Within the sectors of youth organizations, NGOs, healthcare institutions, and cultural centers, more and more organizations are joining forces—sometimes out of conviction, sometimes out of necessity. The reasons vary: changing subsidy rules, increasing pressure on resources, overlapping activities, or simply the desire to make a greater impact together.
What all these processes have in common is that they touching on the very core of who you are as an organization . A merger isn't just about structures, budgets, or legal arrangements. It touches on identity, leadership, trust, and culture. It forces organizations to to reassess what is essential – and to let go of whatever is holding you back.
So the question isn't just how to merge , but above all: how to come out of it stronger. How do you ensure that a merger isn't just a collection of half-hearted compromises, but a well-thought-out exchange of ideas? How do you keep what works and get rid of what gets in the way? And how do you build an organization that is at once more transparent, more agile, and future-proof?
In this Impact Insights we'll take you on a journey through how S&L Facilitates Mergers in the Nonprofit and NGO Sectors – from making strategic decisions to restructuring teams, mandates, and organizational structures.
Mergers: A Changing Reality
Merger processes in the mission-driven sector take various forms—each with its own impact on autonomy, decision-making, and culture. Some common types:
- Structural Integration Two or more organizations merge to form a single legal and operational entity. A new name, a single board of directors, and a single management team are established. This model offers maximum clarity and economies of scale, but also requires the deepest integration of systems, processes, and cultures.
- Federated consolidation Multiple organizations retain their legal autonomy but together form an umbrella structure with a shared strategy, branding, or policy support. This model allows more room for local identity but requires clear agreements regarding governance and mandates.
- Service Takeover or Integration A smaller organization is absorbed into a larger one. Sometimes a recognizable “brand” or team continues to exist; other times, the entity disappears entirely. This scenario often occurs when an organization faces financial difficulties or when it ceases operations but wishes to ensure that its mission is carried on by another entity.
- Network Merger Organizations retain their autonomy but share support functions such as accounting, IT, HR, or communications. This model offers operational efficiency without full integration, but may lead to tensions over time if substantive collaboration does not evolve sufficiently.
- Phased merger or growth path Organizations move toward a merger in stages. First, they collaborate in a single area, then expand to multiple areas. This process takes time and trust, but it allows room to build mutual understanding and a shared culture.
The choice of a particular model is rarely purely strategic or rational. It is influenced by factors such as power dynamics, history, cultural differences, and the level of public support. Each type of merger brings different tensions to the surface – regarding autonomy, division of roles, and identity – and therefore also calls for a different process-oriented approach. What they do have in common: they succeed only if the structural narrative is underpinned by human connection .
“Where do I belong now? Will I still be seen in this new context?”
What's Really Changing: Team Dynamics, Roles, and Decision-Making
A merger does more than just redraw organizational charts—it reshapes the day-to-day working environment for people. Teams that have worked autonomously for years suddenly find themselves working alongside colleagues who have different habits, paces, and expectations. Roles that were once clearly defined are now overlapping or disappearing. Managers are faced with wider spans of support , more complex consultation structures, and heightened expectations. At the same time, employees feel a sense of uncertainty: “Where do I belong now? Will I still be recognized in this new context?”
That uncertainty is rarely the result of bad intentions. It arises when structures remain implicit—when people don’t know who is responsible for what, who has the authority to make decisions about what, or where to turn with questions. What used to be taken for granted now needs to be redefined. And if that doesn't happen, it creates friction—in terms of trust, autonomy, and culture.
In that context, decision-making and management play a key role . Who decides what, where, and when? Which decisions are made at the team level, and which at the executive level? What can be decided locally, and what must be decided centrally? What decision-making model do you use—top-down, bottom-up, or a more layered, situational model? And how are decisions made? : majority decision, by consensus, or by consent? These are questions that are often put off because they are sensitive issues, but it is precisely that delay that causes tensions to continue to simmer beneath the surface.
“A merger does more than just redraw organizational charts—it reshapes the day-to-day landscape for people”
At S&L Strategies and Leaders we've noticed that mergers often don't really start to cause friction until these frameworks are missing. People then take on informal roles , draw boundaries based on history rather than a forward-looking approach, and are trying to reposition themselves in a shifting balance of power . That leads to tensions that are difficult to resolve with an additional meeting or new rules.
