Search results

This chapter examines the use of signaling mechanism to identify promising acquisition targets. It draws on the importance of inter-organizational relationships of target firms and their relevance as signals of firm quality. It takes into account two types of inter-organizational relationships, alliances and corporate venture capital (CVC) investments. It further identifies the boundary conditions that are most likely to influence the acquisition decision of the acquirer. These are based on the characteristics of target firms and their partners. By considering the role of CVC investments and alliances as signals of firm quality, the study draws a connection between how the different types of equity and non-equity relationships of firms influence the acquirer’s choice of potential takeover target.

The theoretical frame based on the signaling perspective provides fresh and valuable insights to evaluate the quality of target firms. The research provides directions for future opportunities to examine the value of signals and whether such signals create synergies in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals. The author identifies new avenues of research that would help to move forward the signaling perspective in the literature on M&A.

Although primarily treated as two distinct research streams, strategic alliances and mergers and acquisitions together occupy much of the strategic management discourse. Alliances, in many cases, end in acquisitions as firms use alliances as intermediate strategic options to eventually acquire a partner. As the discipline of strategy matures and the frequency and the volume of inter-firm cooperation continue to rise, it is imperative to integrate these two research streams for a holistic understanding of the theory of the firm. The purpose of this conceptual piece is threefold. First, we review the extant studies that combine these two governance modes: alliance and acquisitions. Second, drawing on the dominant strategic management theories, we highlight how prior inter-firm alliances inform future acquisitions in terms of (a) pre-combination decisions, (b) post-deal integration processes, (c) alternatives and strategies, and (d) performance outcomes. Finally, in view of the emerging trends and evocative gaps, we offer a conceptual road map to encourage future theoretical development and empirical research.

This paper examines the use of signaling theory in the M&A context. We review some of the most important developments in applications and extensions of this theory to the realm of M&A, indicating how this theory has been used to explain many M&A decisions and outcomes and has offered fresh perspectives in the mature literature on acquisitions. For example, we show how signaling theory provides a new view of the determinants of acquisition premiums, and it can contribute to an improved understanding of firms’ search for acquisition opportunities as well as target selection. We also provide a critique of existing research to identify gaps in understanding on the roles played by signals. For instance, we discuss how signals can create contracting problems during M&A negotiations, how the value of signals might vary across deals, and how bidder heterogeneity and bidders’ own signals matter for certain transactions. Finally, in addition to taking stock of this stream of research, we identify some of the most important areas that deserve research attention. Signaling theory can contribute to an improved understanding of acquisition performance outcomes, and signals need to be investigated along with other solutions to enhance M&A deal making and execution. We identify new research methods that would help to advance signaling theory in the acquisitions literature.

In this study we investigated the effects of news reports on acquirer short-term performance. Our focus was on the extent to which key deal characteristics – the type of deal, during a merger wave or not or the presence of a significant premium – are made explicit. Moreover, we looked for the effect of the assessment of the deal characteristics by different key informants: board members, top management team members, and analysts. Configurations derived using the set-theoretic approach suggest that media-transmitted signals form complex interrelations among content and informant. We found that investors react positively to deals that are surrounded by unequivocal signals of synergy potential: they contain explicitly stated deal characteristics as well as deal endorsements from the boards and/or top management of acquirer and target companies. Analysts’ assessments of the deals seem to bear little influence on investor reaction. Meanwhile, investors react negatively to deals with low or absent media coverage as well as deals surrounded by signals of ambiguous synergy potential.

We propose that in addition to its resources and capabilities, a firm’s capital structure and financial health will act as an important determinant of its attractiveness as an alliance partner. Alliances with leveraged firms are prone to unplanned termination due to financial distress, which puts at risk the value embedded in the collaboration. As a result, ceteris paribus, highly leveraged firms will be viewed as less desirable partners in the market for interfirm collaboration when compared to low leverage firms. In support of this proposition, we find that when forming an alliance firms tend to partner with other firms with similar levels of leverage: low-leverage firms partner with other low-leverage firms while high-leverage firms partner with other high-leverage firms, as well as with lower quality ones. Furthermore, we show that alliances with highly leveraged firms are more likely to involve equity participation as a form of ex post protection, especially when they involve partners with relatively lower leverage. Finally, we show that leverage is negatively related to the intensity of alliance activity, suggesting that firms also maintain lower leverage in their capital structure in order to attract potential partners. Overall our results imply that financial policies regarding capital structure have an important role to play in alliancing activity.

