A cultural integration path for cross-border mergers and acquisitions from the perspective of acculturation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose An increasing number of Chinese enterprises are involved in cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As). However, few Chinese enterprises have achieved successful integration, which plays a critical role in enhancing performance. The important field of cultural integration is currently facing major challenges. To identify the reasons for these challenges, studies have analyzed why cultural integration succeeds or fails and have suggested that cultural differences between acquiring and acquired enterprises are the primary obstacles to cultural integration. However, it is unclear how success can be achieved. The paper aims to focus on cultural integration from the perspective of acculturation to describe the penetration of cultural elements in M&As. Design/methodology/approach In adopting acculturation as our theoretical lens, the authors use the case study method to answer the following research question: “how can the cultural integration of Chinese enterprises be successfully achieved?” Two typical cases are examined: Lenovo’s cultural integration with IBM’s personal computer (PC) division and Haier’s cultural integration with Sanyo home appliance. First, using the exploratory case study method, the Lenovo–IBM PC division case is analyzed. The characteristics and relationships between cultural environments, employee adoption methods and acculturation patterns are summarized to reveal a cultural integration path. Second, the Haier–Sanyo home appliance case is analyzed using the confirmative case study method to test the findings of the Lenovo–IBM PC division case. Findings The results indicate that it is critical to achieve a dynamic fit between cultural environments, employee adoption methods and acculturation patterns during each stage of cultural integration (exploration, experimentation, reinforcement and fixing). The three constructs of these stages reflect the following evolutionary paths: “isolate-introduce-learning-chance taking”, “detecting-icebreaking-interacting-remodeling” and “specialized sections-senior managers-managers-employees”. Originality/value These findings contribute to the development of cultural integration and acculturation theories and serve as a reference for Chinese enterprises wishing to implement cultural integration strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".