Human impacts on the performance of mergers and acquisitions

This chapter revisits existing research on human impacts on the performance of mergers and acquisitions. Findings are grouped into three categories: individual-, organizational- and managerial-related factors. Results show that while research seems various and abounding, influential factors are often studied as static setting approached in isolation, without measuring their direct relation to post-acquisition outcomes.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262919192
Human impacts on the performance of mergers and acquisitions
Chapter in Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions · January 2013
DOI: 10.1108/S1479-361X(2013)0000012004
CITATIONS
11
READS
1,731
1 author:
Nicola Mirc
Toulouse School of Management
18 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF MERGERS
AND ACQUISITIONS
Nicola Mirc
ABSTRACT
The contribution revisitsexisting research on human impactson the
performance of mergers and acquisitions. Findings are grouped into three
categories:individual-,organizational-and managerial-related factors.
Results show that while research seems various and abounding, influential
factors are often studied as static setting approached in isolation, without
measuring their direct relation to post-acquisition outcomes.
Keywords: mergers and acquisitions; human impacts; post-acquisition
performance; organizational integration

In order to get a better understanding of M&A performance variations,
scholars have developed a specialfocus on the way humans may impact
on M&A outcomes.Since strategic,economic,or financialfactors do not
seem sufficient to understand the phenomena, reasons for M&A failure are
more and more associated with theway people inside the merging
organizations deal with and react to the deal. Studies mainly in the field of
organizationalbehavior,and to a lower extend in HRM,sociology,and
psychology identified a multitude ofways,humans mightimpactM&A
performance.In this paper,we will presentthe main findings related by
this research.
For the literature review,we selected allpaperspublished in leading
management journals since 1990 that address human-related issues in M&A,
in a direct or indirect relationship to post-acquisition performance. The final
sample comprises 92 papers published in 17 journals (see Table 1 for the
detailed number of selected papers/journal).
Two-thirds ofthe papers were published after 2000,and we can note
a significantincrease after2005 thatseemsto hold on until today the
increased number of papers in 2005 and 2006 is partly due to special issues
on human-related issuesin M&A in ‘‘Organization Studies’’ and the
‘‘British Journal of Management’’ (see Fig. 1).
The literature review has led to the identification of three main ways in
which humans may impact on M&A performance.
A first group of scholars focused on individual-related aspects ofthe
merger process,and in particular on the psychologicaleffects,M&A can
induce on employees. They further focused on factors influencing turnover
and on post-acquisition organizational identification issues.
NICOLA MIRC2

A second set of research concerns organization-related issues.Here,the
emphasisis on cultural differencesbetweenthe mergingcompanies,
corporate as well as national, and the organizational capacity of transferring
resources between the acquirer and the acquired company, notably in terms
of knowledge and technology resources.
A third category of research discusses the impact of managerialaction
and decision-making processes during the acquisition process. These actions
and decisions made by the managers ofboth firms are found to have a
highly structuring impact on the success of the operations they engaged and
planned.By deciding whether and whom to acquire or to be acquired,by
planning and controlling the integration process and determining integra-
tion policies (as,for instance,the need for downsizing or the functional
equality between firms),and by setting up the degree of integration to be
achieved (levelof coordination/autonomy granted to the acquired firm),
managers as humans influence actively and extensively the whole acquisition
process and its outcomes.A specialfocus here has been set on HR repre-
sentatives and the way the HR function accompanies and influences the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fig. 1. Number of Papers/Year.
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 3

Psychological Effects on Employees
Psychological effects of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) on employees have
first been addressed by scholars like Buono and Bowditch (1989),Marks
and Mirvis (1985),or Cartwright and Cooper (1990,1993).They pointed
out the increased stress and anxiety that M&A induced on the personnel of
the merging firms,due to changes in work practices and tasks, managerial
routines,colleagues,environment,the hierarchy,and so on.Furthermore,
M&A often introduce an uncertainty climateamong employeesabout
potential job losses and future career development.
The high stress level caused by M&A was demonstrated by Cartwright and
Cooper (1993)in their study ofchanging mentalhealth states ofmiddle
managers after they experienced the merger of two building societies in the
United Kingdom. The post-acquisition measurementof mentalhealth
indicated indeed major health impacts and a significantly deteriorated well-
being ofthe interviewed employees,even though the culturaldifferences
were said to be minor in the given operation.In an earlier contribution,
the authors put forward that the negative impact of psychologicaleffects
on M&A performance are primarily caused by the factthat employees
experience acquisitions as a major loss due to a modification of the psycholo-
gical contractthat links them to theircompany,resulting in amplified
preoccupation,lower work commitment,and higheremployee turnover
(Cartwright & Cooper, 1990).
As argued by Wickramasinghe and Karunaratne (2009),psychological
effects are not homogeneous throughout the organization but depend on the
employee’sperception and interpretation ofthe mergersituation.This
assumption might seem trivial but merits, however, to be studied in detail. As
the authors show, individual characteristics like an employee’s age, gender,
NICOLA MIRC4

M&A performance (Cartwright & Cooper, 1990; Gutknecht & Keys, 1993).
Employee resistance to the mergerpreventsthe building up of a well-
functioning organization and ofa constructive cooperative environment.
A high staff turnover brings about important losses of knowledge for the firm
and effects M&A performance especially in those cases where the operation
intended to acquire people assets, their knowledge, and skills, as for instance
in technology or R&D-based acquisitions. A lower work commitment might
have a negative impacton individualand organizationalperformance in
terms ofproductivity,quality,and service (Cartwright& Cooper, 1996;
Gutknecht & Keys, 1993).
On the opposite side of the argument,satisfied employees are presumed
to work harder, better,and longer with higher productivityrecords.
Even though a direct relationship between job satisfaction and corporate
performance remains to be established with certainty (Rusu,Miettinen,&
Varjonen,2006),it appears that lower job satisfaction is a cause of higher
absenteeism -which in turn is shown to have a negative influence on
organizational performance (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000).
Even though M&A effects on employees are mostly dealt with as negative,
several scholars point out cases in which the merger had a positive influence
on employees mentality and satisfaction.M&A can indeed offer opportu-
nities for new responsibilities and career development (Buono & Bowditch,
1989; Empson, 2001), increased job security (especially in the cases where the
acquisition prevented a target from bankruptcy),greater job satisfaction,
and more varied work tasks (Napier, 1989).
Top Management Turnover
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 5

