Search results

Extant research posits that mergers and acquisition (M&As) do not create value. Still many firms adopt expansion strategies such as alliances, joint ventures (JVs), and M&As to grow and enhance their performance. Through performing a meta-analysis on 204 papers that assess the relationship between the three most prevalent expansion strategies formed by firms, alliances, JVs, and M&As and their different substantive and symbolic performance effects, this study contributes in two ways. First, it becomes clear that alliances and M&As enhance a firm’s substantive performance, while no positive performance effect is observed for JVs. In turn, all three expansion strategies boost a firm’s symbolic performance in terms of its legitimacy and status. Second, a distinction between their effects on a firm’s substantive performance in terms of their market-based and accounting-based performance shows that alliances and M&As both positively contribute to a firm’s accounting-based performance, while only the former spurs a firm’s market-based returns. This indicates that M&As have more long-term accounting-based performance effects compared to alliances and JVs, which suggests that in the long-term firms do best by expanding through M&As.

Acquisitions are complex and ambiguous events fraught with information asymmetries emphasizing market failure before an acquisition or organizational failure during integration. While often treated in isolation, market and organization failure are intertwined in acquisitions as integration planning starts before a deal is closed. Effective integration begins with a deep understanding of the target to be able to share assets and knowledge. However, acquiring firms currently have limited solutions to address information asymmetries. Most remedies primarily aim at market failure using due diligence and external advisors, leaving information asymmetry due to organizational failure primarily unattended. The authors develop a typology that leverages informal and formal social ties to address information asymmetries across the acquisition process that jointly considers market and organizational failure. The typology of this study combines existing research to develop how social ties with stakeholders influence acquisitions and can increase their success.

Increasing chances of firm survival requires enduring entrepreneurship or the ability to balance competing demands for exploration and exploitation. We developed how acquisitions can provide needed disruption to change a firm’s dominant orientation toward exploration or exploitation or enable a continued focus on a firm’s dominant orientation. The result is a new typology for acquisition integration associated with different pre- and post-acquisition characteristics. For example, a firm with an exploitation orientation faces different integration challenges in acquiring targets with an exploration or exploitation orientation. We also distinguished between human and task integration to enable more nuanced integration decisions that help to reconcile conflicting findings on acquisition integration decisions. Implications for management research and practice were discussed.

Acquisition integration is important to realize synergies and to achieve acquisition success. However, there is a lack of clarity on pertinent integration approaches suggesting that integration is more complex and dynamic than traditionally assumed. In this chapter, we shed light on ambiguous cause effect relationships by investigating the effect of integration related decisions on intermediate goals. Additionally, we argue that entrepreneurial integration skills, or proactivity under ambiguity, are needed to keep pace with the dynamism inherent in acquisition integration. Based on primary data on 116 acquisitions, we find that entrepreneurial integration skills can display both advantages and disadvantages. While it helps to realize expected and serendipitous synergies, it can also trigger employee uncertainty due to decreased transparency. In supplementary analysis, we show measures to outperform with various integration approaches. Implications for management research and practice are identified.

Family businesses dominate the economic landscape and contribute to the market for corporate control across the globe, either as acquiring companies or as target. However, there is still limited research investigating acquisitions by or of family firms. The authors begin to remedy this gap by providing a narrative review of extant research. Findings indicate that acquisitions in family firms are primarily regarded as a tool to solve succession problems, and not as a strategic tool to achieve growth. A greater dialog between acquisition and family business scholars can be an important means to improve theory and practice of acquisitions involving family businesses across the globe.

While there is an increasing understanding of the challenges that can emerge in integration processes of cross-border mergers and acquisitions, there is a scarcity of research on how the different integrative activities should be temporally sequenced. Based on an in-depth analysis of three acquisitions, we find that structural and cultural integration are intertwined. We find that cultural integration will begin only once structural integration is in progress. Cultural differences can, however, impede structural integration if structural integration is done in conflict with the existing culture of the acquired company. Thus, structural integration should come first, but it should be done in appreciation with the acquired company’s existing culture. Cultural change is then facilitated in an iterative manner over time by the new structure. Our chapter contributes to an improved understanding of the temporal dynamics of integration by demonstrating the mutually reinforcing effects of structural and cultural integration in cross-border acquisitions.