How do you emerge stronger together from a merger?

Within the sectors of youth organizations, NGOs, care institutions, and cultural centers, more and more players are joining forces – sometimes out of conviction, sometimes out of necessity. The reasons vary: changing subsidy rules, increasing pressure on resources, overlaps in operations, or simply the desire to achieve more together.

What all these processes have in common is that they fundamentally touch on who you are as an organization. A merger is not only about structures, budgets, or legal arrangements. It touches on identity, leadership, trust, and culture. It forces organizations to reassess what is essential – and to let go of what holds them back.

So the question is not only how you merge, but above all: how you emerge stronger from it. How do you ensure that a merger is not a sum of half-hearted compromises, but a well-considered cross-fertilization? How do you preserve what works, and lose what was holding you back? And how do you build an organization that is clearer, more agile, and future-proof at the same time?

In this Impact Insights we take you through how S&L guides merger processes within the non-profit and NGO sector – from making strategic choices to redesigning teams, mandates, and organizational structures.

Mergers: a reality in transition

Merger processes in the mission-driven sector come in various forms – each with its own impact on autonomy, decision-making and culture. Some common types:

• Structural integration Two or more organizations merge into one legal and operational entity. A new name, one board and one leadership team are created. This model offers maximum clarity and economies of scale, but also requires the deepest integration of systems, processes and cultures.
• Federative consolidation Multiple organizations retain their legal identity, but together form an umbrella structure with shared strategy, branding or policy support. This form leaves more room for local identity, but requires clear agreements on governance and mandates.
• Service takeover or embedding A smaller organization is incorporated into a larger one. Sometimes a recognizable ‘brand’ or team remains, sometimes the entity disappears completely. This form often occurs in cases of financial difficulty or with organizations that are stopping but want to safeguard their mission through another organization.
• 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 over time can create tensions if substantive collaboration does not evolve sufficiently alongside it.
• Phased merger or growth trajectory Organizations gradually grow toward a merger. First collaboration in one domain, then expansion to several. This process requires time and trust, but leaves room to build mutual understanding and a shared culture.

The choice of a particular model is rarely purely strategic or rational. It is also shaped by mutual power dynamics, history, cultural differences and the existing level of support. Each form of merger exposes different tensions – around autonomy, role allocation, identity – and therefore also calls for a different process-based approach. What they do have in common: they only succeed if the structural story is supported by human connection.
 

‘Where do I belong now? Am I still seen in this new context?’

What really changes: team dynamics, roles and decision-making

A merger redraws more than organization charts – it rearranges people’s everyday playing field. Teams that worked autonomously for years suddenly come together with colleagues who have different habits, rhythms and expectations. Roles that were once clearly defined overlap or disappear. Leaders are confronted with broader spans of support, more complex consultation structures and heightened expectations. At the same time, employees feel the uncertainty: ‘Where do I belong now? Am I still seen in this new context?’

That uncertainty is rarely the result of bad intentions. It arises where structures remain implicit. Where people do not know who is responsible for what, who is allowed to decide on what, or where they can go with questions. What used to be self-evident now has to be redefined. And if that does not happen, noise arises – around trust, autonomy and culture.

In this, decision-making and governance play a key role. Who decides what, where and when? Which choices are made at team level, and which at management level? What can be done locally, and what must be done centrally? According to which decision-making model do you work - top-down, bottom-up, or rather a layered, situational model? And how are decisions made: by majority decision, through consensus, or by consent? These are questions that are often postponed because they are sensitive, but precisely that postponement causes tensions to continue simmering beneath the surface.
 

At S&L Strategies and Leaders we notice that mergers often only really start to create friction when these frameworks are missing. People then take up informal positions, draw boundaries based on history rather than a future-oriented perspective, and try to reposition themselves within a shifting balance of power. This leads to tensions that are difficult to resolve with an extra meeting or a new set of rules.

A merger without redrawing the organizational structure is like moving house 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’ organization from before the merger. This can manifest itself in reluctance, sabotaging behavior, or simply maintaining old routines. Without an explicit approach to these areas of tension, the new whole remains unstable.

That is why it is not enough to see a merger as the sum of roles. You also have to work on redefining the rules of the game – not only in terms of who does what, but also of how we collaborate with one another, how we tolerate differences, and how we make decisions together.

Dr. William Edwards Deming rightly noted: "A bad system beats a good person – every time." It is therefore up to the organization to build a system in which good people can flourish – even in times of fundamental change.

Organizational structure: the key to a broadly supported merger

A merger without redrawing the organizational structure is like moving house without a floor plan. No matter how carefully you move your furniture, if you do not know how the rooms fit together or who belongs where, you create unrest instead of clarity. What you need is more than a new organizational chart. You need a well-thought-out structure that is serving : your mission, your people, your operations.

A serving organizational structure starts with the essence: the impact you want to make as an organization. It ensures that decisions are made where the knowledge is – as close as possible to the operations. It supports teams instead of controlling them. It makes responsibilities explicit instead of leaving them to float implicitly. And perhaps most importantly: it enables collaboration and breaks through old silos that often continue to exist unnoticed after a merger.

At S&L, we guide organizations in redesigning their structure through four consecutive and interconnected steps:

1. Make an honest, critical scan of what already exists

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 imbalances or practical stopgap solutions. These are rarely fully transparent. The first step is therefore a thorough examination of what already exists: who is really in charge today? Where are the informal centers of power? Are roles clear? Are decisions made at the right levels, or are they 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 requires conversations with employees, collecting stories, and exposing tensions. Only when you make those undercurrents visible can you understand why certain things work – and why others keep clashing systematically.