the merging firms, the CEO’s skill set being in that case ‘‘more likely to be
redundantwith skills already available within the acquiring firm.This
redundancy lessens the value the CEO’s human capitalholds for the firm
and increasesthe likelihood the firm will initiate CEO departure.’’
(Buchholtz et al., 2003, p. 508). The positive relationship between relatedness
and CEO turnover has also been discovered by Lee and Alexander (1998)
who state that CEO succession can in this case be used as a promoter of
acquisition integration. The acquirer may ‘‘encourage CEO succession as an
integrativemechanism to introduceits values,strategicprioritiesand
operationalprocedures into the new subsidiary’’(Lee & Alexander,1998,
p. 181). Although Buchholtz et al. (2003) found no significant relationship
between a CEO’s tenure duration and post-acquisition departure,Lee and
Alexander (1998) observed in the case of related acquisitions that CEOs with
longer tenure than their counterparts in the acquiring firm were more likely
to leave the firm due,as argued by the authors,to their attachmentto
stability and inflexibility to accept change.
Other scholars studied more closely the consequences ofthe way top
managers perceived the acquisition process in order to explain whether they
stayed or left the merged firm. The perceptions of strong cultural differences
and of a limited autonomy granted to the top management of the acquired
company (Lubatkin,Schweiger,& Weber,1999) as wellas regarding the
quality of interactions with the acquiring company’s top management team,
the way the dealwas announced,and the likeliness of long-term effects of
the merger (Krug & Hegarty, 2001), were found to promote CEO turnover
during the post-acquisition period.
The linkage between top management turnover and M&A performance
is only indirectly addressed.The relevanceof the treated subjectfor
performance issues is, however, the underlying motivation for these studies.
NICOLA MIRC6

Identity and Identification
A growing body of scholars approaches human impacts on post-acquisition
integration by looking into identification issues thatemployees may face
with regard to the new organization. The emphasis is on the contributions of
socialidentity theory,considering the levelof employees’socialidentifica-
tion with the organization’s identity as crucial for successful post-acquisition
integration.
Severalfactors have been identified as favoring the identification with
the new organization following M&A. One frequently studied relationship
has been the one between pre-and post-mergeridentification.Results
appear inconclusive,since scholarsfound evidencefor both possible
effects.Bartles and colleagues (2006)found thata strong identification
with the former organization positively influenced the identification with
the post-mergerorganization.Maguire and Phillips (2008), on the
contrary,relate evidence where a high identification levelled to a weak
identification in the post-merger situation.Van Leeuwen,van Knippen-
berg, and Ellemers (2003) moderate these contradictory findings by stating
that there is indeed evidence ofa direct relationship between pre-and
post-merger identification,but that the effect, positive or negative, of the
first on the second dependson the perceivedidentity fit between
the former and the new organization.Employeesthat perceived only
minor discrepanciesidentified more easily with thenew organization,
whereas those who experienced more substantialchanges were less likely
to do so.
Other influential factors on post-merger identification include a perceived
high levelof job insecurity (Van Dick,Ullrich, & Tissington,2006),the
expected utility of the merger (Bartles, Douwes, De Jong, & Pruyn, 2006),
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 7

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS
A second category of studies shifts from the individual to the organizational
level.One very prominenttopic is the culturalfit between the merging
companies and the negative effects that culturaldifferences may have on
M&A performance.A second topic of interesthas been thestudy of
knowledge transfer processes between acquirer and target as determinant of
the innovative capacity of the post-acquisition firm, particularly in the case
of R&D and technology-based acquisitions.
Cultural Differences
Considering human impactsin relation to the firm culture hasbeen a
prominenttopic understudy.However,no clear-cutfindingsabout the
impacton performance have yetemerged.Cultural differences look like
playing both ways, although distant cultural environments are supposed to
make the integration process harder.Culturaldifferences are approached
either with regard to the corporatelevel, that is, variationsbetween
corporate cultures, or on the cross-border level, that is, regarding differences
of national cultures.
In general, the lack of culture fit or cultural compatibility has often been
used to explain M&A failure.Culturaldifferences are considered a source
of lower commitment to work, making co-operation more difficult, particu-
larly from employees of the acquired firm (Marks & Mirvis,1985).By the
same token, scholars found evidence of cultural differences driving to ‘‘cross-
cultural work alienation’’(Brannen & Peterson,2009)and ‘‘cultural
NICOLA MIRC8

communication problems, and lower interest in co-operation (Datta, 1991;
Chatterjeeet al., 1992; Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991;Nahavandi &
Malekzadeh, 1988).
Scholars have identified the building up of a common culture as essential
for the success of M&A. In other words, should employees stick to their own
organizationalculture and do notadhere to a shared vision,then the
performance of the merged firm might be adversely affected. The emergence
of a common culture, also designated as acculturation (Larsson & Lubatkin,
2001) or cultural identity building (Vaara, Tienari, & Sa¨ntti, 2003), might be
facilitated by practices such as a federating leadership,extensive commu-
nication, and a transparent change process (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006)
or socializing events such as common training programs and seminars, cross
visits, shared retreats, or celebrations (Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001).
Another attribute under scrutiny from a culturalperspective has been
‘‘managementstyles’’,viewed asessentialelementsof the culture ofan
organization. Several characteristics are attached to a management style, as
for instance a managementgroup’s attitude toward risk,their decision-
making approach,and preferred controland communication patterns
(Datta,1991).Managementstyles are unique to organizations and may
differ considerably across firms (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964).
Differences in management style between the merging firms may have a
negative impacton M&A success (Datta,1991;Schoenberg,2004).As a
matter offact, in an acquisition process,a significantaspectis bringing
together distinct management groups. Significant difference may contribute
to what Buono, Bowditch, and Lewis (1985) refer to as ‘‘cultural ambiguity,’’
a situation characterized by uncertainties where style and culture are main
attributes.Generally,the acquiring firm managementendsup imposing
its own style on the management at the acquired firm. This may result in a
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 9

