master's thesis - can the use of change management ... · can the use of change management...

Master’sThesis

CantheuseofChangeManagementPrinciplesOvercomeTheEverlastingHighFailureRatesof

Cross-BorderMergersandAcquisitions?

MathiasTrierBirgisson

AnnaSpetkovaMSc.InternationalBusinessEconomics

AalborgUniversityJune2016

TitlePage

10thsemesterMaster’sThesis

MSc.InternationalBusinessEconomics

AalborgUniversity

Supervisor:SusanVonsild

Submission:June8,2016

SignCount(includingSpaces):226,679

Standardpages(abstract,tableofcontents,referencelistandappendicesexcluded):93,2

Pages:273

MathiasTrierBirgisson

AnnaSpetkova

ii

Abstract

Purpose:Thepurposeofthisthesisisthreefold.Thefirstpurposeistodiscoverthe

relationshipbetweenCBM&Aperformanceandchangemanagementthatpromise

success.Furthermore,thisthesisaimstocontributetoresearchwiththeempirical

testingofthemainprinciplesfoundintheprescriptivechangemanagementmodels.

Finally,theaimofthisthesisistoexaminewhethersuccessfulCBM&Asareusingchange

managementprinciplesdifferentlythanunsuccessfulCBM&As.

Methodology:TodiscovertherelationshipbetweenCBM&Aandchangemanagement,

bothfieldswerethoroughlyreviewedthroughaliteraturereview.Next,themain

principlesofchangemanagementwereidentifiedthroughastructuredfour-step

process.Byadoptingaquantitativeapproachstemmingfromfunctionalistparadigmatic

standpoint,thisthesisfurtheremploysacross-sectionalsurveydesignusingself-

completionquestionnairesandstatisticalteststoexaminetheuseofchange

managementprinciplesinsuccessfulCBM&As,andthedifferencebetweensuccessful

andunsuccessfulCBM&Aintheuseofthechangemanagementprinciples.

Findings:Thefindingsoftheliteraturereviewsuggestthatalthoughhighfailureratesof

CBM&Aarestillahottopic,withintegrationanditsinevitablepart,changemanagement,

playingacrucialrole,thereishasbeennoresearchdonetoexplorethelinkbetweenthe

fieldofCBM&Aperformanceandchangemanagement.Furtherresearchofchange

managementfieldrevealedeightmainprinciplesbyspecificallylookingatteleological

modelsthatemphasizeplannedchangeorplannedandemergentchange.Thesewere:

”Definetheinitiative”,”Challengethestatusquo”,”Leadthechangeandbuildachange

leaderteam”,”Developavision”,”Communicatethechangevision”,”Empowerpeople

forchange”,”Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess”,and”Makechangelast”.Next,the

findingssuggestthatsuccessfulCBM&Aemploytheeightchangemanagement

principlestoagreatextent.Yetsomeminordivergencesexistonthesub-dimensional

leveloftheprinciples.Theseincludethemisalignmentinthequestionofinvolvementof

differentemployeesandmiddlemanagerswhendefiningtheM&Ainitiative,the

presenceofsomesourcesofcomplacency,andlowdiversityofthemembersofthe

guidingcoalitionintermsofthembelongingtodifferentstakeholdergroups.Finally,

throughtestingforstatisticalsignificance,thefindingssuggeststhattheuseofchange

iii

managementprinciplesbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&Asdifferinfour

principles:“Developavision”,“Empowerpeopleforchange”,”Guideandmotivatethe

changeprocess”,and“Makechangelast“.

Researchlimitation/implications:Theresearchdesignlimitstheoutcomesofthisthesis

aslowresponseratesandtheneedtomergetwosamplesleadtonon-responseerror

andsamplingerrorwhichtogetherdecreasetheexternalvalidity.Consequently,the

samplesusedinthisthesismightnotberepresentativeofwholepopulation,thusthe

generalizabilityofthesis’findingsislimited.Nonetheless,theresultscanbeusedasa

foundationforfurtherresearch,whichisneededtoestablishexternalvalidityofour

results.Lastly,duetoourchoiceofacross-sectionaldesignandtheweakinternal

validityhereof,wearenotabletoconcludecausality,althoughwecaninferit.

Practicalimplications:Thefindingshaveimportantimplicationsformanagementasby

employingthechangemanagementprinciplesmanagersandorganizationscanreach

theirgoalsandcreatesuccessfulCBM&Aseveninthechallengingenvironmentwithhigh

failurerates.Consequently,mainlythefouridentifiedprinciples,whichprovedtobe

statisticallydifferentintheirusebetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&A,establish

aprescriptiveframeworkmanagerscanusetogainsuccess.

Originality/value:Firstly,thisthesiscontributestothediscussionoftargetingthe

historicallylowsuccessratesofCBM&Asandestablishingthelinkagebetween

performanceandchangemanagement.Moreover,thisthesiscontributestothe

understandingandvalidityoftheplannedandtheologicalchangemanagementmodels.

Thiswasachievedthroughrespondingtoacallforempiricaltestingandsubsequent

findingofempiricalsupportforsomeoftheprinciples.Moreover,thisresearchlays

solidfoundationsfornextresearch.Specifically,wesuggesttheuseofstructured

interviewstoincreasetheresponserates,andconductingtheresearchinothercontext

ininordertobeabletogeneralizetoagreaterpopulation.Additionally,wesuggest

furtherresearchtoadoptalongitudinalresearchdesigntobeabletodeterminethe

actualcausality,andwhetherthesequenceoftheprinciplesaffecttheperformanceof

theCBM&A.

iv

TableofContent

CHAPTER1:INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................11.1MERGERSANDACQUISITIONSTRENDSANDDEVELOPMENT...............................................................................11.2CROSS-BORDERMERGERSANDACQUISITIONS......................................................................................................21.2.1Highfailurerates.................................................................................................................................................3

1.3CHANGEMANAGEMENT..............................................................................................................................................31.4PROBLEMFIELD...........................................................................................................................................................41.5ROADMAP.....................................................................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER2:LITERATUREREVIEW...........................................................................................................72.1MERGERSANDACQUISITIONS....................................................................................................................................72.1.1M&Atypology........................................................................................................................................................72.1.2M&Aperformance...............................................................................................................................................92.1.3Threeliteraturestreams...............................................................................................................................10

Strategicfit....................................................................................................................................................................................................10Organizationalfit.......................................................................................................................................................................................11Integration....................................................................................................................................................................................................12

2.1.4Integrationandchangemanagement....................................................................................................142.2CHANGEMANAGEMENT...........................................................................................................................................152.2.1OrganizationalChange..................................................................................................................................15

Changecategorizedbyrateofoccurrence......................................................................................................................................16Changecategorizedbyhowitcomesabout...................................................................................................................................17Changecategorizedbyscale.................................................................................................................................................................18

2.2.2Processmodelsoforganizationalchange.............................................................................................18Life-Cycleprocessmodel........................................................................................................................................................................19Teleological..................................................................................................................................................................................................20Dialectical......................................................................................................................................................................................................21Evolutionary.................................................................................................................................................................................................22

2.2.3Mergerasanorganizationalchange:perspectivesusedinthisthesis.....................................222.2.4Changemanagementprinciples................................................................................................................24

Theprocedureofidentifyingchangemanagementprinciples..............................................................................................24Theprinciples..............................................................................................................................................................................................28

2.2.5Summary..............................................................................................................................................................39CHAPTER3:METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................413.1PARADIGM..................................................................................................................................................................413.2THEPARADIGMATICPOSITIONOFTHISRESEARCH............................................................................................433.2.1Ontology...............................................................................................................................................................443.2.2Epistemology......................................................................................................................................................453.2.3Humannature....................................................................................................................................................453.2.4Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................45

3.3RESEARCHDESIGN....................................................................................................................................................473.4SAMPLING...................................................................................................................................................................483.5DATACOLLECTION...................................................................................................................................................523.5.1Self-completionquestionnaire....................................................................................................................523.5.2Operationalizingofconceptsandprinciples........................................................................................54

Principle1:Definetheinitiative..........................................................................................................................................................54Principle2:Challengestatusquo........................................................................................................................................................55Principle3:Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam...............................................................................................56Principle4:Developavision................................................................................................................................................................57Principle5:Communicatethechangevision.................................................................................................................................58Principle6:Empowerpeopleforchange........................................................................................................................................59Principle7:Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess.................................................................................................................60Principle8:Makechangelast...............................................................................................................................................................61M&Aperformance.....................................................................................................................................................................................62

3.6DATAANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................................643.6.1Computingnewvariables.............................................................................................................................64

v

3.6.2TowhatextentdosuccessfulcompaniesengagetheprinciplesofchangemanagementinCBM&As?..........................................................................................................................................................................653.6.3HowdoestheuseofchangemanagementprinciplesdifferbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As?..............................................................................................................................................65

Chi-squareanalysis...................................................................................................................................................................................65Independentt-test.....................................................................................................................................................................................66

3.7VALIDITYANDRELIABILITY....................................................................................................................................673.7.1Validity..................................................................................................................................................................673.7.2Reliability.............................................................................................................................................................703.7.3Replicability........................................................................................................................................................71

CHAPTER4:ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................724.1TOWHATEXTENTDOSUCCESSFULCOMPANIESENGAGETHEPRINCIPLESOFCHANGEMANAGEMENTINCBM&AS?.........................................................................................................................................................................724.1.1AggregatedviewofChangemanagementprinciples.......................................................................724.1.2Individualviewonchangemanagementprinciples..........................................................................73

Principle1:Definetheinitiative..........................................................................................................................................................73Principle2:Challengestatusquo........................................................................................................................................................74Principle3:Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam...............................................................................................76Principle4:Developavision................................................................................................................................................................78Principle5:Communicatethechangevision.................................................................................................................................80Principle6:Empowerpeopleforchange........................................................................................................................................81Principle7:Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess.................................................................................................................82Principle8:Makechangelast...............................................................................................................................................................84

4.1.3Summary..............................................................................................................................................................854.2HOWDOESTHEUSEOFCHANGEMANAGEMENTPRINCIPLESDIFFERBETWEENSUCCESSFULANDUNSUCCESSFULCBM&AS?............................................................................................................................................874.2.1Assumptions........................................................................................................................................................874.2.2Resultsfromanalysisoftheprinciples....................................................................................................88

Principle1:Definetheinitiative..........................................................................................................................................................89Principle2:Challengestatusquo........................................................................................................................................................91Principle3:Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam...............................................................................................93Principle4:Developavision................................................................................................................................................................95Principle5:Communicatethechangevision.................................................................................................................................96Principle6:Empowerpeopleforchange........................................................................................................................................97Principle7:Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess.................................................................................................................98Principle8:Makechangelast............................................................................................................................................................100

4.2.3Summary...........................................................................................................................................................101CHAPTER5:DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION....................................................................................1035.1MAINFINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................................1035.1.1RQ1:Accordingtoliterature,whatroledoeschangemanagementplayincross-bordermergersandacquisitions(CBM&A)?...............................................................................................................1035.1.2RQ2:Accordingtoliterature,whataretheprinciplesofchangemanagement?..............1045.1.3RQ3:TowhatextentdosuccessfulcompaniesengagetheprinciplesofchangemanagementinCBM&As?.....................................................................................................................................1055.1.4RQ4-HowdoestheuseofchangemanagementprinciplesdifferbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As?...........................................................................................................................................106

5.2LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................................................................1075.2.1Researchlimitations.....................................................................................................................................1075.2.2Theoreticallimitations................................................................................................................................108

5.3IMPLICATIONS.........................................................................................................................................................1105.4SUGGESTIONSFORFURTHERRESEARCH.............................................................................................................111

CHAPTER6:REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................112APPENDIXA:JOURNALSANDSCORES................................................................................................124APPENDIXB:CHANGEMANAGEMENTMODELS..............................................................................128

vi

APPENDIXC:THE34TELEOLOGICALCHANGEMODELS..............................................................139APPENDIXD:COVERLETTER................................................................................................................144APPENDIXE:SURVEY...............................................................................................................................145APPENDIXF:CHI-SQUARETESTSANDFISCHER’SEXACTTESTS..............................................156APPENDIXG:T-TESTSANDLEVENE’STESTFOREQUALITYOFVARIANCE...........................245APPENDIXH:TESTOFASSUMPTIONOFNOSIGNIFICANTOUTLIERS.....................................248APPENDIXI:TESTOFASSUMPTIONOFNORMALDISTRIBUTION............................................252APPENDIXJ:MANN-WHITNEYUTEST................................................................................................260APPENDIXK:OVERVIEWOFVARIABLES...........................................................................................261

vii

ListofFiguresFIGURE1.1-MERGERSANDACQUISITIONSWORLDWIDE(IMAA,2016).........................................................................................1FIGURE1.2-TRENDSINCBM&A(UNCTAD,2015).........................................................................................................................2FIGURE2.1-M&AINTEGRATIONMATRIXBYHASPESLAGHANDJEMISON(1991)......................................................................14FIGURE2.2–PROCESSMODELSOFORGANIZATIONALCHANGE(VANDEVENANDPOOLE,1995)..........................................19FIGURE3.1-THESUBJECTIVIST-OBJECTIVISTDISPOSITION(BURRELLANDMORGAN,1979)...................................................42FIGURE3.2-BURRELLANDMORGAN'S(1979)TYPOLOGYOFPARADIGMS...................................................................................44FIGURE3.3-RESEARCHDESIGN.............................................................................................................................................................48FIGURE4.1-AGGREGATEDVIEWOFTHECHANGEMANAGEMENTPRINCIPLES.............................................................................73FIGURE4.3–RQ3:CHALLENGESTATUSQUO.....................................................................................................................................76FIGURE4.4-RQ3:LEADTHECHANGEANDBUILDACHANGELEADERTEAM.................................................................................78FIGURE4.5-RQ3:DEVELOPAVISION..................................................................................................................................................79FIGURE4.6-RQ3:COMMUNICATETHECHANGEVISION....................................................................................................................81FIGURE4.7-RQ3:EMPOWERPEOPLEFORCHANGE...........................................................................................................................82FIGURE4.8-RQ3:GUIDEANDMOTIVATETHECHANGEPROCESS....................................................................................................84FIGURE4.9-RQ3:MAKECHANGELAST...............................................................................................................................................85FIGURE4.10-RQ4:DEFINETHEINITIATIVE,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH"...90FIGURE4.11-CHALLENGESTATUSQUO,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH"..........91FIGURE4.12-CHALLENGESTATUSQUO:SOURCESOFCOMPLACENCY,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"NOT

ATALL"OR"LOW"..........................................................................................................................................................................92FIGURE4.13-LEADTHECHANGEANDBUILDACHANGELEADERTEAM:LEADERSHIPDIMENSIONS,PERCENTAGEOF

RESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH".......................................................................................................93FIGURE4.14-LEADTHECHANGEANDBUILDACHANGELEADERTEAM:GUIDINGCOALITIONDIMENSIONS,PERCENTAGEOF

RESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH".......................................................................................................94FIGURE4.15–DEVELOPAVISION,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH"......................95FIGURE4.16–COMMUNICATETHECHANGEVISION,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERY

HIGH"................................................................................................................................................................................................96FIGURE4.17–EMPOWERPEOPLEFORCHANGE,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH"

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................98FIGURE4.18–GUIDEANDMOTIVATETHECHANGEPROCESS,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR

"VERYHIGH"....................................................................................................................................................................................99FIGURE4.19-MAKECHANGELAST,PERCENTAGEOFRESPONDENTSWHOANSWERED"HIGH"OR"VERYHIGH".................101

viii

ListofTablesTABLE2.1–COMPARISONOFTHEORYEANDTHEORYO(BEERANDNOHRIA,2000)..............................................................24TABLE2.2–JOURNALSUSEDTOIDENTIFYCHANGEMANAGEMENTPRINCIPLES............................................................................25TABLE2.3–THESEVENTELEOLOGICALCHANGEMANAGEMENTMODELSWITHMOSTCITATIONSONGOOGLESCHOLAR.....27TABLE2.4-THEEIGHTCHANGEMANAGEMENTPRINCIPLES..........................................................................................................30TABLE3.1-SAMPLE:DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICS..................................................................................................................................51TABLE3.2-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE1..........................................................................................................................54TABLE3.3-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE2..........................................................................................................................56TABLE3.4-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE3..........................................................................................................................57TABLE3.5-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE4..........................................................................................................................58TABLE3.6-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE5..........................................................................................................................59TABLE3.7-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE6..........................................................................................................................60TABLE3.8-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE7..........................................................................................................................61TABLE3.9-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE8..........................................................................................................................62TABLE3.10-OPERATIONALIZATIONOFM&APERFORMANCE........................................................................................................64TABLE3.11-CRONBACH'SALPHATESTS............................................................................................................................................70TABLE4.1-MEANSOFPERFORMANCEGROUPSONANAGGREGATEDLEVEL..................................................................................89TABLE4.2-RQ4:T-TESTS......................................................................................................................................................................89TABLE4.3-RQ4:DEFINETHEINITIATIVE,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS..............................................................................................90TABLE4.4–CHALLENGESTATUSQUA,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS......................................................................................................92TABLE4.5-LEADTHECHANGEANDBUILDACHANGELEADERTEAM,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS................................................94TABLE4.6–DEVELOPAVISION,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS.................................................................................................................96TABLE4.7–COMMUNICATETHECHANGEVISION,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS..................................................................................97TABLE4.8–EMPOWERPEOPLEFORCHANGE,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS.........................................................................................98TABLE4.9-GUIDEANDMOTIVATETHECHANGEPROCESS,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS................................................................100TABLE4.10–MAKECHANGELAST,CHI-SQUARESTATISTICS........................................................................................................101

1

Chapter1: Introduction1.1MergersandAcquisitionstrendsanddevelopment

With the world becoming increasingly globalized as national boundaries erode, new

opportunities for companies emerge.Mergers and acquisitions (M&As)which are one

type of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) have long been a preferred alternative for

strategic expansion (Shimizu et al., 2004). They can enable a company to renew its

market position at a speed not achievable by internal development (Haspeslagh and

Jemison,1991).

AlthoughM&As have been relatively rare until 1980s, the liberalization of FDI in the

followingdecadehasresultedintremendousincreaseinthepopularityofthisstrategy.

Inmonetaryterms,thetotalvalueofM&Ascompletedbetween1998and2000reached

nearly US$4 trillion, which accounts for more than the total value of all M&A deals

finalised during the previous 30 years (Henry, 2002). While M&A market is

characterisedby a cyclicalnature, the totalnumberofM&Ashasbeen increasing at a

fast rate (see Figure 1.1). This phenomenon can be ascribed to the consolidation of

industries and regions, as well as to the overall dynamic nature of the international

trade (Shimizu et al., 2004). As seen from Figure 1.1, the total number ofM&A deals

totalled45,000andwasvaluedatUS$4.5trillionin2015(IMAA,2016).

Figure1.1-Mergersandacquisitionsworldwide(IMAA,2016)

2

1.2Cross-borderMergersandAcquisitions

While themajority ofM&As consider two companies in the same country,more than

40% of the M&As completed between 1999 and 2000 included companies from two

differentcountries(Hiitetal.,2001).TheseM&Asareknownascross-bordermergers

and acquisitions (CBM&A). The evidence shows that the rate of CBM&As has been

growingatafastpacesince2000.However,CBM&Asalsofollowthecyclicalpatternof

theoverallM&Amarket,thussincetheirpeakin2007whentheyreachedUS$1trillion,

theyexperiencedadownturnin2009whentheytotalledapproximatelyUS$250billion

(See Figure 1.2). Following themost recent statistics, the value of cross-border deals

rosetoUS$644billionin2015,whichisa61%increaseoverthesameperiodof2014

(UNCTAD,2015).Thecurrenteconomicand financial trendspredict furthergrowthof

CBM&Asalthoughataslowerpace.Intermsoftheinvestorlandscape,companiesfrom

developing and transition economies are securing a larger share in the total CBM&A

value,which rose fromabout10% in2003 to almost40% in2012andhas stabilized

sincethen(UNCTAD,2015).

Figure1.2-TrendsinCBM&A(UNCTAD,2015)

200

300

550620

1000

600

300

400

580

350313

399

644

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Bil.USD

Year

Valueofcross-borderM&As,2003-2015(inbil.USD)

3

Naturally, the increasing globalization of business has emphasised both the

opportunitiesandpressurestoparticipateincross-borderdeals(Hitt,2000).Meanwhile

thefieldofCBM&Asgrowsinimportance,areviewoftheacademicliteraturepointsat

thefact, thattheliteraturehasnotkeptpacewiththegrowthofthisfield. Instead,the

majority of research has been confined to the study of domesticM&As, which is still

prevailingintheoverallM&Aresearch(Shimizuetal,2004;DattaandPuia,1995).This

drawsourresearchtothegapoftheCBM&Afield.

1.2.1Highfailurerates

Next,theattentionofthisprojectturnstoaninterestingyetcontroversialtopicwithin

M&Afield,theM&Aperformance.BearinginmindtheoverallgrowthofM&Amarketit

issurprisinghowlowtheM&As’performanceinconventionaltermsisconsideredtobe.

Both the researchers and consulting companies are not in total alignment about the

exactM&As’failurerates,sotheyrangefromashighas80%(MarksandMirvis,2001;

Tetenbaum, 1999) to as low as 40% (LaJoux, 1998; Kitching, 1974). Interestingly, in

spite of very unique challenges cross-border deals are faced by, such as “liability of

foreignness”, ‘’acculturation’’, and “double layered acculturation” (Hofstede, 1980;

House et al., 2004; Zaheer, 1995; Barkema et al., 1996; Larsson and Lubatkin,2001),

thereisevidencethatCBM&Aoutperformpurelydomestictransactionsandcreatevalue

(Hopkins, 1999; Markides and Ittner, 1994). Following Ghosal (1987), the unique

opportunitiesofCBM&As,whichinclude leveragingnationaldifferencessuchaswages

and cost of capital, the economies of scale, and the economies of scope imply that

CBM&AswouldoutperformthedomesticM&As.Nonetheless,themajorityofCBM&Asis

notconsideredtobesuccessful.StudiessuchastheonebyKPMGclaimedthat53%of

cross border acquisitions destroyed shareholder value while only 17% created it

(Economist,1999).

1.3Changemanagement

OneofthewidestcitedreasonsforbothM&AandCBM&Afailureisthesetofintegration

challengesrelatedtothepostacquisitionormergerstage(Childetal.,2001).Seenfrom

adifferentperspective,integrationisalsothecoreofM&Asuccess.Whiletheliterature

considersmanyaspectsofintegrationinrelationtosuccess,itisnotablethatthecoreof

integration, the actual change process, is vastly omitted. Although numerous authors

4

emphasizethatintegrationisoneofthegreatestchangesthatcanhappentoabusiness

(MirvisandMarks,1992;DiGeorgio,2002;Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002),andchange

managementseemstobethekeyprocess inmanagingthechangesuccessfully(Evans,

PucikandBarsoux,2002),thereisnoresearchdonewhichwouldfocusonthelinkage

between M&A performance and change management. This gap in the research is

elevated by the fact that change management seems to play an increasing role in

businesses. Following Graetz (2000), the leadership of organizational change is the

primary task of management nowadays, in the environment characterized by

globalisation,thefastpaceoftechnologicalinnovation,agrowingknowledgeworkforce,

and changing demographic trends. A part of its growing importance, what change

management also shares with M&A field, are the high failure rates. They are often

referred to as 70% (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Kotter, 1995, Keller and Aiken 2009a).

While academics as well as practitioners devoted plenty of time to researching and

finalizingvarioussetsofchangemanagementprincipleswhichwouldenablecompanies

to manage change effectively (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1947;

Ulrich, 1998; Kanter et al., 1992; Beer et al., 1990; Garvin, 2000), there is a call for

empiricaltestingofthesemodels(By,2005;Appelbaumetal.2012).

1.4Problemfield

The increasing importance of CBM&A field as well as managing change in the

organizations, corresponding to the current trends of globalization and social and

demographical changes related to it, sets the scene for establishingourproblem field.

Wearefurthertriggeredtoexplorethisfieldbyseeingtheextremelyhighfailurerates

forbothCBM&Adeals,andorganizationalchangemanagement.Moreover,followingthe

research it is undeniable what a vital role integration, which essentially involves

managingallkindsofchangesinmergingorganizations,plays.Hence,werespondtoa

gapinresearchinboththeCBM&AfieldandtheintersectionbetweentheCBM&Aand

changemanagement fields. Thus, we seek to discover the relationship betweenM&A

performance and changemanagement that promise success. Furthermore, we aim to

contribute to research with the empirical testing of the some of the ideas in the

prescriptivechangemanagementmodels.Wedosobyansweringthefollowingresearch

questions:

5

RQ1:Accordingtoliterature,whatroledoeschangemanagementplayinCBM&A?

RQ2:Accordingtoliterature,whataretheprinciplesofchangemanagement?

RQ3:Towhatextentdosuccessfulcompaniesengagetheprinciplesofchangemanagement

inCBM&As?

RQ4: How does the use of changemanagement principles differ between successful and

unsuccessfulCBM&As?

1.5Roadmap

After the initial introduction into the problem field and specification of the research

questions,whichweaimtoanswerinthisproject,wewillbrieflyoutline itsstructure.

The second chapter, “Literature review” aims to answer our first two research

questions. Hence, it is divided into two parts where the first one sets the scene by

presenting the background of the M&A field and through the review of the most

applicable literature considers the roleof changemanagement inCBM&A.The second

part explores the field of change management and our search for the most relevant

principlesofchangemanagement.Here,thefinalprinciplesofchangemanagementare

uncoveredandpresented.

The next chapter, “Methodology”, explicitly states the methodological considerations

andtheparadigmaticpositionof thisstudy.This isdone inorderto justify thechosen

researchdesignof thisproject including thechoiceof themethodsand techniques for

collectingandanalysingthedata.Thefollowingchapter,“Analysis”,aimtopresentand

discuss the data gathered in order to finding the answers to the final two research

questions.Thischapterisfurtherdividedintotwoparts,outofwhichthefirstonedeals

withthethirdresearchquestionwhenexploringtheextenttowhichsuccessfulCBM&As

engagetheprinciplesofchangemanagement,whilethesecondseekstoanswerthefinal

research question. Thus, it describes the differences between the use of change

management principles between successful and unsuccessful CBM&As via statistical

testing.

The following part of this project includes the research reflections and inevitable

limitationsofthisproject.Thisprojectifroundedupwithacoherentconclusionwhere

6

all the main findings are summarized and presented to the reader in a logical order

followingtheresearchquestions.

7

Chapter2: Literaturereview

In this chapter the main concepts and current literature on M&A, and change

managementisreviewedinordertoanswerourfirsttworesearchquestions:

RQ1:Accordingtoliterature,whatroledoeschangemanagementplayinCBM&A?

RQ2:Accordingtoliterature,whataretheprinciplesofchangemanagement?

Inordertodoso,wefirstresearchkeyconceptsofM&AfieldsuchasM&Aperformance,

including theirmainphaseswith a focuson integrationand the correlation to change

management. We proceed to the literature review on change management, which

consists of defining the most relevant type of change for this thesis, and discussing

different changemanagement schools. Finally,we attempt to bring together themain

findingsofbothfieldstoidentifythestreamswithinchangemanagementinwhichmain

principlescanbefoundforourresearch.

2.1Mergersandacquisitions

2.1.1M&Atypology

M&Aisatermthatgenerallyreferstotheconsolidationofcompanies(Bierman,2015).

It is however needed to point out, that there are differences in the legal terminology

between amerger and an acquisition.While the former refers to an operationwhere

two or more companies are joined together to create a new company, the latter

considers an acquisition of sufficient shares to gain control over a company. In other

words,anacquisitionisapurchaseofonecompanybyanother(Bierman,2015).Here,

nonewcompanyiscreated(Bierman,2015).

Inpractice,howtheparticulartransactionislabelleddependsmostlyontheaccounting

andtax implicationsof thedeal,aswellasonpublicrelationsstrategies(Evans,Pucik

and Barsoux, 2002). Consequently, many mergers are structured as acquisitions;

meanwhilesomeacquisitionsarelabelledasmergers.Therefore,oftenthetermM&Ais

usedtoreferbothtomergersandacquisitions.Inspiteofvastmediacoverageofmega-

mergers such as Daimler-Chrysler or Citibank and Travelers, these so called true

‘mergersofequals’formonlyaminorityoftheoverallM&Adeals(Zaheer,Schomaker,

8

Genc,2003).This is rather interesting considering the clearbenefits thatappear from

worldwide industryconsolidation,asacknowledgedbySchmidtandRuhli (2002)who

noted thebenefitswithin theEuropeanpharmaceutical industry.Overall, in spite of a

disuniteddefinition ofM&A, and the fact that acquisitions are prevailing amongM&A

deals, following (Evans, Pucik andBarsoux, 2002; 252) ‘’whatmatters is the strategic

intent,not the label’’.For thepurposeofourproject,weare interested in researching

bothmergersandacquisitions,astheybothinvolveacertaindegreeofintegrationand

changewillplayanimportantrole.

Prior to moving further in our journey to discover the overlap between change

managementandM&A,itisimperativetounderstandhowM&Aariseindifferentforms.

AcademicsandpractitionersdistinguishbetweentwomainformsofM&A:domesticand

cross-border (CBM&A). While the domestic mergers consider all participating firms

which originate and act in the same country, firms in CBM&A act across the borders.

Therefore,thedomesticandthetargetcountriesaredifferentinCBM&A.Basedonthe

growing importanceofglobalization, international tradeand foreigndirect investment

(FDI),CBM&Aattractincreasingnumbersofscholars(Hittetal.,2001).Naturally,with

the international nature of CBM&A, unique challenges reflecting diverse regulatory

environments,culturalbackgrounds,andeconomicconditionsarise.Theseare“liability

of foreignness”, ‘’acculturation’’, and “double layered acculturation” which are being

exploredbyHofstede(1980),Houseetal.(2004),Zaheer(1995),Barkemaetal.(1996),

LarssonandLubatkin(2001),andarebrieflyoutlinedbelow.

Liabilityofforeignnessisacommonphaseforanyfirmwhichentersaforeignmarket.

These liabilities stem from lack of familiarity, roots, and legitimacy in a local

environment,and leadtomorenegativereputationof the foreign firm(Zaheer,1995).

NextchallengeofCBM&A,originallydefinedaschangesinducedintwoculturalsystems

caused by diffusion of cultural elements (Berry, 1980), is acculturation. Larsson and

Lubatkin(2001)examinedthecorrelationbetweenthelevelofintegrationandthelevel

ofacculturationneeded,andfoundoutthatwithgrowinglevelofintegration,theneed

for strong acculturation increases. Closely linked to acculturation is double layered

acculturation. This concept reflects the double influence of organizational as well as

national cultures which is characteristic for CBM&A (Barkema et al, 1996). Merging

within different countries where the above-mentioned challenges emphasise the

9

importanceofintegrationformsthebaseofourM&Acontext,whichisCBM&A.Wewill

introducetheintegrationprocessanditslinkagetochangemanagementlateroninthis

section.

Apart fromthedifferentiationbetweendomesticandcross-borderM&A,weclose this

sub-section with three general types of M&A: horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate.

Horizontal and verticalmergers aremerges between two companies operating in the

same industry (Hu and Huynh, 2015). The difference between them is that while

horizontal mergers are formed by directly competing companies, vertical mergers

comprise related companies within the same supply chain (Hu and Huynh, 2015).

ConglomeratemergersareentirelydifferentkindofM&A,astheyareformedbyfirms

operating in unrelated industries (Hu and Huynh, 2015). Naturally, conglomerate

mergers also have very different motives usually related to diversification of the

portfolio to lower the risk. In contrast, the horizontalmergers aim to bring cost and

revenue synergies, and the verticalmergers aspire to achieve economies of scale and

alsodecreaserisk(HuandHuynh,2015).

2.1.2M&Aperformance

AfterdefiningandclassifyingdifferenttypesofM&A,wemoveontooneofthecore,yet

controversialtopicswithinM&A;M&Aperformance.AsmentionedintheIntroduction,

M&Aarecursedwithfailureratesrangingfrom40%(LaJoux,1998;Kitching,1974)to

80% (Marks andMirvis, 2001; Tetenbaum, 1999).High failure rates in this range are

reported by various consulting companies, as well as by scholars (Hopkins, 1999;

Schoenberg,2006;Iskandarani,2010;BauerandMatzler,2014).However, it isvitalto

take into account the different measures of performance and the impact they make.

Therefore,whilefinancialdisciplineshavereliedonobjectiveperformancemetricssuch

as share-prices and accounting data, organizational behaviour and strategic

management frequently relied on more subjective performance indicators, such as

managers’self-assessments(Schoenberg,2006).Overall, thestock-basedmeasuresare

predominantinresearchandtheysuggesthigherfailurerates(HaspeslaghandJemison,

1991)thanthevaluecreationmeasures(HerdandMcManus,2012).

While theoverall success rate seems tobequiteunsatisfactory, there is evidence that

the cross-border M&A outperform purely domestic transactions, and create value

10

(Hopkins, 1999;Markides and Ittner, 1994). Although research on cross-border deals

has not been that extensive, according to Gonzales et al. (1998) andHopkins (1999),

there are theoretical reasons to believe that cross-border deals would outperform

domesticones.FollowingGhosal(1987),theseareleveragingnationaldifferencessuch

aswagesandcostofcapital,economiesofscale,andeconomiesofscope.Thelattertwo

relatetoexpandingandexploitingpotentialscaleeconomiesinanyactivity,andsharing

of investments and costs across products and markets (Ghosal, 1987).As described

above, the evidence also shows that cross-border acquirers purchase companies in

familiar businesses to which they are able to add value (Evans, Pucik and Barsoux,

2002). Moreover, they also execute multiple acquisitions, thus they accumulate

experience, learn frommistakes, and eventually executemore effectively (Barkema et

al.,1996).CompaniessuchasCiscoandGEevenconsidercompetenceinCBM&Aasone

of their core capabilities (Evans, Pucik and Barsoux, 2002). In spite of the unique

cultural challenges CBM&A face, this also lead them to pay more attention to the

intangiblebutcriticalHRaspectsofM&Amanagement.Thisway,CBM&Abecomemore

successful than domestic M&A in terms of value creation (Evans, Pucik and Barsoux,

2002).

2.1.3Threeliteraturestreams

Thoroughliteraturereviewuncoveredthethreemainstreams,whichaimtoidentifythe

factors that may explain the differences in performance between individual M&A:

strategicfit,organizationalfit,andintegration.Weproceedwithoutliningthecorefocus

ofeachstreamaswellasitsmainresearchers.However,ourmainattentionbelongsto

theintegrationinwhichwefindadirectcorrelationtochangemanagement.

Strategicfit

Theliteratureonstrategicfitconsidersthelinkbetweenperformanceandthestrategic

attributesofthemergingcompanies.AccordingtoCartwrightandSchoenberg(2006),it

is in particular the extent towhich a target company should be related to that of the

acquirer.Althoughnogreatconsensushasbeenreached(Kingetal.,2004;Seth,1990),

two prevailing value creation mechanisms have been defined. These are founded in

resource-based view, and consider either resource similarity or resource

complementarity.

11

Theformerarguesthatthesimilaritybetweenmergingcompaniesistheprimarysource

ofstrategicfit(Palich,CardinalandMiller,2000;RobinsandWiersema,1995),whilethe

latter argues the same for the complementarity of acquirer and target (Capron,

Dussauge,andMitchell,1998;Harrisonetal.,1991;WangandZajac,2007).Knowledge

transferwasalsorecognisedasbaseforavaluecreationmechanisminM&A(Ahujaand

Katila,2001).

In termsofM&Adifferent phases, strategic fit canbe classifiedunder thepre-merger

phase. This phase mainly consists of firm valuation, planning, and preparation work

undertaken in order to examine the targets, and continues until the deal is closed

(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002).This isknownasduediligence.Duediligenceoften

involvestheassessmentofthehumanandculturalfactors,whichdeservedagreatdeal

ofattentioninliterature,andisknownas‘culturalfit’(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002).

Organizationalfit

Smoothlywemoveon to the second literature stream,which is theorganizational fit,

also known as the cultural fit, whichwe justmentioned. Although cultural fit should

ideallyformapartofthepre-M&Aphase,whichisduediligence,itisinevitablethatitis

also present as a part of the whole integration process in the post-M&A phase

(CartwrightandSchoenberg,2006).

Organizational or cultural fit regards the cultural dynamics of M&A including the

behavioural and emotional response of employees involved (Cartwright and

Schoenberg,2006).ThisgrowingfieldseekstoexplainM&Aunderperformanceinterms

of dysfunctional impact of the event itself, the associated uncertainty, as well as the

integrationprocessontheindividualsimpacted(CartwrightandSchoenberg,2006).

Within this literature the lack of cultural compatibility or cultural fit is amuch-cited

reason for M&A failure. Researchers seek to classify merging companies’ national

(Hofstede,1984)andorganizational(CameronandQuinn,1988;Zaheer,Schomakerand

Genc,2003)culturestoevaluateifthereiscertainlevelofculturalcompatibility.Overall,

the relationshipbetween intangible cultural aspects continues to confuse researchers,

whichresultsincontradictoryfindingsinresults(CartwrightandSchoenberg,2006).

12

In spite of the importance of both strategic and organizational fit in answering the

question of low M&A performance, as Cartwright and Schoenberg (2006) note, this

cannot be explained without taking the wider integration process into account.

Therefore,wemove on to the third and final stream in theM&A literature related to

performance,whichistheintegration.

Integration

Lackof integrationisprobablythemostwidelycitedrootofM&Afailure(Shrivastava,

1986; Hu and Huynh, 2015) and integration the main determinant of M&A success

(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002;HaspeslaghandJemison,1991).Accordingtoscholars

aswellaspractitioners,theabilitytoaddvalueinthemergedcompaniesaswellasthe

realizationofpossiblesynergiesinanyM&Adependmostlyonwhathappensafterthe

deal iscomplete(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002).Thus, it isratherpeculiarthatonly

8% of the time top management spends on M&A deal is devoted to implementation

(Kantner,1989).

ThesupportersoflackofintegrationbeingamaincauseofM&Afailureusuallypointto

variousexamplesofunsuccessfulcasessuchasCocaColaacquisitionofWineSpectrum,

which led to disastrous performance and, as most of the cases, ended up with a

divestment (Shrivastava, 1986). Shrivastava (1986) for instance acknowledges that

integrationisarathercomplexprocess,whichhappensatvariouslevels.Subsequently,

his model distinguishes between procedural, physical, and managerial integration.

Shrivastava(1986)argues,thatnegligenceofanyofthethreeformsof integrationcan

leadtotheM&Afailure.

Significant value creation (Haspeslagh and Jemison, 1991) as well as realization of

expectedsynergies(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002)areamongthemainargumentsfor

the positive influence of integration on M&A performance. Haspeslagh and Jemison

(1991) for instance argue that transfer of capabilities as well as collaboration of the

peoplefrombothcompaniesisessentialforvaluecreationinM&A.Theyalsonote,that

the collaboration is dependent on the will and abilities of management from both

companiestocollaborate.Salama,HollandandVinten(2003)furtheracknowledgethat

13

the key to integration is to attain the participation of people without compromising

strategic task. This is also reflected in Hu and Huynh’s (2015) study where the

importance of stakeholder management to the firm’s performance is highlighted.

Moreover, the authors argue that stakeholder management is especially relevant in

CBM&A,whicharethecontextofourresearch.

In terms ofM&A phases, the integration topic considers a broad range of integration

implications; from the choice of integration strategy in the pre-merger phase to the

actualintegrationprocessinthepost-mergerphase(CartwrightandSchoenberg,2006).

