Search results

Is the average M&A adventure just an executive ego trip? Is it management folly, or can it be done so that it reliably produces growth? A model presented here may help executives who are engaged in making acquisitions and making them work navigate the shoals of mergers and acquisitions more successfully.

Mergers and acquisitions are widely recognized as a fast‐track to organizational growth, increased profitability and greater market share. They seem to offer easy gains without the pain of lengthy sales drives or costly R&D programs. However, several recent studies have found that around half the mergers analyzed had negative impacts on share values. In the rush to merge, companies conveniently ignore high merger failure rates when the mistakes of others could be the starting point for their own success.

For any manager planning the integration of two businesses after a merger/acquisition, this article provides a methodology you can use to customize your approach. To be successful, the leaders must match their decisions and behaviors to the type of merger they are managing. Leadership style and actions do make a difference. Many “dos and don’ts” are cited. Successfully merging companies, especially those where people and relationships are all important, calls for a more thoughtful, creative and differentiated approach to integration. In contrast, a fast, decisive and highly directive (even autocratic) approach works best in situations where the two entities make similar products or share many customer segments.

An analysis of two recent decisions concerning both the NASD and the NYSE involving determinations as to whether or not there are colorable claims that each SRO is acting in a “governmental” capacity.

This study examines the contribution of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in Federal budget decision-making to Federal managers' commitment to the Federal government as an employing organization. A total of 1,358 useable surveys were received from a sample of 9,643 managers. Reliability coefficients were acceptable (> .70), and intercorrelations consistent with previous studies. Hierarchical regression analysis supported only maineffect relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice and managers' organizational commitment. No support was found for a main effect relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment -- or for any interactive effects. Contrary to models of bureaucratic behavior based on economic theory, these findings may suggest that Federal managers may be motivated primarily by psychological outcomes of budget decisions.