those focusing on corporate culture, often seek to directly measure the effect
of cultural distance on M&A performance.
Notwithstanding,findings on the relationship between nationalculture
and performance are inconclusive and ambivalent (see Schweiger & Goulet,
2005;Stahl & Voigt, 2005;and Teerikangas & Very,2006,for reviews).
Whereas scholars like Datta and Puia (1995) found evidence of the common
assumption of a negative impact of nationalculturaldifferences on M&A
performance,others observed a positive relationship (Chakrabarti, Gupta-
Mukherjee& Jayaraman 2009;Morosini, Shane,& Singh, 1998).The
apparent contradictions between research findings led some researchers to
approach cultural differences as more complex phenomena, and to look for
factors that might explain how they might play both ways during a single
merger event.
Reus & Lamont (2009)found, for instance,in their study of cross-
border acquisitions of US companies evidence for what they refer to as a
‘‘double-edged sword effect’’(see also Stahl& Voigt, 2008)of cultural
distance, that is, the fact that cultural distance may show at the same time
destructiveand beneficialeffects.On the one hand, cultural distance
constraints communication and understanding between the acquiring and
acquired entities and thus makes it more difficult to transfer resources and
integrate companies successfully.Research thathas focused on increased
cultural integration issues due to different corporate languages supports this
finding (Vaara,Tienari, Piekkari, & Sa¨ntti, 2005).On the other hand,
cultural distance also enriches learning opportunities and resource diversity
between the merging partners which is associated with a positive effect on
post-acquisition performance (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Reus & Lamont,
2009).
Stahl and Voigt (2008) report in their meta-analysis of 46 studies similar
NICOLA MIRC10

Knowledge Transfer Processes and Innovation Capacity
A second group of research that approached human issues on the organi-
zationallevelfocused on knowledge transfer processes between both firms
and the way these affect outcomes in terms of innovative capacities.
Scholars generally point out a positive relationship between post-acquisi-
tion performanceand effectiveknowledgetransfer.Organizationsthat
succeed in transferring their knowledge bases in the course of a merger have
better performance outcomes than those where knowledge transfer had not
been achieved (Ahuja & Katila, 2001; Zollo & Singh, 2004).
The two main knowledge-related factors generally identified as influential
prerequisites on post-acquisition performance are the firm’s prior acquisi-
tion experience,and the ability to keep on board talented people (as key
knowledge holders) within the organization.
With regard to the first prerequisite of acquisition experience, the findings
are at variance.For instance,Hunt (1988) found that experienced buyers
performed no better than first time acquirers. By contrast, scholars such as
Zollo and Singh (2004), Haleblian and Finkelstein (1999), Hayward (2002),
and Schoenberg (2001) have concluded that previous experience is associated
with superiorperformance.The experienced firmsare assumed to have
learned how to codify and centralize knowledge in their previous operations,
which should facilitate interorganizational knowledge transfer in subsequent
takeovers. The findings may be brought in line with studies that have found
that a poor relationship prior to the operation shapes up the transfer of
knowledge in making it more difficult, creating an ensuing causal ambiguity
about the nature of the knowledge to be transferred (Schoenberg, 2001).
The second decisive prerequisite,the retention oftalented people,has
been broughtforward by researcherslike Ranft and Lord (2000).The
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 11

However,if the relationship between effective knowledge transfer and
post-acquisition performance has been a prominent subject in recent M&A
research, the process of knowledge transfer in M&A itself has received less
attention.On that ground,research carried out by scholars like Empson
(2001) and Greenberg and Guinan (2004) appears a noticeable exception.
In her thorough study aboutthe merging ofprofessionalservice firms,
Empson (2001) has identified several factors, although at the individual level,
as being essentialfor a successfultransfer of knowledge.A first factor is
the individual’s perception ofthe quality ofthe merging partner,which
influences the willingness to exchange knowledge with other members of the
organization (a phenomenon the author refers to as fear of contamination).
The second one relatesmore directly to the individualposition in the
hierarchy. If the individual feels that the sharing of knowledge might translate
into losing power in the organization (leading to a fear ofexploitation),
the knowledge transfer willbe inhibited.Returning to the organizational
level,Greenberg and Guinan (2004)have centered their analysis on the
importance ofemergentsocialrelationsamong individualsthrough the
perspective of communities of practice.They have concluded that autono-
mous regrouping of individuals in such communities of practice facilitates the
transfer of knowledge as it helps building up a shared organizational identity
endorsed by members.
MANAGERIAL FACTORS
A third set of research has specifically addressed managerialcontroland
decision-makingprocessesduring the acquisitionprocessand found
NICOLA MIRC12

and Jemison (1991).Their ‘‘process approach’’considers thatthe under-
standing ofacquisition activities and consequences requires to approach
M&A as a series of decision-making processesthat have a cascading
influence on the different acquisition phases as well as their outcomes. The
initial decision to acquire a given target thus has impacts on all other phases.
The first stages of the acquisition process rise several key questions that
have to be faced by the management of the bidder:first of all,whether to
acquire or not, then if positive, who to acquire, for what price, through which
payment method, in what timeframe, and so on. The ways these issues are
resolved are considered impacting directly on the success of the undertaken
acquisition. Therefore, the consideration of the way managers make actually
their decisions on these matters and of the factors that might influence them
in their decision-making process seems to be of valuable interest.
Concerning the question whether or not to acquire as well as the selection
and evaluation of acquisitions candidates, Pablo, Sitkin, and Jemison (1996)
underlined the impact of decision makers’ risk propensities and perceptions.
The term risk propensities refers to the general tendency of an individual to
either take or avoid risks, the way s/he evaluates risk and decides what risks
are acceptable; risk perception regards an individual’s assessment of the risk
inherentin a given situation through evaluation ofthe extension and
controllability of the identified risks. In their conceptual model, the authors
outline that the higher the decision maker’s risk propensity,the less issues
raised by weak strategic or organizationalfit between the bidder and the
target or by increases in resource requirements will lead to the abortion of
the deal.On the other hand,the more risk averse the decision maker,the
more these factorswill increase the perceived riskinessand, finally, the
elimination of the potential target.
Another influentialfactor here is the decision maker’s commitmentto
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 13