Integration strategy attracted the attention of Mirvis and Marks (1992) who view

integration as a degree of change needed from both merging firms. Their typology

distinguishes between various types of mergers, from ‘stand-alone’ mergers, which

requirelittleornochangebyeithercompany,to‘transformation’mergerswherethere

isahighdegreeofchangefrombothcompanies.Respectivetomergersofequalsthere

are‘bestofboth’types,wheretherearesubstantialchangesinbothcompanies(Mirvis

andMarks,1992).Bearing inmind that the focusofourresearch isbothmergersand

acquisitions,wewillbemostlikelydealingwithdifferenttypesofM&A.

Movingontothepost-mergerphase,oneofthemostwidelycitedintegrationmodelsis

the matrix by Haspeslagh and Jemison (1991). The authors focus on the integration

process after the M&A deal has been completed. The core of their matrix is the

evaluationoftwofactors:strategicinterdependence,andorganisationalautonomy.The

former is defined as interlinking between two merged units and how their strategic

capabilitiescanbeexchangedbetweenthem,whilethelatterreferstothelevelofneed

for independent organizational identity. After the evaluation of both criteria, the

preferred integration approach is chosen between the four options: Absorption,

Preservation, Symbiosis, and Holding. While in ‘Holding’ the need for target firm’s

autonomyaswellastheneedforstrategicinterdependencearelow,in‘Symbiosis’both

criteriaarehigh.ThismatrixresemblesMirvisandMarks’s (1992)model,andwecan

seethattheirmergerstrategieswithhighestdegreeofchangeneeded,‘bestofboth’and

‘transformation’,correspondwithHaspeslaghandJemison’s(1991) ‘Symbiosis’typeof

themerger.DiGeorgio (2002) acknowledges that thehigherdegreeof integration, the

moredifficultsuccessbecomes.Subsequently,heproposessocalled‘systemsapproach’

whichemphasisestheimportanceandinevitabilityofchangeandleadershiptosucceed.

14

Nonetheless, it isessential toemphasisethatnomatter thestrategy/approach,change

willhappenandisrequired.

Figure2.1-M&AIntegrationmatrixbyHaspeslaghandJemison(1991)

2.1.4Integrationandchangemanagement

After introducing the broad field of M&A, with a special focus on CBM&A and their

performance, it isvital toanswerRQ1anduncover theroleofchangemanagement in

CBM&Aliterature.Firstofall,itisneededtopointout,thatnumerousauthorsmentiona

change in relation to M&A integration, which is seen as the core of M&A success.

Specifically,integrationgetsemphasisedasoneofthegreatestchangesthatcanhappen

toabusiness(MirvisandMarks,1992;DiGeorgio,2002;andEvans,PucikandBarsoux,

2002).Not surprisingly,managing integration involvesmany aspects that lead to that

oneword:change.Theseincludecombatingthewinner-losersyndrome,preparationof

theemployeesforthechange,aswellasthescheduleforthechanges,putting inplace

newstructure,policiesandpractices,andmore(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002).

Inspiteoftheclearlinkageuncovered,thereisnothoroughresearchdonewhichwould

focus on the role of change management in M&A performance. The situation seems

15

slightlydifferentamongpractitioners,asmanycompanieswhosucceedinM&Anotethe

inevitable presence of change linked to the importance of change management. For

instance,GeneralElectricemphasizestheinevitabilityofchangeinM&Abythefollowing

quote: “If you do not want to change, don’t put yourself for sale.” (Evans, Pucik and

Barsoux, 2002: p.263). In spite of practical acknowledgement of change among firms,

and the fact that some researchers note the correlation between a good track in

managingchangeandcapabilitiesinmanagingM&A(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002),

thereisasignificantgapinresearch.Therefore,wemoveontotheliteraturereviewon

changemanagementtobeabletogatherthemainprinciples,whichwillguideourstudy

withtheaimtoanswertheidentifiedgapintheresearch.

2.2Changemanagement

CBM&Awithhighfailureratesupto80%correspondtothehighfailureratesofchange

initiatives (e.g. Beer and Nohria, 2000; Kotter, 1995, 2008; McKinsey and Company,

2010; Parry et al., 2014; Keller and Aiken, 2009a, 2009b). The failure rate of change

initiativesisoftenreferredtoas70%(BeerandNohria,2000;Kotter,1995,Kellerand

Aiken2009a),withalHughes(2011)andBurnes(2011)notethattheseratesshouldbe

treated with caution. Nonetheless, within the change management literature several

prescriptionsonhowtobesuccessful inobtainingone’schange initiativegoalscanbe

found.Thus,thispartoftheliteraturereviewwillanswerthesecondresearchquestion,

‘Accordingtoliterature,whataretheprinciplesofchangemanagement?”

Thiswillbedoneby,firstly,definingthekindofchangethatisrelevanttofocusonand

discussingthedifferentschools,which,togetherwiththe“2.1Mergersandacquisitions”,

willhelpusidentifythestreamwithinchangemanagement,inwhichtheprincipleswill

be found.For thiswewill relymainlyonVandeVenandPoole’s (1995) typology,By

(2005),GraetzandSchmidt(2010),andBeerandNohria(2000).Next,afterdiscussing

and choosing the appropriate kind of organizational change, the principles of change

management are identified through a four-step selection process, which will be

elaboratedonlaterinthisparagraph.

2.2.1OrganizationalChange

LookingatVandeVenandPoole(1995;512),organizationalchangecanbedefinedas

“an empirical observation of difference in form, quality, or state over time in an

16

organizational entity”, and it can according to By (2005), who borrows from Senior

(2002), be categorized into three categories. They have been identified as change

characterized by the rate of occurrence, by how it comes about, and by scale. These

categorieswillbediscussed inordertoqualify the laterdiscussionofwhichstreamof

organizational change is relevant in order to identify the principles of change

management from this thesis’perspective.Adistinction is important, asonesizedoes

notfitall(AndersonandAnderson,2001).

Changecategorizedbyrateofoccurrence

Change can, according to By (2005), be discontinuous, incremental or continuous.

Discontinuous change is found when organizations change through drastic action

(Meyerson, 2001) or through dramatic revolution, which is why some authors term

discontinuous change, revolutionary change (Nasim and Sushil, 2011). Discontinuous

change is defined as change that creates rapid shifts in either strategy, structure or

culture, or all three, it takes place through large, widely separated initiatives, and it

happensasaonetimeevent(By,2005).Internalproblems,technologicalinnovationsor

externalshocksarethemajortriggersofdiscontinuouschange(By,2005;Senior,2002;

Meyerson,2001;AndersonandAnderson,2001).Althoughadvocatesofdiscontinuous

changearguethat thisapproachtochange iscost-effectiveandperiodsof incremental

change inbetween the largeonetimeevents change, contemporaryauthorsagree that

the benefits from discontinuous change do not last, as theworld is changing rapidly.

Insteadtheseauthorsadvocateforacontinuouschangeapproach.

Opposite discontinuous change, continuous change is defined as the ability to change

continuouslyinafundamentalmanner(By,2005).Thisentailsthatpeoplemonitorand

respondcontinuallytoboththeexternalandinternalenvironmentinsmallsteps,which

creates an on-going process. Similar to continuous change is incremental change.

However,theydifferinoneaspect.Incrementalchangeisconcernedwithorganization-

wide strategies, whereas continuous change describes departmental, operational, on-

goingchange(By,2005).Incrementalchangeisalsoreferredtowhenoneproblemand

objective at a time is dealt with increasingly and separately (By, 2005). Incremental

change will cumulatively create major changes (Nasim and Sushil, 2011). By (2005)

furtherargues,byreferringtoGrundy(1993),thatcontinuousandincrementalchange

can be bumpy. Bumpy incremental change is characterized by periods of serenity

17

punctuated by acceleration in the pace of change (By, 2005). The same is valid for

continuouschangewiththeamendmentthatitistermingdepartmentalandoperational

change.

Changecategorizedbyhowitcomesabout

Intheextantliteraturethereisacertainamountofdisagreementwhenitcomestohow

changecomesabout.Thereareseveraldifferentapproaches(By,2005),butthetypical

discussion is whether change is planned or if it emerges through other factors – is

changeplannedoremergent?(ErikssonandSundgren,2005).

Theplannedapproach to change,whichwas initiatedbyKurtLewin in1946withhis

three-stage process of change (By, 2005; Nasim and Sushil, 2011), try to explain the

process that brings about change, which is going form an unsatisfactory state to an

identified desired state (By, 2005). The process of change in a planned model often

follows Bullock and Batten’s (1985) four-phasemodel of planned change (By, 2005).

This model argues that the process consists of exploration, planning, action and

integration (Bullock and Batten, 1985). The planned change approach assumes that

changeisanevent,whichmustbemadetohappenthroughdecisiveintervention,andit

insists that radical change cannothappengradually, butmustbe rapidanddisruptive

(Chia, 2014). According to Chia (2014) the planned approach to change is associated

with top-down control, and large-scale, system wide initiatives involving significant

disruptions.

Insteadofseeingchangetobetop-downdriven,theemergentapproachtochangetends

toseechangeasdrivenfromthebottomup(By,2005;Chia,2014),andithasraisedas

ananswer to thecriticismof theplannedapproach.Firstly, theplannedapproachhas

beencriticizedforemphasizingsmall-scalechangeandisthereforenotapplicabletothe

situations that require transformational change. Secondly, the planned approach to

organizational change is based on the assumption that organizations operate under

constantconditionsandthattheycanmoveinapre-plannedmanner.Thirdly,itignores

situationsinwhichmoredirectiveapproachesarerequired.Thesearesituationsthatdo

not allow for widespread consultation or involvement. Lastly, the planned approach

assumesthatacommonagreementcanbereached(By,2005).

18

Onthecontrary,theemergentapproachtochangeemphasizestheunpredictablenature

ofchange.Therefore,changeshouldnotbeperceivedasaseriesoflinearevents,butasa

continuous, open-ended, iterative process of adapting to changing circumstances, and

aligning and realigning organizational priorities with the ever-changing environment

(By,2005;Chia,2014).Tocopewiththechangingcircumstances,organizationsneedto

becomeopen learningsystems,assuccess is lessdependentondetailedplans thanon

understandingthecomplexityandidentifyingtherangeofavailableoptions.Thismakes

the emergent approach more concerned with change readiness and facilitating for

changeratherthanwithspecificpre-plannedsteps(By,2005).

Besidestheplannedandemergentapproachtochange,By(2005)additionallyincludes

acontingencyandachoiceapproach.Thecontingencyapproacharguesthatmanagers

needamodelofchangethatindicateshowtovarychangestrategiestoachieveoptimum

fitwith theever-changingenvironment (By,2005).Thechoiceapproachputs forward

the idea that organizations can exercise some choiceover their internalpractices and

externalvariables–theycaninfluencesituationalvariables(By,2005).

Changecategorizedbyscale

Compared to the first two categories, there is wider agreement within the literature

whenitcomestochangecharacterizedbyscale,whichcanbedividedintofourdifferent

characteristics: fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation, and

corporate transformation(By,2005). Fine-tuning isanon-goingprocess tomatch the

organization’s strategy, processes, people and structure, and is manifested at a

departmental or divisional level. Incremental adjustment involves distinct change of

management processes and organizational strategies. However, it does not include

radicalchange.Thethirdscale,modulartransformation,isdefinedaschangeidentified

bymajorshiftsofoneorseveraldivisions.Thiskindofchangecanberadical,butata

departmental or divisional level. Lastly, corporate transformation is corporate-wide

change,whichischaracterizedbyradicalchangeinthebusinessstrategy(By,2005).

2.2.2Processmodelsoforganizationalchange

Inordertobeabletostructurethediscussionoforganizationalchangewelooktothe

typologyof changeprocess theoriesbyVandeVenandPoole (1995). In this typology

19

the authors have synthesized various perspectives on organizational change into four

main types, which each have their own approach to change in the way that they

representfundamentallydifferentsequencesandmechanismstoexplainhowandwhy

change happens (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). These types are life-cycle, teleology,

dialectical,andevolutionarytheory,whichareclassifiedalongtwodimensions:theunit

ofchangeandthemodeofchange(seeFigure2.2)

Figure2.2–ProcessmodelsofOrganizationalChange(VandeVenandPoole,1995)

Life-Cycleprocessmodel

The life-cycle model of organizational change depicts the process of change as

progressingthroughaprescribedsequenceofstagesovertimeinasingleunit(Vande

VenandPoole,1995;VandeVenandSun,2011).Thelife-cyclephilosophyis,byGraetz

and Smith (2010), identified as a biological sub-philosophy of change philosophies,

whichentailsthatthismodelimplicitlyassumesthatchangeisimmanent.Accordingly,

organizationshaveanunderlyinglogic,form,programorcodethatregulatestheprocess

of change right from theirbeginning (VandeVenandPoole, 1995;GarudandVande

Ven, 2001). The generating force, the immanence of change, implies that although

change can be planned within this perspective (Jacobsen, 2005), the organizational

changeprogressesinaspecificandpredeterminedmanner.Jacobsen(2005),therefore,

20

advocates that the life-cycle model can, in a way, be considered a variant of the

teleologicalmodelwhichwillbeexplainednext. Thedifferenceisthat inthelife-cycle

modeltheorganizationsonlyhavelimitedalternativeoptionsofactions,whicharegiven

inadvance.Inotherwords,changefromthisperspectiveismoderatelyaffectedbythe

environment and moderately controllable (Graetz and Smith, 2010). Yet, it is always

mediated and triggered by the immanent logic, rules or program that govern the

organization’sdevelopment(VandeVenandPoole,1995;Pooleetal.,2001).

Thepaceof change in the life-cyclemodel is slowand incremental (GraetzandSmith,

2010),duetothefactthatmodeofchangeisprescribed(VandeVenandPoole,1995;

Pooleetal.,2001).Aprescribedmodeofchange-orafirst-orderchange-entailsthat

organizationsdevelopinaprescribeddirectionandincrementallychangeinastableand

predictable way (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). This manifests itself in the life-cycle

approachinthewaythatanorganization’simmanentformisrealizedbyvarioussteps.

Some steps may seem like discontinuous, radical change, but there is an underlying

continuityduetotheimmanentform,logic,program,orcodethatdrivesdevelopmentas

mentionedabove.Consequently,radicalchangesveryseldomarise in life-cyclemodels

(VandeVenandPoole,1995).Lastly,theprocessinalife-cycleapproachcanpotentially

failduetotheresistancetochangeandnon-compliance(VandeVen,2011).

Teleological

The second model identified by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) is the teleological.

Underlying the teleological model is the rational philosophy of change (Graetz and

Smith, 2010),which assumes that organizations are purposeful and adaptive (Van de

Ven and Poole, 1995; Graetz and Smith, 2010). Change from this perspective occurs

becausetopmanagementandotherchangeagentsdeemitnecessary(GraetzandSmith,

2010).Itistriggeredbysignificantproblems,goals,threatsoropportunities(VandeVen

andPoole,1995;VandeVenandSun,2011;VandeVen,2011;Jacobsen,2005),andit

proceedstowardsagoaloradesiredendstate–apurposefulsocialconstruction(Van

deVenandPoole,1995)inarationalandlinearmanner(GraetzandSmith,2010).More

specifically,changeisadiscontinuoussequenceofconstructinganenvisionedendstate

(goalformulation),takingactiontoreachit(implementation),monitoringtheprogress

(evaluation), and modification of goals based on what was learned (Van de Ven and

Poole, 1995; Poole et al., 2000). When the goal or desired end state of an entity is

21

attained,itdoesnotmeanitdoesnotchangeanymore,sincegoalsinthisperspectiveare

sociallyreconstructedandenacted(VandeVenandPoole,1995).Abreakdownin the

change process is ascribed to the lack of recognition of change, lack of consensus on

plansorgoals,faultyplansorgoalsduetobiasesingrouporindividualjudgment,error

in decision making, group thinking and escalating commitment to failing courses of

action(VandeVenandSun,2011).

Teleologicaltheories,similartolife-cycletheories,operateonasingleentity.Thisdoes

notprecludeinteractionsbetweenentitiesortheexternalenvironmentfrominfluencing

the course of development, these interactions, however, are subsidiary to the

teleological generating forces,whichdrives the singleunit to enact anenvisionedend

state(VandeVenandPoole,1995).Unliketheprescriptivemodeofchangefoundinthe

life-cyclemodelof change, the teleological theory incorporatesaconstructivemodeof

change–asecondorderchange–whichoftengeneratesunprecedented,discontinuous

andunpredictablechange(Pooleetal.,2000).Thatthechangeisunpredictableagrees

with the idea of equifinality that some teleological models subscribe to. It is also

important to add that, although a teleological motor projects discontinuous change

incrementalaccountsofgoalimplementationcanbefound.However,thiswillbeinthe

compositemodelmadeupofateleologicalandlife-cyclemodel(VandeVenandPoole,

1995).

Dialectical

The dialectical model of change is built on the political philosophy of change, which

assumes that it is the clashing of opposing forces that produces change (Graetz and

Smith, 2010). Furthermore, this approach rests fundamentally on the Hegelian

assumption that organizational entities exist in a pluralistic world of colliding events

andforces,whichcanbeinternalaswellasexternal,andwhichcompetewitheachother

fordomination(VandeVenandPoole,1995; Jacobsen,2005).Thedialectical theories

operate on multiple entities, as the process requires at least two distinct entities to

respectivelyplaytheroleofthesisandantithesis(VandeVenandPoole,1995),andthe

modelexplainschangeintermsoftherelativebalanceofpowerbetweenthethesisand

antithesis(VandeVenandSun,2011).Changeinthisperspectiveoccursasaresultofa

confrontationoverdominationbetweenthethesisandtheantithesis(Jacobsen,2005).

Forinstance,theantithesismayhaveenoughpowertochallengethecurrentthesis,and

22

theresolutionoftheconflictmayproduceasynthesis,whichcanbecomethenewthesis

overtimeandtheprocesscontinues(VandeVenandPoole,1995).

Themode of change of dialectical theory is constructive, with conflict being the core

generatingmechanism(VandeVenandSun,2011).This istruesincethesequenceby

whichthethesisandantithesisconfronteachotherishighlyuncertainwiththeresultof

asynthesisthatcanberevolutionary(VandeVenandPoole,1995;Pooleetal.,2000).

Consequently, although the change process can be slow, change can suddenly spring

quickly, on a large scale, and also quite unexpectedly (Graetz and Smith, 2010). The

typical breakdowns in the dialectic change process are destructive conflict, power

imbalanceandirresolvabledifferences(VandeVen,2011;VandeVenandSun,2011).

Evolutionary

ThelastkindofchangemodelVandeVenandPoole(1995)identifyistheevolutionary.

Similar to the life-cycle model, the evolutionary theories rest on the biological

philosophy(GraetzandSmith,2010).Theunitofchangeandtheunitinfocusisnotthe

singleentity,butrathermultipleentities(VandeVenandPoole,1995;Jacobsen,2005).

From this perspective, change proceeds through a continuous cycle of variation,

selection and retention (Poole et al., 2000). The creation of novel forms through

variation isseen toemergebyrandomchance,whileselectionoforganizationsoccurs

throughcompetitionforscarceresources,andtheenvironmentselectstheorganizations

with the best fit with the resource base of the environment (Van de Ven and Poole,

1995).Forcesthatmaintaincertainorganizationalformsmakeuptheretentionaspect.

Consequently, according to Van de Ven and Poole (1995) the evolutionary model

explainschangeasarecurrent,cumulativeandprobabilisticprogression.Themodeof

changeisprescribed,astheevolutionarysystemoperatesaccordingtoprescribedrules

and specified population dynamics, which determine whether a variation breaks

through,resultinginchangeoccurs(VandeVenandPoole,1995).

2.2.3Mergerasanorganizationalchange:perspectivesusedinthisthesis

Inthisthesis,regardingthemodelsfromwhichwewillidentifychangemanagement

principles,weonlyfocusonsingleentities,thusweexcludetheevolutionaryand

dialectictheories.Neitherareweinterestedinhowprescribedchangesunfold,but

23

ratherwearefocusingonwhatchangeleadersandagentscandotoleadchange.This

changeleadercentricfocusisalsothemostdominantstreamwithintheresearchfield

(ArmenakisandHarris,2009;TrompenaarsandWooliams,2003).Consequently,wewill

befocusingonteleologicalmodels,asweintheteleologicalmodel,whichassumes

purposiveness(VandeVenandPoole,1995),findthemodelsthatrestonthemost

popularphilosophyforleadersseekingtoimposeadirectionuponanorganization

(GreatzandSmith,2010).Furthermore,theteleologicalapproachisinaccordancewith

ourfunctionalisticparadigmaticassumptions(see“3.2Theparadigmaticpositionofthis

research”).

Althoughchangeisclearlyplanned(By,2005)intheteleologicalperspective,itdoesnot

excludeincrementalemergentchange,whichsometimescanbefoundintheintersection

betweenlife-cycletheoriesandteleologicaltheories(VandeVenandPoole,1995).Itis

evenadvocatedbysomeauthorstouseplannedandemergentprocessesconcurrently

(LiebhartandLorenzo,2010).BeerandNohria(2000)withtheir´TheoryE´and‘Theory

O’aresomeoftheseauthors.TheoryE,the“hard”approach,isbasedoneconomicvalue

with the explicit goal to dramatically and rapidly increase shareholder value (Luecke,

2003), which is the only legitimate measure of corporate success (Beer and Nohria,

2000).Incontrast,thegoalofTheoryOchangeistodeveloporganizationalcapabilities

andaculturethatsupportslearningandahigh-performanceemployeebase(Beerand

Nohria,2000;Leucke,2003).Changeisdrivenandmanagedfromthetopaccordingto

TheoryE(BeerandNohria,2000;Leucke,2003),whichissimilartoplannedchange(By,

2005),whilechangeparticipation isencouraged inTheoryO(BeerandNohria,2000).

Therefore,TheoryOcanbeseenasstemmingfromanemergentapproachandTheoryE

form a planned approach (Chia, 2014). Furthermore, Theory E emphasizes structures

and systems through planning and establishing programswith financial incentives as

themainmotivationalfactor(BeerandNohria,2000).Conversely,TheoryOfocuseson

building corporate culture, employees’ behavior and attitudes through experimenting

and evolving with commitment as the main motivational factor and pay as a fair

exchange(BeerandNohria,2000).ThesedifferencesbetweenTheoryEandTheoryO

canbeseeninTable2.1

24

DimensionofChange TheoryE TheoryO

Goals Maximizeshareholdervalue Developorganizationalcapabilities

Leadership Managechangefromthetopdown

Encourageparticipationfromthebottomup

Focus Emphasizestructureandsystems

Buildupcorporateculture:employees’behaviorandattitudes

Process Planandestablishprograms Experimentandevolve

RewardSystem Motivatethroughfinancialincentives

Motivatethroughcommitment—usepayasfairexchange

UseofConsultants Consultantsanalyzeproblemsandshapesolutions

Consultantssupportmanagementinshapingtheirownsolutions

Table2.1–ComparisonofTheoryEandTheoryO(BeerandNohria,2000)

Many of the prevalent change models in the extant literature also incorporate both

TheoryE andTheoryO. For Instance, Jacobsen (2005)highlights thatKotter’s (1995)

eight-stepmodelhasboththeelementsofTheoryE,suchascreatingasenseofurgency

andformingaguidingcoalition,andofTheoryO,suchascreatingavisionandempower

broad-based action. Consequently,we are including both plannedmodels andmodels

thatincorporatebothplannedandemergentchangeinoursearchforprinciples.Wedo

sosince,followingJacobsen(2005),emergentchangecanstillbeleadasitonlyaffects

theopportunities of the change agent and the amountof choices.Accordingly,we are

lookingforteleologicalmodelsthatemphasizeplannedchangeorplannedandemergent

change,whichareapplicableinsituationswithdisruptiveandcorporatetransformation

change,whichmergersconstitute.

2.2.4Changemanagementprinciples

In order to identify the abovementioned change models, in which the change

managementprinciplesaretobefound,wecreatedafour-stepselectionprocess.

Theprocedureofidentifyingchangemanagementprinciples

The first step in the selection process was selecting the journals in which we would

searchforliteratureonchangemanagementmodels.Wewantedtomakesurethatwe

25

were reviewing the most relevant journals with the highest quality, thus they were

selectedbasedonanumberofcriteria.Firstly, thepublications’subjectareahadtobe

categorizedasbeing‘InternationalBusiness’or ‘General&Strategy’ inHarzing(2015).

Secondly, we looked at whether the respective journals were included in Financial

Times’ (2012) top 45 journals used in their ranking of business schools. Thirdly, we

computed a score based on the journals’ ranking in ‘Association of Business Schools

Academic Journal Quality Guide, February, 2015’, ‘ESSEC Business School’s Journal

Ranking List, Paris, August 2015’, and ‘Australian Business Deans Council Journal

Rankings List, November 2013’ (Harzing, 2015), and the journals’ impact factor. The

score was computed in the way that the rankings were converted into points, from

which an average were computed, which in turn were added together with the

respectivejournal’simpactfactoranddividedbytwo.Lastly,weincludedadditionaltwo

journalsknownforpublishingarticlesonorganizationalchangemanagement,Journalof

ChangeManagementandJournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement(FordandFord,

2015).WedidnotincludeJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,althoughitismentioned

by Ford and Ford (2015), as Harzing (2015) categorizes it under the subject area of

‘Psychology’.Asweinitiallylookedatcitations,wechose15journalswhichareseenin

Table2.2 (SeeAppendixAforall journalsandscores),aswearguedthatthisamount

wouldbeenoughtoidentifythemostcitedandrelevantchangemanagementmodels.

No. JournalSelective(N/Y)

FT(Y/N)

AverageScore

ImpactFactor

FinalScore

1 AcademyofManagementReview N Y 4,67 7,48 6,072 AcademyofManagementJournal N Y 4,67 6,45 5,563 StrategicManagementJournal N Y 4,67 3,34 4,004 JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies N Y 4,33 3,56 3,955 JournalofManagementStudies N y 4,00 3,76 3,886 AdministrativeScienceQuarterly N Y 4,33 3,33 3,837 CaliforniaManagementReview N Y 3,00 1,67 2,338 HarvardBusinessReview N Y 3,00 1,57 2,299 MITSloanManagementReview N Y 2,00 1,53 1,76

10 JournalofManagement N N 4,33 6,07 5,2011 AcademyofManagementAnnals N N 2,33 7,77 5,0512 InternationalJournalofManagementReviews N N 3,00 3,86 3,4313 AcademyofManagementPerspectives N N 2,67 3,38 3,0314 JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement Y N 1,33 0,46 0,90

15 JournalofChangeManagement Y N 0,00 0,00 0,00Table2.2–Journalsusedtoidentifychangemanagementprinciples

26

Inthesecondstepwecreatedasearch-string(“("changemanagement")AND("change

model" OR "model of change" OR "model of organizational change"”) in ProQuest

databaseandappliedittotheabovementioned15journals,whichgaveus136unique,

peer-reviewed articles. Thesewere read and analyzed for references and citations of

changemanagementmodels.Theresultofthisanalysiswas73models(seeAppendixB).

Thirdly,wecategorizedthe73changemodelsand,inaccordancewith“2.2.3Mergeras

an organizational change: perspectives used in this thesis”, we included only those,

whichwe categorized to be teleologicalmodels, thus emphasizing planned change or

plannedandemergentchange,whilebeingapplicableinsituationswithdisruptiveand

corporate transformation change. This third step left us with 34 models. These are

showninAppendixC.

27

GS

Citatio

ns

9228

7565

4373

2318

1646

1534

919

Chan

geType

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Nam

eofCha

ngemod

el

THEFIVE

PRA

CTICESOF

EXEM

PLAR

YLEAD

ERSH

IP®

MODE

L

EightS

tepsto

LeadingChange

ThreeStep

Mod

el

Seven-Step

mod

el

TenCo

mmandm

ents

TaskAlignm

entM

odelfo

rCh

ange

TheGE

mod

el

Yearof

Publication

2007

1995

1947

1998

1992

1990

2000

Nam

eofPap

er

TheLeadershipChallenge

LeadingCh

ange

Fron

tiersinGroup

Dynam

ics

HumanResou

rceCh

ampion

s

TheCh

allengeofOrganiza

tional

Change

WhyChangeProgramsD

on'tProd

uce

Change

LearninginAction:AGuide

toPuttin

gtheLearningOrganiza

tiontoW

ork

Author

Kouzesand

Posne

r

Kotter

Lewin

Ulrich

Kantereta

l.

Beereta

l.

Garvin

Table2.3–TheseventeleologicalchangemanagementmodelswithmostcitationsonGoogleScholar

28

Finally,wechosesevenmodelsbasedonwhichoftheauthorsandmodelsthathavethe

mostcitationsonGoogleScholar,ascitationsofferanindicationofwhathasbeenthe

mostinfluentialinthefield(By,HughesandFord,2016).Consequently,theseven

models,fromwhichweidentifiedthechangemanagementprinciples,were:Kouzesand

Posner’s(2007)ExemplaryLeadershipModel,Kotter’s(1995)EightStepstoLeading

Change,Lewin’s(1947)Three-stepModel,Ulrich’s(1998)Seven-stepModel,Kanteret

al.’s(1992)TenCommandments,Beeretal.’s(1990)SixStepstoEffectiveChange,

Garvin’s(2000)GE-model.ThesesevenmodelsareshownaboveinTable2.3

Theprinciples

Analyzing the seven above mentioned models we came up with eight change

management principles, which are seen in Table 2.4 and are explained below. A

principlewasonly included if the stepor its equalwas found in threeormoreof the

seven change management models. Consequently, only Kanter et al.’s (1992) third

commandment,‘Separatefromthepast’,andBeeretal.’s(1990)fifthstep,‘Startchange

at periphery, then let it spread to other units without pushing it from the top, were

excluded.

29

Garvin

2.Creatinga

Shared

Need

1.Leading

Change

4.Mob

ilizin

gCo

mmitm

ent

3.Shapinga

Visio

n

7.Changing

System

sand

Structures

Beereta

l.

1.M

obilizeEne

rgy

andCo

mmitm

ent

throughJoint

Iden

tificationof

Busin

essP

roblem

sandTheirS

olutions

3.Iden

tifythe

Leadership

2.Develop

aShared

visio

nofHow

to

Organize

and

Managefor

Compe

titiven

ess

Kantereta

l.

1.Analyzeth

eOrganiza

tionand

ItsNeedfor

Change

4.CreateaSense

ofUrgen

cy

5.Sup

porta

StrongLeade

rRo

le

6.LineUpPo

litical

Spon

sorship

2.CreateaVisio

nandaCo

mmon

Direction

9.Com

mun

icate,

InvolvePe

ople

andbe

Hon

est

7.Craftan

Implem

entatio

nPlan

8.Develop

En

abling

Structures

Ulrich

2.Createa

Shared

Need

1.LeadCh

ange

4.M

obilize

Commitm

ent

3.Shape

a

Visio

n

5.Change

System

sand

Structures

Kouzesand

Po

sner

3.Challengethe

Process

1.M

odelth

eWay

2.Inspire

a

Shared

Vision

4.Enable

OtherstoAct

Kotter

1.Establisha

SenseofUrgen

cy

2.Createa

guidingCo

alition

3.Develop

a

Visio

nanda

Strategy

4.Com

mun

icate

theCh

angeVision

5.Empo

wer

Broad-Ba

sed

Actio

n

Lewin

1.Unfreeze

2.M

oving

Principle

Defin

ethe

Initiative

Challenge

StatusQuo

Lead

the

Chan

geand

Bu

ildaCha

nge

Lead

erTeam

Developa

Vision

Commun

icate

theCh

ange

Vision

Empo

wer

Peop

lefo

rCh

ange

30

6.M

onito

ring

Progress

5.M

aking

ChangeLast

4.FocusonRe

sults,

NotonActiv

ities

7.M

onito

rand

Ad

justStrategiesin

Respon

seto

Prob

lemsinthe

ChangeProcess

6.Institu

tionalize

Successthrou

gh

Form

alPolicies,

System

s,and

Structures

5.StartChangeat

thePe

riphe

ry,The

nLetItS

preadto

OtherUnitswith

out

PushingItform

the

Top

10.R

einforceand

Institu

tionalize

Change

3.Sep

arateFrom

thePast

6.M

onito

rProgress

7.M

ake

ChangeLast

5.Encou

rage

theHe

art

6.Gen

erate

Short-Term

Wins

7.Con

solidate

Gainsa

nd

Prod

uceMore

Change

8.Ancho

rNew

Ap

proachesin

theCo

rporate

Cultu

re

3.(R

e)freeze

Guide

and

motivatethe

chan

geprocess

MakeCh

ange

Last

Exclud

ed

Table2.4-TheEightChangeManagementPrinciples

31

Principle1:Definetheinitiative

The first identified principle of change management is concerned with defining the

change initiative (Beer et al., 1990; Kanter et al., 1992; Kouzes and Posner, 2007).

According to Beer et al. (1990), this step is the starting point of any effective change

initiative,as itclearlydefinesthebusinessproblem.Kanteretal.(1992)elaborateson

thisargumentbystatingthatinordertocraftaneffectiveimplementationplanforlater

on,managers need to understand their organization’s operations, itsweaknesses and

strengthsandhowthechangeeffortwillaffectthecompany.Theyneedtoanalyzethe

organization and its need for change. Throughout this process, the companies should

lookbothexternallyandinternallyforproblemsandopportunitiestochangebystaying

sensitive to the external realities, actively looking for and analyzing change potential,

and letting ideas flowfromoutside(KouzesandPosner,2007).Moreover, leadersand

managersshouldencourageemployeestodothesameandnotmonopolizetheprocess

(Beeretal.,1990;KouzesandPosner,2007).Leadersshouldinviteotherstotakepartin

the identificationof the changeneedand in theproblem-solvingprocess (Kouzes and

Posner, 2007), in order tomotivate the change recipients.Motivation and change are

found to be greatest when the change recipients are instrumental in identifying the

problemandplanning itssolution(Beeretal.,1990;Leucke,2003).Beeretal. (1990)

coming fromamixedplannedandemergent changemodel state, that it isnot the top

management’sroletocontrolthechange,butrathertosupportit,whichisanessential

task.Top-drivenchangecanpotentially leadto inertiaof thechangeinitiative(Beeret

al., 1990; Leucke, 2003). Through analyzing the need for change and identifying the

businessproblemafoundationformotivationiscreatedthroughthecreationofasense

ofurgency,whichisapartofthenextstep.

Principle2:Challengestatusquo

Thesecondprinciple,‘’Challengestatusquo’’,isoftenfoundtobeoneofthefirststepsin

the change management models, and it is also closely related to the first identified

changemanagementprinciple.Thisprincipleisaboutgettingpeopletounderstandthe

needforchange,andmotivatingthemtocollaborateonthechangeinitiative(Beeretal.,

1990;Kanteretal.,1992;Kotter,1995;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;Leucke,2003).

32

Lewin(1947)arguesthatthefirststepinasuccessfulchangeproject isunfreezing,by

whichhemeansdestabilizingtheequilibrium,whichcanbeachievedbydisconfirmation

of the validity of status quo (Burnes, 2004). This is also called creating a sense of

urgency (Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1995) or creating a shared need (Ulrich, 1998;

Garvin,2000).Kotter(1995)agreeswithLewin’s(1947)notionandarguesthatchange

effortsmustbeginwithindividualsandgroupslookinghardatacompany’scompetitive

situation, market position, technological trends, opportunities and financial

performance in order to be successful. This is closely related to the first principle.

Subsequently,whena crisis, apotential crisisor a greatopportunity is identified, this

informationhastobecommunicatedbroadlyanddramaticallyinordertochallengethe

status quo (Kotter, 1995; 1996). The purpose of creating a sense of urgency and

challenging the status quo is to minimize and eliminate complacency and make

employeesunderstandwhychangeisneeded(Kanteretal.,1992;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,

2000).

Someof the sourcesof complacency, according toKotter (1996), are: lackof a visible

crisis, too many visible resources, low performance goals, organizational structure,

evaluation systems that focus on the wrong criteria, lack of feedback from external

sources, a conflict-averse culture, peoples’ ability todeny, and toomuchunconcerned

communicationfromtop-management.Ifthesesourcesareeliminatedandminimized,a

higher degree of motivation to change will be produced, which in turn will foster

aggressivecooperationthatisneededinthebeginningofthechangeinitiative(Kanteret

al.,1992;Kotter,1996).Asmanysourcesofcomplacencyexist,therearealsomanyways

ofdealingwiththem.However,onesolutiondoesnotfitall(Lewin,1947).Nonetheless,

Kotter (1996) and Kanter et al. (1992) especially suggest creating a crisis or getting

externalconsultantsastacticsforchallengingthestatusquo.Toanswerthequestionof

howmuchsenseofurgencyisneeded,theliteratureproposesthat75%ofallmanagers

need to be convinced that a significant change is necessary (Beer et al., 1990;Kotter,

1996;Leucke,2003).

Principle3:Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam

Theprincipleofleadingthechangeandbuildingachangeleaderteam,whichisourthird

principle, is related to those who are in charge of the change and champion it. The

literature suggests that, firstly, leader(s) need to model the way (Beer et al., 1990;

33

Kanteretal.,1992;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;Leucke,2003;KouzesandPosner,2007).

This is due to the fact that in the change process the leaders play a critical role in

guiding,drivingandinspiringthechange(Kanteretal.,1992).Theyhavetochampion

thechange,publiclycommittothechangeinitiative,commitpersonaltimeandattention

into the process (Ulrich, 1998; Garvin, 2000), assemble the resources needed for the

projectandtakeleadershipofit(Beeretal.,1990;Leucke,2003).Inthiscapacity,asa

championofchange,itisimportantthattheleaders’actionsarealignedwiththechange

initiativeandtheunderlyingvalues(KouzesandPosner,2007).Focusingonthechange

leaders’characteristics,Beeretal.(1990)emphasizethreecharacteristics:apersistent

belief that the change initiative is the key to competitiveness, the ability to articulate

their conviction in the form of a credible and compelling vision, and operating

experiencewhichconsistsofpeople-skillsandorganizationalknow-howto implement

thechange.

Although change leaders are critical for leading the change, they cannot do it alone

(Kanteretal.,1992;Kotter,1995,1996;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000).Successdependson

abroaderbaseofsupport.Accordingly,Kanteretal.,(1992),Kotter(1995,1996),Ulrich

(1998),andGarvin(2000)arguethattheorganizationthatinitiatesasignificantchange

initiative has to create a guiding coalition. Kotter (1996) argues that not all guiding

coalitionsarestrong,butonly thoseareeffective,whichhave therightcompositionof

people,withsufficienttrustamongcoalition-membersandacommongoal.Moreover,it

isspecifiedthateffectivecoalitionssharefourkeycharacteristics.First,thecoalitionhas

enoughpositionpoweramongitsmembers,sothattop-managerswillnotobstructthe

change initiative. Second, the coalition has expertise, and diverse, task-relevant

perspectivesarepresent.Third,credibilityisascribedtothecoalition,sothatemployees

will take its work seriously. Fourth, leadership is found in the group (Kotter, 1996).

Kanteretal.,(1992)addtothisandarguethatmembersoftheguidingcoalitionhaveto

beco-ownersofthechange,andmembersoughttoconsistofbothpowersources,which

correspondstoKotter’s(1996)criteriaofpositionpower,andstakeholders–thosewho

stand to gain or lose from the change. On the other hand, the size of the coalition

dependsonthesizeoftheorganization(Kotter,1996).

