From Screening to Conviction: The Missing Middle in Modern M&A

Most M&A teams do not struggle to find companies anymore.

Between databases, banker outreach, internal referrals, and industry networks, the top of the funnel is full. Sometimes uncomfortably full. Hundreds of targets screened. Dozens labeled “interesting.” A handful that might be worth pursuing.

And yet, despite all that activity, a familiar question keeps resurfacing:

Why is it still so hard to feel confident about which targets truly fit?

The Illusion of Progress

On paper, the M&A process looks linear. Source. Screen. Diligence. Decide.

In practice, there is a gap between early screening and real conviction.

Screening tools are good at answering surface-level questions:

Size
Geography
Industry
Basic financials

They help narrow the list. They do not help teams believe in the outcome.

This shows up in the data. Bain & Company reports that nearly 70% of deals fail to meet their strategic objectives, often due to issues that were not fully understood early in the process.

So teams compensate the only way they know how. More calls. More memos. More internal debate. Judgment fills the gaps where structure runs out.

Where Things Actually Slow Down

In many recent conversations with corporate development teams, investors, and advisors, the same pattern keeps appearing:

Targets pass the initial filters
Momentum stalls before diligence
Internal stakeholders ask, “Why this one?”
The answer is unclear

At that point, decisions rely less on data and more on:

Personal experience
Pattern recognition
Gut feel
Who is most persuasive in the room

Experience and judgment matter. But when conviction depends entirely on intuition, two things happen.

First, alignment becomes fragile. Second, good opportunities quietly die in committee.

The Missing Middle

What is missing is not more data. It is structured interpretation.

The middle of the process, between “meets criteria” and “let’s move,” is where teams need help answering harder questions:

How well does this company actually fit our strategy?
Where are the non-obvious risks and advantages?
How does this compare to other targets we have evaluated in practice, not just in theory?
What assumptions are we making without realizing it?

Deloitte has found that over 50% of executives cite insufficient insight during target evaluation as a major contributor to deal underperformance.

This is the stage where conviction should be built. Instead, it is often improvised.

Why This Matters More Now

As markets tighten and scrutiny increases, M&A teams are under pressure to:

Move with discipline, not speed
Clearly explain decisions to stakeholders
Reduce false starts and wasted effort

Ironically, many teams are still relying on tools designed for volume, not clarity.

The result is plenty of screening and plenty of activity, but too little confidence.

Conviction Is the Real Bottleneck

The best M&A teams are not the ones with the biggest pipelines. They are the ones that can consistently explain why a target makes sense, and do it early enough to matter.

Conviction does not eliminate risk. But it does align teams, focus effort, and make decisions defensible.

Right now, that missing middle is where most deals quietly succeed or fail.

References

Bain & Company, M&A Practitioners’ Guide: Why Deals Fail, Bain Insights
Deloitte, M&A Trends Report: Reframing Value Creation in Transactions