I’ve had the privilege of working on both human due diligence before acquisitions and post-merger integration projects. Here’s what I’ve learned along the way—headlines only, because each is a world unto itself:

• Set reasonable expectations for integration.. At best, acquisitions (aka mergers) are akin to a bad case in indigestion.

• During due diligence, you learn less than 30% of what you’re actually acquiring.

• Every company has a reason it’s being sold—and you might not know it until after the deal closes.

• Talk to executives who have left the target company; they often tell a very different  story than those who are still in the target company.

• Financial and marketing analysis alone? Not enough.

• Let’s call it what it is: an acquisition, not a merger.

• Weak links in your own company will haunt you later—a weak IT department becomes a post-acquisition nightmare.

• Decide fast. Poor decisions can be reversed; dithering is deadly.

• Trust and transparency are non-negotiable for success.

• Expect some lying during due diligence—and forgive once the deal is done.

• Face-to-face communication trumps Zoom every time. Get to know each other in person over the first 2–3 years.

• Post acquisition integration is often severely hampered by the middle management of the acquiring company bullying the acquired company’s middle management. Establish ground rules to prevent this.

• When purchasing a “client base” of a company, you’d better retain those people who manage the relationships with this client base.

Acquisitions are messy, human, and unpredictable. But the more you focus on people, speed, and trust, the smoother the journey becomes..

Remote and virtual teams are now a core feature of how many organizations operate. While they bring clear advantages — such as access to global talent and around-the-clock operations — they also face recurring structural and cultural challenges.
These challenges, often rooted in trust deficits, can limit collaboration, reduce efficiency, and weaken overall performance. This paper outlines three of the most common trust barriers and explores their impact on distributed team effectiveness.

1. Hidden Agendas and Power Imbalances

A frequent source of tension in remote teams involves control — specifically, who sets direction, which site plays the strategic role, and how influence is distributed across locations.

Over time, the sites perceived as more influential often secure the most strategic work, larger budgets, and stronger support from senior leadership. This creates a cycle where those sites grow in importance while others risk being marginalized, assigned only low-visibility or maintenance tasks.

Unchecked, these dynamics can lead to disengagement, reduced morale, and eventual downsizing of less favored sites. Addressing this requires deliberate governance structures, transparent decision-making processes, and an explicit commitment to equitable distribution of strategic responsibilities.

2. Limited Transparency Across Sites

Information sharing patterns in virtual teams frequently reveal a form of “local loyalty.” Teams tend to communicate openly within their own location but are less transparent across geographical boundaries.

This behavior often stems from a perception that information is a source of power. In some cases, teams may even view transparency as a weakness in the competitive dynamic between sites.
The result is siloed knowledge, duplication of effort, and missed opportunities for synergy.

Establishing cross-site transparency requires both structural and cultural interventions. Clear communication protocols, shared platforms, and leadership expectations around openness all help build trust and improve collaboration across locations.

3. Tension Between Differing Competencies

Remote teams are often distributed in ways that reflect different strengths and priorities. For example:

• U.S.-based sites may focus on market alignment.

• Israeli sites often emphasize innovation.

• Indian sites are known for flexibility and scalability.

• Japanese sites frequently specialize in deep customer intimacy.

While these competencies are valuable, they can also generate friction when priorities diverge. For instance, a site focused on fulfilling specific client requests may conflict with another emphasizing product roadmap consistency.

Addressing this tension requires intentional alignment around shared objectives. Leadership must ensure that each site’s strengths are recognized and leveraged in a complementary way, rather than allowed to become sources of division.

Conclusion

Improving individual performance within virtual teams is important, but it is insufficient if the broader organizational environment undermines trust. The challenges outlined above — hidden control agendas, limited transparency, and competing competencies — are systemic issues that require systemic solutions.

By addressing these trust barriers directly, organizations can transform remote and virtual teams from loosely connected groups into cohesive, high-performing units capable of sustained collaboration and innovation.

The Overuse of the Term “Trust”

The term trust has become so overused and broadly interpreted that it often loses its significance, particularly within the context of the global workplace. Because it means different things to different people, the concept of trust is frequently too vague to be useful in facilitating effective collaboration and mutual understanding.

Consider the following example that illustrates differing cultural perspectives. In many German professional environments, trust is closely associated with adherence to established processes. The prevailing logic is: “If you follow the process, I will trust you; once I trust you, I will follow the process.” This reflects a deeply procedural understanding of trust.

A contrasting example can be seen in interactions between Chinese and American business professionals. Imagine a scenario in which Mr. Wu and Mr. Smith sign a $40 million agreement. Subsequently, Mr. Wu asks Mr. Smith to employ his son for one year to enable him to obtain a U.S. visa. Mr. Smith interprets this request as unethical and, consequently, loses trust in Mr. Wu. Mr. Wu, on the other hand, feels that he extended a favor and now perceives Mr. Smith as untrustworthy for refusing to reciprocate. Both parties use the same term—trust—but with entirely different expectations and interpretations.

This illustrates how trust, much like other overused terms such as respect (a topic I have addressed in a previous post), can lose its meaning and practical value in intercultural and organizational contexts.

Through my years of consulting with thousands of professionals who have successfully built trusting relationships, I have developed ten principles that operationalize what trust truly means in practice. Three of these principles are shared below:

1. We accurately represent each other’s views when the other party is not present.

2. We follow through on the decisions we make together.

3. We assume positive intent in each other’s actions.

After a merger or acquisition, leaders often talk about “blending the best of both cultures.” It sounds ideal—but it’s not how culture really works.

In practice, culture doesn’t merge. It competes. One culture dominates—usually the acquirer’s—and the other adapts or fades. While this can feel Darwinian, it’s not necessarily negative. Integration needs clarity, consistency, and ultimately one cultural backbone.

That said, the acquired company can leave its mark. Over time, fragments of its values or practices may influence the larger whole. But always within the framework of the stronger culture.

So, where should leaders focus in the first year after a deal closes? Three things matter most:

1. Scalability: Capturing value from the deal requires scale. This need drives real cultural and operational change.

2. Power Structure: Build a loyal leadership group inside the acquired company. Resistance and clinging to autonomy slow down integration.

3. Mourning: Acknowledge that employees in the acquired company go through a grieving process. True integration happens when individuals, not groups, embrace the new identity.

For consultants, the lesson is clear: your role isn’t to engineer a “perfect cultural blend.” It’s to guide the natural process, like a midwife—helping transition with as little pain as possible.

Yes, there will always be glossy “culture-merging frameworks” on the market that promise quick fixes. But culture doesn’t integrate in three easy steps. It evolves—through alignment, leadership, and time.