Leading Through Uncertainty: The Manager's Guide to Corporate Splits
A note on what follows: This article draws from peer-reviewed studies including Nary's 2024 analysis of 982 divestitures, Corley's 2004 organizational identity research, the FTC's study of 89 merger remedies, BCG's analysis of 50+ separations, and Prosci's benchmarking across 10,800+ change practitioners. But here's the truth—there's almost no rigorous research specifically on middle managers during corporate splits. Where the research exists, I cite it. Where it doesn't, I say so. Sometimes the absence of evidence is the most important evidence of all.
You probably didn't sign up for this.
When you became a manager, you prepared for performance reviews, budget battles, maybe even layoffs. But nobody prepared you for the peculiar trauma of watching your organization saw itself in half while you're still trying to deliver quarterly results.
Your team keeps asking questions you can't answer. Your calendar is consumed by "transition planning" meetings that feel like planning a divorce while still living in the same house. And somewhere between explaining why the org chart looks like abstract art and fielding anxieties about email addresses, you're supposed to keep everyone motivated and productive.
Here's the kicker: despite thousands of these separations happening every year, the research on what actually happens to managers like you is nearly nonexistent. The studies that do exist? They reveal something unsettling—much of what companies tell you about separations is wrong.
The Clean Break That Isn't
Leadership loves talking about fresh starts. The data tells a different story.
Legal separation takes a median of 9 months, according to Houlihan Lokey's transaction analysis. But those Transitional Service Agreements—the contracts keeping you dependent on your former parent for everything from IT to payroll? They typically run 12-18 months, based on BCG's study of 50+ separations. And "stranded costs"—the excess overhead the parent company can't shed immediately? They create financial pressure for up to 3 years, per McKinsey's synthesis of separation outcomes.
In psychological terms, you're not getting divorced. You're entering the world's most awkward roommate situation, and nobody knows when the lease is up.
McKinsey surveyed separation leaders in 2024 and found that 42% struggled with basic execution—pricing, service levels, and exit timing. These aren't novices. These are experienced executives admitting they're making it up as they go.
And you? You're not just managing your own uncertainty—you're absorbing your team's anxiety while projecting confidence you don't feel. It's as depleting as any physical work, except nobody acknowledges it's even happening.
The Identity Crisis Nobody Has a Playbook For
Kevin Corley's qualitative study of a Fortune 100 spin-off named the phenomenon: "identity ambiguity." People oscillated between who they were, who they are, and who they're becoming—sometimes in the same conversation.
Think about it: last year, you could explain your company in one sentence. Now you need a PowerPoint deck and a timeline.
This isn't resistance to change. It's genuine confusion about fundamental questions: Who are we? Why do we exist? What makes us "us" anymore?
When humans face sustained uncertainty, our brains go into threat detection mode. We burn cognitive resources trying to predict and control what's inherently unpredictable. Every "we'll communicate more when we know more" meeting is another withdrawal from your team's emotional bank account.
What Your Team Actually Needs (That No One's Teaching You)
Forget the corporate communication plan. Here's what works when everything else is chaos.
The Strategic Context Map for Separation
At Grabemeyer Consulting, we use a tool called the Strategic Context Map to help people connect their work to bigger outcomes. During separations, it becomes a lifeline.
The map answers three questions your team is obsessing over:
Why this split? Not the sanitized investor relations answer—the actual strategic logic. "Our parent company needs capital flexibility" or "These two business models stopped making sense together" or even "Regulatory pressure forced this." Truth builds trust.
Why now? Market timing, competitive pressure, financial position—whatever actually drove the timeline. When people understand the forcing functions, they stop inventing conspiracy theories.
What does this mean for me? This is where most companies fail. They talk about the organization's future but skip the individual's place in it. Be specific: "Your role becomes more important because X" or "Your expertise in Y is what we're building the new company around" or honestly, "I don't know yet, but here's how we'll figure it out together."
One team I worked with created a single-page context map and posted it in their team space. When someone panicked, they'd point to it: "Here's what we know. Here's what we're waiting to learn. Here's when we'll know more." It became their shared reality in a sea of rumors.
Create Certainty Islands
You can't control when leadership announces the new org structure. But you can control your team meeting time, your project priorities, and your team norms.
I watched one manager establish "Separation-Free Fridays"—one day a week where the team explicitly didn't discuss the split. They focused only on customer work. People protected those Fridays fiercely. It was the only predictable thing left.
Another created a decision matrix: "Things I can control, things I can influence, things I have to accept." Every anxiety got sorted. Most fell into "accept," which paradoxically reduced anxiety—you can't change it, so stop burning energy trying.
The Ritual of Acknowledging Loss
William Bridges' research on transitions distinguishes between change (external) and transition (internal). Separations need rituals for grief.
One IT team held a "wake" for their old identity. They told stories, acknowledged what they were losing, even made a highlight reel of their best work together. It sounds cheesy until you realize: grief needs expression. Without it, it goes underground and becomes resentment.
Then they held a "birthday party" for the new entity. Same team, new identity, explicit permission to be excited about what they were building even while mourning what they'd lost.
Managing Up When Everyone's Drowning
Your leadership is underwater. They're managing investor relations, regulatory requirements, legal structures, and organizational design while trying to appear confident. They need you to manage your sphere so they can manage theirs.
Use this reality to your advantage.
The Update That Gets Attention
Executives during separation are drinking from a firehose. Your communication needs to be a refreshing glass of clarity.
Stop sending narrative updates. Create a simple dashboard:
Team stability: Headcount, retention risk (red/yellow/green)
Operational continuity: Percentage of normal productivity maintained
Separation progress: Milestones completed, dependencies remaining
Critical risks: Top three, with mitigation plans you're already executing
Update weekly. Send without being asked. I've seen this elevate managers from "tactical executor" to "trusted lieutenant" in a matter of weeks, because executives are desperate for people who reduce their cognitive load rather than adding to it.