A merger without a redesign of the organizational structure is like moving without a floor plan. — Siska Van Houtte
On top of that: A merger puts existing loyalties under pressure . Employees sometimes still feel connected to “their” pre-merger organization. This can manifest itself in reluctance, sabotage, or simply sticking to old routines . Unless these areas of tension are explicitly addressed, the new whole will remain unstable.
That is why it is not enough to view a merger as simply the sum of its parts. You also have to work on the redefining the rules of the game – not only in terms of who does what, but also in terms of how we work together, how we tolerate differences, and how we make decisions together .
Dr. William Edwards Deming rightly observed: "A bad system beats a good person—every time." So it's up to the organization to build a system in which good people can thrive – even in times of fundamental change.
Organizational Structure: The Key to a Successfully Integrated Merger
A merger without a restructuring of the organizational structure is like moving without a floor plan . No matter how carefully you rearrange your furniture, if you don’t know how the spaces fit together or who belongs where, you’ll create confusion instead of clarity. What you need is more than just a new organizational chart. You need a well-thought-out structure that serving is: your mission, your people, your operations.
A service-oriented organizational structure starts with the essence: the impact you want to make as an organization. It ensures that decisions are made where the expertise lies—as close as possible to the front lines. It supports teams rather than micromanaging them. She makes responsibilities explicit rather than leaving them implicitly undefined. And perhaps most importantly: it facilitates collaboration and breaks down old silos that often continue to exist unnoticed after a merger.
At S&L, we help organizations redesign their structure through four consecutive and interconnected steps:
1. Conduct an honest, critical assessment of the current situation
Before you build something new, you need to understand what exists today—and why. In many organizations, the current organizational model is the result of historical compromises, internal power (im)balances, or practical stopgap solutions. These are rarely fully transparent. The first step, therefore, is a thorough examination of the current situation: Who is really in charge today? Where are the informal centers of power? Are roles clearly defined? Are decisions made at the appropriate levels, or are they being bypassed? How do teams relate to one another? And: Does the current organizational chart reflect reality, or an ideal that was never realized?
This scan is not a paper-based analysis. It involves talking with employees, gathering stories, and uncovering tensions. Only when you bring those undercurrents to light , you can understand why certain things work—and why others keep failing.
2. Start from your ideal, not from your past
A merger offers a unique opportunity to ask the question that is often lost amid the hustle and bustle of daily life: what are we actually here for? What is the broader goal that this new organization aims to achieve? And what structure best serves that goal?
That question forces you to make choices. Do you want to operate in a more customer-focused way? If so, your structure will need to be tailored to that. Are you aiming for innovation, local roots, or economies of scale? Each of these goals requires a different approach to team building, decision-making, and management. Here, we’ll work together to define the guiding principles: what’s most important—expertise, proximity, results, talent, or affordability? And how do you translate those priorities into a structure that actually works?
By focusing on your ideal, you create a compass that helps you make decisions when interests clash or habits get in the way. Not everything can stay the same. But if you’re clear about the “why,” support for change will grow.
3. Assess your ability to adapt
Knowing what you want is one thing. Being able to change is another. Not every organization has the flexibility, the resources, or the maturity to implement major structural changes at any given time. That is why it is crucial to explicitly assess the capacity for change as well .
How flexible are your systems? Are your digital tools, your meeting structures, and your reporting lines ready for a new approach? How overwhelmed are your managers? Is there room in their schedule—and in their mindset – to let go and start over? How do employees feel about change? Have they been through several restructurings before? Do they have confidence in the process?
Financial resources also play a role. As an organization, can you invest in training, coaching, and new tools? And how development-oriented is your organizational culture: learning is encouraged , or is there a fear of failure?
By thoroughly analyzing these factors, you’ll have a better understanding of what pace is achievable, where you need to focus your efforts first, and what steps are realistic given your current capacity.
4. Build your structure: design, test, refine
With insight and ambition as your foundation, you can start drawing. But don't expect straight lines or a single correct answer. Building a structure is like solving a puzzle. It requires dialogue, iteration, and above all: the courage to think in terms of functions and processes rather than people and names.
