3 ms·

I see a lot of comments critical of the generalization, which I suppose is fair, but misses the point. Generalizations and stereotypes are usually based on a t

I see a lot of comments critical of the generalization, which I suppose is fair, but misses the point. Generalizations and stereotypes are usually based on a truth. Simply pointing out that a generalization is in fact that does not make it untrue, and it most certainly does not provide enough of a reason to discount the concept in a meaningful way. You guys are caught up in the fact that 90 is not 100 and extending that to assume that 90 is either not true or not important. It is on both counts. It matters little whether 90 is 70, 80, or 100 in matters that aren't exact science. If you have some sort of point to make that 90 is in fact 20, then please, make it (I've yet to see one). Otherwise you add little as a counter to this article.

nkohari 16y ago
I don't think anyone is debating the point that it's possible that acquisitions can end up this way. But even putting aside the hyperbole and absolutism that's shown in this article, I challenge the claim that acquisitions go poorly more times than they don't. My guess is that for every public flameout, there are a hundred acquisitions that end up positive for everyone -- you just don't hear about them, because saying "everything went better than expected" isn't interesting as a news item.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  That's rather easy to challenge but at the same time very difficult. All I have is anecdotes directly, but from being on both sides of 4 acquisitions total, it has been true 100% of the time. Not a single founder/c-level leader has remained from the bought company over five years. Often, significant turmoil was present prior to that final departure. This has been such an observation to me that I would strongly suggest that if you were to be on the buyer's side you should terminate all staff from the acquired company as soon as feasible, thereby making either a customer or "idea" purchase. This is exactly what DHH is saying. On the other hand, acquiring a company and letting it live "as-is" I suppose is a viable alternative; better accomplished by just investing in the company itself though. The benefit of acquisition is control, and it is a waste if you aren't going to exercise that control. I have never seen control exercised by the purchaser that is always, 100% completely inline with what the decision making of the acquired. That means a clash is an inevitable certainty, so DHH's point is accurate.

nkohari 16y ago

I don't think anyone is debating the point that it's possible that acquisitions can end up this way. But even putting aside the hyperbole and absolutism that's shown in this article, I challenge the claim that acquisitions go poorly more times than they don't. My guess is that for every public flameout, there are a hundred acquisitions that end up positive for everyone -- you just don't hear about them, because saying "everything went better than expected" isn't interesting as a news item.

run4yourlives 16y ago
That's rather easy to challenge but at the same time very difficult. All I have is anecdotes directly, but from being on both sides of 4 acquisitions total, it has been true 100% of the time. Not a single founder/c-level leader has remained from the bought company over five years. Often, significant turmoil was present prior to that final departure. This has been such an observation to me that I would strongly suggest that if you were to be on the buyer's side you should terminate all staff from the acquired company as soon as feasible, thereby making either a customer or "idea" purchase. This is exactly what DHH is saying. On the other hand, acquiring a company and letting it live "as-is" I suppose is a viable alternative; better accomplished by just investing in the company itself though. The benefit of acquisition is control, and it is a waste if you aren't going to exercise that control. I have never seen control exercised by the purchaser that is always, 100% completely inline with what the decision making of the acquired. That means a clash is an inevitable certainty, so DHH's point is accurate.