我们是在讨论合并还是收购?定义集成过程

Q2 Business, Management and Accounting
Anne-Sophie Thelisson
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在谈到并购(M&As)时,很少有公告明确定义该业务是处理合并(当企业具有平等关系时)还是收购(当一家企业控制业务并决定整合过程时)。运营通常被标记为并购。尽管如此,合并仍然很少见,作者发现,在大多数情况下,与公司平等设计和整合的业务最终由其中一个实体控制另一个实体。设计/方法论/方法作者调查了两位首席执行官及其经理在合并尽职调查期间的沟通方式。作者使用纵向数据描述了两家法国公司的项目合并。发现这一深入的案例研究为尽职调查期和并购之间的差异提供了新的见解。调查结果突显了在首席执行官们的脑海中,随着形势朝着收购的方向发展,将竞争对手公司的一名合伙人加入董事会的决定是如何结束合并项目的。研究局限性/含义局限性是指与单个案例研究有关的局限性。实际含义本文强调了合并谈判的复杂性以及利益相关者面临的意外事件。因此,该分析有助于对尽职调查过程中的挑战形成包容性和综合性的看法,而首先将运营定义为合并或收购是确定企业之间给予自主性和相互依存性的程度以及如何实施一些战略决策的第一步。本案例研究强调了管理者可以理解为交易成功关键要素的两个具体项目:将运营定义为合并或收购,有助于内部和外部利益相关者规划运营;在尽职调查期间为参与谈判的合作伙伴留出调整空间也是有益的。社会影响尽管并购失败的频率很高,但仍然高得惊人。本文探讨了利益相关者如何处理合并谈判。独创性/价值该案例深入了解了尽职调查期以及小事件对计划整合的影响。理论概念和文献中的经验发现相结合,呈现出一幅一致的画面。据作者所知,由于谈判期仍然是一个秘密和敏感的阶段,尤其是对于一笔失败的交易,很少有研究涉及对所做战略决策的见解,但我们能够深入研究表面之下的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Business Strategy
Journal of Business Strategy Business, Management and Accounting-Management Information Systems
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信