The Importance of Alignment in Cross-Border Integration
In one cross-border integration I was closely involved with, a U.S.-based private equity firm had acquired a Belgian industrial company with strong technical capabilities and deep domain expertise. The strategic intent was clear and widely accepted: accelerate growth, improve profitability, and introduce more disciplined management practices across the portfolio.
At the leadership level, there was little debate about what needed to happen. The friction emerged around how it should happen.
The Belgian team was entrepreneurial and technically driven, accustomed to informal coordination and a high degree of local autonomy. When a more structured management system was introduced—built around policy deployment—the reaction was cautious at best. From headquarters, the approach was seen as a way to create focus and alignment. Locally, it initially felt bureaucratic and misaligned with how the organization had historically operated.
What became clear early on was that declaring alignment on objectives wasn’t enough. We needed a way to translate strategic intent into daily execution without stripping away local ownership. Policy deployment became less about imposing a framework and more about creating a shared language for priorities.
Instead of starting with tools, the focus shifted to rhythm. A regular management cadence was introduced—one that connected longer-term objectives with near-term priorities, and created predictable moments to review progress, KPIs, and countermeasures. These reviews weren’t about control; they were about visibility. They made execution—and misalignment—discussable.
At the same time, we spent considerable effort clarifying decision boundaries. Which decisions truly needed to be escalated, and which should remain local? Making this explicit reduced friction on both sides. U.S. ownership gained confidence that priorities were being actively managed, while local leaders retained autonomy where it mattered most.
Policy deployment helped translate high-level growth ambitions into a small number of clearly prioritized initiatives. Just as importantly, it linked those priorities to day-to-day management activities. KPIs were narrowed to what actually mattered, and teams built the capability to identify gaps early and respond with concrete countermeasures rather than reactive problem-solving.
Alignment didn’t arrive in a single workshop or leadership meeting. It emerged gradually, through cadence, repetition, and shared interpretation. The framework mattered—but only because it was applied with cultural sensitivity and a willingness to adapt language, pace, and emphasis to the local context.
The experience reinforced something I’ve seen repeatedly: in global integrations, alignment isn’t created by agreement alone. It’s built through disciplined execution, clear decision rights, and operating rhythms that make priorities visible across borders.
Tell me about your experiences