34

Principle4:Developavision

Avision canbe seen as an attempt to articulatewhat a desired future for a company

wouldbe (Kanteretal.,1992), and it isa central component inall leadership (Kotter,

1996). No serious contemporary treatment of leadership leaves it out (Kouzes and

Posner,2007),whichisevidentinthechangemanagementliterature.Consequently,the

fourth identified change management principle is ‘Develop a vision’. Having a vision

unitesemployeesbehindanidea(Kanteretal.,1992),andithasthepotentialtobreak

throughallresistance,inertiaandpowerssupportingstatusquo,whileitpromotesthe

significantchangeinitiatives(Kotter,1995,1996).Agreatchangevisionacknowledges

thatitwillbenecessarytomakesacrifices,butthesewillbringaboutconcretebenefits,

whichfarexceedwhatispossibleinthecurrentsituation(Kotter,1995;Leucke,2003).

AccordingtoKotter(1996),avisionservesthreeimportantgoals.Firstly,itspecifiesthe

generaldirectionofthechange.Secondly,avisionmotivatesemployeestotakeinitiative

in the right direction, even if the first steps are personally painful. Thirdly, having a

vision coordinates employees’ actions in a remarkably quick and effectiveway. Other

authors add to this. Ulrich (1998) and Garvin (2000) see the vision as serving the

function of getting employees to see the desired outcome of change in concrete

behavioralterms,whereasKanteretal.(1992)arguethatthevisionmotivatespeopleto

rethinkwhatispossible.

However, inorder for thevision to fulfill itspurpose ithas tobeeffective. Six central

characteristicsofaneffectivevisionareoffered(Kotter,1996;Leucke,2003).Ithastobe

imaginable,andithastobedesirableinawaythatitappealstothelong-terminterests

ofconstituentsandstakeholders(Kotter,1996;KouzesandPosner,2007). Ithastobe

feasible,andfocusedtoadegreetowhichitcanguidethedecision-makingprocess,but

still allow for individual initiative and changing conditions (Kotter, 1996). The vision

alsohastobeflexibleandcommunicable.Aneffectivevision,asaruleofthumb,canbe

articulated to others within five to sevenminutes (Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Posner,

2007).Lastly,theprocessofdevelopingthevisionshouldengageagroupofpeople,the

guiding coalition, and not only a single individual (Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Posner,

2007).

35

Principle5:Communicatethechangevision

Afterdevelopingthechangevisionithastobecommunicated,astherealpowerofthe

visionisonlyunleashedwhenthemajorityoftheinvolvedinthechangeinitiativehave

the same understanding of its goal and direction (Kotter, 1996). Looking to Lewin’s

(1947) three-step model, this could be seen as the beginning of moving from one

position to another – from a less acceptable to a more acceptable position (Burnes,

2004). Consequently, the fifth principle is concernedwith communicating the change

vision.

Resistance to change is often mentioned as a challenge in the change management

literature,andsomeof thisresistanceoriginates,according toKotter (1996), fromthe

lack of communication or under-communicating. The change agents and the guiding

coalitionhavealreadyintheprocessofdevelopingthechangevisionspentalotoftime

dealingwithintellectuallyandemotionallychallengingquestionsthatmighthavearisen.

However,changerecipientshavenotdonesoandconsequently,theymaybereluctant

to get behind the vision due to the same intellectually and emotionally challenging

questions thatmake itdifficult toaccept thevision (Kotter,1996).For thepurposeof

overcoming this aforementioned resistance and creating the positive reactions, the

change leadersneed tocommunicate tobeable togiveemployeesapersonal stake in

theoutcomeofatransformation(Kanteretal.,1992).Moreover,articulatingthechange

vision to the change recipients potentially produces a range of positive reactions: job

satisfaction,motivation,commitment,loyalty,espritdecorps,prideinorganizationand

organizationproductivity(KouzesandPosner,2008).

However,inordertoovercometheabove-mentionedresistanceandcreatethepositive

reactions through communicating the change vision, the communication has to be

effective (Kotter, 1995). According to Kotter (1996) effective communication is in

accordancewiththefollowingadvice.Firstofall,thecommunicationneedstobesimple

–ithastobefreeofjargonandtechnologicalterms,asitpotentiallyconfusespeopleand

notallstakeholdergroupsunderstandthejargon.Secondly,thelanguageshouldbevivid

andutilizemetaphors, analogies and examples. Painting a verbal picture canbemore

valuable than a thousand words, as it conveys a lot of information and it is more

emotionallyappealing,whichmakesthemessagememorable(Kotter,1996;Kouzesand

36

Posner,2007).Thirdly,avisionismosteffectivewhendifferentsourcesareemployed,

asdifferent sources canhelpanswerdiverse setsofquestions, and themessagehasa

greater chance of being remembered. Therefore, the change vision should be

communicatedthroughmanydifferentforums(Kotter,1996).Fourthly,thevisionneeds

to be repeated as much as possible since effective communication of information

demandsrepetition.Next, considering that themosteffectivewayofcommunicatinga

change vision is through actions (Kouzes and Posner, 2007), top-management has to

personify the vision. Thus, the change agents need to lead through personal example

(Kotter,1996).Sixthly,managersneedtoexplainseeminginconsistenciesbetweenthe

changevisionandthechangeagents’actions,iftheyarepresent.Thisisneeded,asthere

is nothing more undermining for communication than incongruence. In successful

change processes inconsistencies are almost always handled, and if they can’t be

eliminated, theyareexplainedinasimpleandhonestway(Kanteretal.,1992;Kotter,

1996). Lastly, the communicationneeds to be two-way communication (Kotter, 1996;

KouzesandPosner,2007).Thisway,questionsthatemergeduringthechangeprocess

can be answered, and it is made sure that people are willing to walk in the same

direction(Kotter,1996).

Principle6:Empowerpeopleforchange

Empoweringpeopleforchangeisthesixthidentifiedchangemanagementprinciple.The

principle exists due to the presence of obstacles to the change initiative, and

consequentlyitisconcernedwithchangingstructuresandeliminatingobstaclesinorder

to reinforce the change effort (Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996;Ulrich, 1998; Garvin,

2000; Kouzes and Posner, 2007). It is important that organizations align their formal

structureswith thechangevision,otherwise, there isariskof theemployeesbeingso

frustratedthattheywilllosefaithinthechangeinitiative(Kotter,1995,1996).Thiscan

be done by enriching employees’ jobs by giving them more responsibilities, more

varietyintheirassignments,andtheopportunitiestomakemeaningfuldecisionsabout

howtheirworkgetsaccomplished(KouzesandPosner,2007).

Kotter(1996)alsoemphasizestheneedfordevelopingcompetenciesintheemployees

to overcome the obstacle of lack of capabilities, which is supported by Kouzes and

Posner(2007),whosaythattraininganddevelopmentarecritical.Kotter(1996)further

emphasizes the importanceof the typeof training andhe argues that it has tobe the

37

rightkindof training, therightamountandat theright time.Thetrainingneedstobe

concerned with both attitude and capability development, because without them

employees might feel powerless to change. The third obstacle is related to the

compensationandperformance-appraisal systems thatarenotalignedwith thevision

(Kotter,1995;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000).ThelastobstacleidentifiedbyKotter(1995,

1996)isbosseswhorefusetochangeandwhomakedemandsthatareinconsistentwith

theoveralleffort.Suchasituationshouldbehandledbyconfrontingthebossesandwith

honestdialoguetryingtoidentifytheunderlyingneedsandproblems.Besidesthesefour

obstacles,Kanteretal.(1992)elaboratethatthecreationoftheenablingstructurescan

varyfromthepractical,asthoseabovementioned,tothesymbolicsuchaschangingthe

organization’snameorphysically rearranging the space.Nonetheless, thepointof the

principle is to alter and develop systems, structures and competencies to ensure that

theycomplementandreinforcethechangeinitiative(Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000).

Principle7:Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess

Creating and planning short-term wins are one way of guiding and motivating the

change process. Accordingly, the changemanagement literature advocates for change

agents to focus on short-term wins, even though change efforts are often long-term

endeavors(Beeretal.,1992;Kotter,1995,1996;KouzesandPosner,2007).

Most people involved in a change campaign need convincing signs that the change is

producing the desired results, and they want to see these signs within 6-18months,

depending on the size of the organization and the change initiative (Kotter, 1996).

Moreover,theresultshavetobevisible,unambiguous,andclearlylinkedtothechange

initiative for them tohaveaneffect (Kotter,1996). If the short-termwins share these

characteristics,itwillaccordingtoKotter(1995,1996),helptheinitiativeinatleastsix

ways.

Short-termwinsgeneratethenecessarycredibilitytomaintainthechangeinitiative,and

inthiswayshort-termwinsarelendingsupporttothechangeinitiative.Smallwinsalso

givethechangeagentsandchangerecipientsachancetorelaxamomentandcelebrate

the progress (Kotter, 1996). Kouzes andPosner (2007) add to this and state that the

celebration,rewardingandrecognitionofcontributionsshouldbemadepublicly.Ifthat

is the case, an example is set to follow, self-esteem is bolstered, role models are

38

provided, feedback given, commitment is built, and employees are encouraged to

continuewiththechangeinitiative(KouzesandPosner,2007).

Kotter(1996)suggeststhatifthefeedbackonshort-termwinsisprovidedithelpsthe

changeinitiative.Inthiscasethechangeagentsgetfeedbackonthevalidityofthevision

andarereassuredthattheyareontracktowardsthechangecampaign’sgoal.Moreover,

short-termresultsunderminethecriticismfromtheopponentsofthechangeinitiative,

while simultaneously contributing to maintaining top-management’s support. Lastly,

short-term wins build drive and progress (Kotter, 1995; 1996). This process of

achievingshort-termwinsshouldbemonitoredinordertobeabletoadjustandassess

theprogression towards theplannedshort-termwins (Beeret al., 1990;Ulrich,1998;

Garvin, 2000) The fact that the process can be monitored implies that the wins are

planned in advance. This is emphasized by Kotter (1996), and Kouzes and Posner

(2007).Changeagentsshouldnothope forsmall-termwins,butratherplan themand

createthem.Thefinalbenefitofutilizingsmall-termwinsisthatithelpstomaintaina

sense of urgency, since it creates healthy pressure on the change recipients (Kotter,

1996).

Principle8:Makechangelast

Thefinalchangemanagementprincipleidentifiedis‘Makechangelast’.Firstofall,this

principleisaboutconsolidatinggainsandusingthemtoproducemorechange(Beeret

al., 1990; Kotter, 1996; Leucke, 2003). As there is always a risk of the critical

progression being lost and being followed by a regression when those involved in a

change relax and celebrate the wins too early, Kotter (1996) suggests that the

momentumcreatedfromearlierphasesinthechangeprocessandtheearnedcredibility

are used to initiate bigger and more change efforts. Here, Kotter (1996) builds on a

notion that in companies there is a great degree of interdependence. The change

momentumshouldbeusedtogetmorepeopleinvolved,maintainthesenseofurgency,

andreduceunnecessary interdependency,whichwillmakechange initiativeseasier to

accomplish(Kotter,1996).

Withinthisprinciple,Lewin’s(1947)laststepinhisthree-stepmodel,named‘Refreeze’,

is found. Refreezing is essentially about stabilizing a new equilibrium in order for

progressionnottobelost,whichwillhappenifroutinesandnormsarenottransformed

39

(Burnes,2004),Withinorganizationsthismeansthatinordertomakechangelast,the

new approaches need to be anchored in the organizational culture, policies, systems,

reporting relationships, and practices (Beer et al., 1990; Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter,

1996;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;Burnes,2004).Therefore,thisprincipleisconcerned

with anchoring the newapproaches in the corporate culture, so that the changeswill

last.

Thereasonwhyitisimportanttochangetheculture,oratleasttoanchorthechangesin

the culture, is that corporate culture is very influential. This is due to the fact that

employeesarecarefullychosenandindoctrinatedandthisinfluenceisevidentthrough

people’sactions.Thisisallhappeningunconsciously,whichmakesitdifficulttodispute

(Kotter,1996).Duetothisinfluence,theprogressionandthenewpracticescanbelost

easilyiftheyarenotconsistentwiththecorporateculture.Managersthenneedtoshape,

changeandreinforceanewculturethatfitswiththechangedorganization(Kanteretal.,

1992).AccordingtoKotter(1996),thischangeshouldbemadelastly,andnotinitially.

Culture only changes when employees’ behaviors have been changed, when these

behaviorshavecreatedresultsandbeenbeneficialforthegroup,andwhenemployees

have realized the connection between the behavioral change and the performance

improvements.Therefore,cultureshouldbechangedatlast(Kotter,1996).

Moreover,changecanonlybeanchoredintheculturewhenithasowneditsmerits.In

otherwords,theanchoringdependsontheresults,andonlyhappenswhenthechanges

haveclearlyproducedresultswhicharebetterthanthoseproducedtheoldway(Kotter,

1996).Theprocessofshapingthenewculturepotentiallyentailsemployeeturnoverin

order to make sure that key persons personify the new approaches. Lastly, the

promotion-decision has to become very important, which means that the criteria by

whichpeoplearepromotedhavetobeinaccordancewiththenewpractices.

2.2.5Summary

Through a four-step selection process we were able to choose seven change

managementmodelsfromthetheologicalstreamofchangemanagementliterature.This

was done in order to answer RQ2: According to literature, what are the principles of

changemanagement? The outcomewas eight changemanagement principleswe have

gathered.

40

The first principlewe identifiedwe labelled “Define the initiative”, because it regards

defining the change initiative by defining the business problem and/or opportunity

through a process of assessing the company’s strengths, weaknesses and how the

predicted effects of change on the company. The second principle, “Challenge status

quo”,isaboutgettingpeopletounderstandtheneedforchange,whilethethirdprinciple

“Lead the change and build a change leader team” is concernedwith how the change

should be led. “Develop a vision” is the fourth change management principle and it

introduces the vision into the change initiative. The fifth principle, “Communicate the

change vision” guides how the vision should be communicated. The sixth principle,

“Empower people for change” is concernedwith changing structures and eliminating

obstacles inorder toreinforce thechangeeffortand in thatwayempower thepeople.

“Guide and motivate the change process” was identified as the seventh change

management principle. The emphasis in the principle is on monitoring the process,

creatingshort-termwins,andcelebratingthem.Lastly,“Makechangelast”,considering

theconsolidationofgainsandusingthemtoproducemorechange,wasidentifiedasthe

eighthandlastchangemanagementprinciple.

41

Chapter3: Methodology

After theLiteraturereviewofM&AandChangemanagement,and the identificationof

themainprincipleswithinChangemanagementourprojectsmoothlyproceedswiththe

Methodology chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to explicitly present the

methodological considerations and paradigmatic position of this study,which explain

thebasicassumptionsand logicunderlying it.Wedo so inorder to justify the chosen

researchdesignofthisproject,whichaimstoanswerthefollowingresearchquestions:


inCBM&As?


unsuccessfulCBM&As?

Initially, we will define a paradigm and its content, while presenting the underlying

assumptionsofthisthesis.Subsequently,theresearchdesignwillbepresented,inwhich

the reasons for the choice and use of the selected research process will be justified.

Finally, themethods and techniques for collecting and analyzing thedataused in this

researchwillbediscussed.

3.1Paradigm

It is a common fact that the distinct views on the world that researchers hold

predetermine different foundations for knowledge about the social world. Thus, the

choice of methods, types of data, and reporting forms are influenced by these

assumptions (Kuada, 2012). It is, therefore, important to make the paradigmatic

assumptions of this report explicit and engage in the philosophical discussions. A

paradigm is, by definition, a grouping of beliefs which for scientists in a particular

discipline influence what should be studied, how research should be done, and how

resultsshouldbeinterpreted(BrymanandBell,2007).

Therefore,aparadigmincorporatesasetofcommonunderstandingsofthenatureofthe

phenomenon, the types of questions essential to investigate the phenomenon, the

structure of answering those questions, as well as the way the results are to be

42

interpreted.Oneof themostcommondistinctions in regards toparadigms isbetween

the objective and subjective dispositions (Bryman andBell, 2007; Arbnor andBjerke,

2009; Burrell andMorgan, 1979). Based on this distinction,most of the typologies of

paradigms are defined in terms of four sets of assumptions. These are: ontological,

epistemological, methodological assumptions and assumptions about human nature

(Kuada,2008;BurrellandMorgan,1979).

Ontologicalassumptionsaretheassumptionsaboutthenatureofthephenomenaunder

investigation,inotherwords,areality(BurrellandMorgan,1979).Relatedtoontology

thereisepistemology,whichisconcernedwiththenatureofknowledge,or‘’abouthow

onemightbegintounderstandtheworldandcommunicatethisasknowledgetofellow

humanbeings” (Burrell andMorgan,1979:p.2-3).Next, there ishumannature,which

refers to the relationship betweenhumanbeings, and their environment (Burrell and

Morgan,1979).Thefinalsetofassumptionsismethodology,whichconsidersthewayin

which the researcher attempts to investigate and gather knowledge about the world

(BurrellandMorgan,1979).Inotherwords,methodologyistheactionplanguidingthe

research.

Overall, there are numerous typologies of paradigmswith themostwidely used ones

being FISI classification,RRIF classificationbyBurrell andMorgan (1979), andAbnor

and Bjerke’s classification (Kuada, 2012). Since Burrell and Morgan base their

classification of paradigms on the notion of objective and subjective approached to

research (see Figure 3.1), we will continue with discussing our paradigmatic stance

usingthistypology.

Figure3.1-Thesubjectivist-objectivistdisposition(BurrellandMorgan,1979)

43

3.2Theparadigmaticpositionofthisresearch

Inordertodeterminetheparadigmaticpositionofthisresearch,theabove-mentioned

concepts frombusiness researchwill bediscussed.Our aim in this section is tomake

theseassumptionsexplicittothereader,sotheyareabletounderstandandevaluatethe

choicesmadeinthisproject.

Borrowing from Kuada (2012), our view on reality is best described as pragmatist.

Under this view we believe that the nature of research as well as the objectives of

investigationdeterminetheviewofreality(Kuada,2012).Therefore,whilewemightbe

inclined to opt for the objective perspective to study one topic, wemight choose the

subjectiveperspectivetobemoresuitabletostudyanother.Also,wedonotneglectthe

combinationofbothviewsonrealityiftheproblemformulationsuggeststhatitwould

give us the best insight (Kuada, 2012). After specifying our view on reality being

pragmatistitisvitaltoclassifythisproject.

The phenomenon, which we investigate in this report, is changemanagement within

companies engaged in CBM&A.By conducting researchwhich aims to assesswhether

main principles of change management are being followed in companies engaged in

CBM&Adeals,itisalreadyimpliedthatweseetheworldandrealityasbeingexternalto

theindividual,thusobjective.Moreover,weaimtocollectfactsandsumthemtoarrive

to rational explanations. Based on the prevailing arguments for the objective stance,

whichwillbeelaboratedonbelow,thisprojectfallsinoneoftherightsidequadrantsof

thematrixbyBurrellandMorgan(1979)(seeFigure3.2).

BurrellandMorgan(1979)furtheraddanotherdimensiontothephilosophyofscience,

the assumptions about thenatureof society, distinguishingbetween ‘’the sociologyof

radicalchange’’and‘’thesociologyofregulation’’.Inbrief,theseassumptionsregardthe

function of research in investigating the world of business, which can be either

regulatory or radical. Following the sociology of regulation, the purpose is to explain

what is happening in the organizations and to suggestminor changes (Kuada, 2012).

However, thepurpose is not tomake judgmentof theorganization (BrymanandBell,

2011).Wesituateourprojectunderthesociologyofregulation,as itsmainpurposeis

44

not to judge theorganizations.Also,wedonotaimto focusondeep-seatedstructural

conflicts characterizing the radical position.Moreover, the sociologyof radical change

hasgainedlittleacknowledgementinmarketdrivensocieties(Kuada,2012),whichare

theframeofthisproject.Consequently,basedonBurrellandMorgan’s(1979)typology

ourresearchfollowsobjectiveparadigmofFunctionalismthebest.

Figure3.2-BurrellandMorgan's(1979)typologyofparadigms

3.2.1Ontology

Intermsofontology,theFunctionalistapproachfollowsrealism,whichassumesthatthe

worldexistsregardlessofanindividual’sappreciationofit(BurrellandMorgan,1979).

Furthermore, it claims that the reality is factive and summative (Arbnor and Bjerke,

2009). Since we believe that the reality of performance of CBM&A and activities of

changemanagementwithinorganizationsexistoutsidetheindividual’sperceptionofit,

thusweareabletoobserveitandsumthefacts,wefollowtheobjectivistapproachof

realism in this project. This is further supported by the highly rational approach to

changemanagementembracingstrategicdecision-makingandcarefulplanningtowards

organizationalgoals(GraetzandSmith,2010)whichisreflectedinteleologicaltheories

weframedourchoiceofchangeprinciplesby.

45

3.2.2Epistemology

Epistemologically, our project follows positivism. Positivism suggests that the

researchers can be objective and conduct the research as external observers (Kuada,

2012).Additionally,fromthisperspective,thepurposeoftheresearchistoexplainand

predict by searching for regularities and causal relationships (Burrell and Morgan,

1979). Moreover, according to positivism the process of knowledge growth is

cumulative, thus implying that new knowledge is added on to the existing stock of

knowledge, and falsifiedhypothesesare removed (Burrell andMorgan,1979). In this

projectwebelieve thatwecangenerateknowledgebyactingasexternalobserversof

ourresearchedphenomenonofchangemanagementwithinCBM&A.Wealsosearchfor

patterns of associations between the change management principles and CBM&A

performance, which can lead to potential discovery of causal relations.Moreover, we

have chosen to examine the principles of changemanagement and consequently test

themaddingontotheexistingstockofknowledgeinthefieldofchangemanagement.

3.2.3Humannature

In terms of human nature we follow the objectivist approach of determinism.

Determinismsuggeststhatthehumanbehaviourisdeterminedbythesituationinwhich

an individual finds themselves (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Based on our belief that

organizations are purposeful and adaptive, which is in line with chosen teleological

theories, the organizations follow the change process their leaders rationally and

logically initiated (Graetz and Smith, 2010). Thus, this project follows the objective

stanceofdeterminism.

3.2.4Methodology

Overall,theassumptionsaboutontology,epistemologyandhumannatureinfluencethe

methodology. According to Arbnor and Bjerke (2009) methodology’s mission is to

explain how different aspects of the research come together in an integrated whole.

Methodology,alsoknownasthe’’theoryofmethods’’(Glaser,1992),seekstoexplainthe

reasons underlying the choice of the applied methods (Kuada, 2012). Following the

pattern from previously mentioned components of a paradigm, methodology

distinguishes between the objectivist and subjectivist stances corresponding to the

nomotheticapproachandtheideographicapproaches,respectively.

46

Consideringourassumptionsaboutontological,epistemological,andhumannature,itis

apparentthatthisprojectfollowstheobjectiveapproach.Thisisalreadyindicatedinour

problemformulation,whichiscreatedinaccordancewithourassumptionthatrealityis

external to the individualandexists independently.Additionally,weaim tosearch for

anylinkagesbetweentheleadersdrivingchangeandtheirorganizationsinthecontext

of CBM&A rather than to understand, which is in accordance with positivism. Thus,

using Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) terminology this project follows the nomothetic

approachtomethodology.

ThenomotheticapproachiscorrespondingtotheanalyticalapproachdefinedbyArbnor

and Bjerke (2009). According to the analytical approach, the main efforts of the

research are to uncover patterns and relations, generalize results and predict future

incidents (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009). Also, the reality can be decomposed into small

elements, which can then be transformed into concepts to be able to reveal causal

relationsviahypothesistesting(ArbnorandBjerke,2009). Researchersfollowingthis

approachmuststayoutsidetheobjectresearchedandnotinteractwithit.Accordingto

Burrell andMorgan (1979) andMentzer and Flint (1997), this approach usesmostly

quantitative techniques for data analysis and the construction of scientific tests by

meansofstatisticalprocedures.

Thus, reflecting our assumptions and objectivist stance this research makes use of

quantitativemethods.Thesemethodsareknowntostartwithatheoryandusetheoryto

guidetheconsequentobservations(Creswell,2014).Inotherwords,inthisprocessthe

researchersdeductivelymovefromthegeneraltotheparticular.

It isvisiblethatourprojectisbuiltonthetheoryofprinciplesofChangemanagement,

thus follows the characteristic of quantitativemethods.Quantitativemethods are also

means of testing objective theories such as our principles of Changemanagement by

examining the relationsamongvariables.Not surprisingly, the researchof this type is

characterized by extensive literature review, which enables researcher to deduce

hypothesisandresearchquestions.Itisclearthatwehaveemployedthismethodinour

projecttobeabletodrawthemostrelevantprinciplesofChangemanagement.

47

3.3Researchdesign

Given that this research is positioned within functionalism and it has a quantitative

methodology, this thesis also adopts a research design which is aligned with the

quantitative methodology. A research design is a framework for the collection and

analysis of data (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Thereby, a research design represents the

structure that guides the execution of a research method and the analysis of the

subsequentdata.Consequently,theresearchdesignactsasablueprintofmethodology

andshowshowtheresearchwillbeconducted(Ekinci,2015).

Theresearchdesignwhichhasbeenchosenforthisthesisisthesurveyresearchdesign,

which is firmly placed within the context of quantitative research (Bryman and Bell,

2011). The survey research design can be categorized as a specific type of cross-

sectional research design (Bryman and Bell, 2011).Within a cross-sectional research

designmanyresearchmethodscanbeemployed,butdata inasurveyresearchdesign

are predominantly collected by questionnaire or structured interviews (Bryman and

Bell,2011).Thisiswhyitisalsoreferredtoasasocialsurveydesign(BrymanandBell,

2011)orasurveyresearchdesign(Ekinci,2015).

Considering that except for the applied researchmethods, the survey researchdesign

andthecross-sectionaldesigndonotdiffer,thesurveyresearchentailsthecollectionof

data at a single point in time (Burns and Burns, 2008), and on more than one case

(BrymanandBell,2011).This isdue to the fact thatresearchersemploying thecross-

sectionaldesignareinterestedinvariation,andvariationcanonlybeestablishedwhen

more than one case is examined (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Consequently, by

implementingasurveyresearchdesign,weareabletoexamineourresearchobjective,

to investigate if there is a differencebetween successful andunsuccessful CBM&As in

theiruseofchangemanagementprinciples.

We do so by looking at the variation between the cases. However to enable this, the

collected data have to be quantitative or quantifiable, which provides a necessary,

systematic and standardized method for gauging variation (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

Anotherelementofthecross-sectionalresearchisthatonlypatternsofassociations,but

notcausalrelationships,canbeexamined.However,certain inferencesaboutcausality

48

canbedrawn(BrymanandBell,2011).Wewillreturntothisdiscussionin“3.7Validity

andreliability”

Taking the abovementioned research design and the quantitative methodology into

account, the research process we apply in this thesis include the following steps:

defining theresearchobjectives, reviewing the literature,datasampling, collecting the

data, analyzing the data, and presenting the findings. This research process is shown

belowinFigure3.3

Figure3.3-ResearchDesign

The research objectives together with a problem formulation with four research

questionswerealreadydevelopedintheintroductionofthisthesis.Next,in“ChapterXY

Literature Review” we reviewed the literature and subsequently answered RQ1 and

RQ2.Inthefollowingsectionwefocusonthespecificpartsofthedesignofourresearch,

whichaimtoanswertheRQ3andRQ4.Firstly,wepresentanddiscusshowthesampling

wasconductedandhowthedatawerecollected,analyzedandpresented.

3.4Sampling

Samplingisanimportantaspectandakeystepinconductingsurveyresearch(Bryman

and Bell, 2011). The process starts with the researcher determining what kind of

population issuited for the investigationof theresearch topic.Fromthispopulationa

DetiningtheObjectivesoftheresearch

ReviewingtheLiterature

Sampling

CollectingandAnalyzingtheData

PresentingtheFindings

49

sampleisdrawnduetopracticalreasonsconsideringthatitis,inmostcases,unfeasible

toexamineanentirepopulation.Thus,thesampleisthesegmentofapopulationthatis

selectedforinvestigation(BrymanandBell,2011).

Inrelationtothisthesis, thecontextofour investigationwasinitiallychosentobethe

American companies,whichhadbeen involvedwithCBM&As from01-01-2006 to01-

01-2016, a ten-year period. This means that our population initially consisted of the

deals in this period with the acquirer or one of the merging companies being

institutionalized in theUnitedStates (US).USbased companieswerepickedbasedon

the big population, assumed familiarity with change management, anticipated low

responserates,andinorderforustobeabletocomparethegreat failurerateswhich

weremainly foundintheUS(e.g.KellerandAiken,2009a)withourresults.Wechose

not toaddanyothercriteria for selection,aswewanted tobeable togeneralizevery

broadly.Othercriteria,whichcouldhavebeenused,includebutarenotlimitedto:size,

industry and geographic distance between the companies. From this population, or

morespecifically fromthesampling framethatwascreatedusingaglobaldatabaseof

M&As, Zephyr, we needed to draw a sample which we wanted to make sure to be

representative. Consequently and in line with our methodology, we opted for a

probability sampling technique, simple random sampling. We did so with the

knowledgeofprobabilitysampleshavingabetterchanceofkeepingsamplingerror in

checkandthefactthattheymakeitpossibletomakeinferencestothepopulationfrom

which the sample was selected (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Zikmund et al., 2013). The

samplesizewaschosentobe1.000dealsoutofthe11.470deals,whichconstitutedour

samplingframe.Thereasonsoursamplesizewaschosentobe1.000were:1)ourgoal

wastohavearepresentativesample,2)samplingerrordecreaseswhenthesamplesize

increases,3)ourpopulationhadagreatdegreeofheterogeneitywithgreatervariation,

whichrequiredagreatersampletomakeitrepresentative(BrymanandBell,2011),and

4) itwas in linewith recommendations (Zikmundet al., 2013). The1.000 caseswere

thenrandomlychosenusingMicrosoftExcel’s“RAND”-function.

DuetotheanticipationoflowresponseratesfromthesampleoftheUSdeals,causedby

thepreviouslymentionedreasons,wetooknecessaryprecautionsandcreatedabackup

sampleusingthesameprocedureasmentionedabove,butwiththeacquireroroneof

themergingcompaniesbeinginstitutionalizedinDenmark.ThiswasdoneduetoDanish

50

companies’ familiarity with Aalborg University, which could help to increase the

responserates(BrymanandBell,2011).400casesweredrawnfromthesampleframe

of881deals.Oursurveywassent to theacquireranddirectedto themanagersat the

highestlevelswhowereinvolvedintheM&A.

Regardingtheresponserates,therateoftheUSsamplewasonly1.6%whiletherateof

the Danish sample was a mere 3.7%. These response rates were way below the

minimum of 10% which could be recognized as acceptable (Ekinci, 2015). This

constitutedaproblem,becausevery lowreturn ratesmake itdifficult to establish the

representativenessof the sampleas those respondingmaynot represent the research

sample (Ekinci, 2015). In other words, in this case there is a difference between the

sample and the population from which it is drawn due to the non-response error

(Zikmundetal.,2013).Whenthishappens,theexternalvalidityoftheprojectdecreases

(Bryman andBell, 2011). The validity of this projectwill further be discussed in “3.7

Validityandreliability”.

Thus, insteadofworkingwitheither theUS sampleor theDanish sample,whichonly

had 14 respondents each, we combined the two, so that we would have 28 cases to

analyze.Bycombiningthesampleswegotasamplewhichresembledadisproportional

stratifiedsamplewithaDanishandaUSstratum.Inadisproportionalstratifiedsample

the sample size for each stratum is not allocated in proportion to the population size

(Zikmundetal.,2013),whichaddssomesamplingerror.However,inourcaseweargue

that the benefit of having more cases supersedes the disadvantage of having more

samplingerror,consideringthat thedegreeofnonresponseerrorhasalreadyhurt the

externalvalidityoftheresearch.Consequently,weendedupwithasampleof28cases,

whichcorrespondedtoaresponserateof2.24%.Ourfinalsampleisdescribedbelowin

Table3.1.

51

Sample

Profession

al,

Scientific,and

TechnicalServices

28,6%

2013

25,0%

Italy

3,6%

UK

25,0%

Man

ufacturin

g

25,0%

2012

10,7%

Other

3,6%

German

y

10,7%

Ukraine

3,6%

Enterprise(>10

00)

32,1%

Inform

ation

3,6%

2011

7,1%

Dire

ctor

46,4%

Fran

ce

10,7%

Swed

en

10,7%

Large(500

-100

0)

7,1%

Fina

ncean

dInsurance

7,1%

Unk

nown

3,6%

2010

3,6%

2016

7,1%

COO

7,1%

Finlan

d

3,6%

Spain

3,6%

Den

mark

50%

Med

ium(2

50-499

)

7,1%

Agric

ulture,Forestry,

Fishingan

dHun

ting

7,1%

Who

lesaleTrade

7,1%

2007

3,6%

2015

25,0%

CFO

10,7%

Cana

da

7,1%

Russia

7,1%

USA

50%

Small(<2

50)

53,6%

Administrativean

dSu

pporta

nd

WasteM

anagem

enta

nd

Remed

iatio

nServices

14,3%

Tran

sportatio

nan

dWareh

ousing

3,6%

2006

7,1%

2014

10,7%

CEO

32,1%

Australia

3,6%

Norway

3,6%

USA

7,1%

CountryofIncorporation

Size(employees) Industry YearofM&A Positionof

Respondent CountryofotherCompany

Table3.1-Sample:DescriptiveStatistics

52

3.5Datacollection

After discussing our sample,wewill continue to discuss themethods and techniques

used to create theempirical foundationof this thesis. In the following sectionwewill

describethedatacollectionmethodusedand,justasimportant,justifywhyithasbeen

applied.

3.5.1Self-completionquestionnaire

Inthisthesisweemployasurveyasaresearchinstrumentforcollectingdata,sincewe

areinterestedinobtaininganinsightintomanycasesatasinglepointintime.Wedoso

inordertoexaminepatternsofassociation,whichisincorrespondencewiththecross-

sectional research design, for which a survey serves as an excellent tool. More

specifically,weutilizedaself-completionquestionnaire,whichrequirestherespondents

to answer questions by completing the questionnaire themselves (Bryman and Bell,

2011). Besides factualquestionsabouttheCBM&Aswedesignedthequestionnaireto

includeclosed-responsequestions,whichweretobeansweredonanordinalscalefrom

“Not at all” to “Very high degree”with three options in between and a “Don’t know”

option.Ourquestionnairewasdistributedthroughe-mailswithalinktoSurveyXactand

datawerecollectedoverathree-weekperiod.

The reasonswe chose a self-completionquestionnaire are to be found in someof the

advantages that come with it. Firstly, the self-administered questionnaire allows for

geographicflexibilityinacostandtimeefficientway(BrymanandBell,2011;Zikmund

et al., 2013). In order to reach our US sample and considering that this is aMaster’s

thesis, which is not sponsored or financially backed, it was important that our data

collection tool allowed us to reach the geographically dispersed companies within a

reasonable time frame without costs. Secondly, having the respondents carrying the

responsibility for reading and answering the questions, rather than an interviewer,

eliminates the interviewereffect,whichentailsadecrease inbiasedanswers (Bryman

and Bell, 2011). Finally, we have included highly standardized questions, since we

included closed-response questions in our questionnaire (Burns and Burns, 2008). In

relationtoourthesis,thisprovideduswiththequantitativedata(Ekinci,2015),which

madeiteasyforustocompareandlookforvariationandpatternsofassociationinan

objectiveway.

53

However,theself-completionquestionnairedoesnotcomewithoutsomelimitationsor

rathersomedisadvantages.Mainlyonedrawbackisinevidenceinourcase,andthatis

the fact thatself-completionquestionnairestendtohave lowerresponserates(Ekinci,

2015).Thisisoneofthemostdamaginglimitationstothiskindofsurvey(Brymanand

Bell, 2011). The reason is, as touched upon earlier in this chapter, that with low

response rates it is difficult to knowwhatpopulation the sample is representative of,

andthere isariskofbiaswhich inturnnegatively impactstheexternalvalidityof the

research.

In order to increase the response rates in our research we made use of the

recommendedpractices.Thefirstthingwedidwastoincludeacoverletter,whichcan

befoundinAppendixD.Inthecoverletterweexplainedthereasonforconductingthis

research,whytherespondenthadbeenselected,andwealsopromisedconfidentiality

(BrymanandBell,2011).Moreover,weprimarilymadeuseofanegotisticalappealby

emphasizing that the recipient’s opinions were of great importance to us, and we

personalizedthecoverlettertoincludeinformationontheCBM&A,wewereinterested

in. Both of these elements are important in increasing the response rate (Burns and

Burns,2008).Secondly,wefollowedupwithfourremindinge-mailstothoserecipients

whohadnotyet returned thequestionnaire.Multiple contactsalmostalways increase

response rates (Zikmund et al., 2013).We also tried to design the questions and the

layout of the questionnaire to make it interesting and attractive, in accordance with

guidelines (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Ekinci, 2015). Although we applied these

recommended practices for increasing response rates, the response rate of our

combined sample was only 2.24% percent. The response rate and the consequences

hereofarediscussedinthechapter“3.7Validityandreliability”.

The structureofour survey,which canbe found inAppendixE, consistsof twoparts.

The first part asks factual questions about the specificM&A,while the second part is

concerned with both the use of change management principles in the M&A, and the

performance of the M&A. However, before the data could have been collected, these

conceptsandprinciplesneeded tobeoperationalized (BurnsandBurns,2008). In the

followingsectionweelaborateonthisoperationalization.

54

3.5.2Operationalizingofconceptsandprinciples

Inordertogetquantitativedataforourresearch,boththeprinciplesandM&Asuccess

had to be operationalized. Often researchwould rely on previously appliedmeasures

andindicators,asthereliabilityandvalidityofthesealreadyhavebeenestablished.We

follow this practice with operationalizing the M&A performance. However, for the

principles we relied heavily on the literature from which the principles have been

identifiedandnotonpreviouslyestablishedmeasuresand indicators.Thiswasdue to

theauthorsofthethesis’bestknowledgeofthisbeingthefirstresearchthattriedtotest

thechangemanagementprinciplesinasurveyandinaCBM&Acontext.Consequently,

thefollowingoperationalizationofconceptsdrewontheeightidentifiedprinciplesand

chapter“2.2.4Changemanagementprinciples”intheliteraturereviewofthisthesis.We

alsorefertothischapterforamorethoroughassessmentoftheprinciples.


“Defining the initiative” is the first identified changemanagement principle, and it is

concerned with defining the change initiative (Beer et al., 1990; Kanter et al., 1992;

Kouzes and Posner, 2007). One dimension of defining the initiative is, according to

Kanter et al. (1992), for managers to understand their companies’ strengths and

weaknesses. Kouzes and Posner (2007) add another dimension and state that

companiesshouldlookbothexternallyandinternallyforproblemsandopportunitiesto

change, and employees should be encouraged to take part in the process of doing so

(Beeretal.,1990).OpportunitiesandchallengesofM&Asshouldnotonlybeidentified,

but the impact of the M&A should also be evaluated (Kouzes and Posner, 2007).

