• No results found

Intra-organizational learning in the context of subsequent M&As:

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Intra-organizational learning in the context of subsequent M&As:"

Copied!
62
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Master Thesis

MSc. International Business and Management University of Groningen

June, 2017

Intra-organizational learning in the context of subsequent

M&As:

A single-case study in the online gaming industry

Supervisor:

Associate professor Dr. M.M. Wilhelm

Faculty of Economics and Business – University of Groningen

Co-Assessor:

Dr. M.H.F. Ridder de van der Schueren

Faculty of Economics and Business – University of Groningen

Author:

Radoslav Nikolov

Student ID: s3170918; E-mail: r.i.nikolov@student.rug.nl

(2)

2

Abstract

(3)

3

ACNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Associate professor Dr. Miriam Wilhelm of the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Groningen. This Master’s thesis would not have been possible without her guidance. The door of Dr. Wilhelm was always open for whenever I had a problem or a question, and her supervision steered me in the right direction whenever she thought I needed it.

I would also like to thank the people that agreed to participate in this study. Their openness and willingness to help provided me with valuable information, without which this study wouldn’t have been possible.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Ridder de van der Schueren of the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Groningen, as the second reader of this Master’s Thesis.

(4)

4

Contents

Introduction ... 6

Theoretical background ... 8

Human Resource Management as a reason for Mergers and Acquisitions failures ... 8

The Human Integration Process during an M&A ... 10

Methodology ... 14

Approach and Strategy ... 14

Sampling ... 15

Data Collection and Analysis... 16

Introduction of the case company ... 18

Findings... 20

Pre-M&A 2011 organizational culture ... 20

Triggers of Organizational Culture change ... 23

Post-M&A 2011 ... 25

Employees hired before M&A 2011 ... 26

Employees hired after M&A 2011 and before M&A 2016 ... 27

Pre-M&A 2016 ... 30

Intra-organizational learning between the mergers ... 31

Discussion ... 33

Conclusion ... 37

References ... 40

Appendices ... 46

Appendix 1 – Interview questions with employees ... 46

Appendix 2 – Interview with the manager ... 50

Appendix 3 – Interviews with employees ... 54

(5)

5

List of Tables

Table 1 Participants in the research ... 17 Table 2 Changes made as a result of M&A 2011 ... 23 Table 3 Atmosphere in the company post-M&A 2011 ... 28

List of Figures

(6)

6

Introduction

The number and value of M&A transactions is increasing each year (IMAA, unknown). This is mainly because they are seen by managers as an easier and faster way to combat competition in the market (Graebner et al, 2016). Furthermore companies from Emerging Markets are searching for global presence and see M&As as one of the best ways to gain new technology, know-how, and market share (Gubbi et al. 2010). On this basis we could argue that organizations could seek to enter into subsequent M&As in order to keep up, or even surpass their competitors. These transactions, however, are also famous for their high failure rates, with some researchers claiming that around 50% of them fail (Child et al., 2001). Scientists have thus examined numerous reasons for their failures and a great number of them point out to the human involvement in the transaction, more precisely, its integration (Teerikangas & Very, 2006; Lupina-Wegener et al, 2011). In order to get an even better understanding of the problem, various antecedents have been researched, including communications from top management (Schweiger & Denisi, 1991), the integration speed (Inkpen et al., 2000), and its combination with leadership qualities of supervisors (Schweizer & Patzelt, 2012). To the best of my knowledge, however, none have examined what effect a previous M&A could have on the employees’ willingness and motivation to through a subsequent M&A and thus affect its success.

(7)

7 exchange theory. Both of them claim that it is vital for the employees to believe that the transaction would benefit either their old company or themselves personally (Sung et al, 2016). These arguments create a need to consider past M&As as an antecedent for the successful integration process during subsequent M&As.

Thus, the aim of this master’s thesis is to explore in what ways the experience from past M&As affects the integration process of subsequent M&As. In order to achieve this objective, the study looks into a company that went through two M&As, with the first one being in 2011 and the second one in 2016. The results from the study show that individuals can be influenced both directly and indirectly by the changes initiated as a result of the merger. They can be influenced directly via their own experience, while the indirect influence manifests itself in the form of observing other people’s experiences. Furthermore, the results confirm that the experience from previous M&As can, to a great extent, influence individual’s beliefs and expectations about subsequent M&As. This research also confirms that the created mental models, as a result of an M&A, can be transferred to newly hired individuals through two main learning mechanisms - observations, and personal conversations. Taken together, the study presents a model through which the experience from a past M&A has the ability to influence the success of a subsequent M&A through organizational culture change. This is expressed in the way past M&As influence employees’ expectations and beliefs about future similar transactions, thus either increasing or decreasing their resistance to change.

(8)

8 the interviews and their discussion. And the last one will provide a short conclusion of the research and an acknowledgement of its limitations.

Theoretical background

This section is going to look deeper into the M&A literature that would help us understand why are mergers and acquisitions important to be studied. Furthermore, it will look into the findings of various researchers regarding why M&As have a high failure rate, and which antecedents are found to be crucial for such transactions to be successful.

Human Resource Management as a reason for M&A failures

The definitions of mergers and acquisition are to some extent blurred in the M&A literature, with different authors giving different characteristics of what qualifies as a merger and what qualifies as an acquisition. The coming together of two or more companies, with the aim of sharing their resources and achieving shared objectives, while the companies in question remain joint owners, is defined by Sudarsanam (1995) as a merger. The European Central Bank offers a similar definition of a merger, stating that it is the creation of a new entity as a result of the combination of two or more separate companies (2000). Haspeslagh and Jemison (1991), however, claim that whether the combination of two firms is seen as a merger or an acquisition depends on their sizes. More precisely, if the two firms are of relatively equal size it represents a merger. If one of the firm is substantially larger, compared to the other, it is an acquisition. This definition is supported by Lee and Pennings (1996), as well as Soderberg & Vaara (2003). Other researchers even go to extremes, arguing that only if the stake of both companies is equal (50%-50%) it can be defined as a merger, otherwise, it is an acquisition (Butler et al., 1991). This extreme is supported by a report of the UNCTAD, which claims that only a small fragment of the cross-border mergers were actually mergers (UNCTAD, 2000).