performance(Graebner,2009).In addition, shared socialnetworksby
executives of both firms have been identified to promote target manager’s
willingness to cooperate, especially if they hold less prestigious relationships
than the managers of the acquiring firm (D’Aveni & Kesner, 1993).
With regard to the decision whether to acquire and whom, scholars have
pointed out the strong influence of third parties, notably M&A professionals.
Parvinen and Tikkanen (2007) introduced here the notion of the ‘‘lemon
problem,’’ referring to incentive asymmetries, defined as conflicts of interest
between two parties regarding a course ofaction or economic outcome,
between owners, managers, and M&A professionals during the screening and
selection process ofpotentialtargets.Professionals often having a better
understanding of potential M&A candidates and how to identify them hold a
certain controlover the selection process.Incentive asymmetries,due to
hidden or unbalanced information,bounded rationality,differentrisk
perceptions,or pure self-interest,may lead to professionals ‘‘owning’’the
M&A project and potentially exercising opportunistic behavior,that is,
directing managers’attention to targets which are mostappropriate for
fulfilling their own interests. As for the impact of incentive asymmetries on
M&A success,the authors found evidence ofprolonged contract-writing
phases, biased financial evaluations, and acquisition price escalation, as well
as undermined post-acquisition integration plansin those caseswhere
stakeholders had conflicting motivations to engage in the process (Parvinen &
Tikkanen, 2007).
Another influential factor that has been identified is the chosen payment
method and notably the amountof premiumspaid for an acquisition.
Krishnan,Hitt, and Park (2007) found that the higher the premium paid,
the more likely workforce reductions are to occur,which in turn has been
found to decrease post-acquisition performance due to the loss of valuable
NICOLA MIRC14

remainsindependentafter the merger,may explain M&A performance
variations.The coordination-autonomy dilemma is frequently put forward
in order to address encountered difficulties to release synergistic benefits
between the merged entities.
A high levelof structuralintegration has often been associated with a
negative effect on M&A performance,notably in the case of technology-
based acquisitions (e.g., Schweizer, 2005) and unrelated acquisitions (Datta &
Grant, 1990). The preservation of the target’s autonomy, especially when it
has only a weak innovation experience,turns outnecessary in order to
preserve its exploration capacity (Puranam, Singh, & Zollo, 2006). The risk
of a negative effect of a high levelof integration has also been addressed
in terms of tie embeddedness.Managerialdecisions regarding the commu-
nication aboutthe merger,a high personnelturnover,and deteriorated
interpersonalrelationships may weaken a target’s embedded ties (i.e.,the
social relationships enhancing its capacity of joint problem solving, conflict
resolution,and informationtransfer),and in turn its organizational
performance (Spedale, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007).
The managerial decision-making process on the level of integration to be
achieved has been found to be influenced by several factors. As Pablo (1994)
points out, managers are influenced by task, cultural, and political charac-
teristics of acquisitions. While task-relatedness has the strongest impact on
a manager’s decision about the appropriate level of integration, that is, the
perceived need for coordinated resource sharing through structural integra-
tion versus a high degree of organizationalautonomy granted in order to
preserveunique resourcesof the acquired firm,cultural and political
issues also play an important role.According to the author,multicultural
acquirers tend to choose a lower level of integration since they value cultural
diversity and have a better understanding of the benefits of autonomy in the
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 15

members found evidence of a rather negative relationship between equality
policy and M&A success.Indeed,as Meyer (2001)pointsout, equality
policiesturn out to reduce economic profitability atlong term,mainly
because they extend the integration process and prevent from an effective
talent oriented allocation of human resources throughout the organization.
In a later study,the authorunderlinesthe negative impactof equality
policieson social integration through thecreation of perceptualand
structural fallacies (Meyer & Altenbord, 2007). The perception of unfairness
led to a decrease in employees’ motivation and organizational commitment,
and the lack ofstrategic HR allocation,that is, based on organizational
origin or seniority rather than on skills or talent-based criteria, reduced the
effectiveness ofdecision making and collaboration across organizational
units.
Vaara (2003) in his study of a merger between a large Finnish furniture
manufacturer and three smaller Swedish furniture companies adopts a sense-
making perspective,underlining that the post-acquisition decision making
has to be understood as a complex sociopoliticaland contextualprocess,
where managersface uncertainties,ambiguity,and political tensions.
Specificintegration concernsare socially constructed within thepost-
acquisition organization and the emphasis should therefore be on how they
are interpreted and set up by the different actors involved in the process
as wellas the irrationalfactors that influence the latter’s decision making.
The author identifiesseveralirrational featuresthat impacted on the
managers’effective decision making,leading eventually to unsuccessful
post-acquisition integration results. First, ambiguity concerning the roles of
the different units and the organizational changes necessary to the creation
of synergiescreated an importantbarrierfor effective integration.This
situation is reinforcedby cultural differencesbetweenthe merging
NICOLA MIRC16

