4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat'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.