Predictors of Change in Postmerger Identification During a Merger Process: A Longitudinal Study

School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, England.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 12/2008; 95(5):1095-112. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1095
Source: PubMed


Adopting an intergroup perspective, the authors examined predictors of change in postmerger identification throughout a merger. Data were collected over 3 points of measurement from 157 students of a newly merged university. The 1st questionnaire was distributed 4 months after the implementation of the merger; the following 2 were distributed 6 months and 1 year thereafter. With its longitudinal design, this study replicates and extends past results by revealing predictors of change in organizational identification for members of the dominant and subordinate organizations throughout a merger process. As predicted, postmerger identification increased only slowly for members of both the dominant and the subordinate organizations. Multilevel models for change confirmed that the predictive effect of premerger identification on postmerger identification for members of the dominant organization dissipates over time. The effect of in-group typicality unexpectedly varied as a function of organizational membership and was stable over time. Perceived fairness in the merger process positively influenced postmerger identification across members of both organizations; over time the effect of fairness amplified.

Download full-text


Available from: Ilka Helene Gleibs
  • Source
    • "Although our empirical model also accounts for the possibility of group-specific direct effects, we assume that the relationship between pre-and post-merger identification will not be different for dominant and subordinate groups once the effect of projected continuity is controlled for. A combination of a negative indirect effect and a positive direct effect could explain near to zero correlations between pre-and post-merger identification for members of subordinate groups, as reported by Boen et al. (2007), Gleibs et al. (2008), van Knippenberg et al. (2002), or van Knippenberg and van Leeuwen (2001). Figure 1 shows our underlying model. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Past research provides evidence that organizational identification is a key factor predicting employees' behaviours during mergers and acquisitions. In particular, recent studies demonstrate that members of the subordinate merger partner, in contrast to the dominant group, often find it difficult to transfer their identification to the post-merger organization. To understand this difference between dominant and subordinate groups, we examined employees' sense of projected continuity in the future. We argue that projected continuity mediates the differential relationships between pre-merger and post-merger identification and propose that pre-merger identification relates positively to projected continuity in the dominant group but negatively in the subordinate group. As a result, the overall relationship between pre- and post-merger identification should be reduced or eliminated in the subordinate compared with the dominant group. We tested our hypotheses in a survey (N = 492) distributed in a merger of two international pharmaceutical companies at the beginning of the post-merger integration and 15 months later. Results were consistent with our assumptions of a moderated mediation effect. We conclude that a key challenge in merger integration is to support high identifiers in the subordinate group in developing a projected continuity or a focus on ‘the bright tomorrow’.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2014 · British Journal of Social Psychology
  • Source
    • "First, if the new identity depended on the perceived continuity of the previous group and of the new merged group's representations, the projection of specific traits and of common traits should both affect the identification with the future common group and the subsequently robust approval of the merger. Conversely, if the concerns were not about the continuity but about the relative dominance of the ingroup over the outgroup during the merging and in the new common group (Bartels, Douwes, De Jong, & Pruyn, 2006; Boen, Vanbeselaere , & Cool, 2006; Gleibs et al., 2008; van Knippenberg et al., 2002; van Leeuwen et al., 2003), then we should expect the identification with the merged organization to be affected by the ingroupspecific traits, not by the common traits. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2007, the two most important Italian left-wing parties merged into a single political entity. This study intends to analyze the merging process. Specifically, and in line with the ingroup projection hypothesis of Mummendey & Wenzel, we have explored whether the identification and the favoritism toward the upcoming common group was affected by the perceivers' projection of specific and common stereotypical traits from the subordinate groups to the superordinate one. Political militants' (N = 132) levels of ingroup identification; their representations of the previous ingroup, outgroup, and of the new party; and their attitudes towards the common group were assessed. Results confirmed that the cognitive representation of the merged party was shaped much more on the basis of the typical traits of the ingroup than of the outgroup. Moreover, structural equation analyses showed that the identification with the superordinate category and the consequent favoritism toward the merger were related to the projection of ingroup attributes. The findings also suggested that the ingroup projection may be particularly crucial when the intergroup bias is high. Finally, political implications are discussed in terms of obstacles and resources inherent to the merging process.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2013 · Political Psychology
  • Source
    • "This article provides a dependence-regulation account of psychological distancing or withdrawal reactions to major organizational change. Although this account certainly may not apply in all instances, the process of dependence regulation is likely to have some relevance in many instances of organizational change that entails threat, because of the connection of this process to self and identity along with the threats to identity that arise with major organizational change (Corley and Gioia, 2004; Gleibs et al., 2008; Clark et al., 2010; Reissner, 2010). The article begins by describing dependence-regulation theory, which is prominent in the field of social psychology. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Building on previous studies that documented psychological withdrawal or distancing from one's employing organization as one kind of response to major organizational change, this study developed and tested a dependence-regulation account of psychological distancing responses. This account was derived from social psychological analysis of interpersonal relationships and interdependence theory. It emphasizes the self-protective function of psychological distancing when the employment relationship is threatened by changes such as corporate mergers or acquisitions. The theory holds that people can reduce threatened losses to identity as a member of their organization or to the tangible benefits of organizational membership through psychological distancing actions such as devaluing the organization or disengaging cognitively or behaviourally (e.g. through reduced organizational identification, increased thoughts of quitting or absenteeism). Applicability of the theory to explain reactions to major organizational change was supported in findings of a survey of 62 bank employees whose organization was seeking a merger with another bank. Dependence on the employer (prospects for getting a comparable job elsewhere) was found to moderate the association between anticipated negative consequences of the merger (‘uncertainty’) and two indicators of distancing, namely affective commitment to the organization and satisfaction with the organization as employer. Other findings pointed to a degree of realism in employees' threat appraisals. Implications for management and for future research were derived, partly by considering the possible role of employee self-esteem in distancing oneself from the organization.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2012 · Journal of Change Management
Show more