We had new branding in the works, new products and a recruitment initiative that had been key to finding us very capable & motivated staff. I asked several times during the due diligence if they actually wanted all of that to continue, as they seemed a more conservative kind of shop.
Yes yes, business as usual please, came the response, who knows where it could lead. They still insisted on an earn-out clause that hinged on profitability alone.
After we signed, my whole experience of the (public) parent company was about quarter-to-quarter profitability - there was no visible technical leadership, everyone was fighting their own fires, just generally scrambling around hoping to save money or land a sale. If anything got delivered it seemed to be down to heroism, bullying or both.
After several weeks failing to meet up with other leaders in the company, I concluded that they didn't want any of my company's current developments. I emailed the CEO to say that I'd be firing about 50% of the team to save a huge number on the salary bill, and best meet the earn-out criteria, i.e. that we'd just be a cash cow and nothing more. I'd manage the transition, take the personal flak for it, and get a bonus on my way out.
These were people I liked, most lived locally and many I'd personally recruited. But I wasn't going to be naive about what the new parent company would want.
Immediately - a call from their CFO, pearls a-clutched. He was shocked, SHOCKED by my idea and emphasised it was not how things were done at the parent company. Despite the clause promising no interference in my running of the company, he was ready to veto me from doing it, with an EGM and everything. He offered to settle the earn-out early if I left early. And that was fine by me.
Two months later, they _did_ fire everyone I'd suggested, saving 2-4x what they might have paid me.
My old company is now a landing page for a vaporware product based on tech they have no expertise in.
There's not even any staff left who could debug the old platform if it broke - so they're crossing their fingers that 1/3 of the revenue doesn't disappear with a novel systems failure.
From the people who left, it sounds like a depressing, ambitionless place to work - i.e. perfectly integrated into the parent company.
Any change of control is an opportunity for some types of people, and a death knell for others, so I'm sure it's a better company for some people. Just nobody I'd respect :)
We had new branding in the works, new products and a recruitment initiative that had been key to finding us very capable & motivated staff. I asked several times during the due diligence if they actually wanted all of that to continue, as they seemed a more conservative kind of shop.
Yes yes, business as usual please, came the response, who knows where it could lead. They still insisted on an earn-out clause that hinged on profitability alone.
After we signed, my whole experience of the (public) parent company was about quarter-to-quarter profitability - there was no visible technical leadership, everyone was fighting their own fires, just generally scrambling around hoping to save money or land a sale. If anything got delivered it seemed to be down to heroism, bullying or both.
After several weeks failing to meet up with other leaders in the company, I concluded that they didn't want any of my company's current developments. I emailed the CEO to say that I'd be firing about 50% of the team to save a huge number on the salary bill, and best meet the earn-out criteria, i.e. that we'd just be a cash cow and nothing more. I'd manage the transition, take the personal flak for it, and get a bonus on my way out.
These were people I liked, most lived locally and many I'd personally recruited. But I wasn't going to be naive about what the new parent company would want.
Immediately - a call from their CFO, pearls a-clutched. He was shocked, SHOCKED by my idea and emphasised it was not how things were done at the parent company. Despite the clause promising no interference in my running of the company, he was ready to veto me from doing it, with an EGM and everything. He offered to settle the earn-out early if I left early. And that was fine by me.
Two months later, they _did_ fire everyone I'd suggested, saving 2-4x what they might have paid me.
My old company is now a landing page for a vaporware product based on tech they have no expertise in.
There's not even any staff left who could debug the old platform if it broke - so they're crossing their fingers that 1/3 of the revenue doesn't disappear with a novel systems failure.
From the people who left, it sounds like a depressing, ambitionless place to work - i.e. perfectly integrated into the parent company.
Any change of control is an opportunity for some types of people, and a death knell for others, so I'm sure it's a better company for some people. Just nobody I'd respect :)