Consideringtheabovementioneddimensions,thefirstprincipleofchangemanagement,

“DefiningtheInitiative”,isoperationalizedusingtheindicatorsseeninTable3.2

DefinetheInitiativeVariable Operationalizationdefine_t Towhichdegree,beforetheM&A,didyou-Thoroughlyanalyzeyourstrengths

andweaknesses?defin_1 Towhichdegree,beforetheM&A,didyou-Identifychallengesand

opportunities?defin_2 Towhichdegree,beforetheM&A,didyou-AssesstheimpactoftheM&A?defin_3 Towhichdegreewereemployeesandmiddle-managersinvolvedintheprocessof

identifyingtheneedand/ortheopportunitytomerge/acquire?Table3.2-OperationalizationofPrinciple1

55


This second principle is about getting people to understand the need for change, and

motivatingthemtocollaborateonthechangeinitiative(Beeretal.,1990;Kanteretal.,

1992;Kotter,1995;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;Leucke,2003).Thepurposeofcreatinga

senseofurgencyandchallengestatusquoistominimizeandeliminatecomplacencyand

make employeesunderstandwhy change is needed (Kanter et al., 1992;Ulrich, 1998;

Garvin, 2000), which is done by communicating the identified challenges and

opportunitiesbroadlyanddramatically,whichinturnchallengesstatusquo.

Anotherdimensionofthisprincipleisthesourcesofcomplacency,which,accordingto

Kotter(1996)are: lackofavisiblecrisis, toomanyvisibleresources, lowperformance

goals,organizationalstructure,evaluationsystemsthatfocusonthewrongcriteria,lack

offeedbackfromexternalsources,aconflict-averseculture,peoples’abilitytodeny,and

too much unconcerned communication from top-management. These have to be

minimizedandeliminatedtochallengethestatusquo.

Lastly, the literatureproposes thatat least75%ofallmanagersneed tobeconvinced

thatasignificantchangeisnecessary(Beeretal.,1990;Kotter,1996;Leucke,2003)for

it to be an indicator of whether sufficient sense of urgency has been created. The

indicatorsofthesecondprinciple,“Challengestatusquo”,arefoundbelowinTable3.3

intheformofsurveyquestions.

ChallengestatusquoVariable Operationalizationcsq_1 TowhichdegreedidtheemployeesunderstandwhytheM&Awasimportant?csq_2 HowoftendidtheorganizationemphasizethattheM&Awasnecessaryinfrontof

theemployeesbeforetheM&A?csq_3 Approximately,whatpercentageofallmanagerswereconvincedthattheM&A

wasabsolutelynecessary?csq_4 Towhatdegreedidthecompanyclarifytotheemployeestheconsequencesofnot

doingtheM&A?csq_5 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Theabsenceofamajorandvisiblecrisiscsq_6 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Toomanyvisibleresourcescsq_7 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Lowoverallperformancestandardsandgoalscsq_8 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Organizationalstructuresthatfocusemployeesonnarrowfunctionalgoals

56

ChallengestatusquoVariable Operationalizationcsq_9 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Internalmeasurementsystemsthatfocusoninappropriateperformanceindexescsq_10 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Alackofsufficientperformancefeedbackfromexternalsourcescsq_11 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-Akill-the-messenger-of-bad-news,lowcandor,lowconfrontationculturecsq_12 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-EmployeesdenyingtheneedforaM&Acsq_13 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?

-ToomuchhappytalkfromseniormanagementTable3.3-OperationalizationofPrinciple2


Regardingthethirdprinciple,“Leadingthechangeandbuildingachangeleaderteam”,

the literature focusesonthosewhoare inchargeof thechangeandchampions it.One

dimension of this principle is that leaders need tomodel the way (Beer et al., 1990;

Kanteretal.,1992;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;Leucke,2003;KouzesandPosner,2007),

as they play a critical role in guiding, driving and inspiring the change (Kanter et al.,

1992).Thisentailschampioningthechange,publiclycommittingtothechangeinitiative,

committingpersonaltimeandattentionintotheprocess(Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000).

Aseconddimensionofthisprincipleconcernscharacteristicsofthechangeleaders.Beer

etal.(1990)emphasizethreecharacteristics:abeliefthatthechangeinitiativeisthekey

tocompetitiveness,abilitytoarticulatethisbelief,andpeople-skillsandorganizational

know-howtoimplementthechange.

Although change leaders are critical for leading the change, they cannot do it alone

(Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1995, 1996; Ulrich, 1998; Garvin, 2000). Thus, a third

dimension focuses on a guiding coalition. Kanter et al., (1992), Kotter (1995, 1996),

Ulrich(1998),andGarvin(2000)arguethattheorganizationthatinitiatesasignificant

changeinitiative–suchasaM&A–hastocreateaguidingcoalition.Notanycoalition

will do, though.Only those coalitions that share the following fourkey characteristics

areeffective:positionpower,expertise,credibility,andleadershipskills(Kotter,1996).

To this Kanter et al. (1992) add that the guiding coalition should be made up of

membersbelongingtodiversestakeholder-groups.Theseabovementioneddimensions

57

areoperationalizedandfoundinTable3.4asindicatorsofthethirdchangemanagement

principle.

LeadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteamVariable Operationalizationlead_1 Towhichdegreedidyouhave-aleaderwhoownedandchampionedtheM&A?lead_2 Towhichdegreedidyouhave-aleaderwhowaspubliclycommittedtomaking

theM&Asucceed?lead_3 Towhichdegreedidyouhave-aleaderwhoputinthepersonaltimeand

attentionneededtomaketheM&Awork?lead_4 DidtheleadersoftheM&A-BelievethattheM&Awasthekeyto

competitiveness?lead_5 DidtheleadersoftheM&A-Havetheabilitytoarticulatethebeliefthatthe

M&Awasthekeytocompetitiveness?lead_6 DidtheleadersoftheM&A-Havethepeople-skillsandorganizationalknow-

howtofollowthroughwiththeM&A?lead_7 Didthecompanyestablishandmakeuseofaguidingcoalition/aprojectgroup

toheadtheM&Aprocess?lead_8 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthesefour

characteristics:-PositionPowerlead_9 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthesefour

characteristics:-Expertiselead_10 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthesefour

characteristics:-Credibilitylead_11 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthesefour

characteristics:-LeadershipSkillslead_12 Towhichdegreeweremembersoftheteam,whichwasaheadoftheM&A,

belongtodifferentstakeholder-groups?Table3.4-OperationalizationofPrinciple3


Thechangemanagement literaturerecognizestheneedforavision,becauseithasthe

potentialtouniteemployeesbehindanidea(Kanteretal.,1992),andtobreakthrough

all resistance, inertia and powers supporting status quo, while it promotes the

significant change initiatives (Kotter, 1995, 1996). Ulrich (1998) and Garvin (2000)

emphasizeanotherdimension,namelythevision’sfunctionofgettingemployeestosee

thedesiredoutcomeofchangeinconcretebehavioralterms.

However,inorderforthevisiontofulfillitspurposeithastobeeffective.Accordingly,

thechangemanagementliteratureofferssixcentralcharacteristicsofaneffectivevision

(Kotter, 1996; Leucke, 2003; Kouzes and Posner, 2007). The vision has to be:

imaginable,desirable, feasible, focused, flexible,andcommunicable.Lastly, theprocess

58

ofdevelopingthevisionshouldengageagroupofpeople,theguidingcoalition,andnot

only a single individual (Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Considering this

operationaldefinition,thefourthprincipleofchangemanagement,“Developavision”,is

operationalizedusingtheindicatorsseeninTable3.5.

DevelopavisionVariable Operationalizationvision_1 Towhichdegree-DidthecompanydevelopavisionfortheM&A?vision_2 Towhichdegree-Didemployeesunderstandtheoutcomeofthechangein

behavioralterms?vision_3 Towhichdegree-DidemployeesunderstandhowtheM&Aswouldbenefit

themselves,customersandotherstakeholders?vision_4 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Conveyapictureofwhatthefuture

wouldlooklike?vision_5 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Appealtothelong-terminterestsof

employees,customersandotherstakeholders?vision_6 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Compriserealisticandattainable

goals?vision_7 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Focusonmanageableandcoherent

setsofgoals?vision_8 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Havetheabilitytoadapttochanging

circumstances?vision_9 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Havetheabilitytobeeasily

communicatedtodifferentlevels?visio_1 Towhichdegreeweremorepeoplethanasoleleaderinvolvedwithdeveloping

thevisionfortheM&ATable3.5-OperationalizationofPrinciple4


Therealpowerofthevisionisonlyunleashedwhenthemajorityoftheinvolvedinthe

changeinitiativehavethesameunderstandingof itsgoalanddirection(Kotter,1996).

Thus,thechangevisionhastobecommunicated.Sevenadvicesoncommunicatingthe

changevisioneffectivelyarefound(Kotter,1996).Thecommunicationhastobe:Simple,

vivid,giventhroughmultiplesourcesandchannels,repeated,personifiedintheactions

oftop-management,usedtoexplainseeminginconsistenciesbetweenthechangevision

andwhattheleadersstandforand/orrepresentintheirbehavior,andtwo-way.Thisis

captured in the indicators of the fifth changemanagement principle,which are found

belowinTable3.6

59

CommunicatethechangevisionVariable Operationalizationcom_1 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyou

agreethatthecommunicationwas-Simple(e.gavoidingjargonandtechnicalterms)

com_2 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Utilizedmetaphors,analogiesandexamples?

com_3 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Giventhroughmultiplesourcesandchannels?

com_4 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Repeated?

com_5 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Personifiedintheactionsoftop-management?

com_6 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Usedtoexplainseeminginconsistenciesbetweenthechangevisionandwhattheleadersstandforand/orrepresentintheirbehavior?

com_7 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Two-waycommunication?

Table3.6-OperationalizationofPrinciple5


“Empower people for change” exists due to the presence of obstacles to the change

initiative, and consequently it is concerned with changing structures and eliminating

obstacles in order to reinforce the change effort (Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996;

Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;KouzesandPosner,2007).Theprincipleisconcernedwith

aligning formal structures with the change vision and eliminating obstacles, because

otherwisethereisariskoftheemployeesbeingsofrustratedthattheywilllosefaithin

thechangeinitiative(Kotter,1995,1996).Onewayofdoingthisistoallowemployeesto

havemore responsibilities andmore variety,whichwill enrich people’s jobs (Kouzes

andPosner,2007).Kotter(1996)alsoemphasizestheneedfordevelopingcompetencies

in the employees, while a third obstacle of incongruence between compensation,

performance-appraisalsystems,andthechangevisionneedtobeeliminatedbyaligning

thesystemswiththevision(Kotter,1996).Lastly,bosseswhorefusetochangeandwho

makedemandsthatareinconsistentwiththeoveralleffortshouldbeconfronted.

60

Additionally,Kanteretal.(1992)statethatenablingstructurescouldalsobesymbolic,

suchasrearranging theofficespaceorchanging theorganization’sname.However, in

this context we argue that it is not relevant to focus on changing the organization’s

name.Allthingsconsidered,thefocusofthesixthprincipleofchangemanagementisto

alteranddevelopsystems,structuresandcompetenciestoensurethattheycomplement

andreinforcethechangeinitiative(Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000).Thisiscapturedinthe

indicatorsoftheprinciplefoundinTable3.7.

EmpowerpeopleforchangeVariable Operationalizationempower_ Towhichdegree-Didtheleadersofthechangerecognizetheeffectsofthe

M&Aonthecompany’sstructuresandsystems?empow_1 Towhichdegree-Didthecompanyphysicallyrearrangetheofficespacedue

totheM&A?empow_2 Towhichdegree-WeretheformalstructuresalignedwiththeM&Achange

vision?empow_3 Towhichdegree-Weremoreresponsibilitiesoranincreasedvarietyintheir

assignmentsgiventoemployeesinrelationtoM&A?empow_4 Towhichdegree-Weretraininganddevelopmentopportunitiesprovidedfor

theemployeesinrelationtotheM&A?empow_5 Towhichdegree-Werecompensationandperformance-appraisalsystems

alignedwiththevisionoftheM&A?empow_6 Towhichdegree-Werebosseswhorefusedtochangeandmadedemands

inconsistentwiththeM&Achangevisionconfronted?Table3.7-OperationalizationofPrinciple6


Most people involved in a change campaign need convincing signs that the change is

producing the desired results, and they want to see these signs within 6-18 months

depending on the size of the organization and the change initiative (Kotter, 1996).

Moreover,theresultshavetobevisible,unambiguous,andclearlylinkedtothechange

initiative for them to have an effect (Kotter, 1996). If the short-termwin share these

characteristics, it will, according to Kotter (1995, 1996), help the change initiative.

Short-term wins give the opportunity to celebrate progress (Kotter, 1996), to which

Kouzes and Posner (2007) add that the celebration, rewarding and recognition of

contributions shouldbemadepublicly inorder to set anexample to followandboost

self-esteem.

61

Another dimension of this principle is that the process of achieving short-term wins

shouldbemonitored inorder tobeable toadjustandassess theprogression towards

the planned short-termwins (Beer et al., 1990; Ulrich, 1998; Garvin, 2000) Table 3.8

providesindicatorsoftheseventhprincipleofchangemanagement,whichis“Guideand

motivatethechangeprocess”.

GuideandmotivatethechangeprocessVariable Operationalizationguide_1 Towhichdegree-Didtheorganizationhavethemeansofmeasuringthe

successoftheM&A?guide_2 Towhichdegree-Didtheorganizationplantobenchmarkprogressonboththe

resultsandtheprocessofimplementingthechanges?guide_3 Towhichdegree-Didyouplanforshort-termwins(within6-18months)?guide_4 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Visibletoemployees?guide_5 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Unambiguous?guide_6 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Clearlylinkedtothechange

initiativeoftheM&A?guide_7 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Celebrated?guide_8 Towhichdegreewerethecelebrations-Public?guide_9 Towhichdegreewerethecelebrations-Usedtorecognizeindividual

contributions?Table3.8-OperationalizationofPrinciple7


Thefinalchangemanagementprincipleidentifiedis‘Makechangelast’.Firstofall,this

principleisaboutconsolidatinggainsandusingthemtoproducemorechange(Beeret

al.,1990;Kotter,1996;Leucke,2003).Withinthisprinciple,Lewin’s(1947)laststepin

his three-stepmodel, ‘Refreeze’, is found. Refreezing is essentially about stabilizing a

newequilibrium inorder forprogressionnot tobe lost,whichwillhappen if routines

andnormsarenottransformed(Burnes,2004).Withinorganizationsthismeansthatin

order to make change last, the new approaches need to be anchored in the

organizationalculture,policies,systems,reportingrelationships,andpractices(Beeret

al.,1990;Kanteretal.,1992;Kotter,1996;Ulrich,1998;Garvin,2000;Burnes,2004).

Secondly,changecanonlybeanchoredintheculture,whenithasowneditsmerits.In

otherwords, theanchoringdependsontheresults,andonlywhenthechangesclearly

haveproducedresults,whicharebetterthanthoseproducedtheoldway(Kotter,1996).

Theprocessofshapingthenewculturepotentiallyentailsemployeeturnoverinorderto

make sure that thekeypersonspersonify thenewapproaches. Lastly, thepromotion-

62

decisions have to become very important, which means that the criteria, by which

people are promoted have to be in accordance with the new practices. All the

abovementioned is captured in the indicators of the eighth and final change

managementprinciple.TheyarefoundbelowinTable3.9

MakechangelastVariable Operationalization

last_1Towhichdegree-Hasthecompanyusedtheinitialchangemomentumtoinitiategreaterchanges?

last_2Towhichdegree-Wereandarethecriteriaofpromotion-decisionsinaccordancewiththenewpracticesfromthevisionoftheM&A?

last_3Towhichdegree-WasandisemployeeturnovermanagedinaccordancewiththenewpracticesfromthevisionoftheM&A?

last_4Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Culture?

last_5Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Policies?

last_6Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Systems?

last_7Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-ReportingRelationships?

last_8Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Practices?

Table3.9-OperationalizationofPrinciple8

M&Aperformance

Regarding M&A performance, we drew on Schoenberg (2006), who compares four

commonly applied performance measures. These four measures are cumulative

abnormal return, managers’ subjective assessments, expert informants’ subjective

assessments,anddivestment.

The first measure, cumulative abnormal return, measures M&A performance by

assessing“theimpactofanevent(acquisitionannouncement)onafirm’ssharepriceby

estimating the ‘normal’orexpectedreturn to its share in theabsenceofaneventand

comparing it to the actual return achieved during a period of time around the event”

(Schoenberg,2006;362).Theadvantageofsuchanapproachisthatitisfullyobjective

and it is the only direct measure of shareholder value. The fact that the measure is

limited to the cases where the acquiring firm is publicly quoted is mentioned as the

greatestweaknessofthemeasure(Schoenberg,2006).Moreover,themovementsinthe

sharepricemayreflectotheractionsofthefirmextraneousoftheM&A.

63

ThesecondmeasurepresentedbySchoenberg(2006)originatesfromthemanagement

literature as an operationalization of the multidimensional performance construct.

When this measure is applied, managers are asked to rate the extent to which their

originalobjectiveshavebeenmet(Schoenberg,2006).Thestrengthsofusingmanagers’

subjectiveassessmentsarethattheytakedifferingmanagementobjectivesintoaccount

andtheyareapplicableacrossalltypesofM&As.Onthenegativeside,themeasuremay

besubjecttomanagerialbias.

The third measure, expert informants’ subjective assessment, is similar to using

managers’subjectiveassessments,butwiththevariationofexpertsbeingaskedinstead

of managers. In this way external assessment independent of the management is

provided and potential managerial bias is eliminated (Schoenberg, 2006). Instead,

however,itmayreflecttheexperts’subjectivebias(Schoenberg,2006).

UsingdivestmentasaperformancemeasureofM&Asisthefinalmeasurepresentedby

Schoenberg(2006).Thisperformancemeasure“identifieswhetheranacquiredfirmhas

subsequently been divested, with divestment deemed to show managements’

dissatisfaction with the acquisition’s performance” (Schoenberg, 2006; 363). The

strength of thismeasure is that it is a relative simplemethod to use and it does not

require detailed financial information. Nonetheless, it also has some weaknesses.

Divestmentas aperformancemeasure is ambiguousmeaning thatdivestment, onone

hand,mayindicatestrategicfailure,butontheotherhand,itmayindicateprofittaking

followingsuccessfulrestructuring(Schoenberg,2006).

In our thesis,weusemanages’ subjective assessments tomeasureM&Aperformance.

Thereasonisthatthecumulativeabnormalreturn,whichisthemostobjectivemeasure,

andthusthemostpreferabletouseinthisthesisconsideringthemethodology,isanex-

antemeasure and not all of the companies involved in the deals in our samplewere

publicly listed. Neither did we find divestment to be a suitable measure, due to its

ambiguity.Thisleftuswiththechoiceofsubjectiveassessmentseitherfrommanagers

involved in the M&A or from expert informants. Out of these two options we chose

managers’assessmentssincewedonotbelievethatitwouldbepossibletofindexperts’

assessment of every deal we researched. Moreover, Schoenberg (2006) showed that

managers’ subjective assessments and expert informants’ subjective assessments as

64

measures are correlated. Accordingly, the choice between these twomeasures is not

paramount for the answers nor for the accuracy of the answers. Hence, the

operationalizationofM&Aperformance,canbefoundbelowinTable3.10

M&AperformanceVariable Operationalizationperforma DoyoupersonallybelievethatyourM&Awasasuccess?perfo_1 TowhichdegreeweretheintendedM&Agoalsachieved?Table3.10-OperationalizationofM&APerformance

3.6Dataanalysis

Next, we move on to the data analysis part of the research design. Processing and

analyzing the data entails three steps in our thesis: computing summated scores,

examiningfrequencies,andtestingforvariance.

3.6.1Computingnewvariables

Thefirststepofcomputingnewvariablesistodivideoursampleof28respondentsinto

twogroups:thosewhoassessedtheirM&Aassuccessfulandthosewhodidnot.Wedo

sobycomputinganewvariable.Thoserespondentswhoanswered“veryhighdegree”to

thequestion “Towhichdegreewere the intendedM&Agoals achieved” constitute the

successful M&As, while those who answered “not at all”, “low degree”, “moderate

degree”and“highdegree”aredefinedastheunsuccessfulM&As.Bydefiningsuccessin

thiswayoursamplecorrespondsmoreorlesstothefailureratesfoundintheliterature

(MarksandMirvis,2001).

Furthermore,thefirststepalsoentailsreversecodingofthequestion“BeforetheM&A,

towhich degreewere the following the case in the organization?” The reason this is

needed is, that it allowsus to compute a groupedaggregated score for eachprinciple

consisting of the sub-dimensions (Burns and Burns, 2008). These were in turn

computed by taking the average of all sub-dimensions. Respondents who did not

respond to at least 85%were excluded, aswe otherwisewould have gotten a rather

distorted image. Consequently we were able to analyze the change management

principlesonanaggregatedlevelaswellasonasub-dimensionallevel.

65

3.6.2 To what extent do successful companies engage the principles of changemanagementinCBM&As?

Ourfirstanalysiscomprisedthecreationoffrequencytablesforthedimensionsofeach

changemanagementprinciple.Frequencytablesareaformofunivariateanalysis,which

providesthenumberofrespondentsandpercentagebelongingtoeachofthecategories

forthevariableinquestion(BrymanandBell,2011).Accordingtotheliterature,aslong

as a question only deals with one variable, and therefore excludes relationships of

associationorcausal relations, tabulation,ofwhichcreating frequency tables isasub-

form, is probably the best approach (Zikmund et al., 2013). However, in our casewe

wanted the frequencies to be showed based on our definitions of successful and

unsuccessful M&As. Consequently, we cross-tabulated, which can be thought of as

combining frequency tables (Zikmund et al. 2013).Having this overviewof the cross-

tabulations in formofcontingencytablesallowedustogain insight intoRQ3,which is

listedbelow.


inCBM&As?

3.6.3Howdoes theuseofchangemanagementprinciplesdifferbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As?

Inorder toanswerRQ4weconductedtwodifferent tests,oneonthesub-dimensional

level and one at the aggregated principle level. For the former we used a chi-square

analysis,whileattheprinciplelevelweappliedanindependentt-test.

Chi-squareanalysis

Chi-square analysis is a bivariate analysis of differences that is concerned with the

analysisoftwovariablesatatimeinordertoexaminewhetherornotthetwovariables

are related (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Moreover, such a test of differences is used to

investigatewhether twoormoregroupsdifferwithrespect tomeasuresonavariable

(Zikmundetal.,2013).Inrelationtothisthesis,wewantedtotestthedifferenceinuse

ofchangemanagementprinciplesbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As,which

constituteourfourthresearchquestionthatisshownbelow.

66


unsuccessfulCBM&As?

The chi-square analysis provided us with a means of examining the statistical

significance of the contingency tables we created to answer RQ3. The test involved

comparing the observed frequencieswith the expected frequencies,which provided a

statisticofthegoodness-of-fit(Zikmundetal.,2013).

The bivariate chi-square analysis was made on the level of the dimensions of the

principles,becausetheseweremadeupofordinalscales. Inaccordancewithpractice

within business and managerial research (Bryman and Bell, 2011), the tests were

conductedatasignificance levelof5%,which impliedthat therewere fewerthan five

chancesin100thatwecouldhaveasamplethatshowedarelationshipwhentherewas

noneinthepopulation(BrymanandBell,2011).

Independentt-test

While the chi-square analysis was used on the sub-dimensions, we conducted

independentt-testsonanaggregatedleveloftheprinciples,inordertoanswerRQ4.The

reasonwedidnotapplythechi-squaretestinthiscase,wasthatwehavecomputednew

ratio variables on the aggregated level. Therefore, instead of grouping the new ratio

variables intocategories,ordinalscales,andpossibly introducingprocessing-error,we

compared the means of the two groups, successful and unsuccessful M&As. For this

purposethet-testwaschosen.

However,inorderfortheindependentt-testtobeconsideredanappropriateapproach

totestingourdata,thedatahadtopasssixassumptions.Thefirstassumptionwasthat

the dependent variable had to be measured on a continuous scale. This we already

established. After the transformation to the aggregated level the new variables were

categorizedasratiovariables.Thesecondassumptionwasthattheindependentvariable

shouldconsistof twocategoricalgroups. Inourcasewehadtwoperformancegroups;

successful andunsuccessful. Independenceof observations,whichmeans that there is

no relationship between observations,was the third assumption,which our data also

passed. The final three assumptionswere that the data should not contain significant

outliners,thedependentvariableshouldbeapproximatelynormallydistributedforeach

67

groupoftheindependentvariable,andthatthereneededtobehomogeneityofvariance

(LundResearch,2013a).Theseassumptionswerefurthertestedin“4.2.1Assumptions”.

3.7Validityandreliability

Withinthetraditionofquantitativebusinessandmanagementresearchtherearecertain

criteria used to evaluate the quality of the research conducted. These criteria are:

validity,reliability,andreplicability(BrymanandBell,2011).

3.7.1Validity

Validity isconcernedwiththe integrityof theconclusionsthataregenerated fromthe

research.Asaconsequence it isseenasthemost importantcriterion inmanywaysof

research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). There are various types of validity: measurement

validity, internal validity, external validity and ecological validity. Regarding,

measurement validity, which is essentially concernedwith the adequacy ofmeasures

(Bryman and Bell, 2011), we draw on different sources of validity. The M&A

performancemeasureweutilized,wasalreadyestablishedintheliteratureasvalidand

reliable (Schoenberg, 2006). However, for our indicators of the principles and their

dimensionswewerenotabletodrawonalreadyestablishedmeasuresandindicators.

Instead,wereliedonfacevalidityandconstructvalidityforthoseindicators.

Facevaliditywasestablishedbylettingtheindicatorsbeingcreatedincloseaccordance

withthetheory.Thiswasdonetomakesurethatthemeasurereflectsthecontentofthe

principles in question (Bryman and Bell, 2011). However, even though we tried to

establish facevalidityofour indicators, it isupto thereaderandotherresearchers to

determinewhetherweweresuccessfulindoingso.

Constructvalidity,ontheotherhand,reflectswhethertheindicatorsandmeasures

behavelikethetheorysaysitwould(Zikmundetal.2013).Ourresultssuggestedthat

ourindicatorsdidbehaveinaccordancewiththechangemanagementtheory.

Nonetheless,constructvalidityisfirstestablishedwhennumerousstudiesusingthe

instrumenthavebeenevaluatedandacorrelationhasbeenestablished(Peters,1981).

Lastly,measurementvalidityiscloselyrelatedtothereliabilityofthemeasures,asthey

bothareexpressionsoftheadequacyofthemeasures.Therefore,weelaboratemoreon

theadequacyofthemeasuresin“3.7.2Reliability”

68

Thesecondmaintypeofthevalidity,internalvalidity,regardscausalityissues(Bryman

and Bell, 2011). More specifically, it is concerned with whether conclusions that

incorporateacausalrelationshipbetweentwoormorevariablesarevalid(Brymanand

Bell,2011).Theinternalvalidityofthisthesiscouldbeseenasweakduetothenatureof

ourresearchdesign.Thereasonisthatinthecross-sectionaldesignthereisnotimefor

reorderingofvariablessincethedataonthemarecollectedsimultaneously,andthereis

nooptionofmanipulatingoneofthevariable,asitisinexperimentaldesigns(Bryman

andBell,2011).Consequently,wecouldnotconcludecausalitybetweenvariableseven

if we found a relationship between them, andwe could not say that an independent

variableprecededthedependentone.However,wewereabletoinferthatonevariable

caused the other, by drawing on common sense and theoretical ideas. However, this

presentsariskofusbeingwrong(BrymanandBell,2011).Nonetheless,throughoutthe

projectandparticularlyintheliteraturereviewweborrowedsupportfromthechange

management literature, which argued that following the principles of change

managementwouldleadtosuccessoftheparticularchangeinitiative–inourcasethe

CBM&A.Therefore,wearguethatalthoughtheinternalvalidityofthisprojectisnotas

highas inanexperimentaldesigndue to thenatureofourcross-sectionaldesign, it is

stillatanacceptablelevel.Inotherwords,webelievethatourinferencethatthechange

management principles will precede M&A performance and success is strong and

groundedintheliterature.Yetitisimportanttostressthat,asitisthecasewithcross-

sectionaldesigns,even thoughour inferencemaybebasedonsoundreasoning, it can

onlybeaninference.Thus,thereisapossibilitythattherealpatternofcausaldirection

istheoppositeoftheanticipated(BrymanandBell,2011).

The third of the main types of validity is external validity, which is an especially

important concern in quantitative research with a cross-sectional design like ours

(BrymanandBell,2011).Externalvalidityconcernsthequestionofwhethertheresults

of a study canbe generalizedbeyond the specific research context,which is themain

reason that quantitative research is so keen on generating representative samples

(BrymanandBell,2011).Usuallytheexternalvaliditywillbestrongifthesamplefrom

whichdataarecollectedhasbeenrandomlyselected(BrymanandBell,2011).Thiswas

the case in our research, because we initially utilized simple random sampling as

mentionedin“3.4Sampling”,whichwouldcreatehighexternalvalidity.

69

Conversely, we recognized some issues with the representativeness of our sample,

whichwealsodiscussedin“3.4Sampling”.Inparticular,weidentifiedtwosourcesofthe

issuesoftherepresentativenessofourchosensample.Firstofall,theresponseratesto

oursampleandourbackupsample,whichwere1.6%and3.7%respectively,wereway

under the minimum acceptable response rates (Ekinci, 2015). In other words, non-

sampling error in the form of non-response error is present in our sample. We

pinpointedanumberofreasonsforthislowresponserate.Weutilizedaself-completion

questionnaire and althoughweused strategies to increase the response rate, see “3.4

Sampling”,thisresearchinstrumentisgenuinelyassociatedwithlowerresponserates.

Furthermore, the respondents of our surveyweremanagers, out ofwhom somemay

have changed jobs during the ten-year periodwewere interested in. Also, managers

may have beenmore reluctant to answer because of time constraints and the lack of

prioritization for such tasks (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Additionally, our time frame

presentedanotherissue.Managersmayhavehadtroublesrecallingtheinformationwe

were interested in and rather might have chosen not to answer. Lastly, there is a

growingtendencyofpeoplerefusingtoparticipateinsurveyresearch(BrymanandBell,

2011). These abovementioned reasons can justify a lower thannormal response rate,

and it should also be added, that prominent survey researchers have questioned the

assumption that lowresponseratesareassociatedwithbiasedresults (Groves,2006).

However, we cannot get around the fact that the response rates are too low, which

affects the representativeness of our samples in theway that it is not knownofwhat

populationoursamplesarerepresentativeof.

Thesecondsourceoftheissuesoftherepresentativenessofourchosensamplecomes

fromsamplingerror.Besidesoursamplebeingrelativelysmall,wealsointroducedmore

sampling error by combining our initial sample with our backup sample. The error

appearsinthefactthattheDanishcompaniesareoverrepresentedincomparisontothe

American.However,consideringthealreadyquestionablerepresentativeness,weargue

thattheadvantagesofcombiningthesamplesoutweightheaddederrorbyfar.Allthings

considered, the external validity is up for discussion at its best. Consequently,

constraintsareplacedonthegeneralizabilityofourresearchasthesurveyispotentially

biased (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Therefore, the reader should be careful in trying to

transferourresults intoothercontexts thanthecontextof thisresearch.Likewise,we

70

will be careful when generalizing to the population of the research. Nonetheless, the

results canbeused as a foundation for further research,which is needed to establish

externalvalidityofourresults.

Lastly, the ecological validity of this project, as it is in themajority of cross-sectional

research (Bryman and Bell, 2011), is limited. The reason is that the research

instruments–inourcasetheself-completionquestionnaire–disruptthenaturalhabitat

(BrymanandBell,2011).

3.7.2Reliability

Thenextcriterionforevaluatingthequalityofquantitativeresearchisreliability,which

is fundamentally concernedwith issuesof consistencyofmeasures (BrymanandBell,

2011). The stability of themeasures is the first parameter that could be examined to

determinethereliability.However,thisrequiresatest-retest,inwhichoursurveywould

havetobesentouttothesamesampleonalateroccasion.Unfortunately,thiswasnot

possibleor feasible inourcase.Anotherwayof lookingatreliability is to focusonthe

inter-observer consistency. In relation to our thesis, no problems were identified

regarding the inter-observer consistency, because we designed our questionnaire

exclusively, except for one question regarding industry classification, with closed-

responsequestions.Lastly,theinternalreliabilitycanbeassessedinordertoestablish

theproject’sreliability.Internalreliabilityisconcernedwithwhethertheindicatorsthat

make up a scale are consistent (Bryman and Bell, 2011). To examine the internal

reliabilityinourproject,weutilizeaCronbach’salphatest,whichisthemostcommonly

appliedtest.Weconductthetestontheleveloftheprinciplesandtheproducedalphas

canbeseenbelowinTable3.11.

Cronbach’sAlphaTestsDefinetheinitiative 0,596Challengestatusquo 0,836Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam 0,835Developavision 0,913Communicatethechangevision 0,866EmpowerPeopleforChange 0,808Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess 0,897Makechangelast 0,932Table3.11-Cronbach'sAlphaTests

71

The results of the Cronbach’s alpha tests show that there is a high degree of internal

reliability.Westatesobasedon theconsideration that0.7 is theminimumacceptable

result and an alpha of 0.8 and more is considered to indicate very good internal

reliability(Zikmundetal.,2013).However,thealphaofthefirstprinciplewasjustbelow

0.6,whichcouldbeduetothefactthatonlyfourdimensionsweremeasured(Burnsand

Burns,2008).Andthenagain,ourprinciplesdidnotconstitutescalesassuch,butrather

thequestionsmeasureddifferentdimensionsoftheprinciple,whichdidnotnecessarily

havetobeinterlinkedandcorrelated.

3.7.3Replicability

Thecriterionof replicationregardswhetherastudy iscapableof replication(Bryman

andBell,2011).Firstly,throughoutourthesisweexplicitlyspelloutourproceduresfor

every step made. Furthermore, we provide our indicators, steps of analysis,

questionnaireandmoreasappendices.Consequently,wearguethatwehavespecified

ourprocedurestoalargedegree,andthatourresearchhasahighdegreeofreplicability.

72

Chapter4: Analysis

Inthischapterweaimtopresentanddiscussthedatagatheredfromoursurveytobe

abletoproceedinourquestoffindingtheanswerstothefinaltworesearchquestions:

RQ3: To what extent do successful companies engage the principles of change

managementinCBM&As?

RQ4: How does theuseof changemanagementprinciplesdifferbetween successfuland

unsuccessfulCBM&As?

Tomaintainclarityinthisproject,thischapterisfurtherdividedintotwosectionseach

of which focuses on one research question. Thus, the use of change management

principles by successful companies on both an aggregated and individual level is

discussedfirst.Next,thesecondsectionprovidesacomparisonbetweensuccessfuland

unsuccessfulcompaniesbystatisticallytestingforsignificantdifferences.Thereaderis

referred to “3.5.2 Operationalizing of concepts and principles” or Appendix K for the

operationalizationsofthevariables.

4.1 To what extent do successful companies engage the principles of changemanagementinCBM&As?

4.1.1AggregatedviewofChangemanagementprinciples

As mentioned above, we start the analysis by looking at the change management

principlesonanaggregatedlevel(seeFigure4.1).Bearinginmindthatinthissectionwe

discuss the successful companies only, hence the companies, which stated that their

CBM&A was a success to a ‘’very high degree’’, we can see that seven out of eight

individualprincipleswerefollowedtoahighoraveryhighdegree.Theprinciplewhich

was followed to a moderate degree by the majority of respondents (71.4%) was

“Challengestatusquo’’. Inspiteof the fact that “Communicate thechangevision”also

included28.6%ofresponsesindicatingamoderatedegreeoffollowingtheprinciple,the

restoftherespondentsansweredthattheprinciplewasemployedtoahighextent.

Ontheotherhand,themostoptimisticanswerswerereceivedonthe“Leadthechange

and build a change leader team” and “Develop a vision” principles with 85.7% and

73

71.4%, respectively, of answers indicating a very high degree of following these

principles. Overallwecanconcludethatthemajorityofsuccessfulcompaniesseemto

followthevastmajorityoftheeightprinciplesofchangemanagementtoahighoravery

highdegree.Belowwewillindividuallydescribeeachprinciplewithitssub-dimensions

tobeabletocapturethewholepicture.

Figure4.1-AggregatedviewoftheChangeManagementPrinciples

4.1.2Individualviewonchangemanagementprinciples


Thefirstprincipletoelaborateonis“Definetheinitiative”,whichconsidersthedegree

towhichaproblemoranopportunityhasbeenidentified(seeFigure4.2).Breakingthis

principle down to four previously described indicators, we can see that 100% of the

successfulcompanieshaveagreedtoahighoraveryhighdegreetohaveassessedthe

impact of the M&A, while 85% confirmed to have identified the challenges and

opportunities to a high or a very high degree. The results considering whether the

company’sstrengthsandweaknesseswereanalysedwere lessoptimistic ranging froma

moderate(42.9%)throughahigh(42.9%)andaveryhighdegree(14.3%)offollowing

this sub-dimension. The lowest degree of agreement was witnessed in the last sub-

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Makechangelast

Guidethechange

Empowerpeople

Communicate

Developvision

Leadchange

Challengestatusquo

Detineinitiative

AggregatedviewofChangemanagementprinciples

Verylow Low Moderate High Veryhigh

74

dimensionwithwidest distribution of responses ranging from a very low (14.3%) to

very high (28.6%) degree. Thus, it appears that successful companies are not in

consensus about thedegree towhich employees andmiddlemanagerswere involved in

identifyingtheneedsoropportunitiestoconductanM&A.Thisalsomakessensebasedon

the confidential nature of this topic. Overall, it appears that although most of the

companies have identified their challenges and opportunities, together with the

predicted impact of M&A, their more concrete strengths and weaknesses were only

partially analysed. Interestingly, in spite of large emphasis on previously mentioned

analysesourdatashowthatthecompaniesweresomewhatmisalignedinthequestion

ofinvolvementofemployeesandmiddlemanagers.


Closelylinkedtothefirstprincipleisthesecondprinciplecalled“Challengestatusquo”.

Thisprinciple isalsoknowntocreatethesenseofurgencyor initiatingtheunfreezing

processonanorganization(see“2.2.4Changemanagementprinciples”).Inotherwords,

now we look at how the information regarding M&A, which was gathered by the

previousprinciple,wascommunicatedtotheemployeesinorderforthemtounderstand

the importance/urgency of the deal. As seen from Figure 4.3 there are 13 sub-

dimensions of this principle. We can state that the overall pattern of the answers

suggeststhatthesedimensionsweremostlyusedtoaverylow,low,ormoderatedegree

inalldimensionsconsideringthesourcesofcomplacencyinthepre-M&Aphase(csq_5-

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

detin_3

detin_2

detin_1

detine_t

Deiinetheinitiative

VeryLow Low Moderate High VeryHigh

Figure4.2–RQ3:Definetheinitiative

75

csq_13). Drawing from the literature review (see “2.2.4 Change management

principles”),ifthebelowmentionedsourcesofcomplacencyareinplace,forinstanceif

theemployeesbelievethattherearetoomanyvisibleresourcessuchasprivatecorporate

limousinecars,theywillnotperceivetheneedforachange.Thus,thesenseofurgency

wouldnotbecreated.

Thus,themajorityofsuccessfulcompanieshavestatedthatthefollowingunfavourable

conditionsandsourcesofcomplacencywereexperiencedinthepre-M&Astatetoonlya

low degree or not at all:, low overall performance standards, organizational structures

leading to narrow goals, internal systems measurement systems which focus on

inappropriate performance indexes, , low confrontation culture, employees ‘denial of the

needofM&Aandexcessivehappytalkfromseniormanagement.

Ontheotherhand,over80%ofthecompaniesadmittedtohaveexperiencedtheabsence

ofamajorcrisis toamoderatedegree,and70%of themagreedtoamoderateorhigh

degreeonthelackofsufficientexternalperformancefeedback.Furthermore,60%ofthe

respondents agreed to a moderate degree to have too many visible resources.