What does the ideal team structure look like? How large can teams be? Where are the decision-making levels located? Which consultation points are essential, and how do they align with the rhythm of operations? What form will the organizational chart take—a network, a matrix, or a hybrid model?
Whatever you design here, you'll need to test it as well. Present it to key stakeholders, make it visual, and test it against various scenarios. What happens if the organization doubles in size? What if a team drops out? Can you keep switching with this structure, or will it get stuck?
The power of a well-structured consultation lies not in the perfect outcome, but in the fact that people see themselves reflected in the model—that they understand their place within it—and that it remains flexible enough to evolve in response to future needs.
“A merger offers a unique opportunity to ask the question that often gets lost in the hustle and bustle of daily life: What are we actually here for?”
What makes the difference in a merger?
The success of a merger can rarely be attributed to a single decision, a single structure, or a single moment. The difference lies in the coherence of choices that lead to trust, clarity, and connection. Five factors play a decisive role in this.
It all starts with clear decision-making . Given the inevitable complexity of a merger process, it must be clear to everyone who is responsible for what. Not everything needs to be decided by consensus—and not everything should be decided top-down. The key is to ensure that the right decisions are made at the right level, with clear mandates for each team, management, or board. This way, you don't just prevent paralysis , but also the frustration of employees who wonder who is actually in charge.
That clarity must go hand in hand with a fair redistribution of roles . In a merger, roles are inevitably reevaluated: some overlap, while others disappear or change in scope. This is rarely a neutral process. People have come to identify with their roles and their place within the organization. That is why it is essential to identify differences, not let redundancies go unnoticed, and actively address hierarchical confusion. Only then can trust in the organization as a whole be restored.
At the same time, a merger requires customization at the team level . The new structure may make sense on paper, but it also has to work for the people on the front lines. A team of five employees has different needs than a team of thirty. The support managers provide, the frequency of meetings, the autonomy teams are given—everything must be tailored to the day-to-day reality. Teams must be involved in reshaping their roles, so that the new model isn’t something that’s imposed on them, but something they help build.
That commitment also presupposes recognition of what is lost . Because merging isn't just about building something new—it's also about saying goodbye: to familiar ways of working, trusted names, and sometimes even to part of the organizational culture. A merger that leaves no room for grief will continue to face resistance. That is why it is important to create rituals of acknowledgment—not to dwell on the past, but to meaningfully mark the starting point for something new.
A merger isn't the end goal. It's an opportunity to reinvent yourself as an organization—to become not only bigger, but above all more relevant, more agile, and more resilient. - Nele Decoodt
And then there's the time factor. A legal merger can be completed relatively quickly, but true integration—of teams, systems, and values—takes time. Trust cannot be imposed. New collaboration only grows when people feel secure in their new environment. At least one to two years is a realistic timeframe for properly managing that transition. Too much time pressure leads to superficial harmonization and missed opportunities for genuine cross-pollination.
Anyone who views mergers as a strategic lever must therefore pay particular attention to both process and structure, as well as people and systems. Only when these elements reinforce one another does something truly new emerge—something that is greater than the sum of its parts.
The Pitfalls: What You Want to Avoid at All Costs
- Uncertainty regarding mandates and responsibilities
- Hidden Power Dynamics that continue to function despite new structures
- Poor communication about Goals, Choices, and Progress
- Trying to change too much at once – without time or support
- Loss of autonomy or identity
Stronger Together: From Merger to Transition
A merger isn't the end goal. It's an opportunity to reinvent yourself as an organization—not just to become bigger, but above all to become more relevant, more agile, and more resilient.
At S&L, we believe that a merger is successful if it:
- It is supported by both the teams and the board
- Behavior is linked to strategic choices
- Challenges people, but doesn't wear them out
- Systematically reinforces what works and eliminates what gets in the way
Our role? We help refine the objective, help shape the process, and work together to build structures that support—rather than dictate.
Looking for guidance through your merger process?
Whether you’re just starting merger talks, have already signed a letter of intent, or are looking for guidance on the integration process, we’d be happy to work with you.
Please contact one of our other experts: Charlotte Delbeke , Marie De Cannière or Siska Van Houtte
