Two CEOs sit down, culture had better be the #1 thing they discuss before one writes a check to the other for the better part of half a billion dollars.
Good M&A adds tons of value by combining two companies who are better together than separate. Bad M&A (Google's acquisition of Nest comes to mind) means fired CEO, delayed/ruined product launches, and incineration of nine-figure amounts of shareholder value. It all comes down to whether the two companies want the same thing.
I won't argue that Atlassian software has no rough edges UX-wise, but that isn't the point. The point is that, when one company buys another, they'd better have roughly the same idea of where they want to go, otherwise you may as well fire up an industrial blast furnace fed by shareholder capital.
The vast majority of acquisitions are uneventful and added positive value to the acquirer. Maybe you're thinking of high-profile multi-billion dollar failures like Daimler+Chrysler, HP+Compaq, Microsoft+Nokia. It's possible that the amount of negative press those failures receive distorts the perception of the (quiet) successful acquisitions.
Most if not all of them because they were all friendly deals and the acquired wanted the deal to happen. (In other words, the acquired's owners wanted BigCo's money more than they wanted to remain independent.)
Most of the targeted businesses were privately owned which means that the big acquirer cannot execute a hostile takeover and buy the company against the Board of Director's wishes. Amazon's acquisitions of Zappos shoes, dpreview camera website, etc were all friendly deals. Same situation with Facebook acquisitions of Whatsapp and Instagram.
Two CEOs sit down, culture had better be the #1 thing they discuss before one writes a check to the other for the better part of half a billion dollars.
Good M&A adds tons of value by combining two companies who are better together than separate. Bad M&A (Google's acquisition of Nest comes to mind) means fired CEO, delayed/ruined product launches, and incineration of nine-figure amounts of shareholder value. It all comes down to whether the two companies want the same thing.
I won't argue that Atlassian software has no rough edges UX-wise, but that isn't the point. The point is that, when one company buys another, they'd better have roughly the same idea of where they want to go, otherwise you may as well fire up an industrial blast furnace fed by shareholder capital.