On paper, every merger looks like a clear win: synergies on spend, synergies on workforce costs, and synergies everywhere. Then the deal closes, and reality arrives with all the details nobody included in the slide deck.
On a recent episode of the Beyond Procurement podcast, Amr El Shourbagy broke down exactly this problem. A procurement and supply chain executive with more than 25 years of experience across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, including leadership roles at Schneider Electric and Mondelez International, Amr has led multi-country integrations and transformation programs that continued to deliver savings and reduce complexity while the business kept moving. In this episode, he unpacked what leaders consistently underestimate during M&A, why systems are rarely the first thing that actually breaks, and what real procurement leadership looks like in the first 90 days after a deal closes.
Below are the questions asked and Amr’s answers, presented largely in his own words, because the most honest advice on post-mergers and acquisitions rarely comes wrapped in a slide template.
You’ve led procurement across multiple acquisitions and mergers. When a deal closes, what is usually expected from procurement in the first 90 days?
There is a big difference between expectations and reality. Expectation, as anyone who has put money in expects, is that we need to have a return on investment. So the first ghost that is haunting procurement is a very massive word called synergies. You’ll be hearing it all the time: synergies, synergies, synergies, on manpower, synergies on spending, synergies, as if, I feel that at this point in time I’m Harry Potter, I have the wand, I’m doing like this, everything is changing.
But let me say that, on paper, you can find a lot of synergies, yes, on paper. Then suddenly, and I like this word all the time, and I’m always sharing it with my team, the devil is lying in the details. The devil is eating the details, and it gets bigger and bigger through the details. And then you sign it, whatever has been on paper as an amazing opportunity onto packaging or raw material, onto even transportation, you go into the details and, oh, but here I cannot do it, because it’s very simple, these are two types of cars, or two types of raw material, or the packaging of this raw material, or the warehousing here, and it goes on.
So, to the folks who are integrating, my very special word for them: try to focus. Focus very simply on the first 90 days. You need to look at your main source of power, which is, and who are the team; look at them, understand what they’re actually doing. So, “fast, cut the G&A cost, and I want to drive synergies, and I want to, sorry, lay off people or decrease the cost.” Oh no, no, no, no, no. On the contrary, try to be the sponge. Don’t let it be the easiest way. If you’re asking me the question, what is the expectation for the 90 days, I’m calling it the sponge. In the sponge, you are getting all the information; you are studying well, so that you understand exactly, to the very lower level of the organization, who is doing what, and what they are doing, and the functionality of this doing.
Create a huge spend analysis. Remember that if you want to go to a tower like Burj Khalifa, what is the biggest time that has been spent creating this tower? It will be, you know, the foundation. Your 90 days is your foundation. If you make it right, believe me, it will be an amazing M&A.
In your experience, where have you seen the biggest gap between board expectations and the on-ground reality?
Yeah, I think this is somehow what is called the reality check. When you have a checkpoint, this is your first reality check. What I’ve seen is that many leaders tend to overpromise, and sometimes one of the fatal mistakes is that procurement is not in the decision-making boardroom. Because sometimes procurement, in a lot of cases, reports to finance or to the value chain, so they are not at the table. So they are being executors; they are called after the decision has been taken.
And here I’m seeing a huge number of leaders, huge mistakes happen in front of me: very promising M&As, or mergers, or acquisitions, or even integrations, very promising on paper, but because of the power of saying the truth, procurement leaders should have the power of saying the truth, the instinct of saying the truth, not overpromising. I understand that when you’re an investor, when you’re putting money in, you want the highest return on investment, and the quickest. No, you’ll give them the highest; you assure them that you are giving the highest, but maybe not the quickest, but the highest. The power of truth. I’m sure that takes a lot of guts, but that can save a lot of pain going down the line.
Scaling Procurement Across Acquisitions: What Breaks First and How to Fix It | Beyond Procurement
When you want to scale procurement post-acquisition, what typically tends to break first? Is it the suppliers, the data, the systems, or the people?
Believe me, if you’re only thinking about scaling your procurement team, procurement data, or procurement systems post-acquisition, you’ve already driven the first nail into the coffin. If scaling is not a DNA that you have all the time in the mind of procurement leaders, or value chain leaders, or whoever, how this team tomorrow I can scale it up, how this system that we are accepting to do 1,000 transactions or RFPs, or tomorrow morning if there’s an acquisition happening I can scale it up 30 or 40%, you are keeping it in your pocket. Good luck, because this is what I’m doing all the time.