Role of the HR Function
Given the extent of human-related issues pointed out in existing research, it
mightseem curious thatthe HR function itselfand the role itplays in
corporate M&A have only recently become a matter of interest for research.
With exception of Hunt and Downing’s paper written in 1990, the first study
found on the subject was published by Faulkner,Pitkethly,and Child in
2002.As Aguilera and Dencker (2004) state,maybe this lack of attention
toward HRM in M&A stems from the marginalrole that CEOs have
designated to the HRM function in planning and carrying out the acquisition
process.The HR function is generally said to play only a secondary,
nonstrategic role in the integration process (see,for instance,Bjo¨rkman &
Soderberg, 2006).
However, several studies conducted in the last decade relate cases where
the HR function played an active strategic and value-adding role in the
merging process.
As for instance Marks and Vansteenkiste (2008) found in their case study,
HR played a decisiverole in assuring that businesscould continue
effectively through strategictalent-management,on the one hand, and
psychological preparation and assistance of employees, on the other, helping
them to move forward and to ‘‘overwhelm their grief about the death’’of
their former employer.
Nikandrou and Papalexandris (2007) compared wellperforming to less
performing acquirers and found that the degree of involvement of the HR
function wasan importantdiscriminating factor.Companies where HR
representativeshad the opportunity to participateto strategicdecision
making and where HR practices such as training,employee development
programs,and internalrecruitmentpractices were formalized and imple-
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 17

compatibilities and possible future HR issues, and play an active part in the
due diligence process:‘‘Personnelstructure and costsas well as HRM
practices like recruitment, assessment, compensation, training and develop-
ment, and communication are all analyzed and then compared to Company
A’s own practices. Employees’ health and safety issues as well as industrial
relationsare criticalsince these can have directfinancialeffectsif, for
example, there is some legal claims or if layoffs are going to be very difficult.
A very sensitiveissueis the targetcompany’smanagementresources,
because theirmotivation towardsacquisitionsand their commitmentis
essential in the integration phase. In addition, the future of HR issues in a
target company is analyzed,upon which the HR strategy can be
determined’’(Antila, 2006, p.1007). The role of HR is strategic as wellas
administrative and employee related.In the following stages,integration
and post-integration,HR managerscontinued to actas administrative
experts and employee champions. They worked closely with the target’s HR
managersto integrate HR practices and accompanyemployees’new
affectations inside the organization.They further kept close contacts with
the target’slabor unions, were responsiblefor communicationwith
employees, and acted as consultants by helping line managers to carry out
the task integration in their departments.
Several scholars looked specifically into the impact of national differences
regarding the HR practices and their role played during the integration
process. In their research, Faulkner, Pitkethly, and Child (2002) investigate
how HRM practices were used as integration tools in cross-border M&A
and how their use differed according to the national origin of the acquirer.
Whereas German acquirers were found to make little or no use of HRM
policies to promote organizational integration, US and UK companies were
identified drawing systematically on HR policies and practices to integrate,
NICOLA MIRC18

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In contrast to quantitative measurementsfrom finance and economics,
the research which has focused on the organizationaland human side of
M&A have mostly engaged in qualitative studies, identifying ways humans
play a role in the integration process ofthe merging entities and on the
successfulimplementation of the operation.Severaldimensions have been
identified as having an important impact on M&A performance. They have
been grouped into threecategories:individual-related factors(such as
psychologicaleffects on employees,turnover,and post-acquisition organi-
zational identification issues), organizational factors (cultural difference and
knowledge-transfer processes),and managerialfactors (such as acquisition
decision-making processes,integration policy and design,and the role of
the HR departmentduring integration planning and implementation).
Table 2 resumes the approached dominant categories by each of the selected
articles.
The literature review points out three main shortcomings of the existing
research.
First, the research body appears rather heteroclite with studies addressing
isolated factors (either psychologicaleffects or culturaldifferences,to give
one example).
As summarized in Table 3, most of the papers actually address only one
category (59, i.e., 64% of all papers). Only about one-third (i.e., 33) of the
papers discuss human impacts on M&A on a multilevel,and only five of
them span allthree dimensions ofanalysis,that is, individual,organiza-
tional, and managerial(namely,Allred, Boal, & Holstein, 2005;Antila,
2006;Larsson & Finkelstein,1999;Lubatkin et al.,1999;Zollo & Singh,
2004).
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 19

Table 2. Authors’ Dominant Approach of Human Impacts on M&A Performance.
Individual Factors Organizational Factors Managerial Factors
Psychological
Effects
Top
Management
Turnover
Organ.
Identity/
Identification
Cultural
Difference
Knowledge
Transfer/
Innovation
Capacity
Acquisition
Decision
Making
Integration
Policy/Design
HR
Function’s
Role
Aguilera and Dencker (2004) X
Allred et al. (2005) X X X
Antila (2006) X X X
Barkema and Schijven (2008) X
Bartles et al. (2006) X X
Birkinshaw, Bresman, and
Ha˚kanson (2000)
X X
Bjo¨rkman and Soderberg (2006) X
Brannen and Peterson (2009) X X X
Bresman et al. (1999) X
Buchholtz et al. (2003) X
Caroli, Lubatkin, and Very (1994) X X
Cartwright and Cooper (1990) X
Cartwright and Cooper (1993) X
Castro and Neira (2005) X
Chakrabarti et al. (2009) X
Child, Pikethly, and Faulkner
(1999)
X X
Cording, Christmann, and King
(2008)
X
D’Aveni and Kesner (1993) X
Dackert, Jackson, Brenner, and
Johansson (2003)
X X
Datta and Grant (1990) X
Datta (1991) X
Elsass and Veiga (1994) X
Empson (2001) X X
Faulkner et al. (2002) X X
NICOLA MIRC20