Nonetheless, thesenseofurgencydoesnothave tobecreatedusingall thesourcesat

once,thusitmakessensethatvarioussuccessfulcompaniesemployvarioussourcestoa

differentextent.

Movingon,wesee that thedimensionsmostly followedbysuccessfulM&Acompanies

werethoseconsideringtheemployeealignmentontheimportanceofM&A(csq_1).Here,

71.4 % of companies reported a high degree of alignment and further 28. 6% even

agreedonaveryhighdegreeofalignment.

Astheliteraturestates,thesenseofurgencyiscreatedwhenover75%oftheemployees

are aligned. Bearing inmind that both high and a very high alignment correspond to

percentagesover60%wecanstate thatallemployeeswerealigned, thus thesenseof

urgencyhasbeencreated inall thesuccessfulcompanies. In linewith this finding, the

thirddimensionabout thealignmentofmanagers(csq_3)with the importanceofM&A

receivedverypositiveresponseswith71.4%ofcompaniesanswered that81-100%of

all managers were convinced that the M&A was absolutely necessary and 14.3%

answered61-80%.

76

The final twodimensions (csq_2 and csq_4) relate to the frequencyofemphasizingthe

importanceofM&AaswellasclarifyingtheconsequencesofnotengaginginM&Atothe

employees in the pre-M&A phase. The responses outline very fragmented outcomes

rangingandbeingalmostequallydistributedbetweenalldegrees:fromnotatalltovery

high.

In conclusion, examining the Challenging status quo dimension, we have observed a

pattern suggesting that successful M&A companies did not concentrate on the

unfavourable pre-M&A conditions relating to systems or structures, but rather they

focusedonthealignmentwiththeM&Agoalsforboththeemployeesandmanagement.

Thisiscloselylinkedtothepreviousprincipleof“Definingtheinitiative”,whereitwas

discovered that employees and managers are not always consulted in the need

identificationprocess. Interestingly, in this sectionweuncovered that in spite of that,

thecompaniesareverylikelytoemphasisetheemployeeandmanagerialalignment.

Figure4.3–RQ3:ChallengeStatusQuo


Thenextprinciple,whichweareabout toanalyse, revolvesaround the importanceof

leadership insuccessfulchangemanagement.Wehaveusedtwelvedimensions,which

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

csq_13csq_12csq_11csq_10csq_9csq_8csq_7csq_6csq_5csq_4csq_3csq_2csq_1

Challengestatusquo


77

canbegroupedintothreecategoriestoaddressthisprinciple(seeFigure4.4).Thefirst

group of dimensions (lead_1 – lead_3) considers the presence of a leader to lead the

change,thesecond(lead_4–lead_6)examinesthecharacteristicsofthoseleaders,and

the third (lead_7 – lead_12) assesses the presence of change leader teams and their

features.

Aftertakingacloserlookatourdataitisclearthatthereisapattern,whichfollowsthe

groupingoftheabove-mentioneddimensions.Thispatternisthemostnoticeableonthe

firstgroupofdimensions,whichconsidersthepresenceofaleader.Here,theresponses

onallthreedimensionsagreedonahigh(28.6%)oraveryhigh(71.4%)degree.Thus,

all the successful companies seemed to have a committed leaderwho championed the

M&A and put in the personal time and attention to make the deal work. An almost

identical and a highly positive pattern continues through to the second group of

dimensionsaboutthecharacteristicsofaleader.Thefindingsdemonstratedthatallthe

companieswere highly or very highly in agreement about their leaders’belief inM&A

being a key to competitiveness, their ability to articulate this belief, and have both the

people-skillsandtheorganizationalknow-howtomaketheM&Adealwork.

The finalgroupofdimensionsconsideringthechange leader teampresentedthemost

fragmented responses within this principle. The findings show that vast majority of

successful companies had a guiding coalition/project team to lead the change. More

specifically, 71.5%of the companies followed this dimension to a high or a very high

extent with the outstanding 14.3% following to a moderate extent, and final 14.3%

followingtoalowextentonly.Intermsofthecharacteristicaneffectivechangeleader

team ought to have, the findings are mostly positive. Thus, expertise, credibility and

leadershipskillswerepresenttoahighoraveryhighdegree inmorethan85%ofthe

companiesfollowedbythepositionofpowerwitnessedtoahighoraveryhighdegree

by71.4%ofthecompanies.Therestoftherespondentsperceivedtheabovementioned

changeleaderteams‘characteristicstoamoderateextentonly.Ratherdifferentfindings

were gathered regarding the diversity of a change leader team in terms of various

membersbelongingtovariousstakeholdergroups. In this case, themajority (57.1%)of

respondentsagreedtoamoderateextentand14.3%didnotagreeatallwhiletherestof

therespondentsagreedtoaveryhighextent.

78

Overall,thesuccessfulCBM&Acompaniesseemedtohaveastrongandcapableleaderof

the changeprocess in place, aswell as the change leader team.The responses on the

teamcharacteristicswereslightlylesspositivethantheleaders’characteristicsasthey

includedapercentageofrespondentsagreeingtotheirdimensionstoamoderateextent.

Figure4.4-RQ3:Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam


Afterdiscussingtheleadershipanditsroleinthechangeprocess,wemoveontoakey

componentofleadership,whichisthevision.LookingattheFigure4.5wecanstatethat

successfulcompaniesareverypositiveabouttheinclusionanddifferentcharacteristics

ofachangevisionintheM&Aprocess.Inessence,themajorityofrespondentsagreedto

our dimension ofdevelopinga vision to a high extent (40%), followed by a very high

(24.6%),andamoderateextent(11.7%).

The companieswere largely in consensus aboutwhether theirs employeesunderstood

the outcome of the change, and the benefits of change for themselves and others.

Respectively,83.4%and100%ofthecompanieshaveagreedtoahighandaveryhigh

degree.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

lead_12lead_11lead_10lead_9lead_8lead_7lead_6lead_5lead_4lead_3lead_2lead_1

Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam


79

Our analysis also examined the characteristics ofM&A visions developed. The results

show that out of six key characteristics of an effective vision (see “2.2.4 Change

management principles”) successful M&A were positive about all of them, but most

positiveaboutthreeofthem.Awhopping100%oftherespondentsadmittedtheirvision

to have had the ability to be easily communicated to different levels to a high degree.

Moreover,thevisionwasfoundtoconveyapictureofadesirablefuture,andbeappealing

to the long-term interests of company’s stakeholders to either a high or a very high

degree. The final three characteristics of a visioncomprising realistic,manageableand

coherent set of goals, and having the ability to adapt to changing circumstances each

included 14.3% of respondents claiming that this was the case only to a moderate

degree.Nonetheless,therestofcompaniesagreedtothesecharacteristicstoahighora

veryhighdegree.Finally,ourresearchdiscoveredthatinmostofthecasesmorepeople

than just the leaderwere involved in developing the vision. This was demonstrated by

71.5%of thecompaniesagreeingtoahighoraveryhighdegree,andtheoutstanding

28.5%toamoderatedegree.Overall, itappearsthatmostof thesuccessfulcompanies

conductingCBM&Aareusingtheprincipleofdevelopingavisiontoahighoraveryhigh

degree.

Figure4.5-RQ3:Developavision

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

visio_10

vision_9

vision_8

vision_7

vision_6

vision_5

vision_4

vision_3

vision_2

vision_1

Developavision


80


After establishing that the vision has been developed in most of the successful M&A

companies,ithastobecommunicatedinordertoexploitthepowerofthevisiontoits

full potential. Hence, now we take a closer look at whether the companies

communicatedthevisioneffectivelyusingthemaincharacteristicsofaneffectivechange

vision communication defined in the previous chapter, “2.2.4 Change management

principles”.

LookingatFigure4.6itisapparentthat,unlikeinthepreviouslymentionedprinciples,

thereisamuchhighervarietyofresponses,rangingfromnotatalltoveryhighdegree

ofagreementondifferentdimensions.However,themajorityofdimensionsseemtobe

agreedontoahighoraveryhighextent.Specifically,thecommunicationwassimpletoa

high or a very high degree to 85.7% of the respondents, and it was also repeated,

personifiedintheactionsofmanagement,andtwo-waycommunicationtoahighoravery

highdegree71.5%ofthecompanies.

More diverse responseswere found in the dimensions considering theuseofmultiple

channelsforcommunicatingthevisionwhere42.9%ofsuccessfulcompaniesagreedtoa

highoraveryhighdegreebut28.6%agreedtoalowlevelonly.Similarly,66.7%ofthe

companies agreed to a high or a very high level to use the communication to explain

possibleinconsistenciesbetweenthechangevisionandthebehaviouroftheleader,while

theoutstanding33.3%agreedtoalowlevelonlyornotatall.Theuseofmetaphorsand

exampleswas the least likely characteristic of the vision communicationbased on the

factthatmorethanahalfofthecompaniesagreedtothistoonlyalowextentornotat

all.Overall,themorediverseresponsesonthedimensionsof“Communicatethechange

vision”werenoted.Nonetheless,fourcharacteristicsofthecommunicationwereagreed

on to a high or a very high degree which leads to the outcome of change vision

communication inmajorityof thesuccessfulM&Asbeingsimple,repeated,personified

intheactionsoftopmanagement,andbeingessentiallyatwo-waycommunication.

81

Figure4.6-RQ3:Communicatethechangevision


The following principle aims to tackle the obstacles, which stand in the way of the

change initiative. In other words, it is focused on alteration and development of the

systemsandcompetenciestocomplementthechangeinitiativeandempowerthepeople

(see“2.2.4Changemanagementprinciples”).Usingthesevendimensions,whichcanbe

seen in theFigure4.7, it seems that although thepositive responsesof high andvery

high agreement are prevailing, a fairly large proportion of the companies agreed to a

moderateextentonly.Accordingly,71.4%ofthecompaniesagreedtoahighoravery

high degree that their leaders recognised the effect ofM&Aon company structuresand

systems, the alignment of formal structures with the M&A vision, and training and

developmentopportunitiesfortheirstaff.

Slightlylesspositiveandmoreneutralweretheanswersontwodimensionsregarding

an increase in responsibilities for employees, andalignedperformanceappraisal system.

Here, twothirdsof thecompaniesagreedtoahighoraveryhighextent,howeverthe

resttoamoderateextentonly.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

com_7

com_6

com_5

com_4

com_3

com_2

com_1

Communicatethechangevision


82

Ontheotherhand,incaseofphysicallyrearrangingtheofficespace,andconfrontingthe

bosses who were inconsistent in their demands in relation to change, the respective

proportion of 28.6% and 42.9%of successful companies agreed to a low extent only.

Overall, although the trend of more positive responses persists in the case of this

principle, rearranging the office space, and confrontation of bosses with inconsistent

demandsseemednottobethecaseinmanycompanies.Incontrast,therecognitionof

effectsofM&Aoncompanies’structures,andtheirrespectivealignment,togetherwith

training opportunities for employees were the dimensions most frequently found in

successfulcompanies.

Figure4.7-RQ3:Empowerpeopleforchange


Thenextprinciplewediscussdealswith theshort-termwins,whichhelp toguide the

changeprocessby themeansof keepingup themotivationof the involvedpeople.As

seenintheFigure4.8,all100%ofthecompanieshadameanstomeasuresuccessofthe

M&Aas they agreed to this dimension to a high or a very highdegree.Moreover, the

majority(71.5%)ofthesuccessfulcompaniesagreedtoahighoraveryhighdegreeto

haveplanned tobenchmark theprogress. The results ofplanning fora short-termwins

show a greater variation in responses. Hence, the same proportion of the companies

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

empow_6

empow_5

empow_4

empow_3

empow_2

empow_1

empower_

Empowerpeopleforchange


83

(28.6%) agreed to a very high, to a high, and to a moderate degree. The rest of the

respondentsagreedtohaveplannedforashort-termwinsonlytoalowextent.

Bearinginmindthatabovehalfofthecompaniesagreedtohaveplannedforshort-term

winstoatleastahighextentwemoveontothefourcharacteristicsofshort-termwins,

which are reflected in our dimensions guide_4 – guide_7. The answers are fairly

consistentwithallrespondentsagreeingtoeitherahighoramoderatedegree.Themost

highlysupportedcharacteristicofshort-termwinswasfoundtobetheclearlinkageto

thechangeinitiativeoftheM&Awith87.5%.Intheotherend,thereisthecelebrationof

short-term wins, which was witnessed by majority of the companies (66.7%) to a

moderateextentonly.Theothertwocharacteristicsofthevisibilityofshort-termwinsto

the employees, and the unambiguity of the short-term wins brought a high degree of

agreementtotalling71.4%.

Comingbacktothecelebrationsoftheshort-termwins,ourfinaldimensions lookata

coupleoftheirmaincharacteristics. Interestingly, theresearchuncoveredthatmostof

thesecelebrationswerenotpublicwith60%ofthecompanies’votingforalowdegreeor

notatallanswer.Ontheotherhand,thesituationlooksmorefavourablewhenusingthe

celebrations to celebrate individualgoals. Here, 40% of the companies agree to a high

extent,40%toamoderateextentandtheoutstanding20%toalowextent.

Overall,allthecompanieshadthemeanstomeasuresuccess,andmorethanahalfhad

plannedforshort-termwins.Theprevailingcharacteristicsoftheshort-termwinswere

found to be the linkage to the change initiative followed by the visibility and

unambiguityof the short-termwins.The celebrationswerenot supportedmostly toa

moderatedegreeanditappearedthatinmostinstancestheywerenotpublic.

84

Figure4.8-RQ3:Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess


Theveryfinalprincipletodiscussistheoneaboutconsolidatingthegainsfromchange

effortspreviouslymentionedandmakingthechangelast.Figure4.9comprisestheeight

dimensions of this principle, out of which the majority consider whether the new

approacheshavebeenanchoredinthevariousstructuresandsystemsofthecompany

(last_4 – last_8). The first look at the data shows agreement to the dimensions to a

minimumof amoderatedegree andamaximumof a veryhighdegree.Thus, appears

that thisprinciplehasbeen followedtoarelativelyhighdegreeoverall.However, it is

importanttoemphasisethatthemostpositivescoresweregatheredonthedimensions

belonging to the section about anchoring the new approaches in the organization.

Specifically, 85.7% of the successful companies admitted to have anchored new

approachesintotheirculture,policiesandpracticestoahighoraveryhighdegree.Outof

thesethreedimensions,theanchoringofthenewapproachesintocompanies’policieshas

includedthehighestnumberofcompaniesagreeingtoaveryhighextent.Theanchoring

inthereportingrelationships, and theanchoringinthesystems havebeen thecase toa

highoraveryhighextentin57.2%and71.4%ofthecompaniesrespectively.Thus,the

anchoring of the new approaches in the systems is the least likely out of the

organizationalstructuresmentioned.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

guide_9

guide_8

guide_7

guide_6

guide_5

guide_4

guide_3

guide_2

guide_1

Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess


85

Thelowestscorewithinthisprinciplewasnotedwhenlookingatthefirstdimensionof

useofchangemomentumtoinitiategreaterchanges.Weseethat66.7%ofthecompanies

agreedtoamoderatedegreeonly.Thefinaltwodimensionsconsideringthealignment

of promotion decisions, and employee turnover with the new M&A vision have been

followedtoahighoraveryhighdegreeby71.4%ofthesuccessfulcompanies.

Overall, itappearsthatsuccessfulcompaniesconsideranchoringofnewapproachesin

theirculture,policies,andpracticestobethemostimportant,followedbythealignment

of employee turnover, decisions on promotions, and anchoring of new approaches in

reporting relationships. The successful companies are least likely to use the change

momentum to initiate greater changes. This can reflect the nature of an M&A as a

discontinuouschange.

Figure4.9-RQ3:Makechangelast

4.1.3Summary

In this sectionwepresented anddiscussed the results gathered on the use of change

management principles in successful CBM&As. Our findings showed, that on an

aggregated level, the successful companies used all the principles but one to a high

degree. The greatest recognitionwas gained by “Lead the change and build a change

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

last_8

last_7

last_6

last_5

last_4

last_3

last_2

last_1

Makechangelast


86

leader team”and “Developa vision”principleswith85.7%and71.4%of respondents

indicatingaveryhighdegreeoffollowingtheseprinciples.Ontheotherendtherewere

“Challengestatusquo”and“Communicatethechangevision”principleswith71.4%and

28.6% of responses indicating only a moderate degree of following the principles

respectively. In the breakdown of the principles to the individual level we have

discussed their sub-dimensions.The findings showedpredominantlyhigheralignment

withthedimensions,howeverthereweresomeinterestingdeviationsfromthistrend.

Firstly, the companies were strongly misaligned in the question of involvement of

different employees and middle managers when ‘’Define the initiative’’, although this

couldhavebeenduetotheconfidentialnatureofthetopic.Next,M&Acompanieswere

found not to follow the ‘’Challenge status quo’’ dimensions considering the sourcesof

complacency, but strongly focused on the alignmentwith theM&A goals for both the

employees andmanagement. Thepresenceofaneffectivechange leaderandachange

leaderteamdefinedbythecharacteristicsdrawnfromliteraturewasstronglysupported

by the companies. However, surprisingly low ratio of the companies agreed on the

diversity of the change leader teammembers in terms of them belonging to a different

stakeholder groups. Strongly supported ‘’Develop a vision’’ principle was surprisingly

followed by a more hesitant support of “Communicate the change vision” principle.

Although the findings regarding effective communication have varied between least

supported dimension of use of metaphors and the most supported dimension of the

simplicityofthecommunication,weconcludedthatforthecommunicationtobeeffective

perhapsnotallthecharacteristicshavetobeemployed.

Regarding“Empowerpeopleforchange”,rearrangingtheofficespace,andconfrontation

ofbosseswith inconsistentdemandsseemed not to be the case inmany companies. In

contrast,therecognitionofeffectsofM&Aoncompanies’structures,andtheirrespective

alignment,togetherwithtrainingopportunitiesforemployeeswerethedimensionsmost

frequently found in successful companies. Within “Guide and motivate the change

process”principlewediscoveredthatthecompanieshadthemeanstomeasuresuccess,

andmorethanahalfhadplannedforshort-termwins.Theprevailingcharacteristicsof

theshort-termwinswerefoundtobethelinkagetothechangeinitiativefollowedbythe

visibility and unambiguity of the short-term wins. The celebrations were the least

87

supportedcharacteristicoftheshort-termwinsanditappearedthatinmostinstances

theywerenotpublic.

The final principle of ‘Make change last’’ uncovered successful companies consider

anchoring of new approaches in their culture, policies, and practices to be the most

important,followedbythealignmentofemployeeturnover,decisionsonpromotions,and

anchoring of new approaches in reporting relationships. The successful companies are

leastlikelytousethechangemomentumtoinitiategreaterchanges.

Overall,weconcludethattheeightchangemanagementprinciples,whichweidentified

in the literature,were followed to ahighextent,withminordivergences in their sub-

principles.InthenextpartofthischapterwecontinuewithansweringRQ4bylookingat

thepotentialdifferencesbetweenthesuccessfulcompaniesandtheunsuccessfulones.

4.2HowdoestheuseofchangemanagementprinciplesdifferbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As?

We have just showed that change management principles were to a great extent

employedinsuccessfulCBM&As,butwhataboutinthelesssuccessfulcases?RQ4tries

to answer that question by looking at how the use of changemanagement principles

differbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As. Inordertoobtaintheanswerwe

firstexaminetheunderlyingassumptionsofthetestsweuse.Hereafter,theanalysisand

results are presented on the principle level. The tests, the chi-square analysis and

independent t-tests, are found in their entirety in Appendix F and Appendix G,

respectively.

4.2.1Assumptions

As mentioned in “3.6 Data Analysis”, the independent t-test assumes no significant

outliers,anapproximatenormaldistributionofthedependentvariableforeachgroupof

theindependentvariable,andhomogeneityofvariance.

Regardingthefirstassumption,wecreatedboxplots,whicharefoundinAppendixH,to

assesswhether significant outliers are present in our data. This analysis showed that

onlyinprinciple4,“Developavision”,significantoutlierswerefound,butbothforthe

successfulandunsuccessfulperformancegroups.Whentheassumptionofnosignificant

outliers isviolated, anonparametricMann-WhitneyUTest canbe run instead (Keller,

88

2012). We have employed it in the case of principle 4. The Mann-Whitney U Test

confirmedandvalidatedtheindependentt-test,thedetailsofwhichwewilldiscusslater

inthischapter.

We testedourdata fornormality graphically by creatingnormalQ-Qplots,which are

foundinAppendixI.Theresultswerethatallofthedependentvariablesforeachgroup

of the independent variable were approximately normally distributed, since the data

pointswereclosetothediagonallineanddidnotstrayfromthelineinanobviousnon-

linearfashion(LundResearch,2013b).

ThethirdassumptionofhomogeneityofvariancewastestedinSPSSusingLevene'sTest

for Equality of Variances. The results, which are found in Appendix G, show that

principles 6, 7, and 8 violate this assumption. In these cases, we used Welch t-Test

instead,whichisavariationoftheindependentt-testthatdoesnotassumehomogeneity

ofvariance.

Concerning the chi-square analysis, it builds on a “rule of five”,whichmeans that the

expected values should be at least five (Keller, 2012). This is not the case in many

instances inourdatadue to the relatively small sample.Toensure thevalidityof our

results,wethereforeusedFisher’sExactTestofInterdependenceasanadditionaltest.

The results of Fisher’s Exact Test, which are found in Appendix F, showed the same

resultsasthechi-squaretests,andthusvalidatedtheresults.

4.2.2Resultsfromanalysisoftheprinciples

It isevident fromTable4.1,whichshowsthedescriptivestatisticsof theprincipleson

theaggregatedlevel,thatthegroupofsuccessfulCBM&Asusetheprinciplesmorethan

thegroupofunsuccessfulCBM&As.Studyingthemeansofeachgroupforeachprinciple

displaysthis.

Means of Performance Groups

PerformanceGroup N Mean Std.Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

Definetheinitiative1 7 3,893 0,4532 0,17132 21 3,571 0,7589 0,1656

Challengestatusquo1 7 2,7073 0,42063 0,158992 19 2,5695 0,70887 0,16263

89

Means of Performance Groups

PerformanceGroup N Mean Std.Deviation

Std. ErrorMean


1 7 4,3571 0,33923 0,128222 21 3,9563 0,61329 0,13383

Developavision1 7 4,1302 0,36827 0,139192 21 3,4862 0,74093 0,16168

Communicate the changevision

1 7 3,585 0,87361 0,330192 20 3,1571 0,79458 0,17767

Empower people forchange

1 7 3,7755 0,16198 0,061222 20 2,869 0,86046 0,1924

Guide and motivate thechangeprocess

1 5 3,5111 0,16851 0,075362 21 2,9815 0,87689 0,19135

Makechangelast1 7 3,9898 0,36696 0,13872 19 3,1607 1,04811 0,24045

Table4.1-Meansofperformancegroupsonanaggregatedlevel

Furthermore,Table4.2presents the statisticsof the several t-tests,we carriedouton

theaggregatedlevel.Wewill,inthefollowing,commentontheseresultsandexamineif

the differences are statistically significant together with the results of the chi-square

analysisonthesub-dimensionallevel.

Results of t-tests defin_average csq_average lead_average vision_average t-test 1.052 0.480 1.634 2.191* com_average empower_average guide_average last_average t-test 1.197 4.489*a 2.575*a 2.987*a Note: * p < 0.05 , a Welch t-Test Table4.2-RQ4:t-tests


AccordingtoTable4.2,whichdisplaysthestatisticsofthet-testontheaggregatedlevel,

no statistically significant difference in themean scorewas found between successful

and unsuccessful CBM&As in terms of their use of change management Principle 1,

“Definetheinitiative”(t=1.052;p=.303).Thisimpliesthatsuccessfulandunsuccessful

CBM&Asapplythefirstprincipletothesameextent.

90

Figure4.10-RQ4:Definetheinitiative,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

On a sub-dimensional level, Figure 4.10 indicates that there are nomajor differences

either. Interestingly, however, the greatest difference on a sub-dimensional level is

foundinthedegreetowhichthecompaniesassessedtheimpactoftheM&Apriortothe

M&A.100%ofthecompaniesinvolvedinsuccessfulCBM&Asindicatedthattheydidso

to a high or very high degree, while only approximately 67% of the unsuccessful

companies did the same. In neither successful nor unsuccessful CBM&As were

employees and middle managers involved to a great extent in identifying the need

and/ortheopportunitytomerge/acquire.Thisisnotsurprisingduetothestrategicand

confidentialnatureofM&As.Whatismoresurprisingis,thattheunsuccessfulgrouping

of companies thoroughly assessed their strengths and weaknesses marginally more.

PRINCIPLE 1 - DEFINE THE INITIATIVE Define T defin_1 defin_2 defin_3 Pearson Chi-Square 2.554 0.786 5.026 5.196 Fisher's Exact Test 2.212 0.981 3.995 5.060 N of Valid Cases 28 28 28 28 Note: * p < 0,05 Table4.3-RQ4:Definetheinitiative,Chi-squarestatistics

Table4.3,whichdisplaystheresultsofthechi-squareanalysisforPrinciple1,supports

theconclusionthattherearenostatisticallysignificantdifferencesonasub-dimensional

57

86100

29

71 72 67

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DetineT detin_1 detin_2 detin_3

Successful Unsucessful

91

level in theway successful and unsuccessful CBM&As employ Principle 1, “Define the

initiative”.


In CBM&As successful and unsuccessful CBM&As challenge status quo to the same

extent,asnostatisticalsignificantdifferenceinthemeanscorewasfoundbetweenthem

intermsoftheiruseofchangemanagementprinciple2(t=.480;p=.635).Thisresult

indicatesthatbothgroupsofcompaniesequallyemphasizetheneedfortheM&Atothe

employeesandminimizedandeliminatedsourcesofcomplacency.

Moredetail is found in thesub-dimensionsof theprinciple.Figure4.11showsthatall

employees in thecompanieswithasuccessfulM&Aunderstood toaveryhighorhigh

degreewhy theM&Awas important.This isunexpectedconsidering thatonly43%of

thesuccessfulcompaniesansweredthattheyclarifiedtoahighorveryhighdegreeto

theemployeestheconsequencesofnotdoingtheM&A.Only43%answered“often”or

“very often” to how often the necessity of doing the M&A was emphasized to the

employees.Correspondingly,only62%ofthecompaniesfromtheunsuccessfulgrouping

answered that theemployeesunderstood toahighorveryhighdegreewhy theM&A

was important.However, thesedifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificantaccordingto

ourchi-squaretestresultsforPrinciple2,whicharepresentedinTable4.4.

Figure4.11-ChallengeStatusQuo,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

100

43 4362

4830

0102030405060708090100

csq_1 csq_2 csq_4


92

Regardingthesourcesofcomplacency,ouranalysisshowedthattherewasastatistically

significant difference in the absence of major and visible crises between the two

performancegroups (p= .034).By lookingatFigure4.12,wecansee that53%of the

unsuccessfulcompanieshadamajorandvisiblecrisis,whichcouldbeusedtochallenge

status quo.

PRINCIPLE 2 - CHALLENGE STATUS QUO csq_1 csq_2 csq_3 csq_4 csq_5 csq_6 csq_7 Pearson Chi-Square 4.444 7.454 6.443 2.359 9.923* 3.450 2.620 Fisher'sExact Test 3.523 6.569 5.353 2.368 8.240* 3.128 2.513 N of Valid Cases 28 28 22 27 25 24 26 csq_8 csq_9 csq_10 csq_11 csq_12 csq_13 Pearson Chi-Square 8.292 3.055 6.214 3.854 1.219 1.603

Fisher'sExact Test 7.688 2.630 5.468 3.382 1.113 2.014 N of Valid Cases 25 26 26 26 27 26

Note: * p < 0,05 Table4.4–Challengestatusqua,Chi-squarestatistics

Interestingly, when seen as a whole, Figure 4.12 also indicates that the sources of

complacency were naturally present or minimized to a greater extent in the

unsuccessful CBM&As. According to the literature fewer sources of complacency are

seen as a step towards success in the change initiative (Kotter, 1996), therefore this

resultisunpredicted.However,nootherdifferenceisstatisticallysignificant,asseenin

Table4.4.

Figure4.12-Challengestatusquo:Sourcesofcomplacency,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"notatall"or"low"

17 20 14

6757

29

71

100

7253

3745

63 58 58

79 8574

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

csq_5 csq_6 csq_7 csq_8 csq_9 csq_10 csq_11 csq_12 csq_13


93


The third principle is concerned with those who are in charge of the change and

champion it, the leaders and theguiding coalition.Our results indicate thatneither in

thiscaseisthereastatisticalsignificantdifferenceinthemeanscorebetweensuccessful

andunsuccessfulCBM&As(t=1.634;p=.114).However,sinceweimplicitlyhypothesize

thatcompaniesinvolvedinsuccessfulM&Aswillemploythethirdprincipletoagreater

extent,wemighthalvethereportedsignificance,therebyobtaining.057astheobserved

p-value.Thisindicatesthatthedifferenceisnotsignificantintermsoftheuseofchange

management Principle 3, “Lead the change and build a change leader team”, but it is

closetobeingso.

Figure 4.13 - Lead the change and build a change leader team: Leadership dimensions, Percentage ofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

On a sub-dimensional level, the companies involved in successful CBM&As in the

leadershipdimension,asindicatedFigure4.13,applythechangemanagementprinciple

toagreaterextent than theunsuccessful companies.These results suggest that in the

successful cases the leaders champion, are publicly committed to making the M&A

succeed,andinvestthepersonaltimeandattentionneededtomaketheM&Aworktoa

greater extent than leaders in the unsuccessful cases. The same is true for the

characteristicsoftheleadersoftheM&As.Inthesuccessfulonestheleadersbelievethat

100 100 100 100 100 10091 90

7686 81

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

lead_1 lead_2 lead_3 lead_4 lead_5 lead_6


94

theM&Aisthekeytocompetitiveness,havetheabilitytoarticulatethisbelief,andhave

the personal-skills and know-how. It is not that leaders in the companies involved in

unsuccessful CBM&As do not posses these skills as seen from Figure 4.13, but their

counterparts all answered “high” or “very high” to the questions assessing this

dimension. However, as shown in Table 4.5 below, none of these differences are

statistically significant. The same is true for the dimensions concerning the guiding

coalition.EventhoughFigure4.14suggestssomedifferences,namelyintheapplication

ofaguidingcoalition(lead_7),nosignificantstatisticaldifferencesarefoundregarding

thedimensionconcerningtheguidingcoalition.

PRINCIPLE 3 - LEAD THE CHANGE AND BUILD A CHANGE LEADER TEAM lead_1 lead_2 lead_3 lead_4 lead_5 lead_6 Pearson Chi-Square 0.732 0.880 2.048 2.130 2.629 4.000 Fisher'sExact Test 1.108 1.151 1.446 1.861 2.522 3.979 N of Valid Cases 28 28 28 28 28 28 lead_7 lead_8 lead_9 lead_10 lead_11 lead_12 Pearson Chi-Square 2.294 2.090 3.259 0.237 0.444 6.193 Fisher'sExact Test 2.139 2.294 2.818 0.634 0.984 6.087 N of Valid Cases 28 28 28 28 28 28 Note: * p < 0,05 Table4.5-Leadthechangeandbuildachangeleaderteam,Chi-squarestatistics

Figure4.14 -Lead thechangeandbuildachange leader team:Guidingcoalitiondimensions,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

72 7186 86 86

29

52

8171

91 86

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

lead_7 lead_8 lead_9 lead_10 lead_11 lead_12


95


AccordingtoourresultsdisplayedinTable4.2,astatisticalsignificantdifferenceinthe

meanscorewas foundbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As in termsof their

useofchangemanagementPrinciple4,“Developavision”(t=2.191;p=.038).However,

as mentioned in “4.2.1 Assumptions”, the variable of the fourth principle on an

aggregated level did not pass the assumption of no outlier. Therefore we applied a

Mann-WhitneyUTest tovalidate theresults.This testcanbe found inAppendix Jand

gave a significant result (p = .019) as well. Consequently, we can conclude that the

differenceintheuseofthefourthchangemanagementprinciple,“Developavision”, is

significant and the successful companies use and benefit from a vision to a greater

extentthantheunsuccessfulgroup.

Figure4.15–Developavision,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

Examiningthedifferencesonasub-dimensionallevelofPrinciple4givestheinsightthat

there are great differences in the degree of employment of a vision between the two

performancegroupsasseeninFigure4.15.Firstly,employeesofcompaniesinvolvedin

successfulCBM&AsunderstandtheoutcomeandbenefitofM&Astoagreaterextent.In

thisway,accordingtotheliterature(Kotter,1995,1996),thesecompaniesmightbeable

tobreakthroughallresistance,inertiaandpowerssupportingstatusquo.Secondly,the

7283

100 100 10086 86 86

100

7262

3543

5772

48 52 5767

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

vision_1 vision_2 vision_3 vision_4 vision_5 vision_6 vision_7 vision_8 vision_9 visio_1


96

visionsofthesuccessfulCBM&Ascanbeseenasmoreeffectiveastheyscorehigheron

thesixcentralcharacteristicsofaneffectivevision.Lastly,thesuccessfulCBM&Asdidto

agreaterextentincludemorepeoplethanasoleleaderindevelopingthevisionforthe

M&A compared with unsuccessful CBM&As. Yet none of these sub-dimensional

differencesprovetobestatisticallysignificantaccordingtothechi-squareanalysisand

valuesshowninTable4.6below.

PRINCIPLE 4 - DEVELOP A VISION vision_1 vision_2 vision_3 vision_4 vision_5 Pearson Chi-Square 0.996 4.499 7.214 5.231 2.564 Fisher'sExact Test 1.354 4.400 6.154 5.207 2.432 N of Valid Cases 28 26 28 28 28 vision_6 vision_7 vision_8 vision_9 visio_1 Pearson Chi-Square 3.284 2.806 3.056 5.185 5.600 Fisher'sExact Test 3.150 2.601 2.658 4.311 4.973 N of Valid Cases 28 28 28 28 28 Note: * p < 0,05 Table4.6–Developavision,Chi-squarestatistics


The independent t-test analysis showed no statistically significant difference between

the two performance groups regarding the fifth change management principle,

“CommunicatetheChangeVision”(t=1.197;p=.243).

Figure4.16–Communicatethechangevision,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

86

14

43

72 72 67 7157

24 24

5270

3724

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

com_1 com_2 com_3 com_4 com_5 com_6 com_7


97

Onasub-dimensional level,Figure4.16indicatesthatbothperformancegroupsfollow

theadvice for effective communicationwith some intergroupdifferences.Particularly,

successful companies differ from unsuccessful ones in having the communication as

two-waycommunication.Thedifference isclosetobeingstatisticallysignificantas the

chi-square reported a significance of p = .076 and Fisher’s Exact test reported a

significanceofp=.057.Furthermore,noneoftheotherdimensionsofthefifthprinciple

proved to have statistically significant differences as indicated in Table 4.7. These

resultssuggestthatthereasonforgreaterperformanceisnotfoundincommunicating

thechangevision.

PRINCIPLE 5 - COMMUNICATE THE CHANGE VISION com_1 com_2 com_3 com_4 com_5 com_6 com_7 Pearson Chi-Square 7,463 5,717 1,926 2,540 0,878 2,796 8,410 Fisher's Exact Test 7,151 5198 2,151 2,577 1,508 3,108 1,738 N of Valid Cases 28 28 28 28 27 25 28 Note: * p < 0,05

Table4.7–Communicatethechangevision,Chi-squarestatistics


InthecaseofPrinciple6,“Empowerpeopleforchange”,thedataontheaggregatedlevel

violated the assumption of the independent t-test of homogeneity of variance, see

AppendixG.Therefore,weappliedthevariationoftheindependentt-test,Welcht-test,

whichshowedastatisticallysignificantdifferenceinthemeanscorebetweensuccessful

and unsuccessful CBM&As in terms of their use of the sixth change management

principle (t = 4.489; p = .000). This result indicates that the companies involved in

successfulCBM&AsempowerpeopleforchangeduringtheM&Atoagreaterextentthan

thecompaniesinvolvedinunsuccessfulCBM&As.

Regarding the sub-dimensions of the principle, Figure 4.17 shows that in successful

CBM&As the different dimensions are employed more compared to the unsuccessful

cases. Theonly exception is in theway that bosseswho acted inconsistentlywith the

changevisionwereconfronted,where56%oftheunsuccessfulcasesansweredthatthey

wereconfrontedtoahighorveryhighdegreecomparedto29%inthesuccessfulcases.

Nonetheless,thisdifferenceisnotstatisticallysignificantaccordingtoTable4.8.Onthe

other hand, statistically significant differences were found between the companies

involvedinsuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As,respectively,intheextenttowhichthe

effectsoftheM&Aonthecompany’sstructuresandsystemswererecognized(p=.009),

98

traininganddevelopmentopportunitieswereprovidedfortheemployeesinrelationto

theM&A(p=.026),andcompensationandperformance-appraisalsystemswerealigned

withthevisionoftheM&A(p=.019).Inthiswayitisobviousthatcompaniesinvolved

insuccessfulCBM&AsrecognizetheeffectsoftheM&Ainthecompany,providetraining

and development opportunities in relation to the M&A, and align compensation and

performance-appraisal systemswith theM&A vision to a greater extent compared to

companiesinvolvedinunsuccessfulCBM&As.

Figure4.17–Empowerpeopleforchange,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

PRINCIPLE 6 - EMPOWER PEOPLE FOR CHANGE empower_ empow_1 empow_2 empow_3 empow_4 empow_5 empow_6 Pearson Chi-Square 11.670* 5.778 3.192 6.362 11.263* 10.933* 5.448 Fisher'sExact Test 9.757* 6.760 2.895 5.266 9.405* 13.303* 5.048 N of Valid Cases 28 28 27 28 27 28 27 Note: * p < 0,05

Table4.8–Empowerpeopleforchange,Chi-squareStatistics


ThedataontheaggregatedlevelofPrinciple7did,likethedataforPrinciple6,violate

the assumption of the independent t-test regarding homogeneity of variance.

Consequently,alsointhiscase,weapplythevariationoftheindependentt-test,Welcht-

test.Thistestshowedastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoperformance

groups in terms of their employment of the seventh change management principle,

7157

71

43

7157

29

67

2440 33

1529

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

empower_ empow_1 empow_2 empow_3 empow_4 empow_5 empow_6


99

“Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess”(t=2.575;p=.017).AsseeninTable4.2the

mean of the successful cases is greater than that of the unsuccessful cases. Thus, we

consequently conclude that the companies involved in successful CBM&As guide and

motivatethechangeprocesstoagreaterextentcomparedtothecompaniesinvolvedin

unsuccessfulCBM&As

Figure 4.18 – Guide andmotivate the change process, Percentage of respondentswho answered "high" or"veryhigh"

Examiningthedetailsofthedifferencesbylookingatthesub-dimensionsinFigure4.18

showsthattherearesomeobviousdifferences.Regardingmonitoringtheprocessofthe

change (guide_1andguide_2), companies thathad successwith theirCBM&Adid toa

greaterdegreemeasurethesuccessoftheM&Aandbenchmarktheprogress.However,

the only difference that was statistically significant was the extent to which the

organizationshadthemeansofmeasuringthesuccessoftheM&A(p= .038),whichis

displayed inTable4.9.Regarding short-termwins, the twoperformancegroups acted

moreor less similarly.Yet the short-termwinswere toagreaterextentunambiguous

andclearlylinkedtothechangeinitiativeoftheM&Ainthesuccessfulcasescompared

to their counterparts. These differenceswere not statistically significant. Surprisingly,

andnotaccordingtotheliterature’sadvice,theshort-termwinswerenotcelebratedtoa

100

7257

71 7186

33

0

40

5748 48

57

25

43

2414 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

guide_1 guide_2 guide_3 guide_4 guide_5 guide_6 guide_7 guide_8 guide_9


100

great extent either in the successful cases or in the unsuccessful ones. Nonetheless,

whentheywerecelebrated,onlyasmallfractionoftheunsuccessfulcasesdidcelebrate

publicly,while40%ofthesuccessfulcasesusedthecelebrationstorecognizeindividual

contributions to a high or very high degree. Similarly, only 10% of the companies

involvedinunsuccessfulCBM&Asdidthesame.Neitherweretheseresultsstatistically

significantasitisinevidenceinTable4.9.

