Search results

Theoretical development and empirical investigation into the performance of mergers and acquisitions are reviewed. In parallel, recent research which links the performance of organisations to the presence of an appropriate corporate culture is discussed. From these two theoretical platforms, it is argued that the performance of acquisitions is determined by a match of culture and those organisational expectations which avoid post‐acquisition managerial indigestion. Finally, a programme of research is proposed to measure the performance of acquisitions against the criteria laid down by the acquiring management, and to determine the impact of culture clashes on those acquisitions perceived to have failed.

Acquisitions are a key element of corporate strategy. The performances of organisations involved in mergers and acquisitions are examined. The article also examines the significance of corporate culture to company performance, and the change in culture that an acquisition might cause.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

Looks at the 2000 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference held at the University of Cardiff in Wales on 6/7 September 2000. Spotlights the 76 or so presentations within and shows that these are in many, differing, areas across management research from: retail finance; precarious jobs and decisions; methodological lessons from feminism; call centre experience and disability discrimination. These and all points east and west are covered and laid out in a simple, abstract style, including, where applicable, references, endnotes and bibliography in an easy‐to‐follow manner. Summarizes each paper and also gives conclusions where needed, in a comfortable modern format.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

The Resource‐Based View of the Firm (RBV) has become an important stream of literature in strategic management. RDV's main prescription is that strategic assets are crucial determinants of sustainable competitive advantage and thus firm performance. Unfortunately, little empirical research has been occasioned to substantiate that prescription. Part of the difficulty in empirically testing RBV's main prescription lies in identifying resources capable of being strategic assets. This article combines RBV logic, the definition of strategic assets, Hall's studies, and the logic embodied in several streams of management literature to explain why strategic assets are intangible in nature, to show that not all intangible resources are strategic assets, and to demonstrate that company reputation, product reputation, employee knowhow, and organizational culture possess the characteristics of strategic assets. That is the foundation for the proposed hypotheses and proposed conceptual model presented in this paper for testing RBV's main prescription. We also discuss the practical, theoretical and empirical implications of this paper and make suggestions regarding empirical testing.

It has often been said that a great part of the strength of Aslib lies in the fact that it brings together those whose experience has been gained in many widely differing fields but who have a common interest in the means by which information may be collected and disseminated to the greatest advantage. Lists of its members have, therefore, a more than ordinary value since they present, in miniature, a cross‐section of institutions and individuals who share this special interest.

In the late 1960s, as Peter readily admits (Hall, 1972, p. 70), he accidentally discovered Murray Edelman’s (1964) The Symbolic Uses of Politics. He immediately pilfered Edelman’s ideas and ran with them. That was only the beginning of his larcenous career. Over the years, Erving Goffman, Anslem Strauss, and David Maines, to name but a few, fell victim to his scholarly pillage. Yet, no one seemed to mind. Perhaps it was because Peter never tried to pawn the plunder as his own. Maybe it was because he didn’t hoard the spoils but publicly plied them. Most likely, it was because of what he did with the booty.

The purpose of this conceptual chapter is to analyze the current state of the astructural bias in symbolic interactionism as it relates to three inter-related processes over time: (1) the formalization of critiques of symbolic interactionism as ahistorical, astructural, and acritical perspectives; (2) an ahistorical understanding of early expressions of the disjuncture between symbolic interactionism and more widely accepted forms of sociological theorizing; and (3) persistent and widespread inattentiveness to past and present evidence-based arguments that address the argument regarding symbolic interactionism as an astructural, ahistorical, and acritical sociological perspective. The argument frames the historical development of the astructural bias concept in an historically and socially conditioned way, from its emergence through its rejection and ultimately including conclusions about contemporary state of the astructural bias as evidenced in the symbolic interactionist literatures of the last couple of decades. The analysis and argument concludes that the contemporary result of these intertwined historical and social conditioning processes is that the astructural bias myth has been made real in practice, and that the reification of the myth of an astructural bias has had the ruinous effect of virtually eradicating a vital tradition in the interactionist perspective which extends back to the earliest formulations of the perspective. As a result, a handful of suggestions that serve to aid in reclaiming the unorthodox structuralism of symbolic interactionism and the related interactionist study of social organization are provided in the conclusion.