In an era of virtual collaboration, it is easy to assume physical proximity no longer matters. A recent health systems integration suggests otherwise.
Our client emerged as the stalking-horse bidder in a bankruptcy auction, creating an unusually compressed timeline.
The team had just two months to transfer thousands of employees
The buyer’s HR team had just two months to transfer thousands of employees by Day 1, with work spanning HRMS conversion, job mapping, pay practices, offer letters, benefits enrollment, payroll and timekeeping — all during the year-end holiday period.
The lesson was clear: when complexity is high and the cost of error is significant, being in the room can improve execution speed, decision quality and the employee experience.
Onsite HR integration planning
Our client's HR team made an important early decision to hold a project kickoff before the deal was officially signed. Because the bankruptcy process was already public, the team could mobilize early and gain a month of planning time. This decision required funding and allocating resources, with no guarantee the deal would move forward.
Leadership judged the execution risk too great to wait, and the team committed to two onsite collaboration sessions.
The onsite kickoff session focused on deal context, roles, responsibilities and team charters. Just as important, it gave people time to ask questions, surface concerns and build relationships that later proved critical under pressure.
About a month later, shortly after signing, the HR integration team reconvened in person for a "wall-walk" session. They reviewed progress, tested interdependencies, and worked through cross-functional risks and issues including operating model, offer letters, benefits enrollment, payroll harmonization and legal guidance.
The sessions were widely praised by HR and the corporate M&A team and were described as a model that other groups should follow. One HR integration leader said the team "potentially would have failed" without this level of structure and discipline. The Head of Talent Acquisition similarly emphasized the value of having legal, payroll and compensation together in the room, noting that it allowed the team to resolve offer letter questions far faster than it could have virtually, commenting, "I don't know how long it would have taken me without that session."
Working through clean room constraints
Despite the value of onsite sessions and strong program discipline we led, the team still faced major access constraints. Pre-close limits on access to the target's people and data are common in M&A, but with only two months to transfer employees on Day 1, those limits carried greater operational risk. As one HR integration leader put it, the restrictions were "over-applied," which slowed progress.
Interactions were limited to weekly meetings with key HR SMEs from the target organization, with agendas and discussions closely monitored to avoid sharing competitively sensitive information. Data room access was also restricted. Under normal circumstances, those protocols are manageable. In this case, they forced the team to make critical decisions with incomplete information. As one HR integration leader put it, the team was "operating with eyes closed," often relying on published policies rather than understanding how programs actually worked in practice. Some early calls, including decisions on pay practices, PTO carryover and annual merit, later had to be revisited, creating significant rework.
Onsite support for acquired employees
Without regular direct dialogue with the target organization, assumptions lingered longer than they should have. Onsite engagement changed that quickly.
The integration team also joined weekly onsite manager huddles at the target organization, which helped the team hear questions directly and adjust faster.
With less than a month before Day 1, the team expanded in-person engagement. It held an HR alignment session with the target organization, presented offer letters face to face, and began educating leaders on the HR operating model and processes.
The integration team also joined weekly onsite manager huddles at the target organization, which helped the team hear questions directly and adjust faster. Onsite training and support for payroll and timekeeping proved especially important: demand was higher than expected, ranging from basic password resets to more complex concerns about new pay practices affecting compensation.
The team launched a microsite and regular email communications to provide information to acquired colleagues, but the most effective communication often happened in person, where HR could hear concerns firsthand, respond in real time and refine messaging based on what employees were experiencing.
Driving a successful close and learning from it
As Day 1 approached, pressure intensified. But the earlier investment in onsite collaboration paid off. As one HR integration leader observed, "As stress levels went up in the last 30 days, HR worked well together. It didn't get adversarial because we had been working together regularly."
The HR integration team successfully:
- Converted more than 2,000 employees into new systems
- Produced, distributed and tracked acceptances for more than 2,000 offer letters
- Achieved a 93% enrollment rate
These results were achieved on an accelerated timeline, an outcome that would have been far harder without the ability to solve problems quickly through in-person collaboration.
Looking ahead, the team wants to build on these lessons by broadening participation in onsite sessions. One HR integration leader noted that earlier involvement with Finance could have improved alignment for key decisions and timing. There was also broad recognition that legal and regulatory constraints will remain part of future deals, making it even more important to operate effectively within them and improve the quality of HR decision-making.
In a more digital working world, it is tempting to assume integrations can be managed virtually. This experience suggests otherwise. When complexity is high, timelines are compressed and the cost of error is significant, being in the room is not a luxury. It is a practical advantage that can accelerate execution, improve decision-making and shape the success of the integration.
Author
