Post-Merger Structure Nobody Owns

Reframe the problem first. The symptoms are decision latency, unclear authority, and perceived unfairness in work distribution - not headcount. Restructuring before diagnosing risks producing a new chart that reproduces the same problems under different boxes.

Evidence to gather (4–6 weeks).

• Decision mapping: trace 10 representative decisions (a mid-size purchase, a quality hold, a supervisor hire, a schedule change) from initiation to completion, recording who actually decided, who was consulted unnecessarily, and elapsed time. The four-approval $5,000 PO is the entry point.
• Span and layer analysis: plot the actual distribution, not the average. Spans of 3 and 14 in the same function usually indicate an unmanaged exception, not a design choice.
• Work sampling: ask 15–20 supervisors and coordinators to log where time goes for two weeks. This tests the 'integration coordinator' roles against real work rather than against their job descriptions.
• Attrition interviews: the concentration among supervisors hired in the last three years is a specific signal. Ask what changed for them between offer and now.
• Duplication inventory: quality function at both plants is the clearest candidate; confirm with an output comparison, not with headcount alone.
• Decision-rights audit: document what the steering committee actually decides versus what it merely discusses.

Test against strategy. Before deleting a layer, confirm what it exists to protect. Integration coordinators may be carrying the only cross-plant relationship work happening; if so, the fix is to formalize that work, not eliminate it.

Days 1–30: Establish authority and stop the bleeding. Get the steering committee to adopt a written charter with an explicit list of decisions it owns, a decision threshold (e.g., anything under $25K is plant-level), and a named accountable executive. Publish a single interim approval matrix. This is a policy act, not a restructuring act, and it delivers visible relief within weeks - important because credibility is the scarce resource after a merger.

Days 15–60: Design against principles, not against personalities. Agree 3–4 design principles with the executive team in writing (for example: 'no more than one approval above plant level for purchases under $25K'; 'spans between 6 and 10 except where safety or licensure requires otherwise'; 'one owner per process'). Principles constrain the design and make later trade-offs defensible.

Days 45–75: Restructure the decision-dense areas first. Consolidate the duplicated quality function and clarify plant-level authority. Do not start with the layer everyone dislikes. Address the coordinator layers after the work sampling is analyzed, and give incumbents a defined path (redeploy, apply for a redesigned role, or a transition package) rather than leaving them in limbo - limbo is what supervisors will read as 'unfair.'

Days 60–90: Systems and honesty. Sequence the HRIS consolidation as a separate project with its own owner and timeline; do not bundle it into the org announcement, or one will hold the other hostage. Communicate what is decided, what is not yet decided, and when the next update comes.

Ordering logic. Authority before structure (people comply with a clear threshold immediately), structure before systems (the HRIS should encode a design you chose, not the one you inherited), and systems before engagement measurement (a pulse survey during a system migration will measure the migration).

Start by assuming the resistance is informative. Twenty-five-year veterans opposing consolidation usually have a specific operational objection buried inside a general objection. Find it before deciding whether this is a stakeholder to win or a blocker to manage out. A structured one-to-one asking 'what would have to be true for this to work here?' is the cheapest test.

Separate the two questions. Are they resisting the direction (consolidation) or the manner (being informed late, losing authority, watching their people become uncertain)? The second is far more common and far more fixable. If it is manner, the remedy is genuine involvement in design within an agreed boundary - they shape the how, leadership owns the whether.

Give them a defined role with real stakes. Assign one of them ownership of the quality consolidation design, with a deadline and a deliverable. This converts opposition into accountability and reveals quickly whether the objection is principled or positional.

Be explicit about the boundary. State plainly what is still open for discussion and what is decided, and do not reopen a decided question to keep the peace - that teaches the organization that resistance works.

Escalation criteria, agreed in advance with the executive sponsor. If either manager publicly undermines the change after being given a design role, the response is a direct conversation from their leader, not a message relayed through HR. HR's role is to coach the executive sponsor, provide the performance documentation, and ensure any exit is procedurally clean. Do not let HR carry the conflict on the executive's behalf; that is how HR loses positional credibility for the next two years of integration work.