This is the big difference between the developing countries and the developed countries, or the developing companies, multinationals, whatever, and the developed: how ready they are to absorb any change, how agile they are. Agility is the name of the game. Whenever you’re working on stuff, or even with a team, try to make room for it to be a scale-up. This is where you are absorbing the market conditions.
Some research suggests systems are one of the bigger problems post-mergers and acquisitions, because you have multiple systems and try to consolidate them. Is that true in your experience, or is there something else?
Yeah, of course, information is power, and when you’re doing any merging acquisition, your first checkpoint is, what spend is occurring there, who are the suppliers, who are the strategic and the transactional ones, how has the strategy been converted into a spending habit, how can I benefit from the power of two, power of three, and all of this is being done through systems. And this is where I find it very difficult in most of the acquisitions I have been witnessing or working on: when we’re starting, we are not ready with a blueprint of how the systems will be merging, we are leaving it as a second phase, and this is another point that makes merging and acquisition, god forbid, fall or fail totally, or delay getting the actual fruits that you’re expecting.
So systems are, and with AI right now, I am really astonished that I still see companies not investing heavily in the capabilities of their teams or their data capabilities from the AI perspective.
Are there any early signs that show you procurement integration post-merger and acquisition is going off track, something experienced leaders like you notice before the dashboards tell you?
Yeah, I remember in one of our acquisitions, I had one of the best bosses in the world, I’m all the time. He was the one who took me and taught me everything. And in the very early acquisition that I was having, in my previous company, after two hours, I was sitting beside him, chit-chatting. I was telling him, you know, it was like a break: how do you think the meeting was going? He said that it would be a bumpy road, and he didn’t say anything more. Then at dinner, I insisted on understanding why he thought it was a bumpy road. Did I do something wrong? It was my first integration meeting. I saw something wrong; wasn’t I able to engage the people? What’s the problem?
And then he explained to me, in a very simple way, you know the mosaic culture, you know what mosaic is, you know the mosaic glass, yes, yes, yes. The mosaic glass, when you’re seeing it from a distance, you’re seeing that it’s amazing, it’s colorful, it’s attractive. When you come nearer, you find that it is full of different pieces. He told me this: it is your task to change this mosaic, which is very different from the problem that the board is seeing from far; I am the only one who is seeing it near.
So, what is the language that the people are using? Is it a showing-off of language? And you’ll find a lot of things when the teams are coming together that it’s a show-off. And this is why I’m saying it very loudly, most of the time there are some people who you need to get, if you’re right now doing an integration, to moderate, this should be a third party, sometimes, to moderate your M&A integration meetings, to stop this furious showing off of habits, to try to remove and get the best of the mosaic, and make it a real, homogeneous picture puzzle, not a mosaic, but a puzzle.
In your experience, who would be best to moderate that: procurement teams or somebody else?
Yes, who are the ones who are controlling your spend? If you look at your P&L, who are the ones who are most contributing to the spend control, who have the money? It’s procurement. If you look at the G&A, the P&L, the first P&L, you’ll find that all the COGS are being done by procurement, G&A is done by procurement, you know, integration is done by procurement, even if you’re right now renting a hotel room, it’s done through procurement. So your gate about spend, I’m not saying procurement alone, but I’m saying who should be leading and creating this homogeneous way; I believe it is the CEO, the CFO, then procurement. This triangle should be equilateral.
What are one or two commonly made mistakes well-intentioned leaders make? They still end up making those common mistakes post-merger and acquisition. Anything you can highlight?
In most cases, I think, it’s very much like a story that was told to us when we were young kids, about the turtle and the rabbit, this famous race. I think the first mistake is that we’re trying to be rabbits in the race. So we’re taking it, “I am the big guy, especially the one who has acquired the company; right now we’re going into an integration, I am the biggest brand, I am the one who has acquired your company, so I am the rabbit, I know that I’m strong, I’m coming from this strong background.” On the other side, the turtle is defending, but it is doing what it wants to do.
This is the first mistake: don’t fall into the trap that you are the rabbit that’s going to win. No, showing off; again, I’m returning to the point: showing off. Second point: you need to understand that once the acquisition is done, everything will be painted with the same brush. So there is not- when you enter this room, before entering it, it was two teams; while you’re getting out of this room, it’s one team. This is what I’m telling you: inside the team, you need to have people who are not maybe the strongest in terms of technicalities, but they are the strongest in terms of gathering people under one goal, the culture, collecting them, pointing them, streamlining them.
There are two teams with their own setups, own suppliers, own processes. Often during acquisitions, you bring together multiple local suppliers from different regions, legacy contracts, informal or formal processes. What’s the real cost of ignoring this complexity?
