Strategic alignment isn’t enough for a merger to succeed

Originally published by Devex, this op-ed is republished here with permission.

Opinion: While the synergies may look compelling, it’s easy to miss the real challenge in a nonprofit merger — the human factor.

By Sheena Agarwal, Jean Paul Warmoes 

On paper, everything looked great. As we approached the 2024 merger of the King Baudouin Foundation United States and Give2Asia, we knew we had much in common — this had driven the idea of joining forces in the first place. But in focusing on our similarities, we missed key differences in people and organizational culture. It soon became clear that, without addressing these differences, moving forward as a single entity, Myriad USA, would be tough.

Our two organizations certainly had a lot in common. We each had more than 20 years of grantmaking experience and strong reputations for our respective geographic expertise. We both had parent foundations — the King Baudouin Foundation and The Asia Foundation — similar mission statements, and a shared belief that local knowledge counts. Working together for many years, we’d even aligned our fee structures and services.

We also knew the merger would enable us to do far more than we could as single entities. KBFUS served mainly individual donors and family foundations and focused on Europe, Africa, and Latin America, while Give2Asia worked in Asia, the Pacific, and the Middle East and had a deeper track record of serving corporate donors. As Myriad USA, we could become a one-stop shop, offering donors streamlined services and a single team with global expertise. The marriage made perfect sense.

The big surprise, however, was realizing none of this would matter if our people were not fully on board with the way the new entity would work. Happily, we lost no staff as a result of the merger. But there were struggles we had not anticipated.

The first challenge was adjusting to new ways of working. Becoming larger and more global meant reinventing processes, workflows, and communications channels. Hybrid working became the norm, which was new to many team members. We had to establish a more formalized structure with new functions, such as human resources, robust people management policies, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

In addition, both entities came into the merger from different entry points. Give2Asia had a bigger team with formalized structures in place. Geographically dispersed, it was used to working remotely. KBFUS had a strong development culture in which donor engagement was a shared responsibility, not a separate function, and the informality of a small organization working in-person from a single office. Communicating with colleagues meant simply wandering over to their desk.

Neither model was better than the other, but we had overlooked the importance of forging a single vision and of how to pursue it together.

To do so, we knew we needed to build trust. What helped was that in its first month, Myriad USA made several hires. We soon realized that the presence of new employees with no previous experience of either KBFUS or Give2Asia presented an opportunity to raise new topics and hold difficult conversations about processes and culture that were also helpful to existing employees.

Importantly, we held an off-site team retreat, where, over everything from meals to ice skating and bowling, staff got to know each other and started figuring out how to move in one direction. We also ran an employee feedback survey to capture everyone’s views on building a new culture.

Lessons from these experiences have strengthened the organization. For example, team retreats — which had not been in the KBFUS people management playbook — were regular events for Give2Asia, so its model could be adapted for the new organization. The employee feedback survey is now annual, helping us understand if we’re on track organizationally and what needs more attention.

Two years on, the merger has enabled us to go beyond our expectations. Our single, global solution, with its on-the-ground insights and long-standing relationships, has been welcomed by donors and nonprofit partners alike. In 2024, the merger’s first year, we facilitated $169 million in grants — $27 million higher than the combined premerger volume, and in 2025, we reached the $195 million mark.

Could we have prepared better? On the human factors, most certainly. We could have aligned visions for growth earlier on. Paying more attention to the sense of loss people were experiencing would have helped. We could have also provided professional coaching and mentoring, which we hadn’t considered at the time but now see as essential.

Change is always hard. While reimagining operations and processes is critical, success depends on getting the human factors right, which takes humility, empathy, careful reflection and communication, communication, and more communication. We’re still learning how to push for growth while retaining the boutique, high-touch approach and entrepreneurial culture that both our employees and our partners value.

We may have been slow to acknowledge our differences and smooth out the resulting friction, but that hard work is finally paying off. As a coherent team, we’re better equipped to serve philanthropists, who can in turn do more to support their grantees, which helps us win the ultimate prize: greater global social impact.