(9)

9 “acquisition”, and “M&A” will be used with the same meaning in this paper, as the different labels did not bring different results in the company in question.

Although M&As are famous for their high failure rates (Cartwright and Cooper, 1995; Child et al., 2001; Riad, 2007; Chang et al, 2002), they represent a way for firms to expand their markets, combat competition, get access to new technologies, as well as to achieve economies of scale and scope (Graebner et al., 2016). The fact that we are seeing such a drastic increase in the value of M&A transactions, is a clear indicator that the failure rates of such transactions do not discourage managers from undertaking them (IMAA, unknown).

The questions of why mergers and acquisitions fail has been discussed by many researchers. Haspeslagh and Jemison point out that vital for the success of an M&A is their successful integration (1991). A major reason for the failure of such transaction, according to a number of researchers, is the negligence of the emotional reactions and needs of the employees (Marks & Mirvis, 1982; Hunt, 1987; Ravenscraft & Scherer, 1987). Furthermore, the psychological responses of employees are found to directly impact the performance of the company. This effect is further strengthened in the face of a radical change, such as an M&A (Cascio & Young, 2003). Indeed, the integration of human capital within the new entity is crucial for the outcome of the M&A (Teerikangas & Very, 2006; Lupina-Wegener et al, 2011). A failed integration process leads to stress, anxiety, and tension within the individual employees during the merger of two cultures (Weber & Drori, 2011; Marks & Mirvis, 2011b). Indeed, Hambrick and Cannella (1993) claim that one of the major issues, during the post-acquisition phase, is the fact that a great number of key employees tend to leave the newly formed company. Such departures have the potential to harm the performance of the company to a great extent as it can disrupt the capabilities of the organization to function properly (Ranft & Lord, 2002; Nelson & Winter, 1982; Fitzenz, 1997).

(10)

10 departed employees. It can also be damaged if those employees represented a key figure or a linkage in a team (2002). The importance of employees is further supported by Fitzenz (1997), who claims that firms incur tremendous costs for each key employee they lose. The knowledge that key employees hold is necessary in order for the company to be able to meet the expectations of their customers (ibid.). Furthermore, the human capital and knowledge management concepts, argue that individuals have a set of skills, built up experience and gained knowledge which increase productivity and efficiency of the company’s operations (Snell and Dean, 1992).

The “Human Integration Process” (Weber, 1996), is a process aiming to combine two previously separate employee groups. Its goal is to smoothly integrate the employee groups by minimizing the friction and tension between them. Furthermore it strives to limit the departure of important employees during the M&A.

The Human Integration Process during an M&A

Scholars agree that M&As represent a drastic change with regard to the careers of employees. (Ghauri & Buckley, 2003). The human integration process within the M&A literature, explores the complex task of combining two separate and independent groups of employees. Furthermore, it aims to support their self-identification with the new entity following a merger or an acquisition (Weber, 1996).

(11)

11 within the new company. It can also create fear of whether they will be rewarded fairly, as well as concerns about losing position of authority (Marks, 2005; van Dick et al., 2006).

As stated above, Hambrick and Cannella claim that one of the biggest problems for newly merged entities is that key employees tend to leave the company. In their research, they came to the conclusion that one of the major reasons for this turnover is because executives from the acquired firm feel inferior to those of the acquiring company, while the acquirers see themselves as superiors, creating an unpleasant working environment (1993). Empirical evidence shows that such circumstances will increase the probability of key employees leaving the company. This, in turn, will lead to loss of valuable knowledge and skills, which may lead to a weaker performance of the new entity (Ranft and Lord, 2000). This claim is further backed up by the knowledge-based perspective which claims that key employees have expertise and skills that may prove important for successfully running operations within the company (Ranft & Lord, 2002).

The integration of two companies is further complicated by the differences in their organizational cultures. Researchers claim that these differences are the causes of the so called “cultural clashes”. Some of them argue that these “cultural clashes” are an impediment of the successful integration of organizations (Marks & Mirvis, 1992). Others, however, have found that cultural similarity, does not ensure the success of the integration either (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993b). These conflicting results call for a deeper understanding of the characteristics of the merging cultures. Such an understanding could inform us which of these aspects create favorable conditions for merging, and which of them further complicate the process. This information could increase the success of future M&A transactions through the improvement of the screening and selection process of M&A partners.

(12)

12 course of an organization’s history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and in the behaviours of its members.” (1998, pp. 9). For the purpose of this master’s thesis, Ravasi and Schultz’s definition of an organizational culture will be used - “a set of shared mental assumptions that guide interpretation and action in organizations by defining appropriate behavior for various situations” (2006, pp. 437). Even though the definitions circle around the same concept, Ravasi and Schultz’s (2006) definition is considered to be most appropriate for this thesis. It clearly shows how a shared mentality in a group determines the way its members will interpret different situations, and that those interpretations will guide unified group responses to different stimuli.

Researchers distinguish three separate levels of an organizational culture – artifacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions. The group of the artifacts encompasses various dimensions from the “feel” of the place, including the layout, the way people dress, how they address each other, all the way to company products, records, archives and reports (Schein, 1990). Studying the artifacts of an organization, however, can be problematic as people can interpret their meaning in a different ways. Researchers claim that in order to ensure their correct interpretation, the individuals have to share the underlying assumptions within the organization (Thomas et all, 1988). Assumptions, on the other hand, usually start as values at first. With their persistence over time, they become widely accepted within an organization and people tend not to question them. This gives them the characteristics of an “underlying assumption” within an organization. Schein (1990) claims that this effect is even stronger if the group learning has taken place during a highly emotional and stressful event in the organization’s history.

