't foreign to me, but I came to understand how those challenges may be energy depleting. I let those words hang after I acknowledged that we had quite a bit of work to do. I didn't try to convince the engineer in this meeting-- I did make a promise to myself to make things better (eventually the team did succeed as we scaled from ~80 integration tests to over 1000 and improved system stability).
When you hear raw feedback about the work environment or platform-- see if it correlates with other team members' perspectives. One of the advantages of being an engineering leader is the ability to triangulate and filter the signal from the noise. One gap I see in leaders is reaching for the last explanation they were told.
Document your 1:1s. Some leaders keep a shared document; keeping your own notes lets you stay prepared for each meeting, pick up where you left off, and check on prior goals. It gives a dry, methodical process a real, natural cadence.
Third: vision.
The most difficult adjustment is the transition from autonomous innovator to subordinate member of a corporate matrix. Having worked at startups and small companies as well as large Fortune 100 organizations, I found the transition challenging. It was a frequent talking point in 1:1s as well as a source of contention across all parts of the acquired organization. That adjustment doesn't have to happen overnight, though-- experienced companies will generally provide a rather large grace period (often years) for the acquired entity to maintain culture. Leverage what exists, but address the long-term concerns: change is inevitable.
Define a vision. It doesn't have to be perfect. A team needs a north star. If you're uncertain-- make that known but provide enough confidence, data and logical arguments to ensure the team can rally around an achievable goal. When you get new information, update your vision. If enough change occurs, formally address the team. Leaving your team in the dark sows irreparable discord.
Conclusion
Acquisitions are won or lost long before anyone notices-- in the quiet decisions about who owns what, who stays, and who gets a real 1:1 instead of a status update. My team didn't just survive the acquisition because of a retention bonus or a slide deck; it thrived because we mapped ownership gaps early, treated 1:1s as a first-year priority instead of a nice-to-have, and gave people a vision to hold onto while the org chart underneath them was still being redrawn.
None of this is glamorous. None of it shows up in a press release. But the platform that survives an acquisition is usually the one whose leaders did the unglamorous plumbing first-- attrition math, ownership maps, and a north star that gets updated honestly instead of quietly abandoned. If you're heading into an acquisition, resist the urge to wait for clarity from above. The org chart will eventually get sorted out. What won't wait is whether the people who know the system best still believe it's worth staying for.
Sources
- 5 Critical Post M&A Integration Mistakes HR Leaders Must Avoid – HR Future
- Predictable Exodus: Startup Acquisitions and Employee Departures by Daniel Kim – MIT Sloan Management Review
- The M&A Risk of Confusing Market Velocity with Marketing Capability – ComplexDiscovery, citing Ernst & Young analysis
- Playing for keeps: Employee retention in M&A – how to get it right – Deloitte
- M&A's $5 trillion year was buoyed by mega-deals – PitchBook
- 2024 Full Year Market Report – LUMA Partners
Originally published at Skyscrapers On Sand.
Top comments (0)