> a bunch of people doing due diligence on an acquisition
I bet those people rarely get promoted for preventing an acquisition, though. Probably that is why we see so many crazy acquisitions, in general.
I bet those people rarely get promoted for preventing an acquisition, though. Probably that is why we see so many crazy acquisitions, in general.
Granted, it was nowhere near this scale, but I've gone through this process as the head of Engineering for the company being acquired. At that point, the business had already decided to acquire, so the process felt more about finding any red flags and/or identifying reasons to adjust the price.
For the process itself, the company looked at nearly everything over the course of a few months. Every detail of finances, sales, tech, operations, etc. was scrutinized, culminating with 16 hours (4 for business and 12 for tech/ops) over two days of standing in front of a room with 30 people.
This is a misunderstanding I think many non-googlers have, thinking people only get promoted for launches (or in this case acquisitions). It's more nuanced than that: people get promoted for impact and while launches are one obvious form, you can sell pretty much anything useful as impact if you can show how it's useful. In the case of M&A, avoiding a bad acquisition, if you can justify it, would be impact.
The only way I'd tank a deal was by identifying that it was in fact smoke and mirrors.