Even if this were true, exactly how would an outsider know who your supposed "key individual contributors" are?
It's the job of someone performing due diligence to know how to determine that.
You must read "quite often," but not have first hand experience?
I think I've mentioned before that I used to work for a Big Six firm. We performed independent audits of companies and divisions of companies. Those relying on our reports were specifically relying on our ability
not to be snowed under by executives saying whatever they understood we wanted to hear. We generally politely listened to the executives, only casually evaluating their comments as input to the report, but rather mostly using their comments to help us understand where to dig into the organization to find the real input for the report. (Other audits covered the financials. We focused on contracts, operations, customer and supplier interfaces, etc.) We'd then research and investigate iteratively until we gained a comprehensive and deep understanding of the company's processes. Then we'd audit specifically at the critical points in the process, looking to establish through interview and review of records that the company is complying with generally-accepted policies, principles and procedures.
It's hard work, but if you care about the value of what you're looking at, critical work. If all you care about is the customer list and the financials, figuring you can "snap-in" alternative revenue streams if the existing ones aren't sufficiently profitable, then all you look at is the customer list and the financials.
And neither approach is necessarily better than the other in an absolute sense: It's the difference between whether you want to make money versus have a great business. It isn't clear which approach is more viable into the future, since the costs of having a great business are high, and variability in the environment (i.e., the volatile economy and marketplace) degrade the value of great businesses, since it introduces more random risk into the system. If all you care about is milking revenue streams, by comparison, you may not foster lots of customer loyalty but you're going to have more cash available and therefore will be more nimble in switching gears, to milk new revenue streams.
I know as an employee, though, I'd rather work for a great business rather than a company good at making money. (And yes, I suppose as an investor, given today's environment, I'd prefer to own companies good at making money.)
But no competent acquisition team would go through with an acquisition if they weren't allowed to talk to anyone but the "VPs, SVPs and CEO" and both 'sides' know that. It's a clear red flag, and you walk as it's a clear sign they're hiding something major...Acquisitions101.
Abso-friggen-lutely. However, I know of two recent instances where that simply didn't happen - not that there was necessarily a limitation placed on due diligence, but rather that due diligence simply remained at the superficial level, rather than digging down deep into the operation being purchased.
I don't know how widespread this change is.