PRINCIPLE 7 - GUIDE AND MOTIVATE THE CHANGE PROCESS guide_1 guide_2 guide_3 guide_4 guide_5 guide_6 guide_7 guide_8 guide_9 Pearson Chi-Square 8.581* 2.400 5.007 6.413 7.990 5.143 1.763 1.597 3.743 Fisher'sExact Test 7.050* 2.018 4.316 4.942 6.855 3.957 1.272 1.459 3.186 N of Valid Cases 28 28 28 28 27 28 27 26 26 Note: * p < 0,05

Table4.9-Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess,Chi-squareStatistics


As itwas the case for the twopreviousprinciples, thedataon theaggregated levelof

Principle 8 violated the assumption of homogeneity of variance. We, therefore,

employed Welch t-test in this case as well. The test showed a statistical significant

differenceinthemeanscorebetweenthetwoperformancegroupsintermsoftheiruse

of theeighthchangemanagementprinciple, “MakeChangeLast” (t=2.987;p= .006).

This result indicated that the companies involved in successful CBM&Asmake change

lasttoagreaterextentcomparedtothecompaniesinvolvedinunsuccessfulCBM&As.

Onasub-dimensionallevel,thedifferencesweremostdistinctintheextenttowhichthe

new approaches have been anchored in the organization’s policies, systems and

practices,whichisseeninFigure4.19.Thatisthatthesuccessfulcasesanchorthenew

approaches in policies, systems and practices to a greater extent. However, no

statisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundonthesub-dimensionallevelofPrinciple

8accordingtoTable4.10.

101

Figure4.19-Makechangelast,Percentageofrespondentswhoanswered"high"or"veryhigh"

PRINCIPLE 8 - MAKE CHANGE LAST last_1 last_2 last_3 last_4 last_5 last_6 last_7 last_8 Pearson Chi-Square 6.509 4.262 3.947 5.556 5.989 1.689 5.007 3.919 Fisher'sExact Test 5.420 3.543 3.504 4.426 4.595 1.430 4.178 3.085 N of Valid Cases 27 26 24 28 28 28 28 28 Note: * p < 0,05 Table4.10–Makechangelast,Chi-squareStatistics

4.2.3Summary

InthissectionwehaveassessedthedifferencesbetweensuccessfulCBM&Acompanies

and unsuccessful CBM&A companies in terms of their use of change management

principles. In order to answer RQ4 regarding how the use of change management

principlesdifferbetweenthetwoperformancegroups,severalt-testswerecarriedout

onaaggregatedlevel,andseveralchi-squareanalysesonasub-dimensionallevel.

Theoverallconclusionisthatonanaggregatedlevel,whichistheleveloftheprinciples,

thereisastatisticalsignificantdifferenceintheuseofPrinciple4,“Developavision”(t=

2.191; p = .038), Principle 6, “Empower people for change” (t = 4.489; p = .000),

Principle7,“Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess”(t=2.575;p=.017),andPrinciple

8, “Makechange last” (t=2.987;p= .006)betweensuccessfulCBM&Acompaniesand

unsuccessfulCBM&Acompanies.

33

71 7286 86

5771

86

3342

35 3848 48

6252

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

last_1 last_2 last_3 last_4 last_5 last_6 last_7 last_8


102

Regardingthefourthandeighthchangemanagementprinciple,wefoundnostatistically

significant differences in themean scores on a sub-dimensional level, but only on an

aggregated level. This implies that all the insignificant differences added up give a

statistically significant difference.Within the sub-dimensions of Principle 6,we found

statisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwoperformancegroupsintheextentto

whichtheeffectsoftheM&Aonthecompany’sstructuresandsystemswererecognized

(p=.009),traininganddevelopmentopportunitieswereprovidedfortheemployeesin

relation to theM&A(p= .026),andcompensationandperformance-appraisal systems

were alignedwith the vision of theM&A (p = .019). Lastly, only the difference in the

extent towhich theorganizationsdidhave themeansofmeasuring thesuccessof the

M&Awasstatisticallysignificant(p=.038)intheseventhchangemanagementprinciple.

Asmentionedin“3.7ValidityandReliability”,thisprojectlacksinternalvaliditydueto

the absence of a time-element. Consequently, we cannot conclude causality but only

inferit.Therefore,weinferthatinordertobesuccessfulinCBM&Ascompanieshaveto

develop a vision for the M&A, empower people for change, guide and motivate the

changeprocessandmakechangelastthroughanchoringofthenewapproaches.Wewill

returntothisinthenextchapter.

103

Chapter5: DiscussionandConclusion

Inthischapter,wewillpresentthefindingsoftheresearchwehaveconductedinorder

to answer our four research questions. Moreover, we will reflect on this thesis’

limitations and the implications of our findings. Lastly, we propose suggestions for

furtherresearchbasedonthethesis’results,limitationsandimplications.

5.1Mainfindings

Inthefollowing,wewillsummarizethefindingstoourfourresearchquestions,which

haveguidedtheresearch.Thetwofirstquestionsrequiredustoreviewtheliteratureas

theywerephrasedas:“Accordingtoliterature,whatroledoeschangemanagementplay

incross-bordermergersandacquisitions(CBM&A)?”and“Accordingtoliterature,what

aretheprinciplesofchangemanagement?”.Thenexttwoquestionsrequiredempirical

investigations.Thethirdquestionswas“Towhatextentdosuccessfulcompaniesengage

theprinciplesofchangemanagementinCBM&As?”,andthefourthwas“Howdoesthe

use of change management principles differ between successful and unsuccessful

CBM&As?”.

5.1.1 RQ1: According to literature, what role does change management play in cross-bordermergersandacquisitions(CBM&A)?

In this thesis, we looked atM&A theory and categorized the literature in threemain

streams, with the aim to identify the factors that may explain the differences in

performancebetweenindividualM&As:strategicfit,organizationalfit,andintegration.

We presented the integration stream as the stream of literature in which change

management plays the biggest role. The reason is that M&As and particularly the

integrationprocessesareviewedasthegreatestchangesthatcanhappentoabusiness

(MirvisandMarks,1992;DiGeorgio,2002;Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002).Andinthe

process of integrating companies, many processes revolve around change, such as

preparation of the employees for the change, aswell as the schedule for the changes,

putting new structure, policies and practices in place, and more (Evans, Pucik and

Barsoux,2002).

104

However, in spite of numerous authors mentioning a change in relation to M&A

integration, we found no research, which focused on the linkage between M&A

performanceandchangemanagement.Thiswasinspitethefactthatthelinkhasbeen

acknowledgedinpractice(Evans,PucikandBarsoux,2002).

5.1.2RQ2:Accordingtoliterature,whataretheprinciplesofchangemanagement?

Next, we examined the change management literature through a four-step selection

processwe created in order to identify theprinciples.More specifically,we looked at

teleologicalmodels that emphasize planned change or planned and emergent change,

andbydoingso,weidentifiedeightchangemanagementprinciples.

Thefirstprinciple,weidentified,wenamed“Definetheinitiative”.Wearguedthatthis

principle is mainly concerned with defining the change initiative by defining the

business problem and/or opportunity through a process of assessing the company’s

strengths,weaknessesandhowthechangewillaffectthecompany.

Thesecondidentifiedprinciple,“Challengestatusquo”,isrelatedtothefirstprinciple.It

isaboutgettingpeopletounderstandtheneedforchangebyminimizingandeliminating

complacency,andmotivatingthemtocollaborateonthechangeinitiative.

“Lead the change and build a change leader team”was identified as the third change

managementprinciple.Itregardsthosewhoareinchargeofthechangeandchampion

it. Leadersof the changeshouldpublicly commit to thechange, commitpersonal time

andattentiontotheprocess,assembletheneededresources,andtakeleadershipofthe

change. Furthermore, a guiding coalition should be created so that the change has a

broaderbaseofsupport.

Principle 4 was named, “Develop a vision”. A vision is a central component in all

leadershipandisanattempttoarticulatewhatadesiredfutureforacompanywouldbe.

Consequently,thisprincipleregardsthecreationofavisionandthecharacteristicsofan

effectivevision.

After developing the change vision it has to be communicated, therefore the fifth

identified changemanagement principle is “Communicate the change vision”. As it is

105

evidentfromthenamethefifthprincipleisconcernedwithcommunicatingthechange

vision,andnamelyhowtodosoeffectively.

Thesixthprinciple,weidentified,waslabeled“Empowerpeopleforchange”becauseit

wasconcernedwithchangingstructuresandeliminatingobstaclesinordertoreinforce

thechangeeffort,andinthatwayempowerthepeople.Anumberofwaystoempower

peopleforchangewereidentified.Thesewereenrichingpeople’sjobs,providetraining

anddevelopmentopportunities,andaligningcompensationandperformance-appraisal

systems.

“Guide and motivate the change process” was identified as the seventh change

management principle. The emphasis of the principle is on monitoring the process,

creatingshort-termwins,andcelebratingthem.

Lastly, “Make change last”,which is about consolidating gains andusing it toproduce

morechange,wasidentifiedasthefinalchangemanagementprinciple.

5.1.3 RQ3: To what extent do successful companies engage the principles of changemanagementinCBM&As?

The overall conclusion that was derived from the analysis of the extent of which

successfulcompaniesengage theprinciplesofchangemanagement inCBM&As is, that

on the aggregated level, the successful companies used all the principles but one to a

highdegree,whichisseeninFigure4.1.

Insixoftheprinciples100%oftherespondentswerefoundtoengagetheprinciplesof

change management to a high or very high extent. This was the case with the first

principle, “Define the initiative” with 42.9% of the respondents stating that they

employed the principle to a very high extent. The samewas the casewith “Lead the

change and build a change leader team”, the third principle; the fourth principle,

“Developavision”; the sixthprinciple, “Empowerpeople for change”; and the seventh

principle“Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess“with85.7%,71.4%,0%,and14.3%

oftherespondents,respectively,usingtheprincipletoaveryhighextent.Lastly,alsothe

eighthprinciplewasfoundtobeemployedtoahighorveryhighextent,with42.9%of

therespondentsansweringthelatter.

106

On the other end, regarding “Challenge status quo” and “Communicate the change

vision”,71.4%and28.6%oftherespondents,respectively,indicatedonlyamoderate

degreeoffollowingtheprinciple.However,therestoftherespondentsin“Communicate

thechangevision”answeredthattheprinciplewasemployedtoahighextent.

Therefore, overall, the eightmanagement principleswere employed to a great extent.

Yet some minor divergences existed on the sub-dimensional level of the principles.

Firstly, the companies were strongly misaligned in the question of involvement of

different employees and middle managers when defining the M&A initiative. This,

however, can be due to the confidential nature of M&As. Secondly, some sources of

complacencywere present in the successful CBM&As. As previously suggested, this is

notsurprising,sincenotallsourcesofcomplacencynecessarilyhavetobeeliminatedin

ordertochallengestatusquoandcreateasenseofurgency.Thirdly,a lowratioofthe

companiesagreedonthediversityof themembersof theguidingcoalition intermsof

thembelongingtodifferentstakeholdergroups.Fourthly,incommunicatingthechange

visionmetaphors, analogiesandexampleswerenotutilized toagreatdegree,neither

was the communication given through multiple channels to a great extent. Fifthly,

rearranging the office space, and confrontation of bosses with inconsistent demands

seemed not to be the case in many CBM&As. Lastly, the celebrations were the least

supportedcharacteristicoftheshort-termwinsanditappearedthatinmostinstances

theywerenotpublic.Otherwise,onasub-dimensionalleveltheprinciplesweregreatly

employed.

5.1.4RQ4-HowdoestheuseofchangemanagementprinciplesdifferbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&As?

The findings presented in this thesis suggest that the use of change management

principlesbetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulCBM&Asdifferinfourprinciples.Onan

aggregated level,whichwas the level of theprinciples, thiswas examinedby running

eightt-testsofwhichfourshowedtobestatisticallysignificant.Inotherwordsandmore

specific,theoverallconclusionisthatonanaggregatedleveloftheprinciples,thereisa

statisticalsignificantdifferenceintheuseofPrinciple4,“Developavision”(t=2.191;p

= .038), Principle 6, “Empower people for change” (t = 4.489; p = .000), Principle 7,

“Guideandmotivate thechangeprocess” (t=2.575;p= .017), andPrinciple8, “Make

107

change last” (t = 2.987; p = .006) between successful CBM&A companies and

unsuccessfulCBM&Acompanies.

Regardingthefourthandeighthchangemanagementprinciple,wefoundnostatistically

significant differences in themean scores on a sub-dimensional level, but only on an

aggregated level. This implies that all the insignificant differences added up give

statisticallysignificantdifference.

Within the sub-dimensionsofPrinciple6,we foundstatistically significantdifferences

betweenthetwoperformancegroupsintheextenttowhichtheeffectsoftheM&Aon

the company’s structures and systems were recognized (p = .009), training and

developmentopportunitieswereprovidedfortheemployeesinrelationtotheM&A(p=

.026), and compensation and performance-appraisal systems were aligned with the

visionoftheM&A(p=.019).Additionally,onlythedifferenceintheextenttowhichthe

organizationsdidhavethemeansofmeasuringthesuccessoftheM&Awasstatistically

significant(p=.038)intheseventhchangemanagementprinciple.

5.2Limitations

This thesis has some limitations,which are important to account for andbe aware of

whenpresentingtheresultsandinterpretingthem.Thelimitationsofourthesiscanbe

dividedintolimitationsconcerningtheresearchandlimitationsconcerningtheapplied

theory.

5.2.1Researchlimitations

As mentioned in “3.4 Sampling”, we only obtained a response rate of 2.24% and an

absolutenumberof28cases.Thisconstitutesaproblem,becauseverylowreturnrates

make it difficult to establish the representativeness of the sample because those

respondingmaynotrepresenttheresearchsample(Ekinci,2015).Itisnotknownwhat

population this sample is representative of. Furthermore, since we combined two

samplesasexplainedin“3.4Sampling”,weintroducedsomesamplingerror.Theerror

consists of the Danish companies being overrepresented in comparison with the

American. However, we argue that the advantages of combining the samples far

outweigh the added error. Nevertheless, the external validity decreases as a

consequenceof thenon-responseerrorandsamplingerror.Therefore, constraintsare

108

placedonthegeneralizabilityofourresearchasthesurveyispotentiallybiased.Thus,

thereadershouldbecarefuliftryingtotransferourresultsintoothercontextsthanthe

contextof this research.Likewise, althoughweargue that successfulandunsuccessful

CBM&As statistically significantly differ in the extent to which they use some of the

changemanagementprinciples,wehavetonotethattheseresultsarenotgeneralizable

totheentirepopulation.Nonetheless,theresultscanbeusedasafoundationforfurther

research,whichisneededtoestablishexternalvalidityofourresults.

Secondly, due to our choice of a cross-sectional design and theweak internal validity

hereof,wearenotabletoconcludecausality.Thatmeansthatwearenotabletosaythat

in order to get success in CBM&As the companies should employ the change

management principles – and namely Principle 4, “Develop a vision”, Principle 6,

“Empowerpeopleforchange”,Principle7,“Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess”,and

Principle8,“Makechangelast”,sincetheresultsforthesewerestatisticallysignificant.

However, we are able to infer that in fact there is causality between the change

managementprinciples and theperformanceofCBM&As,whichwedo.A longitudinal

researchdesignwouldbeabletotestthisbecauseitintroducesatemporaldimension.

5.2.2Theoreticallimitations

In this thesiswe identified changemanagementprinciples from the rational school of

changemanagementliteraturethatfocusesonteleologicaltheoriesandplannedchange.

This school assumes that change is internally controlled and directed, and it gives

precedence toplanning towardsorganizational goals (Graetz and Smith, 2010).Often,

the outcome is prescriptive change models and theories, which have often been

criticizedbyotherschoolsofthoughts.

Firstly,powerandpoliticsarebeingunderplayedandignoredintheteleologicalmodels

(Burnes,2004;By,HughesandFord,2016).Noneofouridentifiedprinciplesthoroughly

focuseson the roleofpowerandpolitics in anorganization,which is the focus in the

dialectical models. In such a research, change is explained in terms of the relative

balance of power between the thesis and antithesis (VandeVen and Sun, 2011). The

roleofpower andpolitics in anorganization in relation toCBM&Aperformance is an

interesting subject, yet it is not the objective of this research, which is to provide

principlesandpracticalsuggestionstohowchangeshouldbemanaged.

109

Asecondcriticismofthisthesis’appliedtheoryisthattheleaderisbeingoverestimated

andadvocatesatop-down,management-drivenapproachtochange(Burnes,2004;By,

2005; By, Hughes and Ford, 2016). As the teleological models and theories naturally

focus on how change can bemanaged, the theories inevitably become leader-centric.

Theremightbesituationinwhichabottom-upapproachtochangeisrequired–anditis

partlybuilt intoourprinciplesbygivingmiddlemanagersandemployeesapartinthe

changeprocess–but inourspecificcontextofM&As,which involvesdecisionson the

uppermoststrategiclevel,leader-centrictheoriesarethemostappropriate.

Thirdly,theteleologicalapproachesarebeingcriticizedforbeingtoorigid(Appelbaum

etal.,2012;By,HughesandFord,2016).Manyofthemodelsfromwhichweidentifythe

change management principles are models including steps that should be taken in

sequence, implying that the steps are pre-requisite of one another. Consequently, not

implementingthefirststepwillmakeitdifficultorimpossibletoimplementthesecond

step and so on so forth (Appelbaum et al., 2012). According to By, Hughes and Ford

(2016)thisconstitutesanoveremphasisupontakingasequenceoflinearstepsandan

underemphasisofuniqueculturalcontexts.Correspondingly,somestudiessuggestthat

organizations prefer to use approaches to change that stems from their culture, and

when theprescriptionsof thecounter to theorganization’s culture theywill eitherbe

ignoredorbe ineffective(Appelbaumetal.,2012).Ourresults,however,suggests that

theprescriptionsintheformofthechangemanagementprinciplesareneitherignored

norineffective.

Thatsomestepsarenotrelevantincertaincontextsisthefourthcriticism(Appelbaum

etal.,2012).For instance, insomeM&Asthere isagreatdealofconfidentiality,which

will undermine some aspects of principle 1, “Define the initiative”, and principle 5,

“Communicatethechangevision”.Thiswasevidentfromtheresultthatemployeesand

middle managers were not to a great extent involved in defining the M&A initiative.

However, in order to overcome this limitation we have tried to operationalize the

principlestothebestofourabilitiestofitinthecontextofCBM&As.

Lastly, the planned approach is criticized for treating change as a single, momentary

disturbance that must be stabilized and controlled (Graetz and Smith, 2010). In

responsetheemergentapproachemphasizethatchangeshouldbeseenasacontinuous,

110

open-endedprocessofadaptationtochangingcircumstancesandconditions(Graetzand

Smith, 2010). Consequently, such an approachwill bemore concerned about creating

changereadinessandfocusingonthechangerecipientthanleadingthechangeprocess

andfocusingonthechangeagent(ArmenakisandHarris,2009).Admittedly,wecould

havefocusedmoreoncreatingchangereadinesssinceweneglectthisdimensioninour

research,astheunderlyingtheoriesweapplyneglectit.

5.3Implications

In the followingwewill reflectupon the implicationsof the findingspresented in this

thesis.Our results indicate that there is a difference in the extent towhich successful

CBM&AcompaniesandunsuccessfulCBM&Acompaniesemploytheprinciplesofchange

management. This has important implications for management. Research shows, as

mentionedin“Chapter2:LiteratureReview”thatthefailureratesofM&Asareashighas

80%withtheratesforCBM&Abeingslightlylower.However,byemployingthechange

management principlesmanagers and organizations can reach their goals and create

successful CBM&As. Consequently, the identified principles establish a prescriptive

frameworkmanagerscanuse.

Furthermore,ourresearchsuggeststhatmanagersshouldfocusondevelopingavision,

whichisthefourthprinciple,sincetherewasastatisticalsignificantdifferencebetween

the successful cases and the unsuccessful cases. In this way managers can unite

employeesbehindanidea(Kanteretal.,1992),andbreakthroughallresistance,inertia

and powers supporting status quo, while promoting the significant change initiatives

(Kotter, 1995, 1996). Additionally, our results imply that managers should empower

peopleforchangebyeliminatingobstaclesandinthatwayreinforcethechangeeffort.

Also the difference in the extent of the employment of this sixth principle was

statisticallysignificantbetweenthetwoperformancegroups.Thesamewastrueforthe

differences in “Guide and motivate the change process” and “Make change last”.

Managersmay,therefore,focusontheseprinciplesalsoinCBM&Atogainsuccess.

Theresultsofourresearch,moreover, contribute to theunderstandingandvalidityof

theplannedandtheologicalchangemanagementmodels fromwhichwe identifiedthe

eightchangemanagementprinciple.Thisistruebecausewefoundempiricalsupportfor

someoftheprinciplesandtherehasbeenacallforempiricaltesting.

111

5.4Suggestionsforfurtherresearch

Byreflectingon the limitationsandtheresultsofour thesis,weareable togivesome

suggestionsforfurtherresearch.

Asmentionedinabovein“Limitations”, therepresentativenessofoursampleisupfor

discussion at best. Therefore, in order to validate the results of our research, further

researchwithasamplewithhigherresponseratesandexternalvalidityisneeded.We

suggesttofollowourresearchdesignbutusingstructuredinterviewstogatherthedata

if the resources and a greater time frame are available, as this should increase the

responserates.Moreover,wefurthersuggestconductingthesameresearchinacontext

otherthanwithDanishandAmericancompanies inordertobeabletogeneralizetoa

greater population. Additionally, we suggest further research to adopt a longitudinal

research design. It is argued that such a design is needed to determine the actual

causality and also to determine whether the sequence of the principles affect the

performanceoftheCBM&A.

Lastly, interesting research could come from examining the relation between change

readiness and CBM&A performance. Instead of focusing on the change agents, future

researchcouldfocusonthechangerecipients.Onewayofdoingsowouldbeadopting

AmenakisandHarris’(2009)fivekeychangebeliefsofthechangerecipients,whichare

an expression for change readiness, and examining their relation to CBM&A

performance.

112

Chapter6: References

Ahuja,G.andKatila,R.(2001),“TechnologicalAcquisitionsandtheInnovation

PerformanceofAcquiringFirms:ALongitudinalStudy”,StrategicManagement

Journal,22,pp.197-220

Anderson,D.andAnderson,L.A.(2001)BeyondChangeManagement,SanFrancisco,

CA:Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer

Arbnor,I.andBjerke,B.(2009),Creatingbusinessknowledge,London:SAGE

Armenakis,A.AandHarris,S.G(2009),“Reflections:ourJourneyinOrganizational

ChangeResearchandPractice”,JournalofChangeManagement,9(2),pp.127-142

Armenakis,A.A.,Harris,S.G.andFeild,H.S.(1999),“Makingchangepermanent:amodel

forinstitutionalizingchangeinterventions”,ResearchinOrganizationalChange

andDevelopment,12,pp.97-128.

Barkema,H.G.,Bell,J.H.andPennings,J.M.(1996),“Foreignentry,culturalbarriers,and

learning”,StrategicManagementJournal,17,pp.151-166

Bauer,F.andMatzler,K.(2014),“AntecedentsofM&Asuccess:Theroleofstrategic

complementarity,culturalfit,anddegreeandspeedofintegration”,Strategic

ManagementJournal,35,pp.269–291

Beer,M.andNohria,N.(2000)”Crackingthecodeofchange”,HarvardBusinessReview,

78(3),pp.133–141

Beer,M.,Eisenstat,R.A.andSpector,B.(1990),“WhyChangeProgramsDon’tProduce

Change”,HarvardBusinessReview,68(6),pp.158-166

Bierman,H.(2015),IntroductiontoAccountingandManagerialFinance:AMergerof

EqualsSingapore,SGP:WorldScientificPublishingCo.

Bryman,A.andBell,E.(2011),Businessresearchmethods,NewYork:OxfordUniversity

Press

113

Bullock,R.J.andBatten,D.(1985)“It’sjustaphasewe’regoingthrough:areviewand

synthesisofODphaseanalysis”,GroupandOrganizationStudies,10(December),

pp.383–412

Burnes,B.(2004)“KurtLewinandthePlannedApproachtoChange:ARe-appraisal”,

JournalofManagementStudies,41(6),pp.977-1002

Burnes,B.(2011)“Introduction:whydoeschangefail,andwhatcanwedoaboutit?”

JournalofChangeManagement,11(4),pp.445–450

Burns,R.B.andBurns,R.A.(2008),BusinessResearchMethodsandStatisticsUsing

SPSS,London:Sage

Burrell,G.,andMorgan,G.(1979),Sociologicalparadigmsandorganisationalanalysis,

London:Heinemann

By,R.T.(2005)“Organizationalchangemanagement:acriticalreview”,Journalof

ChangeManagement,5(4),pp.369–380

By,R.T.,Hughes,M.andFord,J.D.(2016),“ChangeLeadership:OxymoronandMyths”,

JournalofChangeManagement,16(1),pp.8-17

Cameron,E.andGreenM.(2004),MakingSenseofChangeManagement,London:Kogan

Page

Cameron,K.S.andQuinn,R.E.(2011),DiagnosingandChangingOrganizationalCulture:

BasedontheCompetingValuesFramework,2ndedn,SanFrancisco:JohnWiley

&Sons

Capron,L.,Dussauge,P.andMitchell,W.(1998),“Resourceredeploymentfollowing

horizontalacquisitionsinEuropeandNorthAmerica1988-1992”,Strategic

ManagementJournal19(7),pp.631-661

Cartwright,S.(2005),“Mergersandacquisitions:Anupdateandappraisal.”,

InternationalReviewofIndustrialandOrganizationalPsychology,20,pp.1-38

114

Cartwright,S.andSchoenberg,R.(2006),“30Yearsofmergersandacquisitions

research:recentadvancesandfutureopportunities”,BritishJournalof

Management,17(S1),pp.S1-S5

Chia,R.(2014),“Reflections:InPraiseofSilentTransformation–AllowingChange

Through‘LettingHappen’”,JournalofChangeManagement,14(1),pp.8-27

Child,J.,Falkner,D.andPitkethly,R.(2001),TheManagementofInternational

Acquisitions,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress

Creswell,J.W(2014),ResearchDesign,Qualitative,Quantitative,andMixedMethods

Approaches,4thedition,London:SAGE

Datta,D.andPuia,G.(1995),“Cross-borderacquisitions:anexaminationoftheinfluence

ofrelatednessandculturalfitonshareholdervaluecreationinU.S.acquiring

firms.”,ManagerialInternationalReview,35,pp.337–359

Dawson,P.(1994),Organizationalchange:Aprocessualapproach,London:Paul

ChapmanPublishing

DiGeorgio,R.(2002),“Makingmergersandacquisitionswork:Whatweknowanddon’t

know–PartI”,JournalofChangeManagement,3(2),pp.134–148

Ekinci,Y.(2015),DesigningResearchQuestionnairesforBusinessandManagement

Studies,London:Sage

Eriksson,M.andSundgren,M.(2005)“ManagingChange:StrategyorSerendipity—

ReflectionsfromtheMergerofAstraandZeneca”,JournalofChange

Management,5(1),pp.15-28

Evans,J.andSchaffer,C.(2001),TenTasksofChange:DemystifyingChanging

Organizations,SanFrancisco,CA:Pfeiffer

Evans,P.,Pucik,V.andBarsoux,J.L.(2002),TheGlobalChallenge:Frameworksfor

InternationalHumanResourceManagement,McGraw-Hill

115

Fernandez,S.andRainey,H.G.(2006),“ManagingSuccessfulOrganizationalChangeinthe

PublicSector”,PublicAdministrationReview,66(2),pp.168-176

FinancialTimes(2012),“45JournalsusedinFTResearchRank”,FinancialTimes,

Availableathttp://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3405a512-5cbb-11e1-8f1f-

00144feabdc0.html#axzz44rct3VKK(AccessedMarch8,2016)

Ford,J.DandFord,L.W.(2015),“TheLeadershipofOrganizationChange:AViewfrom

RecentEmpiricalEvidence”,ResearchinOrganizationalChangeand

Development,20,pp.1-36

Ford,R.(2006),“Open-ProcessionalChange:ThreePrinciplesofReciprocal-Relational

Power”,JournalofChangeManagement,6(2),pp.193-216

Galpin,T.J.(1996),Thehumansideofchange:Apracticalguidetoorganizationredesign,

SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass

Garud,R.andVandeVen,A.(2002),“StrategicChangeProcesses”inPettigrew,A.M.,

Thomas,H,andWhittington,R.(2002),HandbookofStrategyandManagement,

London:SAGE

Garvin,D.A.(2000),LearninginAction:AGuidetoPuttingtheLearningOrganizationto

Work,Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress

Ghoshal,S.(1987),“Globalstrategy:anorganizingframework.”StrategicManagement

Journal,8,pp.425–440.

Graetz,F.(2000),“Strategicchangeleadership”,ManagementDecision,38(8),pp.550-

564

Graetz,F.andSmith,A.C.T.(2010)“Managingorganizationalchange:aphilosophiesof

changeapproach”,JournalofChangeManagement,10(2),pp.135-54

Groves,R.M.(2006),“NonresponseRatesandNonresponseBiasinHouseholdSurveys”,

ThePublicOpinionQuarterly,70(5),pp.646-675

Grundy,T.(1993)ManagingStrategicChange,London:KoganPage

116

Harrison,J.S.,Hitt,M.A.,Hoskisson,R.E.andIreland,R.D.(1991),“Synergiesandpost-

acquisitionperformance:differencesversussimilaritiesinresourceallocations”,

JournalofManagement,17(1),pp.173–190.

Harzing,A.(2015)“JournalQualityList”,Harzing,56thEdition,27November,2015

Haspeslagh,P.C.andJemison,D.B.(1991),Managingacquisitions:Creatingvalue

throughcorporaterenewal.NewYork:FreePress

Henry,D.(2002),“Mergers:WhyMostBugDealsDon’tPayOff.”BusinessWeek,

October,pp.60-70

Herd,T.JandMcManus,R.(2012),“WhosaysM&Adoesn’tcreatevalue?”,Accenture,

Availableathttp://www.accenture.com/us-en/outlook/Pages/outlook-journal-

2012-mergers-acquisitions-create-value.aspx

Hiatt,J.(2006),ADKAR:Amodelforchangeinbusiness,governmentandour

community,Loveland,CO:Prosci

Hitt,M.,A.,Ireland,R.D.,Camp,M.andSexton,D.L(2001),“GuestEditors’Introductionto

TheSpecialIssue,StrategicEntrepreneurship:EntrepreneurialStrategiesfor

WealthCreation”,StrategicManagementJournal,22,pp.479-491.

Hitt,M.A.,Dacin,M.T.,Levitas,E.,Arregle,J.L.andBorza,A.(2000),“Partnerselectionin

emerginganddevelopedmarketcontexts:resource-basedandorganizational

learningperspectives.”,AcademicManagementJournal,43,pp.449–467

Hitt,M.A.,Harrison,J.S.andIreland,R.D.(2001),MergersandAcquisitions:AGuideto

CreatingValueforStakeholders,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress

Hofstede,G.(1980),Culture’sConsequences:InternationalDifferencesinWorkRelated

Values,Sage:BeverlyHills

Hofstede,G.(1984),“Culturaldimensionsinmanagementandplanning”,AsiaPacific

JournalofManagement,1(2),pp.81-99

117

Hopkins,D.(1999),“Cross-bordermergersandacquisitions:globalandregional

perspectives”,JournalofInternationalManagement,5,pp.207-239

House,R.J.,Hanges,P.M.,Javidan,M.,Dorfman,P.andGupta,V.(2004)Culture,

LeadershipandOrganizations:TheGLOBEStudyof62Societies,Sage:Thousand

Oaks

Hu,M.andHuynh,P.N.(2015),“Howdocross-bordermergersandacquisitionsaffect

firms’managementandstakeholders?Part2.”,CorporateFinanceReview,20(3),

pp.13-26.

Hughes,M.(2011)”Do70PerCentofAllOrganizationalChangeInitiativesReallyFail?”,

JournalofChangeManagement,11(4),pp.451-464

InstituteofMergers,AcquisitionsandAlliances(IMAA)(2016)Availableat:

https://imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions/

Iskandarani,M.(2010),“Post-AcquisitionPerformanceofCross-borderMergersand

AcquisitionsandtheModeratingEffectsofEntrepreneurialOrientationandits

Dimensions”,LawrenceTechnologicalUniversity,ProQuest

Jacobsen,D.I(2005),Organisationsændringerogforandringsledelse,Samfundslitteratur

Jick,T.D.(1991),ImplementingChange:Note,Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchool

Press

Judson,A.S.(1991),Changingbehaviorinorganizations:Minimizingresistanceto

change,CambridgeMA:B.Blackwell

Kanter,R.M.(1989),‘’BecomingPALs:Pooling,allying,andlinkingacrosscompanies,’’

AcademyofManagementExecutive,3(3),pp.183-193

Kanter,R.M.,Stein,B.andJick,T.D.(1992),TheChallengeofOrganizationalChange:How

CompaniesExperienceItandLeadersGuideIt,NewYork,NY:FreePress

Keller,G.(2012),ManagerialStatisticsAbbreviated,InternationalEdition,9thedition,

Canada:CengageLearning

118

Keller,S.andAiken,C.(2009a)“Theinconvenienttruthaboutchangemanagement”,

McKinseyandCompany,Availableat

http://www.aascu.org/corporatepartnership/McKinseyReport2.pdf(Accessed

March30,2016)

Keller,S.andAiken,C.(2009b)“Theirrationalsideofchangemanagement”,McKinsey

andCompany,Availableathttp://www.mckinsey.com/business-

functions/organization/our-insights/the-irrational-side-of-change-management

(AccessedMarch30,2016)

King,D.R.,Dalton,D.R.,Daily,C.M.andCovin,J.G(2004),“Meta-AnalysesofPost-

AcquisitionPerformance:IndicationsofUnidentifiedModerators”,Strategic

ManagementJournal,25(2),pp.187-200

Kirkpatrick,D.L.(2001),ManagingChangeEffectively,Boston,MA:Butterworth-

Heinemann

Kitching,J.(1974),“Whydomergersmiscarry?”,HarvardBusinessReview,45(6),pp.

84-101.

Kotter,J.P.(1995),“Leadingchange:whytransformationeffortsfail”,HarvardBusiness

Review,73(2),pp.59–67

Kotter,J.P.(1996),LeadingChange,Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress

Kotter,J.P.(2008)ASenseofUrgency,Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress

Kouzes,J.M.andPosner,B.Z.(2002),TheLeadershipChallenge,3rdedn,SanFrancisco,

CA:Jossey-Bass

Kuada,J.(2012),Researchmethodology:Aprojectguideforuniversitystudents,1stedn,

Samfundslitteratur.

LaJoux,A.R.(1998),TheArtofM&AIntegration,NewYork:McGraw-Hill

Leppitt,N.(2006),“Challengingthecodeofchange:Part1.Praxisdoesnotmake

perfect”,JournalofChangeManagement,6(2),pp.121-142

119

Lewin,K.(1947a)‘Frontiersingroupdynamics’.InCartwright,D.(Ed.),FieldTheoryin

SocialScience,London:SocialSciencePaperbacks

Liebhart,M.andLorenzo,L.G.(2010),“Betweenplannedandemergentchange:decision

maker’sperceptionsofmanagingchangeinorganisations”,Internationaljournal

ofknowledge,cultureandchangemanagement,10(5),pp.214-225

Light,P.G.(2005),TheFourPillarsofHighPerformance,McGraw-Hill

Lippitt,R.,Watson,J.andWestley,B.(1958),TheDynamicsofPlannedChange,New

York,NY:Harcourt,Brace&Company

Luecke,R.(2003)ManagingChangeandTransitions,HarvardBusinessEssentials,

Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress

LundResearch(2013a),”IndependentT-TestusingSPSSStatistics”

LundResearch(2013b),”TestingforNormalityusingSPSSStatistics”

Markides,C.andIttner,C.D.(1994),“Shareholdersbenefitfromcorporateinternational

diversification:EvidencefromUSinternationalacquisitions.”,Journalof

InternationalBusinessStudies,25(2),pp.343-366.

Marks,L.M.,Mirvis,P.andBrajkovich,L.F.(2001),“MakingMergersandAcquisitions

Work:StrategicandPsychologicalPreparation[andExecutiveCommentary].”,

TheAcademyofManagementExecutive(1993-2005),15(2),pp.80-94.Available

athttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4165737(AccessedMarch2,2016)

McKinseyandCompany(2010),Takingorganizationalredesignsfromplantopractice:

McKinseyGlobalSurveyresults.TheMcKinseyQuarterly,December,pp.1–9,

Availableathttp://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-

insights/taking-organizational-redesigns-from-plan-to-practice-mckinsey-global-

survey-results(AccessedMarch30,2016)

120

Mento,A.J.,Jones,R.MandDirndorfer,W.(2002),“Achangemanagementprocess:

Groundedinboththeoryandpractice”,JournalofChangeManagement,3(1),pp.

45-59)

MentzermJ.T.andFlintD.J.(1997),”Validityinlogisticsresearch.”,Journalofbusiness

logistics

Mirvis,P.H.,andMarks,M.L.(1992),Managingthemerger:Makingitwork.NewJersey:

PrenticeHall.

Nadler,D.A.(1982),ManagingTransitionstoFutureStates,OrganizationalDynamics,

11(1),pp.37-45

Nadler,D.A.(1998),ChampionsofChange:HowCEOsandTheirCompaniesare

MasteringtheSkillsofRadicalChange,SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass

Nasim,S.andSushil(2011)“RevisitingOrganizationalChange:ExploringtheParadoxof

ManagingContinuityandChange”,JournalofChangeManagement,11(2),pp.

185-206

Palich,L.E.,Cardinal,L.B.andMiller,C.C.(2000),“Curvilinearityinthediversification–

performancelinkage:Anexaminationofoverthreedecadesofresearch.”,

StrategicManagementJournal,21(2),pp.155–174.

Pendlebury,A.J.,Grouard,B.andMeston,F.(1998),TheTenKeystoSuccessfulChange

Management,Wiley

Peter,J.P.(1981),“Constructvalidity:areviewofbasicissuesandmarketingpractices”,

JournalofMarketingResearch,pp.133-145

Philips,J.R.(1982),“Enhancingtheeffectivenessoforganizationalchangemanagement”,

HumanResourceManagement,22(1-2),pp.183-199

Poole,M.S.,VandeVen,A.H,Dooley,K.andHolmes,M.E.(2001),Organizationalchange

andinnovationprocesses:Theoryandmethodsforresearch,NewYork,NY:

OxfordUniversityPress

121

Ready,D.A.andConger,J.(2008),EnablingBoldVisions,Boston,MA:HarvardBusiness

SchoolPress

Robins,J.andWiersema,M.F(1995),“Resource-basedapproachtothemultibusiness

firm:empiricalanalysisofportfoliointerrelationshipsandcorporatefinancial

performance.”,StrategicManagementJournal16(4),pp.177–299.

