A new M & A methodology: five lessons in anticipating post-merger resource interactions and challenges

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a taxonomy of M & A that can be used to understand which type of M & A is likely to succeed. The taxonomy also allows managers to identify the integration imperatives that is so critical to success in M & A. Design/methodology/approach – Grounded research and thick description of business situations. Findings – This paper identifies the importance of analyzing the nature of the resource interactions that deliver value. If deal makers keep our advice in mind they should truly be able to improve the batting average above the historical norms. Research limitations/implications – Even though we have studied a large number of M & A, this is not a typical lot sample quantitative study. It is possible to test the taxonomy on a large sample study if the M & A can be coded in to distinct groups. Practical implications – When considering a merger or an acquisition, managers should be able to identify the type of M & A that corresponds to one of the categories in our taxonomy. This would allow managers to consider the general imperatives suggested in our paper for success. These general imperatives can then be modified for the unique situation faced by the manager. Social implications – No direct implication except that societal resources will be used efficiently. Originality/value – There are other typology/taxonomy in the literature. However, none to our knowledge uses the resource interaction lens.

Linking Merger and Acquisition Strategies to Postmerger Integration: A Configurational Perspective of Human Resource Management

“…Despite numerous studies, it is difficult to classify M&A strategies into distinct types because M&As are diverse, have different aims, and thus often call for context-specific considerations, processes, and capabilities. Earlier studies classify M&As on the basis of industry designation, appearance, and objectives, and recent work adopts a more dichotomizing view (e.g., horizontal vs. vertical, friendly vs. hostile, related vs. unrelated, domestic vs. global, and even structural—e.g., “platform” vs. “bolt-on” acquisitions; Chatterjee & Brueller, 2015; Haleblian et al, 2009). Such classifications have certainly improved our understanding of M&As but do not sufficiently clarify the nature of disruption imposed upon acquisition parties, nor do they elaborate on the changes M&As impress on processes, operation, and HRM practices.…”

A typology of post-M&A marketing integration

“…There have been some previous attempts to summarise and present best practices for integration. Chatterjee and Brueller (2015) and Haspeslagh and Jemison (1991) present taxonomies on M&A integration. These depart from empirics rather than research dimensions (cf.…”

Searching for synergy from a combination of heterogeneous business models: measurement and assessment from the Polish software industry

“…The existing literature on the techniques of evaluation or measurement of synergy in M&As presents narrow or wider proposals for their depiction. Narrow proposals are largely focused on: (a) synergy sources ( Lubatkin, 1987 ; Kaplan, 2010 ); (b) factors to success ( Cullinan et al., 2004 ; KPMG, 2011 ); (c) anomalies concerning large-company combinations ( Sirower, 1997 ); (d) synergy management pitfalls ( Fiorentino and Garzella, 2015 ); (e) M&A principles ( Christensen et al., 2011 ); (f) ways of balancing the synergistic benefits ( Markides, 2008 ); (g) systematic risk or reduction of risks ( Chatterjee and Lubatkin, 1990 ; Chatterjee, 2007 ); (h) resource interactions ( Chatterjee and Brueller, 2015 ); and (i) challenges in managing acquisitions ( Haspeslagh and Jemison, 1991 ). The wider proposals for techniques to assess or measure synergies include: (a) models for measuring synergies in Pre-M&As ( Ansoff, 1965 ; Wartini-Twardowska, 2014 ; Fiorentino and Garzella, 2015 ); (b) factors of failure ( Haspeslagh and Jemison, 1991 ); (c) methods of valuation ( Damodaran, 2006 ; Lenz, 2011 ); (d) model of conditions determining the success of M&As ( Chadam and Pastuszak, 2013 ); and (f) classification of measures or identification of measures in the context of M&A performance ( Zollo and Meier, 2008 ; Meglio and Risberg, 2010 ).…”

“…According to Markides (2008) , integrating different business models will be successful if you look for ways to use synergies, no matter how small or limited they are. However, to increase the success of M&As, the potential acquirer should first assign the planned acquisition to one of five proposed integration categories and then consider the general obstacles to the integration of the acquisition ( Chatterjee and Brueller, 2015 ). Christensen et al.…”