(13)

13 employees react to the organizational change (Oreg et all, 2011; Vakola et al, 2013). According to the Learning theory, individuals form beliefs based on past experiences (Levitt & March, 1988). Thompson, argues that individuals tend to create interpretations of events and changes, on the basis of which they classify outcomes as good or bad (1967). Employees’ interpretations often stem from personal judgements and guesses that tend to form an overall opinion of the whole process (Kahneman et al, 1982). Thus, it is possible to argue that individual’s interpretations of outcomes of previous M&As can have an effect on the motivation of those same individuals to go through subsequent M&As. Researchers also claim that employees’ experiences shape their expectations of future outcomes when faced with the same conditions (Mischel et al, 1996; Olson et al, 1996). Furthermore, thinking about the future can influence the future itself by creating either a positive or a negative attitude towards it. On the one hand, optimistic behavior increases the chances of success by increasing employees’ motivation. While on the other hand, pessimistic behavior decreases their motivation and as a consequence, decrease the chances of success (Heckhausen, 1991; Taylor and Brown, 1988). Because M&As are defined as highly emotional events for the employees (Cartwright & Cooper, 1990), the management team may face either increased or decreased resistance to change in them, depending on the outcomes of previous M&As. This points to the assumption that individuals create mental models as a result of an M&A. These models are defined as the way a person sees the world. Scholars claim that they strongly influence her actions and behavior as her already built up mental models determine to a great extent what she sees (Senge, 1990). However, as Kim argues, organizations learn through their employees, but are not dependent on any specific one of them for learning to occur. Employees, on the other hand, can learn without the organization (1998). Following this logic, in order for such a mental model to affect the combination of two organizational cultures, it has to be shared by more than one individuals.

(14)

14 group of individuals share a given mental construct, it has the ability to further shape the organization’s culture and guide its response to particular situations. This line of thought, however, raises the question of how are shared mental models constructed in an M&A setting, and how do they change the culture of the organization?

According to the learning theory, if such M&A mental models do exist, they would be based solely on the personal experience of the different employees, which they have acquired during the first M&A. However, during the period between the two M&A transactions, companies can hire new employees which are expected to have their own, different view of the world based on their personal experiences (Kim, 1998). This assumption points to the question – Do these M&A mental models persist over time? If yes, how are they transferred to the newly hired employees?

To summarize, this master thesis looks into how the experience from past M&A transactions shapes the organizational culture, and to what extend does this affect the success of the human integration process during future M&A transactions.

Methodology

This section of the master’s thesis will provide information on the research approach and strategy employed in this study. Furthermore, it will include information on the way the data for the study was gathered and analyzed.

Approach and Strategy

(15)

15 relationships between different variables, providing the basis for the emergence of a new theory (Saunders et al, 2009).

The objective of this research is to uncover how an M&A transaction influences the shared mentality of the employees of an organization, and to what extent this influences the human integration process during subsequent similar transactions. Due to the complexity of the process of organizational culture change, a qualitative research was chosen as the best option to investigate the depths of this matter (Saunders et al, 2009). For the purpose of the research, a single case study was selected because of the fact that the case itself provided an opportunity to observe a phenomenon that, to the best of my knowledge, few authors have considered before. Furthermore, a case study strategy is considered to be appropriate for this study as it would provide a deeper understanding of the processes going on in the organization (Morris & Wood, 1991). The data was gathered through the use of interviews (Saunders et al, 2009). Furthermore, qualitative data is better at providing insights regarding complex social phenomenon, compared to quantitative one (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

Sampling

(16)

16 ensure this variation – hierarchical position, years in the company, and department. The “hierarchical position” characteristic aimed at ensuring that the sample included both managers and employees. The “Years in the company” criteria was chosen to make sure that there were representatives that were present during both of the M&As, and such that were present only during the second one. Last, but not least, the “Department” criteria was included to make sure that there are representatives of different departments. These three characteristics were employed to make sure that the findings can be generalizable for the whole company. However, in order to exclude the possibility of stumbling upon an extreme (unique) case in the sample, two representatives were chosen for each criteria, except for the “Hierarchical position” one. This resulted into having two interviewees from each of the two chosen departments, as well as two interviewees which were present during both mergers and two which were not. This allowed to cross-reference the answers provided by all emerging groups. The “Hierarchical position” criteria was excluded from this precaution as it served a different purpose, compared to the other two characteristics.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data was gathered through both unstructured and semi-structured interviews, as well as secondary data. The interviews encompass both managerial and employee point of view. This provided the opportunity to understand how the different groups interpreted the changes and events that were happening around the M&A, as well as to identify any discrepancies between them. The interviews were done via electronic communication, more precisely Skype and Facebook. Not all of the interviewees agreed to be recorded which meant that note-taking was undertaken during some of the interviews. Furthermore, an agreement was established with the Head manager of the company, that the identity of the company and the names of the employees would be anonymized in this research.

(17)

17 provided an already built trusting relationships with the interviewees, which allowed the participants to open up and provide detailed and trustworthy data. Upon preparing for the interviews, the researcher was aware that his involvement with the company may corrupt the questions in a way that guides them in a particular direction, and thus bias the results. In order to

avoid such a bias, the interview questions (Appendix 1), were first presented to a third party to

make sure that the questions remained neutral. Furthermore, the fact that the conversations were not face-to-face, nor by video conversation, prevented the researcher from guiding the interview via the subconscious use of bodily gestures.

The first two interviews were unstructured which allowed for the exploration of the broader picture of the process under study. The flexibility that the unstructured interviews provide, allowed the identification of main themes, around which the subsequent semi-structured interviews were focused. The first two interviews were conducted in the beginning of March and lasted two hours on average. The first one was with an employee that was with the company during both M&As, while the second one was with one of members of the management team in the company, who was

again present at both M&A transactions (Appendix 2). The next three interviews were of a

semi-structured nature. The first one was with a long-time employee which was present at both M&As, while the second and the third interview were with employees that were employed after M&A 2011 however, were present during M&A 2016.

Table 1 Participants in the research

Position in the company Years in the company

Present in M&A 2011

Present in M&A 2016

Gender Age Date of the interview 1. Manager (Lower

management team)

9 years Yes Yes Female 36 04.03.2017

2. Senior agent Sales team 9 years Yes Yes Male 28 06.03.2017

3. Senior Customer service agent

8 years Yes Yes Male 29 18.05.2017

4. Sales team 3 years No Yes Female 27 20.05.2017

5. Customer Service agent 3 years No Yes Male 24 23.05.2017

(18)

18 ability to see the extent to which their mental models overlapped regarding the M&A. It further allowed to get a better picture of how they came to share these mental models. The purposive sampling, which was chosen for this master’s thesis, made possible the selection of interviewees that were particularly informative. It further provided the opportunity to choose individuals relatively different from one another in terms of job position and time in the company. This variation in the interviewees presented a wider picture regarding the key themes of this study.

Once the interviews were made and the data was collected, it was transcribed in Bulgarian, as the interviews themselves were made in Bulgarian. The translation of the interviews was done by the use of word-by-word translation. Whenever the literal translation was producing a text with no meaning, it was substituted with a translation of the idea as understood by the researcher. In order to ensure the validity of the translation, the translated text was then presented to the interviewees themselves for confirmation of the meaning. This was possible due to the extensive knowledge of the English language that the interviewees possessed. Next the data was examined and categorized via the use of open coding. Conceptual coding was then used to assign simple descriptive words or phrases to different parts of the data. And finally, axial coding was undertaken to look for relationships between the categories (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The emerging concepts

were integrated into a table (Appendix 3) together with representative quotes. Once the table with

the representative quotes was completed, the analysis continued via a comparison of the information provided by the interviewees. The aim of this was to look for similarities and discrepancies in the data which would allow to make a more generalizable conclusion.

Introduction of the case company

(19)

19 changes prompted the companies to seek synergies with their competitors in terms of product leadership and licenses. As a result of the merger, Gaming&Fun became one of the leaders in all vertical product lines. Soon after the merger, the two companies started integrating their businesses in order to be able to realize their planned synergies. This integration brought in some major changes in the new entity’s strategy, as well as restructuring of the departments within the company (see

Table 2).

In 2015, due to the weak performance of Gaming&Fun, as well as because of the consolidation of the gaming industry, the managers started considering selling out to a third company. Once it announced its intentions, several bidders started making propositions, but at the end the company decided to go with one of them, which is going to be referred to as “TNAC”. The acquisition of Gaming&Fun by TNAC was completed in 2016. TNAC felt great difficulties integrating the employees of Gaming&Fun and was faced with a high voluntary turnover rate, and resistance from the employees.

(20)

20

Findings

Figure 1 illustrates the process of organizational culture change that was identified in the case. Furthermore, it presents the learning mechanisms that facilitated organizational culture transfer.

Pre-M&A 2011 organizational culture

Because of the fact that the merger was held back in 2011 it is impossible to observe the organizational culture of Fun Inc., which is why, this study relies on recollections of the interviewees which actually experienced it. This allowed for the creation of a basis, against which to compare the newly shaped organizational culture of the merged company – Gaming&Fun. For a more structured and an easier gathering of information, the organizational culture of the company was divided in three parts – Atmosphere in the company, Leadership, and Working conditions.

(21)

21

Figure 1 Organizational culture change and transfer process

(22)

22 the employees pointed out “…we just stopped talking with the person with whom we had a quarrel”. When asked about how they felt about the feedback they received for their work, the interviewees described it as “timely”, “helpful”, and “insightful”. One of the interviewees even made a comment that “The feedback has always been a very strong quality of the firm.” The gathered data, however, provided some surprising results in terms of celebrating company successes, and organization of social outings. The interviewees, both agreed that they do not recall the company celebrating success. They pointed out that the only manifestations of such successes were expressed in a “barely noticeable” increase in the yearly bonus. Furthermore, both of the interviewees claimed that the company organized only one company event, and the rest were simply team events.

When asked about the leadership within the company, the interviewees pointed out that the lower management team was actually working next to the employees, instead of separate offices. The interviewees were describing the lower management team as particularly helpful and willing to provide instantaneous assistance to the employees’ concerns. Furthermore, they pointed out that the management team took interest in employee propositions for work-process improvements, even though they described the process as “quite complicated”. Nevertheless, they stressed on the fact that they had success with changing inefficient procedures this way. The interviews provided insight into how the employees were motivated by the managerial team as well. One noticeable practice, described by both employees, was the organization of inside competitions among the employees themselves during which the most productive employee got a reward.

(23)

23 participants in the study were asked about the monthly rewards structure. A comment from one of the participants pointed out that the reason behind this liking was mostly based on the fact that the bonus offered purely financial rewards for the top performers “The monthly rewards structure was very nice, as it offered purely financial benefits”. In terms of office space, the comments that were received during the interviews described it as “very nice”, “well maintained”, and “comfortable”. The general impression from the gathered data about the pre-M&A 2011 organizational culture, was that the employees were satisfied with their employer, work, and their remuneration. However, a major event like an M&A brings changes in the environment that further shape the organizational culture of the company (Marks & Mirvis, 1992). The interview with the manager of the company revealed a number of changes that were undertaken as a result of the M&A, which affected both directly and indirectly the employees working there. For this reason, the next section looks deeper into what were those changes and how were they perceived by the employees.

Triggers of Organizational Culture change

The interview with the manager revealed a number of changes that were undertaken as a

result from the M&A 2011. Table 2 presents the main actions taken with the reasons behind them.

As we can see from the data presented there, the main reason behind these changes were cutting costs and unification of operating procedures.

Table 2 Changes made as a result of M&A 2011

Change Reason

Yearly bonus scheme – from personal to group performance base Motivation of employees on a group level Monthly rewards structure – from financial rewards to store points reward Cost cutting

Removal of Training & Development programs Cost cutting

SOP changes – adapting the SOP from Gamin Inc. Unification of operations

Reconstruction of departments Unification of procedures

Removal of CS supporting languages Cost cutting

Software change – implementing Gaming Inc.’s software to Fun Inc.’s operations

Unification of programs used; Cost cutting

(24)

24 change was the fact that the new company wanted to motivate the employees on a group level, instead of individual level. This, however, was not accepted well by the employees, as the new bonus scheme was described as a “failure” and “demotivating”. Furthermore, the interviews revealed that due to the reason that the bonus was now based on group performance, a great number of the employees “stopped caring about their performance”. This also led to a demotivation of the top performers as “they stopped receiving their usual bonus”. When confronted with the question about the changes in the monthly rewards structure, which was changed from being purely financial to store point credit, the interviewees expressed great disappointment and irritation. One of them went on to say:

"This was something that really irritated me, as this change to store points constrained us only in buying predefined items from the store, even if we didn’t want them. One further thing that we did not like about this change was that the items in the store were more expensive than usual. We

really liked the previous monthly rewards structure where we received purely financial rewards."

The fact that the financial monthly reward for top performing employees was substituted with store points for the inside company store, was a great disappointment. According to the participants in the interview, it was not fulfilling its purpose to motivate the employees, and that people became rather indifferent towards it. Apart from the rewards structures, the employees felt that their career prospects in the firm are being reduced because of the removal of the training and development programs in the company. According to them, the programs were “pretty helpful” and their removal “streamlined the people without developing them”.

(25)

25 When asked about the removal of a part of the customer service supporting languages, the interviewees gave rather different answers. On the one hand, the first interviewee claimed that this decision further increased the workload in the company, which led to increased tension among the employees. On the other hand, the second employee claimed that the workload was not that much affected by this change.

When approached with a concluding general question, whether M&A 2011 was beneficial for the pre-merger company, the interviewees gave different answers. The first interviewee stressed on the changes assets and procedures in the day-to-day work, saying:

"I don’t think it was beneficial, as Gaming Inc. preferred their own assets and procedures, which, in my opinion were not better than ours"

Unlike the first one, the second employee looked at M&A 2011 from a more strategic point of view, claiming that the pre-merger company did benefit from M&A 2011 as this way it became “…one of the biggest companies and players in their industry”. He continued by stressing the complementarity of their market positions, claiming that they were both leaders in their own sector, and this M&A helped the new company become one of the leaders in all sectors within the gaming industry. The data from the interviews, however, showed a lot more agreement on whether the M&A was beneficial for the employees, with both of them agreeing on the negative effect the M&A had on them.

The implementation of all these major changes in both the reward structures and the day-to-day operations, led to changes in the organizational culture of the new company as well. The next section deals with a comparison between the pre-M&A 2011 organizational culture and the post-M&A 2011 one.

Post-M&A 2011

(26)

26 perspective of the employees that were present in the post-merger company (Interviewee 1 and 2), while the second one presents the way in which the newly hired employees (hired after M&A 2011 and before M&A 2016; interviewees 3 and 4) perceived the organizational culture.

Employees hired before M&A 2011

Unlike during the pre-M&A period, when the interviewees were asked to describe the atmosphere in the company after the M&A, the prevailing descriptions were “decreased motivation” and “lower satisfaction”. One of the interviewees went on to say “… I didn’t feel that I was making a contribution to the success of the firm.” The received answers also included comments that Gaming Inc. tended to monitor the work of the employees, which resulted in increased pressure among them, thus negatively affecting their motivation and commitment to the company. Furthermore, the feedback they’d received for their work was described as “too detailed” and “unrealistic”. The interviewees claimed that the new company started celebrating the successes in a more open way, informing the employees via emails and on monthly company meetings, however, they further went on to say that “…that did not change my attitude, motivation, or everyday work in any way”. The M&A, however, did bring one positive change in terms of atmosphere in the company, which was expressed in the fact that the company started organizing more company social events.

The leadership’s attitude was also changed as a result of the M&A. Although, the interviewees did not point to a huge difference in the way they responded to employees’ complaints and concerns, one of the employees went on to say that “Maybe the only difference was the speed with which we came to a resolution to hurdles as the lower management team had to coordinate with a whole new company before making a decision.”. In terms of their attitude towards employees’ propositions for work-process improvements, however, the interviewees expressed big disappointment. Instead of the description given for the pre-merger company that the employees’ propositions were actually considered by the managerial team, the impression that they were left with after the M&A was that the management team was not even considering them anymore. One of the participants in the interviews went on to say:

(27)

27 is nothing that can be done about it. All the changes were coming from the top management team and they did not get changed even after collecting negative feedback or non-satisfying results” The M&A brought also some changes in the working condition in the firm. The interviewees pointed out to a slight increase in the salary, which according to them was “not that significant”. Yet, they were still rather satisfied with the remuneration, however, not as much as prior to the M&A. The changes in the bonus structures were reflected with a harsher comment:

"The yearly bonus was no longer satisfactory and a lot of the people, including myself, were indifferent to the monthly rewards structure as it was almost impossible to get something nice

out of it"

This showed the clear dissatisfaction of the employees with the bonus rewards. When approached with questions regarding the working environment, a frequently encountered comment was “neglected working environment”, “broken chairs”, and “windows were not closing properly”. The way in which the office space was described by the interviewees pointed out to a certain level of negligence of the working environment, which was a cause of frustration among the employees.

The comparison of the two periods clearly shows a change in the organizational culture of the company. Furthermore, the great extent of overlap between the comments of the two interviewees is a further proof that this is an organizational culture that is shared among the employees.

Employees hired after M&A 2011 and before M&A 2016

Although both of the interviewees that were hired after the merger had a good personal first impression, the apparent frustration among the older employees was not left unnoticed. This was clearly evident from the comment provided by one of the interviewees:

"… The employees that worked there for a longer period looked frustrated and exhausted, while the ones that were just starting seemed like they were enjoying the job at first.”

(28)

28 employees at that moment. The interviewee then went on to comment on his first impressions regarding the work attitude by saying:

“In my opinion, there was not much efficiency within our everyday work as the management team was weak in supporting and navigating the work. A lot of people were given the freedom to

slack which lowered the productivity of the whole team and even the top performers suffered from this..."

Such a view was interpreted by the employees as lack of motivation and commitment shown by the employees, as well as indifferent management. This observation sent a message to the new recruits that it is not rewarding enough to “do your best”, thus they lacked motivation from the very beginning.

When approached with questions regarding the rest of the aspects of the atmosphere in the company, the comments provided by the newly hired employees overlapped to a great extent with the ones provided by the older ones. This similarity can be seen in Table 3, where it is expressed

via short description of the answers provided, and the complete quotes can be seen in Appendix 3.

Table 3 Atmosphere in the company post-M&A 2011

Employee 1 Employee 2 Employee 3 Employee 4

Atm o sp h ere in th e co m p an y Attitude towards work Low motivation; dissatisfaction; lack of personal contribution to the company's success

Pressured; Decreased motivation and commitment Friendly; non-efficient; weak management; indifferent employees; frustration among older employees Young people, friendly, helpful, Conflicts & their resolution Rare; resolution between the employees themselves;

No change from before the M&A

Rare; no managerial involvement; people held grudges after

Not many conflicts, no managerial involvement; people held grudges after

Feedback

Helpful to adjust; too detailed; lack of flexibility; unrealistic Low performance minimum; indifference among employees Helpful

Too caught up in the detail; unrealistic expectations

Success celebration

Announced through emails and monthly meetings; no effect on everyday work Announcement of successes, however, no effect on employee motivation; Indifference Informed about achieved targets via Emails; Didn’t motivate us

Rare; informed via email; was not reflected in any other way, financially or not.

Social outings & events

More events; good organization and thematic events

More frequent; well organized

Well planned and organized events; rather frequent

(29)

29 When the answers of the two groups of interviewees, regarding the working environment, were compared, one thing that sticks out is that the second group, the newly hired employees, were much more satisfied with the remuneration plan, compared to the first group of interviewees. While the participants hired before M&A 2011 were describing the salary and the benefits as “relatively good”, the comments of the newly hired ones were that the salary and the benefits were “really good”. Another interesting finding was that, even though that the newly hired employees did not have the chance to experience the pre-merger bonus schemes, they provided similar comments as the first group of interviewees which did experience it. Their comments stressed the fact that the bonus was based on group performance in a negative way which demotivated them. The monthly reward structure was marked with a great deal of overlap among the answers of the interviewees as well. One interesting comment, made by an employee hired after M&A 2011 was:

"… The monthly rewards structure was also good, although I have heard from older employees that it was way better before the first merger as it was purely financial and now it was in the

form of points for the inside store of the firm"

When that same employee was asked how he felt about that, he confirmed that he did feel a bit “irritated”, however, he continued by saying “…but I realized that I could not do anything about it so I just accepted it.”

The “working environment” questions were also characterized with a great similarity among all the interviewees, with frequent mentioning of the words “neglected”, “broken chairs”, and “broken windows”.

(30)

30

Pre-M&A 2016

This section analyzes the gathered data regarding the way the interviewees reacted on the announcement of M&A 2016, and what were their expectations from it. Furthermore, it presents a comparison of the results from the employees that were present during M&A 2011 with the ones that were not. Such a comparison allows a comparison of whether the two groups of employees had similar expectations of what would happen.

When asked about their reaction to the announcement of M&A 2016, all the interviewees gave rather similar answers. They described how they felt with words like “scared” and “confused”. One of the long-time employees in the company went on to say:

"This sounded scarier, compared to the first Merger. There were a lot of speculations on the future of the company, whether they will move the departments, or whether they will close them

all together. Even though they did not explicitly say that there will be such a restructuring, my colleagues, and I, we were pretty stressed about it"

An interesting answer was given by one of the newly hired employees who said that some of the people were even happy about the recently announced M&A, however, these feelings were not based on the believes that the M&A would be truly beneficial, but more on the fact that things were already really bad – “…no one thought that things could get any worse, me included.”. Three out of the four employees that were interviewed continued to say that they were expecting a similar outcome as the 2011 M&A. The one that was rather different from the rest of the comments again stressed on the fact that he did not expect a similar outcome purely because of the fact that he did not believe things can get any worse.

(31)

31 that his company was the one that was being bought and not the other way around. Only one of the four interviewees said that he was expecting there to be an increase in the career prospects in the company, based on the belief that M&A 2016 would allow the people above him in the hierarchy to get promoted and that that would create an opportunity for the lower level employees to climb up the latter.

In order to get a sense of what were the general expectation about M&A 2016 among the employees, the interviewees were approached with this question and the answers were later compared. The findings show a great overlap in the comments provided, with all four of them mentioning “restructuring of the company” and “closure of the whole subsidiary”. Other comments that were provided were that the workload in the company would increase, people will be handed new tasks, as well as that there will be a “lack of clear strategy or vision”. Furthermore, to get a sense of their personal expectations, the interviewees were asked to list five aspects of the company that they expected to change as a result of M&A 2016. The answers they provided can be seen in Appendix 4.