Salama,A.,Holland,W.andVinten,G.(2003),“Challengesandopportunitiesinmergers

andacquisitions:threeinternationalcasestudies-DetuscheBank-BankersTrust;

BritishPetroleum-Amoco;Ford-Volvo”,JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,

27(6),pp.313-321

Schmidt,S.andRühli,E.(2002),“Priorstrategyprocessesasakeytounderstanding

mega-mergers:theNovartiscase.”,EuropeanManagementJournal,20(3),

pp.223–234.

Schoenberg,R.(2006),“MeasuringthePerformanceofCorporateAcquisitions:An

EmpiricalComparisonofAlternativeMetrics”,BritishJournalofManagement,

17(4),pp.361-370

Senior,B.(2002)OrganisationalChange,2ndEdition,London:PrenticeHall

Seth,A.(1990),“Valuecreationinacquisitions:Are-examinationofperformanceissues”,

StrategicManagementJournal,11,pp.99-115

Shanley,C.(2007),“Navigatingthechangeprocess:theexperienceofmanagersinthe

residentialagedcareindustry”,JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement,

20(5),pp.700-720

Shimizu,K.,Hitt,M.A,Vaidyanath,DandPisano,V.(2004),“Theoreticalfoundationsof

cross-bordermergersandacquisitions:areviewofcurrentresearchand

recommendationsforthefuture.”JournalofInternationalManagement,10,pp.

307–53.

Shrivastava,P.(1986),"PostMergerIntegration",JournalofBusinessStrategy,7(1),pp.

65-76Availableat:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb039143

122

Taffinfer,P.(1998),BigChange:ARoute-MapforCorporateTransformation,Wiley

Tetenbaum,T.(1999),“Beatingtheoddsofmerger&acquisitionfailure:Sevenkey

practicesthatimprovethechanceforexpectedintegrationandsynergies.”,

OrganizationalDynamics,28(2),pp.22-36.

TheEconomist(1999),Howtomakemergerswork,TheEconomist,1,pp.99.

Tischy,N.andUlrich,D.(1983),RevitalizingOrganizations,DivisionofResearch,

GraduateSchoolofBusinessAdministration,UniversityofMichigan

Trompenaars,F.andWoolliams,P.(2003),“Anewframeworkformanagingchange

acrosscultures”,JournalofChangeManagement,3(4),pp.361-375

Ulrich,D.(1998),HumanResourceChampions,Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchool

Press

UNCTAD(UnitedNationsConferenceonTradeandDevelopment),(2015),World

InvestmentReport,ReformingInternationalInvestmentGovernance.Available

at:http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf

VandeVenSun,A.H.andSun,K.(2011),“BreakdownsinImplementingModelsof

OrganizationChange”,AcademyofManagementPerspectives,25(3),pp.58-74

VandeVen,A.H.(2011)ResearchingInnovationandChangeProcesses,AIMCapacity-

BuildingWorkshop,CardiffUniversity,May25,2011

VandeVen,A.H.andPoole,M.S.(1995)“Explainingdevelopmentandchangein

organizations”,TheAcademyofManagementReview,20(3),pp.510–540

Wang,L.andZajac,E.J.(2007),“Allianceoracquisition?Adyadicperspectiveon

interfirmresourcecombinations”,StrategicManagementJournal,28,pp.1291-

1317

Woodward,S.andHendry,C.(2004),“Leadingandcopingwithchange”,Journalof

ChangeManagement,4(2),pp.155-183

123

Zaheer,S.(1995),“OvercomingtheLiabilityofForeignness”,AcademyofManagement

Journal,38(2),pp.341-63

Zaheer,S.,SchomakerM.andGenc,M.(2003),“IdentityVersusCultureinMergersof

Equals”,EuropeanManagementJournal,21(2),pp.185–191

Zikmund,W.G.,Babin,B.J.,Carr,J.C.andGriffin,M.(2013),BusinessResearchMethods,

9thedition,(Canada:CengageLearning)

124

AppendixA:JournalsandScores

Fina

lScore

6,07

1

5,55

7

4,00

4

3,94

9

3,88

2

3,83

3

2,33

4

2,28

7

1,76

5

5,20

2

5,05

1

3,42

9

3,02

5

0,89

8

0,00

0

2,86

1

2,69

2

2,66

7

2,62

6

Impa

ct

Factor

7,47

5

6,44

8

3,34

1

3,56

4

3,76

3

3,33

3

1,66

7

1,57

4

1,52

9

6,07

1

7,76

9

3,85

7

3,38

4

0,46

2

0,00

0

2,38

8

2,71

8

2,00

0

1,58

6

Score

Average

4,66

7

4,66

7

4,66

7

4,33

3

4,00

0

4,33

3

3,00

0

3,00

0

2,00

0

4,33

3

2,33

3

3,00

0

2,66

7

1,33

3

0,00

0

3,33

3

2,66

7

3,33

3

3,66

7

ABDC

4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 0 4 4 3 3 2 0 3 3 3 4

ESS 5 5 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 0 0 3 2 3 3

ABS 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 3 5 0 3 3 2 0 4 3 4 4

Rank

ABDC

A*

A*

A*

A*

A*

A*

A A - A*

A*

A A B - A A A A*

ESS

0+

0+

0+

0 0 0+

1 1 1 0 1 1 2 - - 1 2 1 1

ABS

4*

4*

4*

4*

4 4*

3 3 3 4*

- 3 3 2 - 4 3 4 4

FT

(Y/N

)

Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y Y N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Selective

(N/Y)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N Y Y N

N

N

N

Journa

l

Acad

emyofM

anagem

entR

eview

Acad

emyofM

anagem

entJou

rnal

StrategicMan

agem

entJou

rnal

Journa

lofInterna

tiona

lBusinessStud

ies

Journa

lofM

anagem

entS

tudies

AdministrativeScienceQua

rterly

CaliforniaMan

agem

entR

eview

HarvardBusinessRe

view

MITSloan

Man

agem

entR

eview

Journa

lofM

anagem

ent

Acad

emyofM

anagem

entA

nnals

Internationa

lJou

rnalofM

anagem

entR

eviews

Acad

emyofM

anagem

entP

erspectiv

es

Journa

lofO

rgan

izationa

lCha

ngeMan

agem

ent

Journa

lofC

hang

eMan

agem

ent

Journa

lofW

orldBusiness(Co

lumbia)

LongRan

gePlann

ing

StrategicEn

trep

rene

urshipJo

urna

l

Acad

emyofM

anagem

entLearning&Edu

catio

n

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

125

2,43

8

2,39

3

2,37

9

2,36

7

2,35

7

2,29

2

2,23

4

2,22

1

2,05

9

2,05

6

2,03

3

1,93

7

1,88

3

1,82

5

1,82

4

1,71

5

1,70

9

1,68

6

1,65

7

1,61

1

1,47

5

1,44

0

1,36

7

2,54

2

2,12

0

2,09

1

1,73

4

1,71

3

1,58

4

1,46

8

2,44

2

1,11

8

1,44

6

1,40

0

1,20

8

1,76

6

1,65

0

1,64

8

1,42

9

2,08

5

0,70

5

0,98

1

1,22

2

0,95

0

1,21

4

0,40

0

2,33

3

2,66

7

2,66

7

3,00

0

3,00

0

3,00

0

3,00

0

2,00

0

3,00

0

2,66

7

2,66

7

2,66

7

2,00

0

2,00

0

2,00

0

2,00

0

1,33

3

2,66

7

2,33

3

2,00

0

2,00

0

1,66

7

2,33

3

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2

2 3 2 3 3 2 3 0 3 2 2 2 3 0 0 2 0 3 2 2 0 0 3

3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2

B A A A A A A A A A A A B A A B B A A B A A B

2 1 2 1 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 2 1 - - 2 - 1 2 2 - - 1

3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Busin

essS

trategy&th

eEn

vironm

ent

Group

Decision

sand

Negotiatio

n

Asia-PacificJourna

lofM

anagem

ent

CorporateGoverna

nce:AnInternationa

lReview

Internationa

lBusinessR

eview

BritishJo

urna

lofM

anagem

ent

Busin

essa

ndSociety

Man

agem

enta

ndOrgan

izationRe

view

Man

agem

entInterna

tiona

lReview

Journa

lofM

anagem

entInq

uiry

StrategicOrgan

ization

Man

agem

entLearning

AmericalBeh

avioralScien

tist

Globa

lStrategyJourna

l

Journa

lofInterna

tiona

lMan

agem

ent

Man

agem

entD

ecision

Man

agem

entC

ommun

icationQua

terly

Journa

lofForecastin

g

Scan

dina

vian

Journa

lofM

anagem

ent

Europe

anM

anagem

entJou

rnal

Theo

ry,C

ulture&Society

SportM

anagem

entR

eview

Negotiatio

nJourna

l

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

126

1,35

9

1,33

3

1,27

4

1,14

8

1,14

0

1,13

8

1,09

5

1,08

2

1,07

2

1,00

0

1,00

0

1,00

0

0,95

1

0,91

0

0,89

5

0,84

1

0,83

3

0,83

3

0,76

2

0,68

1

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,71

8

1,00

0

1,21

4

0,96

3

0,28

0

0,94

2

0,52

4

1,16

3

1,14

3

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,56

9

0,48

6

0,45

7

0,68

2

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,52

3

0,36

2

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

2,00

0

1,66

7

1,33

3

1,33

3

2,00

0

1,33

3

1,66

7

1,00

0

1,00

0

2,00

0

2,00

0

2,00

0

1,33

3

1,33

3

1,33

3

1,00

0

1,66

7

1,66

7

1,00

0

1,00

0

1,33

3

1,33

3

1,33

3

4 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 4 2 3

0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 2 3 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 1

A*

A B C B B A C B B B B B B C C A B C B A*

B A

- 2 - - 2 - 2 - - 2 2 2 - - 2 - - 2 - - - - -

2 - 2 3 2 2 - 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 - 2 1

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Journa

lofSpo

rtM

anagem

ent

AustralianJourna

lofM

anagem

ent

Group

Dun

amics:The

ory,Researchan

dPractice

Europe

anM

anagem

entR

eview

Internationa

lStudiesofM

anagem

ent&

Organ

izations

Techno

logyAna

lysis

&StrategicM

anagem

ent

Internationa

lJou

rnalofC

onflictM

anagem

ent

Busin

essH

orizon

s

ProjectM

anagem

entJou

rnal

Europe

anBusinessR

eview

Joruna

lofG

eneralM

anagem

ent

Thun

derbird

Internationa

lBusinessR

eview

Asia-PacificBu

sinesReview

PolicyStud

ies

Europe

anJo

urna

lofInterna

tiona

lMan

agem

ent

AdvancesinStrategicM

anagem

ent

Labo

urHistory(Australia)

M@n@

gemen

t

Europe

Asia

Studies

Lead

ership&Organ

izationDe

velopm

entJou

rnal

Journa

lofB

usiness

Journa

lofM

anagem

entE

ducatio

n

Journa

lofM

anagem

entH

istory

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

127

0,66

7

0,63

0

0,61

8

0,60

6

0,50

0

0,50

0

0,50

0

0,34

7

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,16

7

0,16

7

0,16

7

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,59

4

0,56

9

1,21

2

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,36

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

0,00

0

1,33

3

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,00

0

1,00

0

1,00

0

1,00

0

0,33

3

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,66

7

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,33

3

0,00

0

0,00

0

2 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0

B B C - A C C C B C C B C - C C - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 - 1 - - 2 2 - - 1 1 - 1 2 - - 1 - -

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Organ

ization&Enviro

nmen

t

Journa

lofM

anagem

ent&

Organ

ization

Journa

lofA

sia-PacificBu

siness

Cross-Cu

lturalR

esearch

American

BusinessR

eview

CorporateGoverna

nce:The

Internationa

lJou

rnal

Mulinationa

lBusinessR

eview

Betie

sbsw

irtscha

ftliche

Foschun

gun

dPraxis

Busin

essS

trategyRe

view

Gen

derinMan

agem

ent:an

Internationa

lJou

rnal

Internationa

lJou

rnalofB

usinessP

erform

anceM

anagem

ent

Journa

lofB

usinessS

trategy

Journa

lofE

ast-WestB

usiness

StrategicCh

ange

Journa

lofM

anagerialIssue

s

SAMAdvan

cedMan

agem

entJou

rnal

ZeitschriftfürBetrie

bswirtshaftlicheForschun

g

Schm

alen

bachBusinessR

eview

ZeitschriftfürBetrie

bswirtshaft

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

128

AppendixB:ChangeManagementModels

Nam

eofCha

ngemod

el

TheTriangularM

odel

TheNine-Ph

aseCh

angeProcessM

odel

ChangeReadine

ssm

odel

Autogeniccrisis

SixStep

stoEffectiveCh

ange

TheNAF

ISChangeMod

el

Yearof

Publication

2007

2001

1999

2000

1990

2000

Nam

eofPap

er

TheTriangularM

odelfo

rDealingwith

Organiza

tionalChange

Beyond

ChangeManagem

ent

Makingchangepermanen

t:amod

elfo

rinstitu

tionalizingchangeinterven

tions

From

threat-rigidity

toflexibility:Tow

arda

learningm

odelofautogen

iccrisisin

organizatio

ns

WhyChangeProgramsD

on'tProd

uce

Change

Emergenceandaccoum

plish

men

tin

organizatio

nalchange

Author

Alas

Ande

rson

and

An

derson

Armen

akisetal.

Barnetta

ndPratt

Beereta

l.

Beeson

and

Davins

129

Transitionmod

elofchange

- Integretivemod

elfo

rplann

edchange

Burke-Litw

inm

odel

Simpe

lPhaseM

odel

- -

1999

1986

1985

1992

2008

2004

1990

Mod

ellingindividu

altransitionsinth

econtexto

forganisatio

naltransform

ation

Managingorganizatio

naltransition

s

It’sjusta

phasewe’regoingth

rough:are

view

and

synthe

sisofO

Dph

ase

analysis

Organiza

tionDe

velopm

ent:aProcesso

fLearning

andCh

ange

Organiza

tionCh

ange:The

oryandPractice

MakingSenseofChangeManagem

ent

ManagingCh

angeinOrganiza

tions

Breu

and

Ben

well

Bridges

Bullockand

Batten

Burke

Burke

Cameron

and

Green

Carnall

130

Multi-stageconcep

tualm

odelof

organizatio

nalchange

Eight-ph

asemod

el

Theprocessualapp

roach

- Thecontingencymod

elofchange

- 7Factors

2014

1989

1994

1986

1993

1984

2006

Revisitingorganizatio

nalage,ine

rtia,and

adaptability:Develop

ingandtestingamulti-stage

mod

elinth

eno

nprofitse

ctor

Organiza

tionDe

velopm

enta

ndChange

Organiza

tionalchange:Aprocessualapp

roach

- Thestrategicmanagem

ento

fcorpo

ratechange

Strategiesfo

rManagingCh

ange

ManagingSuccessfulOrganiza

tionalChangeinth

ePu

blicSector

Chen

Cummingsand

Huse

Dawson

Dune

llon

Dunp

hyand

Stace

Dyer

Fernande

zand

Raine

y

131

Theintegrated

triangleofo

pen-processio

nal

change

NineWed

ges

TheGE

mod

el

Mod

elfo

rUnd

erstandingOrganiza

tional

Change

developm

entalm

odelofo

rganiza

tional

change

TheInsurrectio

nmod

el

BRP

2006

1996

2000

1996

1972

2000

1993

Ope

n-Processio

nalChange:ThreePrin

ciplesof

Reciprocal-RelationalPow

er

Thehu

manside

ofchange:Apracticalguide

to

organizatio

nrede

sign


toPuttin

gtheLearning

Organiza

tiontoW

ork

Und

erstandingra

dicalorganiza

tionalchange:Brin

ging

togetherth

eoldandthene

winstitu

tionalism

EvolutionandRe

volutio

nasOrganiza

tionsGrow

LeadingtheRe

volutio

n

Reen

gine

eringtheCo

rporation

Ford

Galpin

Garvin

Greenw

oodand

Hinn

ings

Greine

r

Hamel

Hammerand

Champy

132

Prosci’sfive-stagem

odel

- Inform

ationFlow

Mod

el

TacticalTen

StepMod

elfo

rImplem

entin

gCh

ange

FiveStepCh

angeM

odel

TenCo

mmandm

ents

Step

-by-step

Changemod

el

2006

1988

2012

1991

1991

1992

2001

ADKA

R:Am

odelfo

rchangeinbusiness,governm

ent

andou

rcom

mun

ity.H

owto

implem

ent

successfulchangeinourpersonallivesand

professio

nalcareers

TheDy

namicso

fStrategicChange

ChangeM

anagem

ent:

AnInform

ationFlow

App

roach

Implem

entin

gCh

ange

Changingbeh

aviorinorganizatio

ns:M

inim

izing

resistancetochange

TheCh

allengeofOrganiza

tionalChange

ManagingCh

angeEffe

ctively

Hiatt

Hinn

ingsand

Greenw

ood

HoadleyandLamos

Jick

Judson

Kantereta

l.

Kirkpatrick

133

Eight-step

stoLeadingCh

ange

THEFIVE

PRA

CTICESOFEXEM

PLAR

YLEAD

ERSH

IP®MODE

L

OC3

Mod

elofO

rganiza

tionalChange

TheEm

ergingChangemod

el

PoliticalM

odelofO

rganiza

tionalChange

Integrated

Mod

el

ThreeStep

Mod

el

1995

2007

2009

2015

2013

2006

1947

LeadingCh

ange

TheLeadershipChallenge

Aprocessm

odelofo

rganiza

tionalchangeincultural

context(OC3

mod

el)

LeadingCh

ange–Insig

htsIntoHo

wLeade

rsActually

Approachth

eCh

allengeofCom

plexity

Contradictionasam

ediumand

outcomeof

organizatio

nalchange:aFou

cauldianre

ading

Challengingthecode

ofchange:Part1

.Praxisd

oes

notm

akepe

rfect

Fron

tiersinGroup

Dynam

ics

Kotter

Kouzesand

Posne

r

Latta

Lawrence

Leclercq-

Vand

elanno

itte

Lepp

it

Lewin

134

RAND'ssixSteps

seven-ph

asemod

elofP

lann

edchange

SevenStep

s

7-SFram

ework

12StepFram

ework

Mintzbe

rgand

Quinn

’sm

odelofchange

12ActionStep

s

2005

1958

2003

1980

2002

1991

1998

THEFO

URPILLAR

SOFHIGH

PER

FORM

ANCE

TheDy

namicso

fPlann

edChange

ManagingCh

angeand

Transition

Structureisno

torganiza

tion

ACh

angeM

anagem

entP

rocess:G

roun

dedinBoth

Theo

ryand

Practice

Thestrategyprocess:C

oncepts,con

texts,cases

Cham

pion

sofC

hange:How

CEO

sand

The

irCo

mpaniesareM

asterin

gtheSkillso

fRadicalChange

Light

Lipp

itt,W

atsonand

Westle

y

Luecke

Mckinsey(Petersa

nd

Waterman)

Men

to,Jon

esand

Dirndo

rfer

Mintzbe

rgand

Quinn

Nadler

135

NineStep

Mod

el

Mod

elofInstitutionalizingLeadershipof

Change

Congruen

cem

odel

Inverted

U-M

odel

AnIm

provisa

tionalM

odelfo

rManaging

Change

ChangeTrackingm

odel

Tenkeys

1982

1990

1977

2000

1997

2014

1998

ManagingTransitionsto

FutureStates

Beyond

theCh

arism

aticLeade

r:Leadershipand

Organiza

tionalChange

Adiagno

sticm

odelfo

rorganiza

tionbe

haviou

r

Organiza

tionaltransform

ationdu

ringinstitu

tional

uphe

aval

AnIm

provisa

tionalM

odelfo

rChangeManagem

ent:

TheCaseof

Crou

pwareTechno

logies

EmpiricalDevelop

men

tofaM

odelofP

erform

ance

DriversinOrganiza

tionalChangeProjects

TheTenKe

ysto

SuccessfulChangeManagem

ent

Nadler

Nadlera

ndTushm

an

Nadler-Tushman

New

man

Orlikowskiand

Ho

fman

Parryetal.

Pend

lebu

ry,G

rouard

andMeston

136

ChangeM

anagem

entM

odel

TheCo

rporateGreeningM

odel

Transthe

oreticalm

odelofchange/S

tageso

fchangem

odel

TheFive-PhaseM

odelfo

rEnablingVisio

ns

Tentaskso

fChange

Analyticalm

odelofchange

TheManagingCh

angem

odel

1982

1992

1982

2008

2001

2007

1996

Enhancingtheeffectiven

esso

forganiza

tionalchange

managem

ent

Mod

elso

fCorpo

rateGreen

ing:How

Corpo

rateSocial

PolicyandOrganiza

tionalLearningInform

Leading

EdgeEnviro

nmen

talM

anagem

ent

Changingfo

rgoo

d:th

erevolutio

naryprogram

that

explainsth

esix

stagesofchangeandteache

syou

ho

wto

freeyou

rselffrombadhabits

EnablingBo

ldVision

s

TenTaskso

fChange:Dem

ystifyingChanging

Organiza

tions

Navigatingthechangeprocess:the

experienceof

managersintheresid

entia

lagedcareindu

stry

Und

erstandingth

emanagem

ento

fchange

Phillips

Postand

Altm

an

Prochaska&

DiClem

ente

ReadyandCo

nger

Schaffe

rand

Evans

Shanley

Siegaleta

l.

137

Transformationtrajectory

TPCFram

ework

Mod

elofC

hangeLeadership

Fram

eworkform

anagingchangeacross

cultu

res

Punctuated

equ

ilibriumm

odelof

organizatio

nalchange

Seven-Step

mod

el

transformationim

perativ

e

1998

1983

1983

2002

1985

1998

1996

BigCh

ange:A

Rou

te-M

apfo

rCorpo

rate

Transformation

ManagingStrategicCh

ange:Techn

ical,Politicaland

Cu

lturalD

ynam

ics

RevitalizingOrganiza

tions

Ane

wfram

eworkform

anagingchangeacross

cultu

res

Organiza

tionalevolutio

n:am

etam

orph

osismod

elof

convergenceandreorientation

HumanResou

rceCh

ampion

s

Thetransformationim

perativ

e

Taffinfer

Tichy

TischyAnd

Ulrich

Trom

penaarsa

nd

Woo

lliam

s

Tushmanand

Ro

manelli

Ulrich

Vollm

an

138

Completemod

elofC

hange

Six-bo

xmod

el

Leadingandcopingwith

changemod

el

MetaMod

elofC

hange

2007

1976

2004

2009

Factorsinfluen

cing

organizatio

nalchangeefforts

Organiza

tionalD

iagnosis:sixplacesto

lookfo

rtroub

le

with

ofw

ithou

ta

theo

ry


change

Ametamod

elofchange

139

AppendixC:The34TeleologicalChangeModelsGS

Citatio

ns

9228

7565

4373

2318

1646

1534

Chan

geType

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Nam

eofCha

ngemod

el

THEFIVE

PRA

CTICESOF

EXEM

PLAR

YLEAD

ERSH

IP®

MODE

L

EightS

tepsto

Leading

Chan

ge

ThreeStep

Mod

el

Seven-Step

mod

el

TenCo

mman

dmen

ts

TaskAlignm

entM

odelfo

rCh

ange

Yearof

Publication

2007

1995

1947

1998

1992

1990

Nam

eofPap

er

TheLead

ershipCha

llenge

Lead

ingCh

ange

Fron

tiersinGroup

Dynam

ics

Human

Resou

rceCh

ampion

s

TheCh

allengeofOrgan

izationa

lCh

ange

WhyCha

ngeProgramsD

on'tProd

uce

Chan

ge

Author

Kouzesand

Posne

r

Kotter

Lewin

Ulrich

Kantereta

l.

Beereta

l.

140

919

584

497

420

327

300

267

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

TheGEmod

el

7Factors

TheNine-Ph

aseCh

ange

ProcessM

odel

- FiveStepCh

angeM

odel

TacticalTen

StepMod

elfo

rIm

plem

entin

gCh

ange

ChangeReadine

ssm

odel

2000

2006

2001

2004

1991

1991

1999


toPuttin

gtheLearningOrgan

izationtoW

ork

ManagingSuccessfulOrganiza

tional

Changeinth

ePu

blicSector

Beyond

ChangeManagem

ent

MakingSenseofChangeManagem

ent

Changingbeh

aviorinorganizatio

ns:

Minim

izingre

sistancetochange

Implem

entin

gCh

ange

Makingchangepermanen

t:amod

el

forinstitutionalizingchange

interven

tions

Garvin

Fernande

zand

Raine

y

Ande

rson

and

An

derson

Cameron

and

Green

Judson

Jick

Armen

akisetal.

141

233

225

215

187

183

179

176

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

NineWed

ges

12ActionStep

s

SevenStep

s

12StepFram

ework

Integretivemod

elfo

rplann

ed

change

seven-ph

asemod

elof

Planne

dchange

Prosci’sfive-stagem

odel

1996

1998

2003

2002

1985

1958

2006

Thehu

manside

ofchange:Apractical

guidetoorganiza

tionrede

sign

Cham

pion

sofC

hange:How

CEO

sand

TheirC

ompaniesareM

asterin

gthe

Skillso

fRadicalChange

ManagingCh

angeand

Transition

ACh

angeM

anagem

entP

rocess:

Grou

nded

inBothTheo

ryand

Practice

It’sjusta

phasewe’regoingth

rough:a

review

and

synthe

sisofO

Dph

ase

analysis

TheDy

namicso

fPlann

edChange

ADKA

R:Am

odelfo

rchangein

busin

ess,governm

enta

ndour

commun

ity.

Galpin

Nadler

Luecke

Men

to,Jon

esand

Dirndo

rfer

Bullockand

Batten

Lipp

itt,W

atsonand

Westle

y

Hiatt

142

82

80

76

76

69

47

40

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological


changem

odel

Mod

elofC

hangeLeadership

Tenkeys

RAND'ssixSteps

NineStep

Mod

el

Transformationtrajectory

ChangeM

anagem

entM

odel

2004

1983

1998

2005

1982

1998

1982


change

RevitalizingOrganiza

tions

TheTenKe

ysto

SuccessfulChange

Managem

ent

THEFO

URPILLAR

SOFHIGH

PERFORM

ANCE

ManagingTransitionsto

FutureStates

BigCh

ange:A

Rou

te-M

apfo

rCo

rporateTransformation

Enhancingtheeffectiven

esso

forganizatio

nalchangemanagem

ent

Woo

dwardandHe

ndry

TischyAnd

Ulrich

Pend

lebu

ry,G

rouard

andMeston

Light

Nadler

Taffinfer

Phillips

143

31

29

19

13

5 N/A

N/A

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Teleological

Step

-by-step

Changemod

el

Integrated

Mod

el

TheFive-PhaseM

odelfo

rEn

ablingVisio

ns

Analyticalm

odelofchange

Theintegrated

triangleof

open

-processionalchange

Theprocessualapp

roach

Tentaskso

fChange

2001

2006

2008

2007

2006

1994

2001

ManagingCh

angeEffe

ctively

Challengingthecode

ofchange:Part1

.Praxisdo

esnotm

akepe

rfect

EnablingBo

ldVision

s

Navigatingthechangeprocess:the

expe

rienceofm

anagersinthe

resid

entia

lagedcareindu

stry

Ope

n-Processio

nalChange:Three

PrinciplesofR

eciprocal-R

elational

Power

Organiza

tionalchange:Aprocessual

approach

TenTaskso

fChange:Dem

ystifying

ChangingOrganiza

tions

Kirkpatrick

Lepp

it

ReadyandCo

nger

Shanley

Ford

Dawson

Evansa

ndSchaffer

144

AppendixD:CoverLetterDearSir/MadamWeareacoupleofmasters-levelstudentsatAalborgUniversity,FacultyofBusinessinDenmark,whohavecreatedasurveyforourMaster’sThesis(seethelinkatthebottomofthise-mail).OurstudyaimstoinvestigateyourexperiencewithMergersandAcquisitions(M&A).Wearewriting you as your company INSERT ACQUIRORmergedwith/acquired INSERTTARGETandwewouldliketogetinputonthatspecificM&Afromamanagerinvolved.Yourco-operationandopinionsareveryimportanttothesuccessofthissurvey.We would appreciate if you could kindly spare a few minutes to answer thequestionnaire.Itwilltakeyouapproximately10-15minutestocompleteit.TheanswersfromyourquestionnaireandotherswillbeusedforourMaster’sThesisonthe topic of M&A and ChangeManagement. Your responses will be kept anonymous.Onlymembersoftheresearchteamwillhaveaccesstotheinformationyouprovide.Wehopethatyouwillfindthequestionnaireinteresting.Pleaseletusknowifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisstudy.Survey:INSERTLINKThankyouinadvanceforyourkindcollaborationandforsubmittingthesurveyby29AprilEOB.Bestregards,AnnaSpetkovaandMathiasTrierBirgissonAalborgUniversity

145

AppendixE:Survey

ThankyoufortakingthetimetoansweroursurveyforourMaster'sThesisregarding

M&As.

Answeringthequestionsshouldtakeapprox.10minutes

Company detai ls

Name of Company (Acquirer)

_____

Size of Company (Number of Employees) (1) q Small (<250)

(2) q Medium (250-499)

(3) q Large (500-1000)

(4) q Enterprise (>1000)

The Company's Primary Industry

_____

146

Year of M&A

_____

Country of Acquiree (Target Firm)

_____

Your personal posit ion in the company

_____

M&A

Do you personally bel ieve that your M&A was a success?

Yes No

(1) q (2) q

To which degree were the intended M&A goals achieved?

Not at All Low Degree Moderate

Degree High Degree Very High

Degree Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (6) q

To which degree, before the M&A, did you Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Thoroughly analyze your

strengths and

weaknesses?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (6) q

147

Not at All

Low Degree

Moderate

Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Identify challenges and

opportunities?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (6) q

Assess the impact of the

M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (6) q

To which degree were employees and middle-managers involved in the process of identi fy ing the need and/or the opportunity to merge/acquire?



Degree Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

To which degree did the employees understand why the M&A was important?

Not at All Low Degree Moderate Degree

High Degree Very High Degree

Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

How often did the organization emphasize that the M&A was necessary in

front of the employees before the M&A?

Very Seldom Seldom Sometimes Often Very Often Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Approximately, what percentage of al l managers were convinced that the M&A

was absolutely necessary?

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

148

To what degree did the company clari fy to the employees the consequences of not doing the M&A?



Degree Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Before the M&A, to which degree were the fol lowing the case in the

organization? Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

The absence of a major

and visible crisis

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Too many visible resources (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Low overall performance

standards and goals

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Organizational structures

that focus employees on

narrow functional goals

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Internal measurement

systems that focus on

inappropriate performance

indexes

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

A lack of sufficient

performance feedback from external sources

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

A kill-the-messenger-of-

bad-news, low candor, low

confrontation culture

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Employees denying the

need for a M&A

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Too much happy talk from

senior management

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

149

To which degree did you have Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

a leader who owned and

championed the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

a leader who was publicly

committed to making the

M&A succeed?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

a leader who put in the

personal time and attention

needed to make the M&A

work?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did the leaders of the M&A Not at

All

Low

Degree

Moderat

e Degree

High

Degree

Very

High Degree

Don't

Know

Believe that the M&A was the key to competitiveness?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Have the ability to articulate

the belief that the M&A was

the key to competitiveness?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Have the people-skills and

organizational know-how to follow through with the

M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did the company establ ish and make use of a guiding coali t ion/a project group

to head the M&A process?



Degree Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

150

To which degree would you assess the team in charge of the M&A on these

four characterist ics:

Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Position Power (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Expertise (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Credibility (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Leadership Skills (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

To which degree were members of the team, which was ahead of the M&A,

belong to dif ferent stakeholder-groups?



Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

To which degree Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Did the company develop a

vision for the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did employees understand

the outcome of the change

in behavioral terms?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did employees understand

how the M&As would

benefit themselves, customers and other

stakeholders?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

151

To which degree did the vision of the M&A Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Convey a picture of what

the future would look like?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Appeal to the long-term

interests of employees,

customers and other stakeholders?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Comprise realistic and

attainable goals?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Focus on manageable and

coherent sets of goals?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Have the ability to be easily

communicated to different

levels?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

To which degree were more people than a sole leader involved with developing the vision for the M&A



Don't Know

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

In the period of communicating the vision for the M&A, to which degree do you

agree that the communication was

Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Simple (e.g avoiding jargon

and technical terms)

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Utilized metaphors, (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

152

Not at All

Low Degree

Moderate

Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

analogies and examples?

Given through multiple

sources and channels?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Repeated? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Personified in the actions of

top-management?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Used to explain seeming

inconsistencies between

the change vision and what

the leaders stand for and/or

represent in their behavior?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Two-way communication? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q


All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Did the leaders of the

change recognize the

effects of the M&A on the

company’s structures and

systems?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did the company physically

rearrange the office space

due to the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Were the formal structures

aligned with the M&A

change vision?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Were more responsibilities

or an increased variety in

their assignments given to

employees in relation to

M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Were training and (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

153

Not at All

Low Degree

Moderate

Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

development opportunities

provided for the employees

in relation to the M&A?

Were compensation and

performance-appraisal

systems aligned with the vision of the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Were bosses who refused

to change and made

demands inconsistent with

the M&A change vision

confronted?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q


All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Did the organization have

the means of measuring

the success of the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did the organization plan to

benchmark progress on both the results and the

process of implementing

the changes?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Did you plan for short-term

wins (within 6-18 months)?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

To which degree were these short-term wins Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Visible to employees? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

154

Not at All

Low Degree

Moderate

Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Unambiguous? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Clearly linked to the change

initiative of the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Celebrated? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

To which degree were the celebrations Not at

All

Low

Degree

Moderat

e Degree

High

Degree

Very

High Degree

Don't

Know

Public? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Used to recognize

individual contributions?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q


All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Has the company used the

initial change momentum to

initiate greater changes?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Were and are the criteria of promotion-decisions in

accordance with the new

practices from the vision of

the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Was and is employee

turnover managed in accordance with the new

practices from the vision of

the M&A?

(1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

155

To which degree do you assess that the new approaches have been anchored in the organization’s Not at

All Low

Degree Moderat

e Degree

High Degree

Very High

Degree

Don't Know

Culture? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Policies? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Systems? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Reporting Relationships? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

Practices? (1) q (2) q (3) q (4) q (5) q (7) q

156

AppendixF:Chi-squaretestsandFischer’sExacttests

Case Processing Summary

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent Performance_group_extreme * define_t

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * defin_1 28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * defin_2 28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * defin_3

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * csq_1 28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%


Performance_group_extreme * csq_3

22 78,6% 6 21,4% 28 100,0%




24 85,7% 4 14,3% 28 100,0%




26 92,9% 2 7,1% 28 100,0%




27 96,4% 1 3,6% 28 100,0%


Performance_group_extreme * lead_1 28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

157



Performance_group_extreme * lead_4

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%




28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%




28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%



Performance_group_extreme * vision_1

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * vision_2 26 92,9% 2 7,1% 28 100,0%



28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%




28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%



Performance_group_extreme * visio_1

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * com_1 28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

158



Performance_group_extreme * com_4

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%




28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * empower_

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * empow_1

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%


27 96,4% 1 3,6% 28 100,0%


28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%


27 96,4% 1 3,6% 28 100,0%


28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%


27 96,4% 1 3,6% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * guide_1 28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%


Performance_group_extreme * guide_3

28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%




28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%

159




26 92,9% 2 7,1% 28 100,0%

Performance_group_extreme * last_1 27 96,4% 1 3,6% 28 100,0%


Performance_group_extreme * last_3

24 85,7% 4 14,3% 28 100,0%




28 100,0% 0 0,0% 28 100,0%



Performance_group_extreme * define_t

Crosstab

define_t

Total 2 3 4 5 Performance_group_extreme

1 Count 0 3 3 1 7 Expected Count ,5 1,8 2,8 2,0 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 42,9% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%

% within define_t 0,0% 42,9% 27,3% 12,5% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 10,7% 10,7% 3,6% 25,0%

2 Count 2 4 8 7 21 Expected Count 1,5 5,3 8,3 6,0 21,0

160

% within Performance_group_extreme

9,5% 19,0% 38,1% 33,3% 100,0%


Total Count 2 7 11 8 28 Expected Count 2,0 7,0 11,0 8,0 28,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

7,1% 25,0% 39,3% 28,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymptotic Significance

(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-

sided) Exact Sig. (1-

sided) Point

Probability Pearson Chi-Square 2,554a 3 ,466 ,438

Likelihood Ratio 3,011 3 ,390 ,412 Fisher's Exact Test 2,212 ,506

Linear-by-Linear Association ,354b 1 ,552 ,640 ,358 ,154

N of Valid Cases 28 a. 5 cells (62,5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,50. b. The standardized statistic is ,595.


Crosstab

defin_1

Total 2 3 4 5 Performance_grou 1 Count 0 1 4 2 7

161

p_extreme Expected Count ,3 1,5 3,3 2,0 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 14,3% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%

% within defin_1 0,0% 16,7% 30,8% 25,0% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 3,6% 14,3% 7,1% 25,0%


4,8% 23,8% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%



3,6% 21,4% 46,4% 28,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point

Probability Pearson Chi-Square ,786a 3 ,853 ,899

Likelihood Ratio 1,038 3 ,792 ,899 Fisher's Exact Test ,981 1,000

Linear-by-Linear Association

,286b 1 ,593 ,793 ,403 ,188

N of Valid Cases 28 a. 6 cells (75,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,25. b. The standardized statistic is -,535.

162


Crosstab

defin_2

Total 1 2 3 4 5 Performance_group_extreme

1 Count 0 0 0 3 4 7 Expected Count ,3 ,8 ,8 3,3 2,0 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%

% within defin_2 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 23,1% 50,0% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 10,7% 14,3% 25,0%

2 Count 1 3 3 10 4 21 Expected Count ,8 2,3 2,3 9,8 6,0 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

4,8% 14,3% 14,3% 47,6% 19,0% 100,0%


Total Count 1 3 3 13 8 28 Expected Count 1,0 3,0 3,0 13,0 8,0 28,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

3,6% 10,7% 10,7% 46,4% 28,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point



Linear-by-Linear Association 4,091b 1 ,043 ,063 ,023 ,019

163

N of Valid Cases 28 a. 8 cells (80,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,25. b. The standardized statistic is -2,023.


