Integration As an Act of Translation
The real work after mergers and acquisitions.
There’s a predictable choreography that happens after a merger or acquisition. Everyone races to align the visible pieces - logos, systems, job titles, processes, reporting lines. The checklists are long, the timelines are tight, and the pressure to “look integrated” is intense.
But cultures don’t merge on paper. They merge in meaning.
And meaning is something we build in language, not spreadsheets.
The Myth of Sameness
Most integration failures start with one flawed assumption: “we’re basically the same.”
Same goals.
Same values.
Same industry.
Same “type” of company.
But under the surface, organizations speak entirely different dialects of work:
How decisions are made,
What “urgency” means,
How conflict is handled,
Who gets heard,
What trust looks like,
How leaders show up,
What’s rewarded, ignored, or quietly punished.
Culture isn’t a set of words in a slide deck - it’s the ongoing translation of what a company truly believes.
When leaders assume sameness, they miss the deeper truth: Every culture is a language. And no two languages are identical.
Integration as Translation
The real work of integration happens in conversation - the quiet, repetitive, sometimes frustrating work of decoding:
“When you say collaboration, what do you actually mean?”
“In your last company, how did people escalate concerns?”
“What does ‘fast’ look like to you?”
“How do you know when a decision is final?”
“What’s considered respectful, or disrespectful, in your world?”
These are not soft questions. They’re architectural questions - the ones that define how a system holds itself together.
Integration is not blending. Integration is translation.
It’s the act of teaching each other what things really mean.
The Risk of Misinterpretation
Where integration goes wrong, it’s rarely because of org charts or operating models. It’s because people are using the same words but meaning completely different things.
A few examples:
Speed = intention → “We move thoughtfully and avoid rework.”
vsSpeed = action → “Do it now. We’ll clean it up later.”
Transparency = selective sharing → “Share once aligned.”
vsTransparency = ongoing context → “Share throughout the process.”
Accountability = individual → “Own your piece.”
vsAccountability = collective → “We sink or swim together.”
When cultures operate with conflicting definitions, integration becomes friction instead of momentum.
Meaning-Making Is the Real Integration Work
Successful integration isn’t about forcing alignment. It’s about creating shared meaning - intentionally, repeatedly, with humility.
It sounds like:
“Let’s slow down and define what we mean by that.”
“In your last environment, how did this typically play out?”
“What assumptions might we be carrying into this?”
“Let’s build a definition together that we can all use.”
The future organization needs a language of its own - but that language should be built collaboratively, not imposed.
Integration fails when leaders treat culture as décor. It succeeds when leaders treat culture as communication.
The Leader’s Charge
Leaders often underestimate how much translation is required for people to feel safe, aligned, and able to move forward.
Here’s the real charge of an integration leader:
To make space for meaning before demanding alignment.
Because when you get the meaning right, the behaviors follow. The trust follows. The momentum follows.
And that’s when integration stops being paperwork and becomes an actual transformation.
