{"title":"我们是在讨论合并还是收购?定义集成过程","authors":"Anne-Sophie Thelisson","doi":"10.1108/jbs-02-2022-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nWhen talking about mergers and acquisitions (M&As), few announcements clearly define if the operation will deal with a merger (where firms have an equal-to-equal relation) or acquisition (when one firm is in control of the operation and decides the integration process). Operations are commonly labeled M&A. Nevertheless, mergers remain rare, and the authors see that most of the time, operations designed and integrated with firms as equals end in the control of one of the entities over the other.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors investigate how two CEOs and their managers communicate during the due diligence period of a merger. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data.\n\n\nFindings\nThis in-depth case study provides new insights into the due diligence period and the differences between M&As. The findings highlight how the decision to add an associate from a rival firm to the board ended the merger project as the situation evolved toward an acquisition in CEOs’ minds.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe limitations are those concerning a single case study.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe paper highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the due diligence process, whereas first defining the operation as a merger or an acquisition is a first step in identifying the degree to which autonomy and interdependence will be given across firms, and how some strategic decisions will be implemented. This case study highlights two specific items that can be understood by managers as key elements in deal success: defining operations as a merger or an acquisition help internal and external stakeholders in planning the operation; leaving space for adjustment among partners engaged in negotiations during the due diligence period is also useful.\n\n\nSocial implications\nDespite their frequency, merger and acquisition failures remain surprisingly high. This paper explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe case provides insights into the due diligence period and the way minor events can impact the planned integration. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies address insights on strategic decisions made as the negotiation period remains a secret and sensitive stage, especially for a failed deal, but we were able to delve beneath the surface.\n","PeriodicalId":55881,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Strategy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are we talking about merger or acquisition? Defining the integration process\",\"authors\":\"Anne-Sophie Thelisson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jbs-02-2022-0037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nWhen talking about mergers and acquisitions (M&As), few announcements clearly define if the operation will deal with a merger (where firms have an equal-to-equal relation) or acquisition (when one firm is in control of the operation and decides the integration process). Operations are commonly labeled M&A. Nevertheless, mergers remain rare, and the authors see that most of the time, operations designed and integrated with firms as equals end in the control of one of the entities over the other.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe authors investigate how two CEOs and their managers communicate during the due diligence period of a merger. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis in-depth case study provides new insights into the due diligence period and the differences between M&As. The findings highlight how the decision to add an associate from a rival firm to the board ended the merger project as the situation evolved toward an acquisition in CEOs’ minds.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe limitations are those concerning a single case study.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe paper highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the due diligence process, whereas first defining the operation as a merger or an acquisition is a first step in identifying the degree to which autonomy and interdependence will be given across firms, and how some strategic decisions will be implemented. This case study highlights two specific items that can be understood by managers as key elements in deal success: defining operations as a merger or an acquisition help internal and external stakeholders in planning the operation; leaving space for adjustment among partners engaged in negotiations during the due diligence period is also useful.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nDespite their frequency, merger and acquisition failures remain surprisingly high. This paper explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe case provides insights into the due diligence period and the way minor events can impact the planned integration. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies address insights on strategic decisions made as the negotiation period remains a secret and sensitive stage, especially for a failed deal, but we were able to delve beneath the surface.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":55881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Strategy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Strategy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-02-2022-0037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Strategy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-02-2022-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
Are we talking about merger or acquisition? Defining the integration process
Purpose
When talking about mergers and acquisitions (M&As), few announcements clearly define if the operation will deal with a merger (where firms have an equal-to-equal relation) or acquisition (when one firm is in control of the operation and decides the integration process). Operations are commonly labeled M&A. Nevertheless, mergers remain rare, and the authors see that most of the time, operations designed and integrated with firms as equals end in the control of one of the entities over the other.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors investigate how two CEOs and their managers communicate during the due diligence period of a merger. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data.
Findings
This in-depth case study provides new insights into the due diligence period and the differences between M&As. The findings highlight how the decision to add an associate from a rival firm to the board ended the merger project as the situation evolved toward an acquisition in CEOs’ minds.
Research limitations/implications
The limitations are those concerning a single case study.
Practical implications
The paper highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the due diligence process, whereas first defining the operation as a merger or an acquisition is a first step in identifying the degree to which autonomy and interdependence will be given across firms, and how some strategic decisions will be implemented. This case study highlights two specific items that can be understood by managers as key elements in deal success: defining operations as a merger or an acquisition help internal and external stakeholders in planning the operation; leaving space for adjustment among partners engaged in negotiations during the due diligence period is also useful.
Social implications
Despite their frequency, merger and acquisition failures remain surprisingly high. This paper explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations.
Originality/value
The case provides insights into the due diligence period and the way minor events can impact the planned integration. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies address insights on strategic decisions made as the negotiation period remains a secret and sensitive stage, especially for a failed deal, but we were able to delve beneath the surface.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Business Strategy publishes articles with a practical focus designed to help readers develop successful business strategies. Articles should say something new or different and may propose a unique perspective. They should not offer prescriptions to CEOs on how to manage, but rather be directed toward middle and senior managers at companies of all sizes and types, as well as consultants and academics who want to think about their businesses in new ways. Coverage: As one of the few journals dedicated to business strategy, JBS defines strategy in the broadest sense and thus covers topics as diverse as marketing strategy, innovation, developments in the global economy, mergers & acquisition integration and human resources. We have a penchant for substantive, provocative and well-written articles. We also like to break the mould and include articles on topics readers are unlikely to find in other business publications.