Suchergebnisse

Various explanations have been suggested concerning the causes of 'cultural clashes' and prescriptions for harmoniously integrating the beliefs and values of merging firms. Using a form of meta-analysis known as a case survey design, which combines the ideographic richness of case studies with the statistical generalizability of larger samples, and a sample consisting of 50 mergers and acquisitions (23 US domestic, 15 Swedish domestic and 12 Swedish cross-border), we found that acculturation is best achieved when the buying firms rely on social controls. That is, by participating in such activities as introduction programs, training, cross-visits, retreats, celebrations and similar socialization rituals, employees will create, of their own volition, a joint organizational culture regardless of expectations of synergies, the relative organization size and differences in nationalities and cultures. A post hoc analysis of a proposed integration control typology further suggests that social controls also indirectly influence acculturation by acting in concert with formal integrative efforts.

Mergers and acquisitions are complex events in organizational life for which we have incomplete understanding, in part because researchers have tended to consider only partial explanations of them. The authors addressed that problem by developing a conceptual framework that integrates theoretical perspectives from economics, finance, and especially strategy, organization theory, and human resource management to offer a broader process-oriented integrative model. The integrative model explicitly describes how synergy realization is a function of the similarity and complementarity of the two merging businesses (combination potential), the extent of interaction and coordination during the organizational integration process, and the lack of employee resistance to the combined entity. The approach differs from traditional methods of studying mergers and acquisitions in three ways: (1) the success of a merger or acquisition is gauged by the degree of synergy realization rather than more removed and potentially ambiguous criteria such as accounting or market returns; (2) the key attribute of combination potential is conceptualized not only in terms of the similarities present across businesses, as in most studies of mergers and acquisitions, but also in terms of the production and marketing complementarities between the two businesses; and (3) the data are derived from a case survey method that combines the richness of in-depth case studies with the breadth and generalizability of large-sample empirical investigations. The framework was tested empirically across a sample of 61 mergers and acquisitions. The extent to which a merger or acquisition resulted in synergistic benefits was related to the strategic potential of the combination, the degree of organizational integration after the deal was completed, and the lack of employee resistance to the integration of the joining firms. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that (1) independent of any similarities across joining firms, the presence of complementary operations increased the probability of acquisition success by boosting synergy realization, (2) organizational integration was the single most important factor in explaining synergy realization, even to the extent that M&As with high combination potential were significantly more successful when coupled with high organizational integration than when integration efforts were less forceful, and (3) mergers and acquisitions that were dependent on gains from combining similar production and marketing operations tended to elicit more resistance from employees than M&As focused on realizing complementary benefits. Overall, the findings provide strong support for an integrative theory of mergers and acquisitions.

Alliances are volatile key components of many corporations' competitive strategies. They offer fast and flexible means of achieving market access, scale economies, and competence development. However, strategic alliances can encounter difficulties that often lead to disappointing performance. The authors suggest that the way partners manage the collective learning process plays a central role in the success and failure of strategic alliances. Present understanding of interorganizational learning primarily focuses on how the individual organization can be a "good partner" or try to win the internal "race to learn" among the partners. The interorganizational learning dilemma is that (1) being a good partner invites exploitation by partners attempting to maximize their individual appropriation of the joint learning, and (2) such opportunistic learning strategies undercut the collective knowledge development in the strategic alliance. The authors develop a framework for understanding the dilemma through consideration of trade-offs between how collective learning is developed in alliances and how the joint learning outcomes are divided among the partners. They create a typology of five different learning strategies based on how receptive as well as how transparent an organization is in relation to its partners. The strategies are: collaboration (highly receptive and highly transparent); competition (highly receptive and nontransparent); compromise (moderately receptive and transparent); accommodation (nonreceptive and highly transparent); and avoidance (neither receptive nor transparent). Interorganizational learning outcomes are proposed to be the interactive results of the respective partners' type of adopted learning strategy. By synthesizing strategic alliance, organizational learning, collective action, and game theories, the framework contributes to understanding the variety in alliance development, performance, and longevity. Interorganizational learning is likely to be hindered by lack of either motivation or ability to absorb and communicate knowledge between the partner organizations. The dynamics of power, opportunism, suspicion, and asymmetric learning strategies can constitute processual barriers to collective knowledge development. In contrast, prior related interaction between the partners, high learning stakes, trust, and long-term orientation are likely to empower the collective learning process. Comparison of previous case studies and surveys of interorganizational learning provides partial empirical support for the proposed framework. The comparison also indicates several omissions in previous research, such as failure to consider either how receptive or how transparent the partners are, the interaction between their learning strategies, and their dynamic processes over time. Because these omissions are due partly to the methodological limitations of traditional case studies and crosssectional surveys, the authors suggest a bridging case survey design for a more comprehensive test of their interactive, dynamic, and situational framework.

Hjärpe, Jan: Introduction: boundaries and belonging. - S. 7-11. (...) Todorov, Nicolai: The Ottoman and the Balkans. The urban-rural dimension. - S. 112-126. (...)