She suggests that mergers can under conditions help occupational groups to more fully develop their occupational identity. Unfortunately, the role of occupational identification in the context of mergers has not been studied, with the exception of Empson (2004), who in a qualitative study discusses the evolution of employees’ occupational identity in the context of a merger between two accounting firms. Studies have found that organization members are often more committed to their occupational identity than to their employer or organization because employees tend to have more in common with their professional peers than with other organizational members ( Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer, & Lloyd, 2006). For instance, an employee may identify not only with the organization as a whole but also with his or her own work group or division ( Ashforth & Johnson, 2001), or with his or her occupation or profession ( Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). However, work situations offer multiple targets for employee identification ( He & Brown, 2013 Hillman, Nicholson, & Shropshire, 2008 Vough, 2012). In times of considerable organizational change (such as in post-merger integration), these aspects are of crucial importance. Higher levels of post-merger organizational identification are associated with a greater likelihood that employees will take the organization’s perspective and will act in the organization’s best interest ( Bartels, Douwes, de Jong, & Pruyn, 2006 Riketta, 2005 Van Dick, Ullrich, & Tissington, 2006). In particular, human integration, concerned primarily with generating employee satisfaction, is seen as an important determinant of the overall success of a merger ( Birkinshaw, Bresman, & Håkanson, 2000).Ī number of studies point to the importance of organizational identification as a key factor in human integration and in explaining merger success (for an overview, see He & Brown, 2013). Therefore, both scholars and practitioners increasingly focus on sociocultural aspects of the integration of merged and acquired firms ( Sarala, Cooper, Junni, & Tarba, 2016). Studies of merger success focusing on financial or strategic aspects of the deals fall short of providing sufficient explanation of merger outcomes ( King, Dalton, Daily, & Covin, 2004). Well-known examples of failed mergers are AOL–Time Warner (merged in 2001, split up again in 2009) and Daimler–Chrysler (merged in 1998, divested in 2007). However, many mergers fail, at least to some extent ( Dyer, Kale, & Singh, 2004). Mergers 1 require significant resource commitments, and can dictate the fortunes of the companies involved for years to come. Merger and acquisition (M&A) activity over the last decades has run at unprecedented levels ( Gomes, Weber, Brown, & Tarba, 2011 Makri, Hitt, & Lane, 2010).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |