Resistance to change in the case of mergers and acquisitions: part 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are inherent to firms evolving in today’s business world, whether they be corporate giants, SMEs or start-ups. While the ultimate objective of an M&A is to improve the newly constructed firm’s performance, financial and technical impacts are but some of the considerations the organization will need to face. Indeed, employee resistance appears to be a major factor in the overall success of this strategic move. The purpose of this paper, three part, is to provide a thorough overview of the forces at play in employee resistance to change, its influence on the M&A’s success, and the ways to address such resistance. Design/methodology/approach Based on existing empirical studies, industry expert findings and academic reviews, this paper sought to link together the concepts of communication at a time of change, leadership, employee involvement, feeling of adherence to the firm (the four key pillars) and their respective influences in how they may handicap or aid the firm in achieving its M&A objectives. Findings Although it may seem like a straightforward concept, resistance to change in the turbulent time that is a merger and acquisition situation is anything but simple. Classic assumptions of resistance being a negative force or participation being a requisite part of overcoming resistance are challenged. At the same time, leadership and employee feeling of adherence to their previous organization play a supporting role when compared to the significant influence of communication pre, during and after the merger. The ensuing portrait is thus multifaceted and underscores the complexity of handling an M&A at the human resources level. Research limitations/implications Whilst the paper allowed to identify and link the different factors at play, a thorough empirical study in order to compare and contrast those factors at an M&A’s different stages (pre-during-post), and thus evaluate their respective importance, would be commendable. Practical implications In providing an overview of several aspects at play in employee resistance to change, this paper allows a management practitioner to consolidate their knowledge on the process’ four key pillars. Social implications By illustrating not only its – expected – negative outcomes, but by also providing a glimpse at some potential benefits in terms of increased merger performance, this paper gives managers incentives to not always challenge but also embrace their employee’s resistance to change as a healthy part of the firm’s transformation process. Originality/value This literature review provides an overview of resistance to change and draws parallels between the concepts explored herein and the M&A situation, which would be useful to the general practitioner undergoing an M&A.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".