How to time takeover deals to maximise success

The cool jazz classic A Ballad by the Gerry Mulligan Quartet opens with short, closely spaced phrases of saxophone notes to establish the tempo and direction of the piece.

But as the music unfolds, those phrases stretch out. Notes linger, harmonies deepen, and meaning accumulates, not through speed but through timing.

This may seem a far cry from the world of finance but, if you follow the logic of our paper published in the Journal of Business Research, you will see that it offers valuable insights into how executives should approach acquisitions.

For years, executives have treated mergers and acquisitions (M&A) like a race: move quickly, seize potential targets, build scale before competitors react. Regularly-used phrases like first-mover advantage and blitzscaling only serve to reinforce this mindset.

Yet this emphasis on velocity risks confusing activity with effectiveness. As in A Ballad, what matters is not how fast you play, but how well you arrange for the intervals between notes. In other words, the pause between actions eventually dictates proficiency.

We analysed more than 5,100 acquisitions by S&P 1500 companies over two decades, from 1992-2012. This was supplemented by in-depth interviews with senior executives.

When to complete M&A transactions

Drawing upon this data, we found that firms outperform when they adopt an expanding rhythm. In our study, we call this expanding practice. This involves tighter spacing between deals early on, followed by progressively longer gaps.

Firms benefit from starting with momentum – but then slowing down to let meaning, structure and capability catch up.

In fact, this pattern has been linked to $50 million in added market value for the average acquirer, as firms both execute better and make smarter strategic choices.

Prior studies have focused on how experience influences organisational outcomes. Closely spaced acquisitions over a short period of time allow for increased momentum and improving with experience.

But sustained contraction – deal after deal with little pause – creates what some executives we spoke to called ‘growth indigestion’. Teams struggle to integrate new businesses, governance lags behind complexity, and the organisation becomes overwhelmed.

The risk of rushing company purchases

Few companies illustrate these pitfalls more clearly than Hewlett-Packard in the 2000s and early 2010s. It acquired Compaq in 2002, EDS in 2008, Palm in 2010, and Autonomy in 2011.

The sheer pace and size of these takeovers left little room for integration or reflection. Instead of reinforcing one another, the deals created organisational strain, strategic drift and, in some cases, significant write-downs.

At the other extreme, spacing deals too far apart introduces a different problem - forgetting. Skills decay, institutional knowledge dissipates, and strategic momentum falters.

As a result, the dominant recommendation in management research has been that superior outcomes can be achieved when firms follow a regular pattern of experience where deals are equally spaced.

But our insight is that growth does not follow a fixed beat, it evolves. The most successful firms, we found, deliberately stretch the intervals between acquisitions over time, allowing early energy to give way to later reflection.

So, how does increasing the gaps between M&A deals outperform contracting or evenly spaced growth? We found three interconnected reasons.

Allow time for post-merger integration

Firstly, our research found that progressively more time between deals improved absorptive capacity; that is a firm’s ability to assimilate and apply valuable external knowledge.

Just as a sustained note needs time to resonate, acquisitions require time to be absorbed and the lessons from them to be accumulated.

One senior leader stated: “We had two acquisitions in May and then took more time before the next deal in October.

“The advantage of this sequence is that the market would perceive the company as being involved in integration activities for each of the deals.”

Secondly, expanding practice appears to channel executive attention and resources on fewer, more focused opportunities. As one executive noted, “If you spread [deals] over time, you have better time to focus on the acquisition.”

It may also build stronger routines and practices, allowing executive teams to codify what works. One senior executive highlighted how with increasing experience he and his team began to build documents, manuals, and plans to help team members build on the experience of the past.

“You clearly see there is some more in-depth preparation,” he said. “For instance, you see improved cooperation between a deal person, an M&A person, and an integration person.”

Finally, our qualitative interviews suggested that longer intervals between acquisitions allow leaders to step back and reassess strategic direction. Instead of doubling down, they can refine their hypotheses, and pivot into higher growth markets and more attractive opportunities if needed.

One case was a shift from chemicals and biotech businesses to nutrition, which was helped by moving acquisitions from two years apart to three years apart. “We needed the time to come to grips with what was possible in that field,” the senior executive involved said.

Three lessons for an acquiring company

Our research offers practical applications, not only for acquiring firms, but also for any organisation seeking new alliances or going through strategic growth such as market entries or product launches.

As we see it, there are three key lessons based on our findings that leaders can apply to the M&A process.

1 Companies should vigilantly manage the timing of their strategic moves, not just the amount. In particular, boards of directors and leadership teams should challenge any bunching up of acquisitions, which can be a signal of executives chasing them for personal compensation rather than for the greater good. All in all, executives need to be aware that expanding the time between strategic events can help corporate learning and lead to better performance outcomes.

2 Communicate the timing of your acquisitions and other strategic events. Do this, and investors, analysts and external stakeholders will see a company with the capacity to codify its learning, leading to the successful integration of new acquisitions and strategic moves.

3 Timing should reflect complexity. Small, routine deals may tolerate tighter sequencing. Transformational acquisitions or major strategic shifts demand longer gaps – more space to integrate, reflect and adapt. During our executive interviews we identified a firm which spent two to three years buying smaller companies to round up its portfolio. Then, as the executive told us, the firm took more time and “used an acquisition to enter a new market”.

In the final analysis, it’s all about smart sequencing. Any sequence of strategic moves – product launches, market entries, partnerships – has a rhythm. Organisations that compress everything into rapid succession risk fatigue, fragmentation, and missed insight. Those that expand their cadence over time build in reflection and adaptability and, as a result, create more sustainable growth.

As in the jazz classic, ‘A Ballad’, the magic isn’t in how many notes are played, but in how they’re spaced.

• This article is based on the following study: Christopher Bingham, Kalin D. Kolev, Jerayr Haleblian and Koen Heimeriks (2026) Experience schedules: unpacking experience accumulation and its consequences, Journal of Business Research Vol 202 (2026) Article 115749. 
• An article based on the paper has also been published in Harvard Business Review. The Importance of Correctly Timing Acquisitions for Growth, October 10, 2025

Further reading:

Five rules to make sure a takeover announcement sees shares rise

The pyschology of M&A deals: Four mindsets to avoid

Six tips to find hidden benefits in tech M&A

Worthy suitor? How ESG can ease takeover deals

Koen Heimeriks is Professor of Strategy at Warwick Business School. He teaches Mergers and Acquisitions on the MBA programmes, and has been playing the tenor sax since he was nine.

Christopher Bingham is the Phillip Hettleman Distinguished Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Kalin D. Kolev is Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at Marquette University.

Jerayr Haleblian is Strategic Management Professor at the University of California-Riverside.

Learn how to add value and avoid common pitfalls in M&A with the three-day programme, Mergers and Acquisitions: How to Maximise Success, at WBS London at The Shard.

Discover more about Strategy and Organisational Change. Receive our Core Insights newsletter via email or LinkedIn.