Crosstab

defin_3


1 Count 1 1 3 0 2 7 Expected Count ,8 2,8 1,5 ,8 1,3 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

14,3% 14,3% 42,9% 0,0% 28,6% 100,0%


2 Count 2 10 3 3 3 21 Expected Count 2,3 8,3 4,5 2,3 3,8 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

9,5% 47,6% 14,3% 14,3% 14,3% 100,0%



10,7% 39,3% 21,4% 10,7% 17,9% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

164

Value df




sided) Point

Probability Pearson Chi-Square

5,196a 4 ,268 ,276

Likelihood Ratio 5,922 4 ,205 ,328 Fisher's Exact Test

5,060 ,216




Crosstab

csq_1



0,0% 0,0% 71,4% 28,6% 100,0%

% within csq_1 0,0% 0,0% 41,7% 25,0% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 17,9% 7,1% 25,0%

2 Count 3 5 7 6 21 Expected Count 2,3 3,8 9,0 6,0 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

14,3% 23,8% 33,3% 28,6% 100,0%


Total Count 3 5 12 8 28 Expected Count 3,0 5,0 12,0 8,0 28,0

165


10,7% 17,9% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




1,576b 1 ,209 ,263 ,155 ,090



Crosstab

csq_2


1 Count 1 1 2 1 2 7 Expected Count 1,8 ,3 1,8 2,5 ,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

14,3% 14,3% 28,6% 14,3% 28,6% 100,0%

% within csq_2 14,3% 100,0% 28,6% 10,0% 66,7% 25,0% % of Total 3,6% 3,6% 7,1% 3,6% 7,1% 25,0%

2 Count 6 0 5 9 1 21

166

Expected Count 5,3 ,8 5,3 7,5 2,3 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

28,6% 0,0% 23,8% 42,9% 4,8% 100,0%



25,0% 3,6% 25,0% 35,7% 10,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

csq_3

Total 1 2 3 4 5

167

Performance_group_extreme


0,0% 14,3% 0,0% 14,3% 71,4% 100,0%



13,3% 13,3% 20,0% 33,3% 20,0% 100,0%



9,1% 13,6% 13,6% 27,3% 36,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




3,101b 1 ,078 ,092 ,052 ,031


168


Crosstab

csq_4


1 Count 0 1 3 2 1 7 Expected Count ,8 1,8 2,1 1,6 ,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 14,3% 42,9% 28,6% 14,3% 100,0%



15,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 10,0% 100,0%



11,1% 25,9% 29,6% 22,2% 11,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point



169




Crosstab

csq_5



16,7% 0,0% 50,0% 0,0% 33,3% 100,0%



21,1% 31,6% 5,3% 26,3% 15,8% 100,0%



20,0% 24,0% 16,0% 20,0% 20,0% 100,0%


170

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,518b 1 ,472 ,530 ,291 ,098



Crosstab

csq_6


1 Count 1 1 3 0 0 5 Expected Count 1,0 1,7 1,5 ,6 ,2 5,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

20,0% 20,0% 60,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%


2 Count 4 7 4 3 1 19 Expected Count 4,0 6,3 5,5 2,4 ,8 19,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

21,1% 36,8% 21,1% 15,8% 5,3% 100,0%


Total Count 5 8 7 3 1 24 Expected Count 5,0 8,0 7,0 3,0 1,0 24,0

171


20,8% 33,3% 29,2% 12,5% 4,2% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,018b 1 ,894 1,000 ,546 ,176



Crosstab

csq_7



42,9% 28,6% 28,6% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%


2 Count 7 6 2 1 3 19

172

Expected Count 7,3 5,8 2,9 ,7 2,2 19,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

36,8% 31,6% 10,5% 5,3% 15,8% 100,0%



38,5% 30,8% 15,4% 3,8% 11,5% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

csq_8

Total 1 2 3 4 5

173



66,7% 0,0% 33,3% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%


2 Count 3 9 4 1 2 19 Expected Count 5,3 6,8 4,6 ,8 1,5 19,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

15,8% 47,4% 21,1% 5,3% 10,5% 100,0%



28,0% 36,0% 24,0% 4,0% 8,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




2,157b 1 ,142 ,170 ,099 ,063

N of Valid Cases 25 a. 8 cells (80,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,24. b. The standardized statistic is 1,469.

174


Crosstab

csq_9



28,6% 28,6% 42,9% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%



15,8% 42,1% 21,1% 10,5% 10,5% 100,0%



19,2% 38,5% 26,9% 7,7% 7,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point



175




Crosstab

csq_10



0,0% 28,6% 57,1% 14,3% 0,0% 100,0%



31,6% 26,3% 15,8% 15,8% 10,5% 100,0%



23,1% 26,9% 26,9% 15,4% 7,7% 100,0%


176

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,490b 1 ,484 ,600 ,301 ,109



Crosstab

csq_11


1 Count 4 1 2 0 0 7 Expected Count 3,8 1,6 ,8 ,5 ,3 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

57,1% 14,3% 28,6% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%



52,6% 26,3% 5,3% 10,5% 5,3% 100,0%



177


53,8% 23,1% 11,5% 7,7% 3,8% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,125b 1 ,724 ,855 ,457 ,144



Crosstab

csq_12


1 Count 3 4 0 0 7 Expected Count 2,9 3,4 ,3 ,5 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

42,9% 57,1% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%


2 Count 8 9 1 2 20

178

Expected Count 8,1 9,6 ,7 1,5 20,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

40,0% 45,0% 5,0% 10,0% 100,0%



40,7% 48,1% 3,7% 7,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


Likelihood Ratio 1,964 3 ,580 ,805 Fisher's Exact Test 1,113 1,000




Crosstab

csq_13

Total 1 2 3 4 5

179



28,6% 42,9% 28,6% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%



42,1% 31,6% 15,8% 5,3% 5,3% 100,0%



38,5% 34,6% 19,2% 3,8% 3,8% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,000b 1 1,000 1,000 ,562 ,158


180


Crosstab

lead_1


1 Count 0 0 2 5 7 Expected Count ,3 ,3 1,8 4,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 71,4% 100,0%

% within lead_1 0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 26,3% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% 17,9% 25,0%


4,8% 4,8% 23,8% 66,7% 100,0%



3,6% 3,6% 25,0% 67,9% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point

Probability Pearson Chi-Square ,732a 3 ,866 1,000

Likelihood Ratio 1,214 3 ,750 1,000 Fisher's Exact Test 1,108 1,000

181




Crosstab

lead_2



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 71,4% 100,0%



4,8% 4,8% 33,3% 57,1% 100,0%



3,6% 3,6% 32,1% 60,7% 100,0%


182

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


Likelihood Ratio 1,359 3 ,715 1,000 Fisher's Exact Test 1,151 1,000


,828b 1 ,363 ,557 ,299 ,188



Crosstab

lead_3



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 71,4% 100,0%



9,5% 14,3% 23,8% 52,4% 100,0%



183


7,1% 10,7% 25,0% 57,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




1,613b 1 ,204 ,263 ,155 ,098



Crosstab

lead_4



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 71,4% 100,0%


2 Count 1 2 9 9 21

184

Expected Count ,8 1,5 8,3 10,5 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

4,8% 9,5% 42,9% 42,9% 100,0%



3,6% 7,1% 39,3% 50,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

lead_5

Total 1 2 3 4 5

185


1 Count 0 0 0 3 4 7 Expected Count ,3 ,3 ,5 3,5 2,5 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%

% within lead_5 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 21,4% 40,0% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 10,7% 14,3% 25,0%

2 Count 1 1 2 11 6 21 Expected Count ,8 ,8 1,5 10,5 7,5 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

4,8% 4,8% 9,5% 52,4% 28,6% 100,0%



3,6% 3,6% 7,1% 50,0% 35,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




2,201b 1 ,138 ,174 ,093 ,071


186


Crosstab

lead_6



0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%



4,8% 4,8% 28,6% 33,3% 28,6% 100,0%



3,6% 3,6% 21,4% 35,7% 35,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point



187




Crosstab

lead_7


1 Count 1 0 1 2 3 7 Expected Count 1,0 ,8 1,3 2,3 1,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

14,3% 0,0% 14,3% 28,6% 42,9% 100,0%



14,3% 14,3% 19,0% 33,3% 19,0% 100,0%



14,3% 10,7% 17,9% 32,1% 25,0% 100,0%


188

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,910b 1 ,340 ,435 ,220 ,085



Crosstab

lead_8



0,0% 28,6% 14,3% 57,1% 100,0%



4,8% 14,3% 38,1% 42,9% 100,0%



189


3,6% 17,9% 32,1% 46,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




,062b 1 ,803 1,000 ,513 ,191



Crosstab

lead_9



0,0% 14,3% 28,6% 57,1% 100,0%


2 Count 3 3 10 5 21

190

Expected Count 2,3 3,0 9,0 6,8 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

14,3% 14,3% 47,6% 23,8% 100,0%



10,7% 14,3% 42,9% 32,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

lead_10

Total 3 4 5

191


1 Count 1 3 3 7 Expected Count ,8 3,5 2,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

14,3% 42,9% 42,9% 100,0%

% within lead_10 33,3% 21,4% 27,3% 25,0% % of Total 3,6% 10,7% 10,7% 25,0%

2 Count 2 11 8 21 Expected Count 2,3 10,5 8,3 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

9,5% 52,4% 38,1% 100,0%


Total Count 3 14 11 28 Expected Count 3,0 14,0 11,0 28,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

10,7% 50,0% 39,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


Likelihood Ratio ,232 2 ,890 1,000 Fisher's Exact Test ,634 1,000


,000b 1 1,000 1,000 ,634 ,257


192


Crosstab

lead_11



0,0% 14,3% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%



4,8% 9,5% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%



3,6% 10,7% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


Likelihood Ratio ,680 3 ,878 1,000 Fisher's Exact Test ,984 1,000

193

Linear-by-Linear Association ,022b 1 ,882 1,000 ,572 ,230



Crosstab

lead_12



14,3% 0,0% 57,1% 0,0% 28,6% 100,0%

% within lead_12

33,3% 0,0% 44,4% 0,0% 40,0% 25,0%

% of Total 3,6% 0,0% 14,3% 0,0% 7,1% 25,0% 2 Count 2 8 5 3 3 21

Expected Count 2,3 6,0 6,8 2,3 3,8 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

9,5% 38,1% 23,8% 14,3% 14,3% 100,0%

% within lead_12

66,7% 100,0% 55,6% 100,0% 60,0% 75,0%

% of Total 7,1% 28,6% 17,9% 10,7% 10,7% 75,0% Total Count 3 8 9 3 5 28


10,7% 28,6% 32,1% 10,7% 17,9% 100,0%

% within lead_12 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 10,7% 28,6% 32,1% 10,7% 17,9% 100,0%

194

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

vision_1



0,0% 28,6% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%

% within vision_1 0,0% 22,2% 23,1% 40,0% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 7,1% 10,7% 7,1% 25,0%


4,8% 33,3% 47,6% 14,3% 100,0%

% within vision_1 100,0% 77,8% 76,9% 60,0% 75,0%

195

% of Total 3,6% 25,0% 35,7% 10,7% 75,0% Total Count 1 9 13 5 28


3,6% 32,1% 46,4% 17,9% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


,996a 3 ,802 ,790


1,354 ,790




Crosstab

vision_2


1 Count 0 1 4 1 6 Expected Count ,5 2,8 2,3 ,5 6,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 16,7% 66,7% 16,7% 100,0%

196



10,0% 55,0% 30,0% 5,0% 100,0%



7,7% 46,2% 38,5% 7,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






197

Crosstab

vision_3


1 Count 0 0 0 6 1 7 Expected Count ,5 ,8 1,8 3,3 ,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 85,7% 14,3% 100,0%

% within vision_3 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 46,2% 33,3% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 21,4% 3,6% 25,0% 2 Count 2 3 7 7 2 21


9,5% 14,3% 33,3% 33,3% 9,5% 100,0%

% within vision_3 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 53,8% 66,7% 75,0%



7,1% 10,7% 25,0% 46,4% 10,7% 100,0%

% within vision_3 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 7,1% 10,7% 25,0% 46,4% 10,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




N of Valid Cases 28

198

a. 8 cells (80,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,50. b. The standardized statistic is -2,041.


Crosstab

vision_4



0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%

% within vision_4 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 30,8% 50,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 10,7% 25,0% 2 Count 1 1 7 9 3 21

Expected Count ,8 ,8 5,3 9,8 4,5 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

4,8% 4,8% 33,3% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%

% within vision_4 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 69,2% 50,0% 75,0%



3,6% 3,6% 25,0% 46,4% 21,4% 100,0%

% within vision_4 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 3,6% 3,6% 25,0% 46,4% 21,4% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

199

Value df




sided) Point


5,231a 4 ,264 ,328


5,207 ,261




Crosstab

vision_5



0,0% 0,0% 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%



4,8% 23,8% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%



200


3,6% 17,9% 46,4% 32,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




1,800b 1 ,180 ,286 ,142 ,095



Crosstab

vision_6



0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%

% within vision_6 0,0% 0,0% 11,1% 36,4% 40,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 3,6% 14,3% 7,1% 25,0% 2 Count 1 2 8 7 3 21

201

Expected Count ,8 1,5 6,8 8,3 3,8 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

4,8% 9,5% 38,1% 33,3% 14,3% 100,0%

% within vision_6

100,0% 100,0% 88,9% 63,6% 60,0% 75,0%



3,6% 7,1% 32,1% 39,3% 17,9% 100,0%

% within vision_6

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 3,6% 7,1% 32,1% 39,3% 17,9% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




2,711b 1 ,100 ,126 ,072 ,048



Crosstab

202

vision_7



0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%

% within vision_7

0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 33,3% 40,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 3,6% 14,3% 7,1% 25,0% 2 Count 1 3 6 8 3 21


4,8% 14,3% 28,6% 38,1% 14,3% 100,0%

% within vision_7

100,0% 100,0% 85,7% 66,7% 60,0% 75,0%



3,6% 10,7% 25,0% 42,9% 17,9% 100,0%

% within vision_7

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 3,6% 10,7% 25,0% 42,9% 17,9% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




2,522b 1 ,112 ,141 ,081 ,052

N of Valid Cases 28 a. 8 cells (80,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,25.

203

b. The standardized statistic is -1,588.


Crosstab

vision_8



0,0% 14,3% 71,4% 14,3% 100,0%



23,8% 19,0% 38,1% 19,0% 100,0%



17,9% 17,9% 46,4% 17,9% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point

Probability

204

Pearson Chi-Square 3,056a 3 ,383 ,391



1,216b 1 ,270 ,384 ,193 ,101

N of Valid Cases 28 a. 7 cells (87,5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,25. b. The standardized statistic is -1,103.


Crosstab

vision_9



0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 100,0%

% within vision_9 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 38,9% 0,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 25,0% 0,0% 25,0% 2 Count 1 1 5 11 3 21

Expected Count ,8 ,8 3,8 13,5 2,3 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

4,8% 4,8% 23,8% 52,4% 14,3% 100,0%

% within vision_9 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 61,1% 100,0% 75,0%


Expected Count 1,0 1,0 5,0 18,0 3,0 28,0

205


3,6% 3,6% 17,9% 64,3% 10,7% 100,0%

% within vision_9 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 3,6% 3,6% 17,9% 64,3% 10,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point





Performance_group_extreme * visio_1

Crosstab

visio_1



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%

% within visio_1 0,0% 0,0% 16,7% 60,0% 33,3% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% 10,7% 7,1% 25,0%

206


4,8% 19,0% 47,6% 9,5% 19,0% 100,0%



3,6% 14,3% 42,9% 17,9% 21,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

com_1 Total

207

1 2 3 4 5 Performance_group_extreme


0,0% 14,3% 0,0% 28,6% 57,1% 100,0%

% within com_1 0,0% 50,0% 0,0% 18,2% 57,1% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 3,6% 0,0% 7,1% 14,3% 25,0%


4,8% 4,8% 33,3% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%



3,6% 7,1% 25,0% 39,3% 25,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




2,473b 1 ,116 ,145 ,082 ,053


208


Crosstab

com_2



14,3% 42,9% 28,6% 0,0% 14,3% 100,0%



9,5% 23,8% 42,9% 23,8% 0,0% 100,0%



10,7% 28,6% 39,3% 17,9% 3,6% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


5,717a 4 ,221 ,197

Likelihood Ratio 6,656 4 ,155 ,218

209

Fisher's Exact Test 5,198 ,242




Crosstab

com_3



0,0% 28,6% 28,6% 28,6% 14,3% 100,0%



14,3% 28,6% 33,3% 19,0% 4,8% 100,0%



10,7% 28,6% 32,1% 21,4% 7,1% 100,0%


210

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

com_4



0,0% 14,3% 14,3% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%



9,5% 9,5% 28,6% 42,9% 9,5% 100,0%

% within com_4 100,0% 66,7% 85,7% 75,0% 50,0% 75,0%

211



7,1% 10,7% 25,0% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


2,540a 4 ,638 ,746


2,577 ,740




Crosstab

com_5



0,0% 14,3% 14,3% 28,6% 42,9% 100,0%

212



5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 40,0% 30,0% 100,0%



3,7% 11,1% 14,8% 37,0% 33,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point

Probability Pearson Chi-Square ,878a 4 ,928 ,942





213

Crosstab

com_6



16,7% 16,7% 0,0% 50,0% 16,7% 100,0%



21,1% 15,8% 26,3% 31,6% 5,3% 100,0%



20,0% 16,0% 20,0% 36,0% 8,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point





214


Crosstab

com_7



0,0% 14,3% 14,3% 57,1% 14,3% 100,0%



9,5% 9,5% 57,1% 9,5% 14,3% 100,0%



7,1% 10,7% 46,4% 21,4% 14,3% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


Likelihood Ratio 8,484 4 ,075 ,112

215

Fisher's Exact Test 7,595 ,057



Performance_group_extreme * empower_

Crosstab

empower_



0,0% 28,6% 14,3% 57,1% 100,0%

% within empower_ 0,0% 33,3% 7,1% 80,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 7,1% 3,6% 14,3% 25,0% 2 Count 3 4 13 1 21


14,3% 19,0% 61,9% 4,8% 100,0%

% within empower_ 100,0% 66,7% 92,9% 20,0% 75,0%

% of Total 10,7% 14,3% 46,4% 3,6% 75,0% Total Count 3 6 14 5 28


10,7% 21,4% 50,0% 17,9% 100,0%

216

% within empower_ 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 10,7% 21,4% 50,0% 17,9% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


11,670a 3 ,009 ,009


9,757 ,009




Crosstab

empow_1


1 Count 0 2 1 3 1 7 Expected Count 2,5 1,5 ,8 1,5 ,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 28,6% 14,3% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%

% within empow_1

0,0% 33,3% 33,3% 50,0% 33,3% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 7,1% 3,6% 10,7% 3,6% 25,0% 2 Count 10 4 2 3 2 21

Expected Count 7,5 4,5 2,3 4,5 2,3 21,0

217


47,6% 19,0% 9,5% 14,3% 9,5% 100,0%

% within empow_1

100,0% 66,7% 66,7% 50,0% 66,7% 75,0%



35,7% 21,4% 10,7% 21,4% 10,7% 100,0%

% within empow_1

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 35,7% 21,4% 10,7% 21,4% 10,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




3,812b 1 ,051 ,070 ,038 ,019



Crosstab

empow_2 Total

218

1 2 3 4 5 Performance_group_extreme


0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 57,1% 14,3% 100,0%

% within empow_2

0,0% 0,0% 20,0% 44,4% 25,0% 25,9%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,4% 14,8% 3,7% 25,9% 2 Count 1 3 8 5 3 20


5,0% 15,0% 40,0% 25,0% 15,0% 100,0%

% within empow_2

100,0% 100,0% 80,0% 55,6% 75,0% 74,1%



3,7% 11,1% 37,0% 33,3% 14,8% 100,0%

% within empow_2

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 3,7% 11,1% 37,0% 33,3% 14,8% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




1,569b 1 ,210 ,284 ,152 ,084


219


Crosstab

empow_3



0,0% 0,0% 57,1% 0,0% 42,9% 100,0%

% within empow_3 0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 0,0% 60,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 0,0% 10,7% 25,0% 2 Count 1 3 10 5 2 21


4,8% 14,3% 47,6% 23,8% 9,5% 100,0%

% within empow_3 100,0% 100,0% 71,4% 100,0% 40,0% 75,0%



3,6% 10,7% 50,0% 17,9% 17,9% 100,0%

% within empow_3 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 3,6% 10,7% 50,0% 17,9% 17,9% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

220

Value df




sided) Point


6,362a 4 ,174 ,169


5,266 ,199




Crosstab

empow_4



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 14,3% 57,1% 100,0%

% within empow_4

0,0% 0,0% 22,2% 33,3% 80,0% 25,9%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,4% 3,7% 14,8% 25,9% 2 Count 3 7 7 2 1 20


15,0% 35,0% 35,0% 10,0% 5,0% 100,0%

% within empow_4

100,0% 100,0% 77,8% 66,7% 20,0% 74,1%


221


11,1% 25,9% 33,3% 11,1% 18,5% 100,0%

% within empow_4 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 11,1% 25,9% 33,3% 11,1% 18,5% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

empow_5



0,0% 0,0% 42,9% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%

222

% within empow_5 0,0% 0,0% 60,0% 33,3% 100,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 10,7% 10,7% 3,6% 25,0% 2 Count 6 7 2 6 0 21

Expected Count 4,5 5,3 3,8 6,8 ,8 21,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

28,6% 33,3% 9,5% 28,6% 0,0% 100,0%

% within empow_5 100,0% 100,0% 40,0% 66,7% 0,0% 75,0%



21,4% 25,0% 17,9% 32,1% 3,6% 100,0%

% within empow_5 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 21,4% 25,0% 17,9% 32,1% 3,6% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






223

Crosstab

empow_6



0,0% 42,9% 28,6% 14,3% 14,3% 100,0%

% within empow_6 0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 11,1% 25,0% 25,9%

% of Total 0,0% 11,1% 7,4% 3,7% 3,7% 25,9% 2 Count 4 3 2 8 3 20


20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 40,0% 15,0% 100,0%

% within empow_6 100,0% 50,0% 50,0% 88,9% 75,0% 74,1%



14,8% 22,2% 14,8% 33,3% 14,8% 100,0%

% within empow_6 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 14,8% 22,2% 14,8% 33,3% 14,8% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


5,448a 4 ,244 ,284


5,048 ,269

224


N of Valid Cases 27 a. 9 cells (90,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,04. b. The standardized statistic is ,255.


Crosstab

guide_1



0,0% 0,0% 42,9% 57,1% 100,0%

% within guide_1 0,0% 0,0% 23,1% 66,7% 25,0% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 10,7% 14,3% 25,0%


9,5% 33,3% 47,6% 9,5% 100,0%



7,1% 25,0% 46,4% 21,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

225

Value df




sided) Point


8,581a 3 ,035 ,038


7,086 ,045




Crosstab

guide_2



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%

% within guide_2

0,0% 0,0% 25,0% 30,0% 40,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% 10,7% 7,1% 25,0% 2 Count 3 2 6 7 3 21


14,3% 9,5% 28,6% 33,3% 14,3% 100,0%

% within guide_2

100,0% 100,0% 75,0% 70,0% 60,0% 75,0%

% of Total 10,7% 7,1% 21,4% 25,0% 10,7% 75,0%

226


10,7% 7,1% 28,6% 35,7% 17,9% 100,0%

% within guide_2 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 10,7% 7,1% 28,6% 35,7% 17,9% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

guide_3


1 Count 0 1 2 2 2 7 Expected Count 1,0 ,3 2,3 1,3 2,3 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 14,3% 28,6% 28,6% 28,6% 100,0%

227

% within guide_3 0,0% 100,0% 22,2% 40,0% 22,2% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 3,6% 7,1% 7,1% 7,1% 25,0% 2 Count 4 0 7 3 7 21


19,0% 0,0% 33,3% 14,3% 33,3% 100,0%

% within guide_3 100,0% 0,0% 77,8% 60,0% 77,8% 75,0%



14,3% 3,6% 32,1% 17,9% 32,1% 100,0%

% within guide_3 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 14,3% 3,6% 32,1% 17,9% 32,1% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






228

Crosstab

guide_4


1 Count 0 1 1 5 0 7 Expected Count 1,0 ,3 1,5 3,5 ,8 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 14,3% 14,3% 71,4% 0,0% 100,0%

% within guide_4 0,0% 100,0% 16,7% 35,7% 0,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 3,6% 3,6% 17,9% 0,0% 25,0% 2 Count 4 0 5 9 3 21


19,0% 0,0% 23,8% 42,9% 14,3% 100,0%

% within guide_4 100,0% 0,0% 83,3% 64,3% 100,0% 75,0%



14,3% 3,6% 21,4% 50,0% 10,7% 100,0%

% within guide_4 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 14,3% 3,6% 21,4% 50,0% 10,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


6,413a 4 ,170 ,187


4,942 ,265

229




Crosstab

guide_5



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 71,4% 0,0% 100,0%

% within guide_5

0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 55,6% 0,0% 25,9%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,4% 18,5% 0,0% 25,9% 2 Count 4 6 5 4 1 20


20,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 5,0% 100,0%

% within guide_5

100,0% 100,0% 71,4% 44,4% 100,0% 74,1%



14,8% 22,2% 25,9% 33,3% 3,7% 100,0%

% within guide_5 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 14,8% 22,2% 25,9% 33,3% 3,7% 100,0%

230

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

guide_6



0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 85,7% 0,0% 100,0%

% within guide_6 0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 42,9% 0,0% 25,0%

% of Total 0,0% 0,0% 3,6% 21,4% 0,0% 25,0% 2 Count 3 3 6 8 1 21


14,3% 14,3% 28,6% 38,1% 4,8% 100,0%

231

% within guide_6 100,0% 100,0% 85,7% 57,1% 100,0% 75,0%



10,7% 10,7% 25,0% 50,0% 3,6% 100,0%

% within guide_6 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

% of Total 10,7% 10,7% 25,0% 50,0% 3,6% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

guide_7


1 Count 0 0 4 2 6 Expected Count ,7 ,4 3,3 1,6 6,0

232


0,0% 0,0% 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%



14,3% 9,5% 52,4% 23,8% 100,0%



11,1% 7,4% 55,6% 25,9% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




1,312b 1 ,252 ,324 ,198 ,127



233

Crosstab

guide_8


1 Count 1 2 2 0 5 Expected Count 1,3 1,2 1,9 ,6 5,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

20,0% 40,0% 40,0% 0,0% 100,0%



28,6% 19,0% 38,1% 14,3% 100,0%



26,9% 23,1% 38,5% 11,5% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


1,597a 3 ,660 ,770


1,459 ,751


N of Valid Cases 26

234

a. 6 cells (75,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,58. b. The standardized statistic is ,357.


Crosstab

guide_9


1 Count 0 1 2 2 5 Expected Count 1,0 1,3 1,9 ,8 5,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 40,0% 100,0%



23,8% 28,6% 38,1% 9,5% 100,0%



19,2% 26,9% 38,5% 15,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point

Probability

235

Pearson Chi-Square 3,743a 3 ,291 ,340



3,095b 1 ,079 ,131 ,064 ,046



Crosstab

last_1



0,0% 0,0% 66,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0%

% within last_1 0,0% 0,0% 33,3% 12,5% 100,0% 22,2% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 14,8% 3,7% 3,7% 22,2%


4,8% 23,8% 38,1% 33,3% 0,0% 100,0%



3,7% 18,5% 44,4% 29,6% 3,7% 100,0%

236


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point






Crosstab

last_2



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 71,4% 100,0%

% within last_2 0,0% 0,0% 40,0% 38,5% 26,9% % of Total 0,0% 0,0% 7,7% 19,2% 26,9%

2 Count 4 4 3 8 19 Expected Count 2,9 2,9 3,7 9,5 19,0

237


21,1% 21,1% 15,8% 42,1% 100,0%



15,4% 15,4% 19,2% 50,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




N of Valid Cases 26 a. 7 cells (87,5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1,08. b. The standardized statistic is -1,822.


Crosstab

last_3

Total 1 2 3 4 5 Performance_gr 1 Count 0 0 2 3 2 7

238

oup_extreme Expected Count 1,2 ,6 2,0 2,0 1,2 7,0 % within Performance_group_extreme

0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 42,9% 28,6% 100,0%



23,5% 11,8% 29,4% 23,5% 11,8% 100,0%



16,7% 8,3% 29,2% 29,2% 16,7% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




3,565b 1 ,059 ,061 ,040 ,024



239

Crosstab

last_4



0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 57,1% 28,6% 100,0%



14,3% 14,3% 33,3% 19,0% 19,0% 100,0%



10,7% 10,7% 28,6% 28,6% 21,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point


5,556a 4 ,235 ,243


4,426 ,303


240



Crosstab

last_5



0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 28,6% 57,1% 100,0%



9,5% 14,3% 28,6% 33,3% 14,3% 100,0%



7,1% 10,7% 25,0% 32,1% 25,0% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

241

Value df




sided) Point


5,989a 4 ,200 ,232


4,595 ,330




Crosstab

last_6



0,0% 0,0% 42,9% 28,6% 28,6% 100,0%



9,5% 9,5% 33,3% 28,6% 19,0% 100,0%



242


7,1% 7,1% 35,7% 28,6% 21,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point

Probability Pearson Chi-Square 1,689a 4 ,793 1,000



,918b 1 ,338 ,452 ,228 ,103



Crosstab

last_7



0,0% 0,0% 28,6% 57,1% 14,3% 100,0%


2 Count 2 3 3 5 8 21

243


9,5% 14,3% 14,3% 23,8% 38,1% 100,0%



7,1% 10,7% 17,9% 32,1% 32,1% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




N of Valid Cases 28 a. 8 cells (80,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,50. b. The standardized statistic is -,351. Performance_group_extreme * last_8

Crosstab

last_8


1 Count 0 0 1 3 3 7 Expected Count ,5 ,8 1,5 2,8 1,5 7,0

244


0,0% 0,0% 14,3% 42,9% 42,9% 100,0%



9,5% 14,3% 23,8% 38,1% 14,3% 100,0%



7,1% 10,7% 21,4% 39,3% 21,4% 100,0%


Chi-Square Tests

Value df




sided) Point




3,488b 1 ,062 ,090 ,040 ,027


245

AppendixG:T-testsandLevene’sTestforEqualityofVariance

Group Statistics

Performance_group_extreme N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

defin_average 1 7 3,893 ,4532 ,1713 2 21 3,571 ,7589 ,1656

csq_average 1 7 2,7073 ,42063 ,15899 2 19 2,5695 ,70887 ,16263

lead_average 1 7 4,3571 ,33923 ,12822 2 21 3,9563 ,61329 ,13383

vision_average 1 7 4,1302 ,36827 ,13919 2 21 3,4862 ,74093 ,16168

com_average 1 7 3,5850 ,87361 ,33019 2 20 3,1571 ,79458 ,17767

empower_average 1 7 3,7755 ,16198 ,06122 2 20 2,8690 ,86046 ,19240

guide_average 1 5 3,5111 ,16851 ,07536 2 21 2,9815 ,87689 ,19135

last_average 1 7 3,9898 ,36696 ,13870 2 19 3,1607 1,04811 ,24045

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

defin_average

Equal variances assumed

1,426 ,243 1,052 26 ,303

Equal variances not assumed

1,349

17,795 ,194

csq_average


1,557 ,224 ,480 24 ,635

246


,606 18,407

,552

lead_average


1,138 ,296 1,634 26 ,114


2,162

19,317

,043

vision_average


2,857 ,103 2,191 26 ,038


3,018

21,417

,006

com_average


,090 ,767 1,197 25 ,243


1,141

9,720

,281

empower_average


7,671 ,010 2,736 25 ,011


4,489

22,318

,000

guide_average


5,046 ,034 1,325 24 ,198


2,575

23,820

,017

last_average


6,865 ,015 2,025 24 ,054

247


2,987

24,000

,006

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper defin_average Equal variances

assumed ,3214 ,3056 -,3068 ,9496

Equal variances not assumed ,3214 ,2382 -,1795 ,8224

csq_average Equal variances assumed ,13782 ,28692 -,45434 ,72999

Equal variances not assumed ,13782 ,22743 -,33923 ,61487

lead_average Equal variances assumed ,40079 ,24529 -,10341 ,90500

Equal variances not assumed ,40079 ,18534 ,01330 ,78828

vision_average Equal variances assumed ,64392 ,29393 ,03972 1,24811

Equal variances not assumed ,64392 ,21335 ,20076 1,08707

com_average Equal variances assumed ,42789 ,35758 -,30856 1,16435

Equal variances not assumed ,42789 ,37496 -,41085 1,26663

empower_average Equal variances assumed ,90646 ,33126 ,22421 1,58871


guide_average Equal variances assumed ,52963 ,39980 -,29552 1,35478

Equal variances not assumed ,52963 ,20566 ,10501 ,95425

last_average Equal variances assumed ,82908 ,40944 -,01597 1,67413


248

AppendixH:Testofassumptionofnosignificantoutliers

252

AppendixI:Testofassumptionofnormaldistribution

NormalQ-QPlots

260

AppendixJ:Mann-WhitneyUTest

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum vision_average 28 3,6472 ,71931 1,30 4,70 Performance_group_extreme

28 1,75 ,441 1 2

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks

Performance_group_extreme N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

vision_average 1 7 20,79 145,50 2 21 12,40 260,50 Total 28

Test Statisticsa

vision_average Mann-Whitney U 29,500 Wilcoxon W 260,500 Z -2,338 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,019

Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]

,017b

a. Grouping Variable: Performance_group_extreme b. Not corrected for ties.

261

AppendixK:OverviewofVariables

DefinetheInitiativeVariable Operationalizationdefine_t Towhichdegree,beforetheM&A,didyou-Thoroughlyanalyzeyourstrengths

andweaknesses?defin_1 Towhichdegree,beforetheM&A,didyou-Identifychallengesand

opportunities?defin_2 Towhichdegree,beforetheM&A,didyou-AssesstheimpactoftheM&A?defin_3 Towhichdegreewereemployeesandmiddle-managersinvolvedintheprocess

ofidentifyingtheneedand/ortheopportunitytomerge/acquire?Challengestatusquo

Variable Operationalizationcsq_1 TowhichdegreedidtheemployeesunderstandwhytheM&Awas

important?csq_2 HowoftendidtheorganizationemphasizethattheM&Awasnecessaryin

frontoftheemployeesbeforetheM&A?csq_3 Approximately,whatpercentageofallmanagerswereconvincedthatthe

M&Awasabsolutelynecessary?csq_4 Towhatdegreedidthecompanyclarifytotheemployeestheconsequences

ofnotdoingtheM&A?csq_5 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseinthe

organization?-Theabsenceofamajorandvisiblecrisiscsq_6 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseinthe

organization?-Toomanyvisibleresourcescsq_7 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseinthe

organization?-Lowoverallperformancestandardsandgoalscsq_8 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseinthe

organization?-Organizationalstructuresthatfocusemployeesonnarrowfunctionalgoals

csq_9 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?-Internalmeasurementsystemsthatfocusoninappropriateperformanceindexes

csq_10 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?-Alackofsufficientperformancefeedbackfromexternalsources

csq_11 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?-Akill-the-messenger-of-bad-news,lowcandor,lowconfrontationculture

csq_12 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?-EmployeesdenyingtheneedforaM&A

csq_13 BeforetheM&A,towhichdegreewerethefollowingthecaseintheorganization?-Toomuchhappytalkfromseniormanagement


262

Variable Operationalizationlead_1 Towhichdegreedidyouhave-aleaderwhoownedandchampionedthe

M&A?lead_2 Towhichdegreedidyouhave-aleaderwhowaspubliclycommittedto

makingtheM&Asucceed?lead_3 Towhichdegreedidyouhave-aleaderwhoputinthepersonaltimeand

attentionneededtomaketheM&Awork?lead_4 DidtheleadersoftheM&A-BelievethattheM&Awasthekeyto

competitiveness?lead_5 DidtheleadersoftheM&A-Havetheabilitytoarticulatethebeliefthat

theM&Awasthekeytocompetitiveness?lead_6 DidtheleadersoftheM&A-Havethepeople-skillsandorganizational

know-howtofollowthroughwiththeM&A?lead_7 Didthecompanyestablishandmakeuseofaguidingcoalition/aproject

grouptoheadtheM&Aprocess?lead_8 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthese

fourcharacteristics:-PositionPowerlead_9 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthese

fourcharacteristics:-Expertiselead_10 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthese

fourcharacteristics:-Credibilitylead_11 TowhichdegreewouldyouassesstheteaminchargeoftheM&Aonthese

fourcharacteristics:-LeadershipSkillslead_12 Towhichdegreeweremembersoftheteam,whichwasaheadoftheM&A,

belongtodifferentstakeholder-groups?Developavision

Variable Operationalizationvision_1 Towhichdegree-DidthecompanydevelopavisionfortheM&A?vision_2 Towhichdegree-Didemployeesunderstandtheoutcomeofthechangein

behavioralterms?vision_3 Towhichdegree-DidemployeesunderstandhowtheM&Aswouldbenefit

themselves,customersandotherstakeholders?vision_4 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Conveyapictureofwhatthe

futurewouldlooklike?vision_5 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Appealtothelong-term

interestsofemployees,customersandotherstakeholders?vision_6 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Compriserealisticand

attainablegoals?vision_7 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Focusonmanageableand

coherentsetsofgoals?vision_8 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Havetheabilitytoadaptto

changingcircumstances?vision_9 TowhichdegreedidthevisionoftheM&A-Havetheabilitytobeeasily

communicatedtodifferentlevels?visio_1 Towhichdegreeweremorepeoplethanasoleleaderinvolvedwith

developingthevisionfortheM&A

263

CommunicatethechangevisionVariable Operationalizationcom_1 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedo

youagreethatthecommunicationwas-Simple(e.gavoidingjargonandtechnicalterms)

com_2 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Utilizedmetaphors,analogiesandexamples?

com_3 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Giventhroughmultiplesourcesandchannels?

com_4 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Repeated?

com_5 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Personifiedintheactionsoftop-management?

com_6 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Usedtoexplainseeminginconsistenciesbetweenthechangevisionandwhattheleadersstandforand/orrepresentintheirbehavior?

com_7 IntheperiodofcommunicatingthevisionfortheM&A,towhichdegreedoyouagreethatthecommunicationwas-Two-waycommunication?

EmpowerpeopleforchangeVariable Operationalizationempower_ Towhichdegree-Didtheleadersofthechangerecognizetheeffectsof

theM&Aonthecompany’sstructuresandsystems?empow_1 Towhichdegree-Didthecompanyphysicallyrearrangetheofficespace

duetotheM&A?empow_2 Towhichdegree-WeretheformalstructuresalignedwiththeM&A

changevision?empow_3 Towhichdegree-Weremoreresponsibilitiesoranincreasedvarietyin

theirassignmentsgiventoemployeesinrelationtoM&A?empow_4 Towhichdegree-Weretraininganddevelopmentopportunities

providedfortheemployeesinrelationtotheM&A?empow_5 Towhichdegree-Werecompensationandperformance-appraisal

systemsalignedwiththevisionoftheM&A?empow_6 Towhichdegree-Werebosseswhorefusedtochangeandmade

demandsinconsistentwiththeM&Achangevisionconfronted?Guideandmotivatethechangeprocess

Variable Operationalizationguide_1 Towhichdegree-Didtheorganizationhavethemeansofmeasuringthe

successoftheM&A?guide_2 Towhichdegree-Didtheorganizationplantobenchmarkprogresson

boththeresultsandtheprocessofimplementingthechanges?guide_3 Towhichdegree-Didyouplanforshort-termwins(within6-18months)?guide_4 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Visibletoemployees?

264

guide_5 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Unambiguous?guide_6 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Clearlylinkedtothechange

initiativeoftheM&A?guide_7 Towhichdegreeweretheseshort-termwins-Celebrated?guide_8 Towhichdegreewerethecelebrations-Public?guide_9 Towhichdegreewerethecelebrations-Usedtorecognizeindividual

contributions?Makechangelast

Variable Operationalization

last_1Towhichdegree-Hasthecompanyusedtheinitialchangemomentumtoinitiategreaterchanges?

last_2Towhichdegree-Wereandarethecriteriaofpromotion-decisionsinaccordancewiththenewpracticesfromthevisionoftheM&A?

last_3Towhichdegree-WasandisemployeeturnovermanagedinaccordancewiththenewpracticesfromthevisionoftheM&A?

last_4Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Culture?

last_5Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Policies?

last_6Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Systems?

last_7Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-ReportingRelationships?

last_8Towhichdegreedoyouassessthatthenewapproacheshavebeenanchoredintheorganization’s-Practices?

master's thesis - can the use of change management ... · can the use of change management...

Documents