Despite the growing interest in IJVs and their governance, systematic research is limited on the board of directors and their roles in international joint ventures in emerging markets. In this study, we draw from corporate governance research that suggests that the levels of control and collaboration by boards are influenced by organizational complexity. While joint ventures possess several similarities compared to unitary firms, they also have unique sources of complexity given the fact that two or more international partners collaborate within JVs under an incomplete contract. Based on a sample of 114 IJVs, we argue and show four separate conditions that influence the functions that boards undertake as well as how control and collaboration as two separate functions are interrelated. Our findings address calls for research to open the black box of what boards actually do as well as to bring corporate governance theory to new organizational forms such as joint ventures.

Extant research posits that mergers and acquisition (M&As) do not create value. Still many firms adopt expansion strategies such as alliances, joint ventures (JVs), and M&As to grow and enhance their performance. Through performing a meta-analysis on 204 papers that assess the relationship between the three most prevalent expansion strategies formed by firms, alliances, JVs, and M&As and their different substantive and symbolic performance effects, this study contributes in two ways. First, it becomes clear that alliances and M&As enhance a firm’s substantive performance, while no positive performance effect is observed for JVs. In turn, all three expansion strategies boost a firm’s symbolic performance in terms of its legitimacy and status. Second, a distinction between their effects on a firm’s substantive performance in terms of their market-based and accounting-based performance shows that alliances and M&As both positively contribute to a firm’s accounting-based performance, while only the former spurs a firm’s market-based returns. This indicates that M&As have more long-term accounting-based performance effects compared to alliances and JVs, which suggests that in the long-term firms do best by expanding through M&As.

The world in which companies operate today is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, thus subjecting contemporary forms to an array of risks that challenge their viability in an increasingly competitive landscape. Organizations that cling to their traditional ways of operating impede their ability to survive while those able to embrace evolving changes and lever their strategic response capabilities (SRCs) will thrive against the odds. The possession of such capabilities has become a prominent explanation for effective adaptation to the impending changes but is rarely analyzed and tested empirically. Strategic adaptation typically assumes innovation as an important component, but we know little about how the innovative processes interact with the firm’s SRCs. Hence, this study investigates these implied relationships to discern their effects on organizational performance and risk outcomes. It explores the effects of SRCs and the role of innovation as intertwined adaptive mechanisms supporting strategic renewal that can attain superior performance and risk effects. The relationships are analyzed based on a large sample of US manufacturing firms over the decade 2010–2019. The study reveals that firms possessing effective SRCs have the ability to exploit opportunities and deflect risky situations to gain favorable performance and risk outcomes. While innovation indeed plays a role, the precise nature and dynamic effect thereof remain inconclusive.

Today, long-term success requires firms to sense changes in their environments early and react efficiently to them. Increasing middle managers’ participation in decision-making about market-related and product-related questions has been suggested as one way of enhancing this strategic responsiveness; abandoning formal planning, such as annual budgets, has been another. Yet, empirical evidence on the matter is scarce and conflicting. Drawing on data from Denmark’s 500 largest firms, we show that participation of middle managers in decision-making about new products and markets to serve, in-deed, increases firms’ strategic responsiveness as assessed by a reduction in firms’ downside risk. However, this effect is not a direct one. Nor does it interact positively or negatively with the emphasis put on formal planning as submitted in literature. Our evidence suggests that emphasis on planning mediates the relation between stronger participation of middle managers in decision-making and the increase in firms’ strategic responsiveness. This has implications for ongoing theory building and practice.

The PMI Risk Framework (PRF) is introduced as a guide to classifying and identifying risks which can be the source of post-merger integration (PMI) failure — commonly referred to as “culture clash.” To provide managers with actionably insight, PRF dissects PMI risk into specific relationship-oriented phenomena, critical to outcomes and which should be addressed during PMI. This framework is a conceptual and theory-grounded integration of numerous perspectives, such as organizational psychology, group dynamics, social networks, transformational change, and nonlinear dynamics. These concepts are unified and can be acted upon by integration managers. Literary resources for further exploration into the underlying aspects of the framework are provided. The PRF places emphasis on critical facets of PMI, particularly those which are relational in nature, pose an exceptionally high degree of risk, and are recurrent sources of PMI failure. The chapter delves into relationship-oriented points of failure that managers face when overseeing PMI by introducing a relationship-based, PMI risk framework. Managers are often not fully cognizant of these risks, thus fail to manage them judiciously. These risks do not naturally abide by common scholarly classifications and cross disciplinary boundaries; they do not go unrecognized by scholars, but until the introduction of PRF the risks have not been assimilated into a unifying framework. This chapter presents a model of PMI risk by differentiating and specifying numerous types of underlying human-relationship-oriented risks, rather than considering PMI cultural conflict as a monolithic construct.