Abstract
- Employees often show resistance to merger
- 3 studies conducted to investigate the influence of premerger status (high/low)
and merger pattern (assimilation, integration-equality, integration-
proportionality, transformation) on participants’ support for a merger
- Across all studies, the low-status group favored integration equality &
transformation, whilst the high-status group preferred assimilation & integration
proportionality
- Perceived threat mediated effects
- Legitimacy was a stronger mediator for effects of low-status group
Intro
- Globalisation has led organisations to cooperate, in some cases to merge
- Many mergers do not meet expectations & have low success rates
- Paper looks at merger process from an intergroup perspective
- May be useful to understand the preconditions under which mergers are likely to
succeed or fail
- Organisational mergers: two companies merge to become one, & a new group
identity is imposed
- This identity often creates an ‘us vs them’ dynamic; causing an increased salience
of the premerger group membership
- These intergroup dynamics play a role at the start of the merger & can jeopardise its
success
- Paper draws on SIT and on the Social Identity model of post-merger
identification
A Social Identity Perspective on Mergers
- SIT = general theory of intergroup relations
- Assumes that individuals perceive the social world in terms of social categories
- Group membership also contributes to one’s self-definition, i.e. characteristics of
one’s ingroup (social identity)
- Group membership transforms individual motivation into collective motivation
- Thus perceptions of group-level consequences should impact on individual
evaluations/decisions
- Individuals strive to achieve/maintain a positive self-concept; evaluation of social
identity valence is derived from social group membership & their value connotations
in comparison to relevant reference groups
- SIT has been successfully applied to understand the intergroup dynamics during
mergers
- Research indicates that sociostructural characteristics of merging groups relations
impact on intergroup conflict & employee responses to merger
Status Differences In Organisational Mergers
- Most mergers are not mergers of equals
- Mergers often result in the heightened salience of status differences
, - SIT shows that membership in low-status groups (LSG) fails to provide members with
a positive social identity
- Bc of status differences, LSG members should feel more threatened & may seek to
enhance their status
- High-status group (HSG) members have a positive social identity & may try to
maintain status (as a decreases of status is threatening to HSG)
- Thus both groups should be motivated to optimise status position
- Knippenberg & Van Leeuwen proposed a (confirmed) Social Identity model of
post-merger identification which takes status relations into account
- Suggests that the dominant organisation is more likely to define the character of
the merged company
- Thus HSG/dominant group feel a sense of continuity of pre-merger identity & so
will identity more strongly with merged company/post-merger identity
VS
- LSG less likely to feel continuity & will identity less
- Members of all groups expect the HSG to dominate merger & so members of HSG
should be more willing to support it
Merger Patterns
- Status differences: the comparison between 2 groups before the merger
- Dimensions of comparison depend on context
- In organisational merger context, dimensions are defined by the economic
factors prior to merger
- & dominance within merger defined by the power relations
- Organisational dominance of HSG depends on how the organisations are merging
- Schoennauer differentiated between 3 major merger patterns:
A) Absorb
B) Blend
C) Combine
A) Absorb (assimilation)
- assimilation of the LSG into the HSG
- Employed in 49% of mergers
B) Blend (integration)
- Former identities of both organisations are still recognisable
- Previous organisations integrated into one, while not forsaking their
premerger identities
- 31% of mergers
C) Combine (transformation)
- Reflects a new group with no relation to the old pre-merger groups
- Represents a kind of transformation of the old subgroup identities into a
totally new group identity
- 8% of mergers
- Different merger patterns have big influences on employees willingness to support
merger
- E.g. Mottola found that group members are more supportive of an integration pattern
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper scarlettrosethorne. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