The Coalition That Changes Everything
Find three other managers facing similar challenges. Approach leadership as a group.
Not: "My team needs clarity on the new benefits structure."
Instead: "Five team leads representing 60 people need to communicate benefits changes by month-end to prevent turnover. We need X by Y date."
Groups get resources. Individuals get queued.
I watched this happen during a healthcare company split. Four department managers coordinated their asks, presented jointly, and got dedicated HR support within 48 hours. The same managers asking individually had been waiting three weeks.
The Pilot That Builds Your Future
Executives during separation hate big decisions but love contained experiments.
"Can we pilot a new team structure with my group for 60 days?" feels safe. If it works, it scales. If it doesn't, it quietly disappears, and you learned something.
One manager proposed piloting the new identity messaging with her customer-facing team. It worked, got adopted company-wide, and suddenly she was the go-to person for change communications. That's not luck—that's strategy.
The 90-Day Survival Plan
You need quick wins. Here's the pattern I've seen work repeatedly.
Days 1-30: Stabilize
Conduct stay interviews with your top performers: "What would make you stay?"
Create your Strategic Context Map with your team—build it together
Establis & communication rhythm: Monday 15-minute huddle, Wednesday email, Friday reflection
Document current baseline (you'll forget what normal looked like)
Days 31-60: Build Momentum
Identify your three informal influence leaders (not necessarily senior people) and give them slightly more involvement
Create your first "new world" win to celebrate—first customer success, first system cutover, first anything
Present your first pilot proposal to leadership
Days 61-90: Establish New Normal
Launch your team identity ritual—something that's uniquely yours
Transition language from "what's changing" to "how we work now"
Position yourself for the next phase based on what you've learned
Document lessons for the next separation stage (there's always a next stage)
What You're Actually Building
Years from now, when someone tells the origin story of your new organization, they won't talk about the deal structure or the TSA exits. They'll talk about how a group of managers held things together when everything was falling apart, how they protected their teams while navigating chaos, how they built something new while mourning something lost.
You're not just managing through a separation. You're creating the cultural DNA of a new organization. Every decision about how to handle uncertainty, every response to crisis, every small ritual you establish—these become "how we do things here."
That's not just change management. That's organizational midwifery.
The meta-message your team needs to hear, even if not in these exact words:
"This is hard, and I don't have all the answers. Some days we're going to feel lost. Some decisions won't make sense. People we care about will leave. Systems will break.
But we're going to get through it together. We'll maintain our standards even when everything else is chaos. I can't promise you certainty, but I can promise you clarity about the uncertainty. I can't promise you fairness, but I can promise you transparency about the unfairness.
And I promise you won't face it alone."
That's the manager's job during separation. Not pretending it's exciting. Not spinning it as an opportunity. But, acknowledging reality while maintaining hope, creating stability while everything shifts, and helping people see how their work matters even when they can't see the whole picture yet.
Because sometimes, in the middle of organizational divorce, the most radical thing you can do is tell the truth and keep showing up.
About Grabemeyer Consulting
Grabemeyer Consulting partners with organizations navigating major transitions—mergers, acquisitions, separations, and digital transformations. We specialize in helping leaders connect change initiatives to business strategy and helping teams see how their work matters during periods of uncertainty. Our Strategic Context Map approach has helped organizations maintain productivity and morale through some of the most challenging organizational changes. Learn more at grabemeyerconsulting.com.
-
Peer-Reviewed Research:
Corley, K. G. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.
Nary, P. (2024). Do corporations benefit from divesting to private equity acquirers? An empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 45(7), 1247-1278. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3611
Sung, S. Y., Woehler, M. L., Fagan, J. M., Grosser, T. J., Floyd, T. M., & Labianca, G. (2017). Employees' responses to an organizational merger: Intraindividual change in organizational identification, attachment, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 910-934.
Industry Research & Analysis:
Boston Consulting Group. (2021). Nailing the hard part of divestitures: Separation costs and TSAs. BCG Publications.
Federal Trade Commission. (2017). The FTC's merger remedies 2006-2012: A report of the bureaus of competition and economics. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.
Houlihan Lokey. (2022). U.S. spin-off study. Transaction analysis report.
McKinsey & Company. (2024). Making business separations a competitive difference. McKinsey Insights.
McKinsey & Company. (2025). The cost of (un)doing business: Corporate divestitures and stranded costs. McKinsey Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice.
Prosci. (2024). Best practices in change management—12th edition: Executive summary. Prosci Benchmarking Research.
Change Management Frameworks:
Bridges, W. (2009). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (3rd ed.). Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), 44-52.
Case Examples & SEC Filings:
eBay Inc. (2015). Form 10 registration statement: PayPal Holdings, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
General Electric Company. (2024). Form 10 registration statement: GE Vernova Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
IBM Corporation. (2021). Form 10-12B/A registration statement: Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
-
For Understanding Organizational Identity During Change:
Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013). Organizational identity formation and change. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123-193.
For Managing Teams Through Uncertainty:
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
For Executive Communication During Crisis:
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. Random House.
For Understanding M&A and Separation Dynamics:
Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal. Free Press. (Classic text on integration; principles apply inversely to separation)
For Practical Change Management Tools:
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our community. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
Government and Regulatory Perspectives:
OECD. (2011). Corporate governance and the financial crisis: Conclusions and emerging good practices to enhance implementation of the principles. OECD Publishing.
UK National Audit Office. (2024). Digital transformation in government: A guide for senior leaders and audit and risk committees. (Applicable lessons for large-scale organizational change)