2. Start from your ideal, not from your history

A merger offers a unique opportunity to ask the question that often gets lost in the daily rush: what are we actually here for? What is the greater purpose this new organization wants to achieve? And which structure best serves that purpose?

That question forces choices. Do you want to work in a more customer-oriented way? Then your structure will have to be aligned with that. Are you striving for innovation, local embeddedness or economies of scale? Each of those ambitions calls for a different logic in team formation, decision-making and management. Here, we determine the guiding principles together: what comes first – expertise, proximity, results, talent, affordability? And how do you translate those priorities into a structure that works?

By clearly defining your ideal, you create a compass that helps you make tough decisions when interests clash or habits get in the way. Not everything can remain as it was. But if you are clear about the why, support for change grows.

3. Map out your capacity for change

Knowing what you want is one thing. Being able to change is another. Not every organization has the space, resources or maturity at every moment to implement major structural adjustments. That is why it is crucial to also explicitly map out the capacity for change.

How flexible are your systems? Are your digital tools, your consultation structures, your reporting lines ready for a new logic? How burdened are your managers? Is there room in their schedules – and in their mindset – to let go and rebuild? How do employees feel about change? Have they already experienced several restructurings? Do they have confidence in the process?

Financial scope also plays a role. Can you, as an organization, invest in training, guidance, new tools? And how development-oriented is your organizational culture: is learning encouraged, or is there a fear of failure?

By analyzing those factors thoroughly, you get a clearer view of what pace is feasible, where you first need to strengthen, and which steps are realistic within the existing capacity.

4. Build your structure: design, test, refine

With a foundation of insight and ambition, you can start drawing. But do not expect straight lines or one right 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 may teams be? Where are the decision-making levels situated? Which consultation moments are essential, and how does that align with the rhythm of operations? What form does the organizational chart take – a network, a matrix, a hybrid model?

What you design here must also be tested. Present it to key figures, make it visual, test it against scenarios. What happens if the organization doubles in size? What if a team drops out? Can you continue to adapt with this structure, or will it get stuck?

The strength of good structural consultation lies not in the perfect outcome, but in the fact that people recognize themselves in the model. That they understand their place in it. And that it remains sufficiently agile to grow along with what the future requires.

What makes the difference in a merger?

What makes a merger succeed can rarely be reduced to one decision, one structure, or one moment. The difference is made 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. In the inevitable complexity of a merger process, it must be clear to everyone who is responsible for what. Not everything has to be decided by consensus – and not everything should be top-down. The key is to place the right decisions at the right level, with clear mandates for each team, management, or board. This not only prevents paralysis, but also the frustration of employees wondering who is actually at the helm.

That clarity must go hand in hand with a fair redistribution of roles. In a merger, functions are inevitably reviewed: some overlap, others disappear or change in content. This is rarely a neutral exercise. People have identified with their role, with their place in the organization. That is why it is essential to name differences, not let duplication linger, and actively address hierarchical confusion. Only then can trust in the organization as a whole be rebuilt.

At the same time, a merger requires tailoring at team level. The new structure may make sense on paper, but it must also work for the people on the ground. A team of five employees has different needs from a team of thirty. The support provided by managers, the rhythm of meetings, the autonomy given to teams – everything must be aligned with daily reality. Teams must be involved in reshaping their role, so that the new model is not something that happens to them, but something they help build.

That involvement also requires recognition of what is lost. Because merging is not only about building; it is also about saying goodbye: to familiar ways of working, trusted names, sometimes even to part of the organizational culture. A merger without room for grief remains stuck in resistance. That is why it is important to create rituals of recognition. Not to dwell on the past, but to meaningfully mark the starting point for something new.

A merger is not an end point. It is 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 is the factor of time. A legal merger can be completed relatively quickly, but true integration – of teams, systems, values – takes time. Trust cannot be imposed. New collaboration only grows when people feel safe in their new context. At least one to two years is realistic to guide that transition well. Too much time pressure leads to superficial harmonization and missed opportunities for genuine cross-pollination.

Those who see mergers as a strategic lever must therefore focus above all on both process and structure, on people and systems. Only where these reinforce each other does something truly new emerge that is more than the sum of its parts.

The pitfalls: what you want to avoid at all costs

• Unclear mandates and responsibilities
• Hidden power dynamics that continue to operate despite new structures
• Poor communication about goals, choices, and progress
• Trying to change too much at once – without time or buy-in
• Loss of autonomy or identity

Stronger together: from merger to transition

A merger is not an end point. It is an opportunity to reinvent yourself as an organization. To become not only bigger, but above all more relevant, more agile, and more resilient.

At S&L, we believe a merger succeeds when it:

• Is supported by both the teams and the board
• Links support to strategic choices
• Challenges people, but does not exhaust them
• Structurally strengthens what works, and says goodbye to what gets in the way

Our role? We help clarify the objective, help shape the process, and together build structures that serve – not steer.

Looking for guidance in your merger process?

Whether you are just starting merger discussions, already have a letter of intent, or are looking for guidance with integration: we would be happy to think along with you.

Get in touch with one of our other experts: Charlotte Delbeke, Marie De Cannière or Siska Van Houtte