It’s not that simple. When two companies come together, the whole setup is different. Look, I can say that one of the best acquisitions I have seen in my whole life, when the pre-planning for the acquisition was done in the right way, so when we’re entering the team, or the meeting, or coming, getting people, getting suppliers, we have our own blueprint, a blueprint that is not preached to any side, it is a blueprint of success. So I’m putting the blueprint of success, from this I want one, two, three, four, five, very clear goals, very measurable, attainable goals that I’m putting in front of the team, then we’re starting to get all the other factors that you mentioned, they’re not factors, they are catalysts, they are the ones who are creating the bigger picture for you.
You have local suppliers; believe me, each one has something that can add to the recipe of success. I believe that we have two ears, but in the integration you should have your whole face full of ears, because you need to listen, as I told you, the sponge: listen, look at your mainstream, what is the blueprint, and start to put all the different factors that are succeeding, or pushing this blueprint to success.
Going back to what you mentioned about systems, have you ever seen or observed that trying to force a certain system or standardization between the two has actually slowed down the overall process?
I can tell you, on the contrary, what I have seen is that this is usually the exception. When people are having this merger or acquisition, they are not forcing the systems, and this is the problem. So most of the cases I have seen, why the merger and acquisition, especially in our world, let me say it very openly, in this region, in the Middle East and Africa, maybe Far East, where I work most of the time, you will find that the merge acquisition is being biased by some prejudged temples, and I’m saying temples, not templates, okay, very strong temples, you are putting it and want to enforce it on the people, and this is the big issue.
So suddenly you want to change, you’re coming and saying, I have spent buying Oracle or SAP, millions should be working, that’s it, I spend, my operating model that I did it last two years, I got one of the big fours to create this operating model for me, I paid so much money, this operating model should be, as I’m telling you, you’re trying to put it, it’s a mosaic here, you’re trying to put the mosaic, it’s not a puzzle anymore, or a bigger picture. You’re trying to put something and enforce it in the system, so that, yeah, from a way you’ll find it very good, but when you’re coming, why is it not having this clarity? The functionality is not working. And believe me, it could be working for 3, 6, 9 months, 1 year, but suddenly, below the line, below the time, after the adrenaline has faded out, you’ll find mistakes are being shown off and on and off.
Is there a thumb rule or a benchmark on deciding what to standardize and what not to?
I think the backbone of standardization is: how am I pronouncing the data, what should my data explanation be, and if I put KPIs, what is the explanation? This should be the backbone. If right now, today, we are two people who happen to sit in one room, we don’t know each other, but we need to find a common language. All the time I’m saying that the common language, the easiest way to find a common language, is to explain what my KPIs are- key performance indicators. In this company, in our team, we are looking for this. So what are the key performance indicators? Put it in front of you, let the people see it, let the people understand it, let the people feel that this is your, you know, whatever- it’s a new holy book; walk through it.
But also, even if it’s a holy book, you need to give room for people, or for the two teams, to put in, to create their own input. So you have the backbone, and you need to add to it; you need to modify it so you end up with a clear KPI set and a common language. Then, moving on, when you put the KPI- this is the first one, second- what is the implementation, what are the milestones? You need a very clear, accelerated timeline with milestones. Again, I return back to the first point: don’t overpromise, don’t overpromise, don’t overpromise. Try to give a clear picture.
How do you ensure or protect the teams from all the change management disruption that’s happening during an M&A- too many meetings, too many things going on?
Believe me, at this point in time, I think you don’t need a leader from a technical perspective; you need a human leader. Because let’s try: we are all human beings. I was the leader of procurement in one organization, and then suddenly I felt that I was in a test, because instead of having two teams, it would be one team. So all of us are coming into this room with a bit of showing off, and on the other side, I’m afraid of you, because we’re simply human beings. Whoever is moderating this team, or working, or leading this team, needs to be a human leader and have this psychological understanding of human motives.
If you don’t think, or if you don’t start, I’ll shape it in another way. If you have a kid, why do the kids, whenever there’s a problem or anything, run to their mother, not their father? Because their mother has created this trust bond. I’m feeling that whenever I’m going into this integration, I would need to have this sense of, guys, we are here to be one team, we trust each other, we’ve been put in one boat, and this boat is sailing into the ocean, make sure that our strokes are with each other, we should not be putting the strokes against each other all the time.
I’m saying, if you’re playing football, you know, Messi didn’t win the World Cup because he was Messi; when it was Messi, he was losing, but when it was Argentina having Messi inside, they won. So the leader and the coach, at that point in time, created this: that Messi is a part- yes, he’s the most influential player, but he’s a part of a team, a bigger team. Try to create this: give power to each person in your organization, and dignity and respect.
