When What We Get Is Not What We Want The Role of Implemented Versus Desired Merger Patterns in Support for Mergers

Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.46). 01/2012; 44(3). DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000102

ABSTRACT By integrating an intergroup perspective on mergers with discrepancy theories, we argue that merger partners aim for merger patterns that best benefit their group’s standing. Importantly, we hypothesize and show that the discrepancy between what merger partners want and what they actually get affects outcomes essential to merger success. Specifically, we demonstrate that perceived fit between the implemented and the desired merger pattern predicts support for the merger. We further show that this effect is mediated by perceived fairness (Study 1) and emotional reactions to the merger (Study 2). Our findings are generalized across a field study that investigate a real merger between two institutions of higher education (Study 1) and an experiment (Study 2).

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors examined whether discrepancies related to the group-based aspects of the self are differentially associated with distinct group-based emotional distress. Perceived actual, ideal, and ought attributes; group-based dejection and agitation-related emotions; and collective self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation of Israelis were assessed among 118 native Israelis. The actual-ideal group discrepancy was uniquely related to dejection-related emotions and to private collective self-esteem (CSE). In contrast, the actual-ought group discrepancy was uniquely linked to agitation-related emotions and to fear of negative Israeli evaluation. Furthermore, the actual-ought discrepancy association with fear of negative group evaluation was present only among low identifiers. Overall, the findings suggest the applicability of self-discrepancy theory in explaining emotional distress resulting from group membership.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10/2001; 27(10):1291-1300. DOI:10.1177/01461672012710005 · 2.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to investigate the development of organizational identification during a merger, a quasi-experimental case study was conducted on a pending merger of police organizations. The research was conducted among employees who would be directly involved in the merger and among indirectly involved employees. In contrast to earlier studies, organizational identification was measured as the expected identification prior to the merger. Five determinants were used to explain the employees' expected identification: (a) identification with the pre-merger organization, (b) sense of continuity, (c) expected utility of the merger, (d) communication climate before the merger and (e) communication about the merger. The five determinants appeared to explain a considerable proportion of the variance of expected organizational identification. Results suggest that in order to obtain a strong identification with the soon-to-be-merged organization, managers should pay extra attention to current departments with weaker social bonds as these are expected to identify the least with the new organization. The role of the communication variables differed between the two employee groups: communication about the merger only contributed to the organizational identification of directly involved employees; and communication climate only affected the identification of indirectly involved employees.
    British Journal of Management 02/2006; 17(S1):S49 - S67. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00478.x · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using an intergroup perspective, this longitudinal study (N=215) examined the adjustment patterns of employees from low vs. high status pre-merger organizations. The first questionnaire was distributed 3 months after the implementation of the merger, whereas the second was completed 2 years later. As predicted, members of the low status group perceived the merger to be implemented in a less fair manner at the start of the merger and reported a decreased adjustment to the merger over time. Members of the high status group showed an increase in adjustment over time, lower in-group bias and a stronger identification with the new merged organization. Path analyses further confirmed that identification with the new merged organization mediated the associations between perceptions of fairness and in-group bias as well as changes in adjustment over time. With its longitudinal design, this study replicates and extends past results by revealing the predictors of adjustment for members of low vs. high status groups involved in an intergroup merger.
    British Journal of Social Psychology 10/2007; 46(Pt 3):557-77. DOI:10.1348/014466606X146015 · 1.76 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 4, 2014