A closer look at the table allows us to see a great similarity between the answers of the employees that were hired before M&A 2011 and the ones hired after. Furthermore, the expected changes overlap to great extent with the changes that followed M&A 2011. In order to understand the reason behind this, the second group of interviewees were asked follow up questions on how and what do they know about M&A 2011. The next section explores precisely this.

Intra-organizational learning between the mergers

(32)

32 comments which allowed them to understand the reasoning behind the reaction. As one of the employees said:

“I heard the details around it mostly from the older colleagues working there in the form either of comments and murmuring, this was mostly when they were doing an annoying task that was

not there before. Other occasions which provoked similar comments were during the monthly rewards meeting, I noticed that people did not really care about them, as a lot of them did not even bother showing up to the meeting. Furthermore, the award of the yearly bonus provoked similar comments as well, even though people were somewhat excited that they will receive extra

cash, they seemed a little bit disappointed by the amount. Another interesting observation was that almost no one was pushing himself, and I regularly heard the phrase "Nobody is going to

congratulate you on that".”

These observations ended up in provoking personal conversations between the newly hired and older employees. The interviewees continued on by saying that the other employees were commenting and comparing the pre- and post- M&A 2011 situation. One of them even went on to say: “…usually people started talking about the behavior of the new company and ended with "this was better in the old company".”

An interesting finding was that even though the people that were hired after M&A 2011 did not really had a basis on which to compare the current situation, they still felt irritated by the changes that were made. The conversations and insights gained from the other employees, pushed them to acquire a similar behavior. One of the interviewees continued to say:

“I couldn’t help myself but wonder how good it would have been if I didn't have to do it now. Furthermore, I quickly realized how right they were about the monthly rewards, as well as the

bonus scheme. I saw that there was almost no point in working for the monthly reward, which demotivated me to some extent, and the fact that the yearly bonus had almost nothing to do with

my personal performance, as well as the fact that most of the people did not care that much about their productivity, further demotivated me from working as hard as I could.”

(33)

33 This claim was further supported in the initial interview with the manager, as she said that all the employees were expecting similar outcomes as the ones after M&A 2011.

Discussion

This study covered three main periods: Pre-M&A 2011, Post-M&A 2011, and Pre-M&A 2016. The data provides clear evidence of organizational culture change during the period under study. One the one hand, the organizational culture prior to M&A 2011 was described as friendly, helpful, with a sense of contribution, supportive, and rewarding. On the other hand, the post-M&A 2011 period was referred to as demotivating, lack of a sense of contribution, non-efficient processes and indifference from the managers. The research also analyzed the triggers of organizational culture change and the employees’ responses. Furthermore, it revealed the mechanisms through which the inter-organizational learning between the two mergers occurred. Two learning mechanisms were identified from the data – Observations and Personal conversations. They were shown to have helped in the alignment of the organizational culture, behavior, and expectations about M&A 2016, between the newly hired and older employees. Taken together, the analysis shows a clear change of the organizational culture, which was later transferred to the newly hired employees, thus aligning and creating similar expectation for the following merger in 2016.

(34)

34 (Bossche et al, 2011; Rentsch 1990; Walsh et al., 1988). This alignment provided the overlap between the mental models of the employees that was necessary for the occurrence of a shared mentality (Bossche et al, 2011). Furthermore, it led to a change in the organizational culture, as according to Ravasi and Schultz (2006) it is the set of shared mental assumptions guiding the behavior of the firm.

The analysis of the data further confirms that individuals form beliefs and expectation based on their past experiences (Levitt & March, 1988). This is expressed in the fact that the provided answers regarding the employees’ expectations from M&A 2016, greatly overlapped with the actual changes that happened during M&A 2011. Furthermore, their beliefs about whether M&A 2016 will be beneficial for them personally or for the company as a whole, were similar to their judgment on whether M&A 2011 had been beneficial. This was also confirmed by the manager that was interviewed, as she confirmed that the employees were expecting similar outcome to M&A 2011, or even worse.

Proposition 1: The experience from previous M&As to a great extent influences individuals’ beliefs and expectations of subsequent M&As.

The study also confirms that these mental models can be transferred to newly hired employees, which provides an answer to the question whether these models persist over time. This is validated by the fact that the employees, that were not present during M&A 2011, had similar expectations from M&A 2016, compared to the employees that were present during M&A 2011. This is a rather interesting finding as it stands – to a given extent – in contradiction with the learning theory that postulates that such mental models would be based solely on personal experiences (Levitt & March, 1988). The case of Gaming&Fun provides proof that individuals are able to form beliefs based on other people’s experiences when there is a lack of personal experience. To explain this finding, the data reveals two mechanisms through which this learning occurred, even though the employees in question did not personally experience the first M&A.

(35)

35 awareness within them about a major event that had significantly shaped the organization where they just started working in. The first mechanism activated itself immediately after the end of the job training period – when the newly hired employees started working among the others. This mechanism manifested itself in the form of newly hired employees observing the behavior of older ones. It played a significant role in shaping the behavior of the new employees. According to Bandura and colleagues, individuals that observe the behavior of the people around them tend to

reproduce it when faced with the same stimuli (

1961

). This imitation led to alignment of the

behaviors of both the new and the older employees. This phenomenon is supported by the social learning theory according to which individuals can learn by observing others (Bandura, 1977). The second mechanism of the learning process was expressed through personal conversations that newly hired employees had with older ones. Thanks to it, they were able to get rich insights into what exactly happened during M&A 2011. These provided the final conditions for the creation of a shared mentality which is mutual understanding (Baker, 1995), and mutual agreement (Dillenbourg and Traum, 2006). The overlapping expectation and beliefs among employees that were not present during M&A 2011, with the expectations and beliefs of those that were, is a clear evidence of the existence of a shared mentality.

Proposition 2: Mental models of previously hired employees, created as a result of an M&A, are transferred via learning mechanisms to newly hired employees.