Listen, I all the time have this five minutes, or an identified number of minutes, to be mentioned to each person to introduce, very, very strict, because simply, if I go into a meeting right now and have a director, I have a manager, I have a buyer who wants to talk so much, it will be the director, right? If I speak about it, the director will speak 70% because he’s the director; he’s the one who knows everything; then managers maybe speak 20%, maybe buyers 10%. Let me flip the coin. Who are the ones who have a daily understanding of the exact working habits, of the spend, and the understanding, even the suppliers’ relationship? It’s the buyers. It’s a reverse proposition. If you go to a meeting, you need to make sure that the buyer is speaking more than the director. Then you’ll understand the basics, and then you’ll ask the director to speak about the strategy.
If you had to put down three or five top metrics or KPIs that would give the CEO or the CFO the trust that this is what procurement is focusing on, what would those be?
Okay, from a CFO, a CEO. The CFO needs to understand three points, because normally they have these three very simple KPIs. What is my actual spend? What are my payment terms? Because this is cash flow, right? And what is my future productivity, in terms of either pure productivity or cost avoidance? This is the CFO.
The CEO is asking for two more points. How is the spend, or how is procurement, supporting my top line, right? Because here, if I want to increase, or how scalable, how is this supporting my top line? Also, from a G&A cost and full P&L perspective, what is the short-, medium-, and long-term impact on my bottom line? This is why, in the integration, I am urging all my colleagues, guys, to try to make your presentation as simple as possible. Try to put these three or five KPIs in front of you and walk through them. Don’t let the team get into tons of details; details are for you and your own team. When you’re showing it, showing the pictures, make it somehow a pyramid shape: today I’m going to do this, tomorrow I’m going to do this, after tomorrow I’m going to do this. The leadership will trust you when they see or feel that you know what you’re explaining, what you’re discussing, that you have a goal. Try to decrease the noise coming out of you as much as you can; this is also very essential.
Do you think the IT head or the CIO also needs to be part of this shift, and if so, what matters to them?
I cannot speak about the CIO as a stakeholder. He or she is the main driver. They are the ones who are creating the car; we are just going to use the car. So they are not stakeholders; they are part of any table, sitting. If you want to have a round table, they are part of this, so they are part of the procurement team itself, in that case. I’m not saying they’re just a stakeholder; it’s more than this. They are the foundation, so you cannot just, in this world, say that they are stakeholders; they are the foundation.
You’ve covered a lot of amazing insights for CPOs or procurement leaders going through an acquisition. What is that one thing you would recommend them not to underestimate, or something they should stop doing during this process?
You should not listen to their ego. They should understand that they are not the knowledge owners; they are not the mahatma, the only mahatma in the world; they are learning. Go into any meeting with a very agile mindset: you want to listen, the sponge, listen, then react. You are not a teacher, you are not a professor. No, you are just a person in a team who happens to be, after certain agencies, certain hard work, right now a CPO. This doesn’t give you the ultimate key to the truth.
You should not listen to their ego. They are not the mahatma, the only mahatma in the world. Go into any meeting with a very agile mindset, listen like a sponge, then react.
Without naming anybody or any company, can you highlight any such situation or example where ego got in the way?
I have seen it, you know, last time, in one of the biggest acquisitions; it should have been a very successful one. The guy is amazing, but he’s at a C-level; he’s an ego, he’s playing his “I am the one, I am the god.” And you know, this is, and I’m seeing it more and more, very openly, in multinationals, and this is very strange, so you can be a CPO in a multinational, but you are listening more to a C-level in a local or international company. Maybe this is why there is Mondelez, P&G, Unilever, Nestle, all of this, really, because you are listening.
Conclusion
Amr’s account of what actually happens after a deal closes cuts through the boardroom language most M&A conversations get stuck in. Synergies look clean on paper, but the real work of integration lives in the details nobody accounted for: mismatched systems, informal supplier contracts, and two teams quietly showing off instead of actually listening to each other.
His prescription is consistent throughout this conversation: spend the first 90 days absorbing information like a sponge before promising anything, treat the CEO-CFO-procurement relationship as a genuine equilateral triangle rather than procurement being called in after decisions are made, and build a shared language around a small, honest set of KPIs rather than overwhelming stakeholders with detail. Above all, his closing point lands the hardest: the biggest threat to a successful integration isn’t a broken system or a messy supplier list; it’s a leader’s ego getting in the way of listening.