Fugate, Kinicki, and Schneck
(2002)
X X
Graebner (2004) X
Graebner (2009) X
Greenwood, Hinings, and Brown
(1994)
X
Gutknecht and Keys (1993) X
Haunschild et al. (1994) X
He´bert, Very, and Beamish (2005) X
Hunt and Downing (1990) X
Jing, Shin, and Cannella (2008) X
Jisun, Engleman, and Van de Ven
(2005)
X
Kapoor and Kwanghui (2007) X
Kavanagh and Ashkanasy (2006) X X
Kiessling and Harvey (2006) X X
Kovoor-Misra and Smith (2008) X
Krishnan, Hitt, and Park (2007) X
Krug and Hegarty (2001) X
Larsson and Finkelstein (1999) X X X
Larsson and Lubatkin (2001) X
Lee and Alexander (1998) X
Leroy and Ramanantsoa (1997) X
Lubatkin et al. (1998) X
Lubatkin et al. (1999) X X X
Maguire and Phillips (2008) X
Marks and Vansteenkiste (2008) X X
McDonald, Westphal, and
Graebner (2008)
X
Meyer and Altenborg (2007) X X
Meyer and Lieb-Doczy (2003) X
Meyer (2001) X
Morosini et al. (1998) X
Myeong-Gu and Hill (2005) X
Napier, Schweiger, and Kosglow
(1993)
X
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 21

Table 2.(Continued )
Individual Factors Organizational Factors Managerial Factors
Psychological
Effects
Top
Management
Turnover
Organ.
Identity/
Identification
Cultural
Difference
Knowledge
Transfer/
Innovation
Capacity
Acquisition
Decision
Making
Integration
Policy/Design
HR
Function’s
Role
Nikandrou and Papalexandris
(2007)
X
Olie (1994) X X
Pablo et al. (1996) X X
Pablo (1994) X X
Paruchuri, Nerkar, and Hambrick
(2006)
X
Parvinen and Tikkanen (2007) X
Piekkari, Vaara, Tienari, and
Sa¨ntti (2005)
X
Pioch (2007) X
Puranam et al. (2006) X X
Puranam, Singh, and Saikat
(2009)
X X
Puranam (2007) X X
Ranft and Lord (2000) X
Rees and Edwards (2009) X X X
Reus and Lamont (2009) X
Riad (2005) X
Schweiger and Denisi (1991) X
Schweiger and Goulet (2005) X
Schweizer (2005) X X
Siehl and Smith (1990) X
Spedale et al. (2007) X X
Stahl and Voigt (2008) X
Styhre et al. (2006) X
Sudarsanam and Mahate (2006) X
Teerikangas and Very, (2006) X
NICOLA MIRC22

Ullrich et al. (2005) X X
Vaara et al. (2003) X
Vaara et al. (2005) X X
Vaara and Monin (2010) X
Vaara (2003) X X X
Van Dick et al. (2006) X
Verbeke (2010) X
Villinger (1996) X
Weber and Shenkar (1996) X
Weber (1996) X X
Wickramasinghe and
Karunaratne (2009)
X X
Zander and Zander (2010) X
Zollo and Singh (2004) X X X
Total 14 7 6 36 18 9 35 9
27 54 53
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 23

in a comprehensive multi-levelperspective,addressing the interaction of
factors on the individual, the micro level, such as psychological effects, with
those on the organizational,the macro level,such as culturaldifferences
or managerial coordination. The need for integrative approaches spanning
over differentperspectives in order to view the human factor’s role in a
comprehensive way has in this regard been frequently pointed out in recent
contributions (e.g., Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006).
Second, these factors and the way they influence each other are likely to
evolve in time. Organizational integration is notably commonly referred to
as a process,that is, an organizationalsetting thatis not static butby
definition dynamic in nature.However,longitudinalstudiesof the way
organizationalintegration develops in time are overly rare,very probably
due to methodologicaldifficulties of producing long-term datasets in such
sensitivesituationsas mergersor acquisitions.As a consequence,the
evolutionary characterof post-acquisition integration hasmainly been
rather intuitively assumed than empirically demonstrated.Severalstudies
present here an exception.
Schweizer(2005),for instance,arguesfor a hybrid post-acquisition
integrationapproach, based on simultaneousshort- and long-term
objectives,allowing theacquired unitto maintain a certain degreeof
autonomy.Meyer and Lieb-Do´czy (2003)defend thenecessity foran
Table 3. Number of Categories Approached by Articles.
One Category Two Categories Three Categories Total
59 28 5 92
NICOLA MIRC24

identifying their impacton the success ofthese operations,the way they
actually promote or impede on value creation is most often only indirectly
addressed.Cause-effectrelationsbetween human reactionsand post-
acquisition outcomes are seldom explicitly studied. For instance, the linkage
betweenpsychologicalstress experiencedby employeesand negative
acquisition outcomes is rather intuitively assumed than actually demon-
strated.
Only 13 of the 92 papersmeasured thedirect relationship between
the human factor related variable and post-acquisition performance. In the
other cases,this relationship wasindirectlyapproached (explicitlyor
implicitly)and scholars often justified the interestand pertinence ofthe
factors they have chosen to investigate with the possible impact those might
have on M&A performance.This is less the case for studies addressing
the influenceof cultural differenceswhere most research focused on
assessing correlationsbetween the degree ofculturaldistance and post-
acquisition outcomes.Out of the 13 papers,nearly one half approach the
impact of national cultural differences on M&A performance, the other half
effects of M&A on the innovation capacity of the acquired or the merged
entity.
The developmentof more integrative analysesthat take into account
organizationaldynamicsas processesevolving in timeappearskey in
deepening our understanding of human impacts on M&A.
REFERENCES
Aguilera, R., & Dencker, J. C. (2004). The role of human resource management in cross-border
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 25

Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Ha˚kanson, L. (2000). Managing the post-acquisition integration
process:How the human integration and task integration processes interact to foster
value creation. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 395–425.
Bjo¨rkman, I., & Soderberg, A. (2006). The HR function in large-scale mergers and acquisitions:
The case study of Nordea. Personnel Review, 35, 654–670.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Brannen,M. Y., & Peterson, M. F. (2009).Merging without alienating:Interventions
promoting cross-culturalorganizationalintegration and their limitations.Journal of
International Business Studies, 40, 468–489.
Bresman,H., Birkinshaw,J., & Nobel, R. (1999).Knowledgetransferin international
acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 439–462.
Buchholtz,A. K., Ribbens,B. A., & Houle, I. T. (2003).The role of human capitalin post-
acquisition CEO departure. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 506–514.
Buono, A., & Bowditch, J. (1989). Human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions
between people and organisations. Washington, DC: Edit. Beard Books.
Buono, A., Bowditch,J., & Lewis, J. W. (1985).When cultures collide:The anatomy ofa
merger. Human Relations, Vol. 38, 477–500.
Calori, R., Lubatkin, M., & Very, P. (1994). Control mechanisms in cross-border acquisitions:
An international comparison. Organization Studies, 15, 361–380.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L.(1990). The impact of mergers and acquisitions on people at
work. British Journal of Management, 1, 65–76.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The psychological impact of merger and acquisition on
the individual: A study of building society managers. Human Relations, 46, 327–347.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Managing mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances:
Integrating people and culture. Oxford: Buttlerworth-Heinemann.
Cartwright, S, & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Thirty years of mergersand acquisitions
research:Recentadvances and future opportunities.British Journalof Management,
17, S1–S5.
Castro,C., & Neira, E. (2005).Knowledge transfer:Analysis of three Internet acquisitions.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 120–135.
Chakrabarti,R., Gupta-Mukherjee,S., & Jayaraman, N. (2009).Mars-Venusmarriages:
Culture and cross-border M&A. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 216–236.
NICOLA MIRC26

Datta, D., & Puia, K. G. (1995). Cross-border acquisitions: An examination of the influence of
relatednessand culturalfit on shareholdervalue creation in U.S,acquiring firms.
Management Intermit. Review, 35, 337–359.
D’Aveni,R., & Kesner,I. (1993).Top managerial prestige,power and tender offer response:
A study of elite social networks and target firm’s cooperation during takeovers. Organi-
zation Science, 4, 123–151.
Dickerson,A., Gibson, H., Tsakalotos,E. (1997).The impactof acquisitions on company
performance:Evidence from a large panelof UK firms. Oxford Economic Papers:
New Series, 49, 344–361.
Elsass, P., & Veiga, J. (1994). Acculturation in acquired organizations: A force-field perspective.
Human Relations, 47, 431–454.
Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge
transfer in mergers between professional service firms. Human Relations, 54, 839–862.
Faulkner,D., Pitkethly,R., & Child, J. (2002).Internationalmergers and acquisitions in the
OK 1985–94: A comparison of national HRM practices. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 13, 106–122.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A., & Schneck, C. (2002). Coping with an organizational merger over four
stages. Personnel Psychology, 55, 905–928.
Graebner,M. (2004).Momentum and serendipity:How acquired leaders create value in the
integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 751–777.
Graebner,M. (2009).Caveat Venditor:Trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 435–472.
Greenberg,D., & Guinan, P. J. (2004).Mergersand acquisitionsin technology-intensive
industries:The emergentprocess ofknowledge transfer.In A. Pablo & M. Javidan
(Eds.), Mergersand acquisitions:Creating integrative knowledge.Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Greenwood,R., Hinings, C., & Brown, J. (1994).Merging professionalservicefirms.
Organization Science, 5, 239–257.
Gutknecht, J., & Keys, J. (1993). Mergers, acquisitions and takeovers: Maintaining morale of
survivors and protecting employees. Academy of Management Executives, 7, 26–36.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). The influence of organization acquisition experience on
acquisition performance:A behavioural learning theory perspective.Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 29–56.
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 27

Jing, Z., Shin, S.,& Cannella, A., Jr.(2008). Employee self-perceived creativity after mergers
and acquisitions:Interactiveeffects of threat-opportunityperception,accessto
resources, and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 397–421.
Jisun, Y., Engleman,R., & Van de Ven,A. (2005).The integration journey:An attention-
based view of the merger and acquisition integration process. Organization Studies, 26,
1501–1528.
Kapoor, R., & Kwanghui, L. (2007).The impactof acquisitionson the productivity of
inventors at semiconductor firms: A synthesis of knowledge-based and incentive-based
perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1133–1155.
Kavanagh,M., & Ashkanasy,N. (2006).The impact of leadership and change management
strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger.
British Journal of Management, 17, S81–S103.
Kiessling,T., & Harvey, M. (2006).The human resourcemanagementissuesduring an
acquisition:The target firm’s top management team and key managers.International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1307–1320.
Kovoor-Misra, S., & Smith, M. (2008). In the aftermath of an acquisition: Triggers and effects
on perceived organizational identity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 442–444.
Krishnan,H., Hitt, M. A., & Park, D. (2007).Acquisition premiums,subsequent workforce
reductionsand post-acquisition performance.Journal of ManagementStudies,44,
709–732.
Krug, J. A., & Hegarty,W. H. (2001).Predicting who stays and leaves after an acquisition:
A study of top managers in multinationalfirms.Strategic ManagementJournal, 22,
185–196.
Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, L. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational and human resource
perspectives on mergers and acquisitions:A case of synergy realization.Organization
Science, 10, 1–26.
Larsson, R., & Lubatkin, M. (2001). Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisitions: An
international case survey. Human Relations, 54, 1573–1607.
Lee, S. D., & Alexander, J. A. (1998).Using CEO succession to integrateacquired
organizations: A contingency analysis. British Journal of Management, 9, 181–197.
Leroy, F., & Ramanantsoa, B. (1997).The cognitiveand behaviouraldimensionsof
organizationallearning in a merger:An empirical study. Journal of Management
Studies, 34, 871–894.
NICOLA MIRC28

Meyer, C. B. (2001). Allocation processes in mergers and acquisitions: An organizational justice
perspective. British Journal of Management, 12, 47–67.
Meyer, C. B., & Altenbord, E. (2007). The disintegrating effects of equality: A study of a failed
international merger. British Journal of Management, 18, 257–271.
Meyer,K., & Lieb-Do´czy,E. (2003).Post-acquisition restructuring as evolutionary process.
Journal of Management Studies, 40, 459–482.
Morosini, P., Shane,S., & Singh, H. (1998).National culturaldistance and cross-border
acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 137–158.
Myeong-Gu,S., & Hill, N. S. (2005).Understanding thehuman sideof a mergerand
acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 422–443.
Napier,N. (1989).Mergers and acquisitions,human resource issues and outcomes:A review
and suggested typology. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 271–289.
Napier, N., Schweiger,D., & Kosglow, J. (1993).Managing organizationaldiversity:
Observationsfrom cross-borderacquisitions.Human ResourceManagement,32,
505–523.
Nikandrou, I., & Papalexandris, N. (2007). The impact of M&A experience on strategic HRM
practices and organisational effectiveness: Evidence from Greek firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 17, 155–177.
Olie, R. (1990).Culture and integration problems in internationalmergers and acquisitions.
European Management Journal, 8, 206–215.
Olie, R. (1994).Shadesof culture and institutionsin internationalmergers.Organization
Studies, 15, 381–406.
Pablo, A. (1994). Determinants of acquisition integration level: A decision-making perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 803–836.
Pablo, A., Sitkin, S., & Jemison, D. (1996). Acquisition decision-making processes: The central
role of risk. Journal of Management, 22, 723–747.
Parvinen,P., & Tikkanen,H. (2007).Incentive asymmetries in the mergers and acquisitions
process. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 759–787.
Paruchuri,S., Nerkar,R., & Hambrick,D. (2006).Acquisition integration and productivity
losses in technicalcore:Disruption of inventors in acquired companies.Organization
Science, 17, 545–562.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Sa¨ntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration ? Human
resource implicationsof a common corporate language decision in a cross-border
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 29

Rees,C., & Edwards, T. (2009).Managementstrategy and HR in internationalmergers:
Choice, constraint and pragmatism. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 24–39.
Reus, T. H., & Lamont, B. T. (2009).The double-edged sword ofcultural distancein
international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1298–1316.
Riad, S. (2005).The power of organizationalculture as a discursive formation in merger
integration. Organization Studies, 26, 1529–1554.
Rusu M., Miettinen, A., & Varjonen A. (2006). HRM and firm’s performance after a merger:
A longitudinalstudy.21st workshop on strategic human resource management,March
30–31, Aston, UK.
Schoenberg, R. (2001). Knowledge transfer and resource sharing as value creation mechanisms
in inbound continental European acquisitions. Journal of Euromarketing, 10, 99–115.
Schoenberg,R. (2004). Managementstyle compatibilityand cross-borderacquisition
outcome.In C. Cooper & S. Finkelstein (Eds.),Advances in mergers and acquisitions
(Vol. 3, pp. 149–175).
Schweiger,D., & Denisi, A. (1991).Communication with employeesfollowing a merger:
A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110–135.
Schweiger, D., & Goulet, P. K. (2005). Facilitating acquisition integration through deep-level
cultural learning interventions: A longitudinal field experiment. Organization Studies, 26,
1477–1499.
Schweizer,L. (2005).Organizationalintegration ofacquired biotechnology companies into
pharmaceuticalcompanies:The need for a hybrid approach.Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 1051–1074.
Siehl,C., & Smith, D. (1990).Avoiding the loss ofa gain: Retaining top managers in an
acquisition. Human Resource Management, 29, 167–185.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2000). Well-being at work: A cross-national analysis of the
levels and determinants of job satisfaction. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29, 517–538.
Spedale, S., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2007). Preservation versus dissolution of the
target firm’s embedded ties in acquisitions. Organization Studies, 28, 1169–1196.
Stahl,G. K., & Voigt, A. (2005).The performance impact of culturaldifferences in mergers
and acquisitions: A critical research review and an integrative model. In C. L. Cooper &
S. Finkelstein (Eds.),Advancesin Mergers and Acquisitions(Vol. 4, pp. 51–83).
New York, NY: JAI Press.
Stahl,G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences matter in mergers and acquisitions?
NICOLA MIRC30

Vaara, E. (2003).Post-acquisition integration assensemaking:Glimpsesof ambiguity,
confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 859–894.
Vaara, E., & Monin, P. (2010).A recursive perspectiveon discursivelegitimation and
organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. Organizational Science, 21, 3–22.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Sa¨ntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power in a
merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 595–623.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Sa¨ntti, R. (2003). The international match: Metaphors as vehicles of
social identity-building in cross-border mergers. Human Relations, 56, 419–452.
Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., & Tissington, P. (2006). Working under a black cloud: How to sustain
organizational identification after a merger. British Journal of Management, 17, S69–S79.
Van Leeuwen,E., Van Knippenberg,D., & Ellemers,N. (2003).Continuing and changing
group identities:The effectsof merging on socialidentification and ingroup bias.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 679–690.
Verbeke,A. (2010).Internationalacquisition success:Socialcommunity and dominant logic
dimensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 38–46.
Villinger, R. (1996). Post-acquisition managerial learning in Central East Europe. Organization
Studies, 17, 181–207.
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate cultural fit and performance in mergers and acquisitions. Human
Relations, 49, 1181–1203.
Weber, Y., & Shenkar, O. (1996). National and corporate cultural fit in mergers/acquisitions:
An exploratory study. Management Science, 42, 1215–1227.
Wickramasinghe,V., & Karunaratne, C. (2009).People managementin mergersand
acquisitionsin Sri Lanka: Employeeperceptions.InternationalJournal of Human
Resource Management, 20, 694–715.
Zander,U., & Zander,L. (2010).Opening the grey box:Socialcommunities,knowledge and
culture in acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 27–37.
Zollo, M., & Singh, H.(2004). Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: Post-acquisition
strategiesand integration capability in U.S.bank mergers.StrategicManagement
Journal, 25, 1233–1256.
Human Impacts on the Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions 31