(36)

36 reactions and behavior of their colleagues, and not their managers, towards “annoying tasks”, bonuses, as well as their lack of motivation to excel in their job. Based on the above mentioned findings and the gathered data, employees are more likely to observe with increased attention other employees which are in a similar position as them because of the similarities they share.

Proposition 3: Employees would be more influenced when observing the behavior of other employees, compared to observing the behavior of managers.

Unlike observations, personal conversations include a two-way verbal communication between at least two individuals. Verbal communications give the participants the freedom to filter the information they want to share. Furthermore, the concept of the negativity bias plays a major role in determining the way people talk about other people and events (Peeters, 1971). This is expressed in the fact that negative stimuli tend to produce a stronger reaction and are more memorable, compared to neutral or positive ones (Mogg et al., 2000; Peeters & Czapinsky, 1990). In the context of subsequent M&As, this can be translated to people being more likely to discuss the negative sides of the M&As. Thus:

Proposition 4: Learning through personal conversations is more likely to stress on the negative aspects of past M&A transactions.

In conclusion, this case presents evidence that the experience from previous M&As does influence the expectations and beliefs of employees about subsequent M&As. This is expressed in the creation and preservation of a shared mentality, which in turn shapes the organizational culture of the company, and thus leads to an overlap of expectations and beliefs among the employees. These, in turn, could lead to an either easier or a more difficult human integration process during subsequent M&As, as they could influence the motivation of these employees (Heckhausen, 1991; Taylor and Brown, 1988).

(37)

37 the motivation and commitment of the employees, something that was seriously damaged after the first M&A. It did so by actively involving them in the decision making process. According to the interviewed manager, this strategy turned out to be very efficient for this particular case.

Conclusion

A successful human integration process is vital for the success of an M&A (Lupina-Wegener et al, 2011). This notion is supported by both the Social identity theory and the Organizational change literature, which give importance to the employees’ beliefs about whether the M&A would be beneficial or not (Sung et al, 2016). The fact that mergers and acquisitions represent a convenient and fast way to gain a more competitive position (Graebner et al., 2016), creates a likelihood that companies will more strongly focus on such transactions in future. Thus, the aim of this study was to find out whether the outcome of previous M&As can influence the beliefs and expectations of employees about subsequent M&As. To answer this question, the research focused on a single case of a company in the online gaming industry, which went through two subsequent M&As – one in 2011 and one in 2016.

(38)

38 for the alignment of the mentality. This process resulted in all the employees having similar expectations and beliefs about the upcoming M&A, which was a proof of the shared mentality. Furthermore, the fact that these expectations and beliefs were to a great extent similar to what actually happened in the previous merger, was evidence of how such an experience can influence and even determine the expectations people hold for similar future events.

As a conclusion, the case confirms that experience from previous M&A can influence the human integration process of subsequent M&As and thus the success of the transaction as a whole. This effect was also confirmed by the management which claimed that the employees did expect a similar to the first M&A outcome, from the 2016 one.

The study has also several contributions to both the M&A literature and the managerial teams of companies. First, this study, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the first to consider the outcome of previous M&As as an antecedent to the human integration process of subsequent M&As. This could be further developed in future by analyzing how exactly do different aspects of the outcome of previous M&As affect the human integration process of future M&As. Furthermore, it raises questions of how can this effect be managed successfully and what strategies can be used by the acquiring company to nullify the negative sides and boost the positive ones. This study presents one possible such strategy to nullify them, which is expressed in cutting the sense of continuity to the old organization and initiating a “new beginning”. However, this was not the aim of this study and thus it needs more research to explore the positive and negative sides of this strategy for both short- and long-term performance.

The managerial implications of these findings revolve mainly around the fact that managers would: first, be able to improve the screening process when choosing a company that they want to merge with or acquire. Based on theirs and the other company’s past, they would be better able to predict the ease of integration that would follow and the resistance that they could face from the employees’ side. Second, by having such information, the managerial team would be better able to select appropriate integration strategies for optimal short- and long-term performance.

(39)
(40)

40

References

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2007). Status, equity and social identification during an intergroup merger: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 557-577.

Baker, M. J. (1995). Negotiation in collaborative problem-solving dialogues. NATO ASI SERIES F COMPUTER AND SYSTEMS SCIENCES, 142, 39-39.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.

Brown, A. (1998). Organisational culture. Financial Times.

Butler J., Ferris G. R., Napier N. K. (1991), “Strategy and Human Resource Management,” Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western publishing.

Canella, A. A., Hambrick, D. C. (1993). Effects of executive departures on the performance of acquired firms. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 167-152.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The impact of mergers and acquisitions on people at work: Existing research and issues. British Journal of Management, 1(2), 65–76.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in successful organizational marriage. The Academy of Management Executive, 7(2), 57-70.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Organizational marriage: “hard” versus “soft” issues?. Personnel Review, 24(3), 32-42.

Cascio, W. F., & Young, C. E. (2003). Financial consequences of employment-change decisions in major US corporations, 1982-2000. Resizing the organization, 131-156.

Chang, R. A., Curtis, G. A., & Jenk, J. (2002). Keys to the kingdom: How an integrated IT capability can increase your odds of M&A success. New York, USA.

Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Pitkethly, R. (2001). The management of international acquisitions: realizing their potential value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.

(41)

41 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and

challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.

European Central Bank (2000), “Mergers and Acquisitions involving the EU Banking industry –

Facts and Implications,” [online]. Available at

www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/eubkmergersen.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2007].

Fitzenz, J. (1997). It's costly to lose good employees. Workforce, 76(8), 50-51.

Ghauri, P. N., & Buckley, P. J. (2003). International mergers and acquisitions: Past, present and future. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 2, 207-229.

Graebner, M., Heimeriks, K., Huy, Q., & Vaara, E. (2016). The process of post-merger integration: a review and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, annals-2014.

Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., Ray, S., Sarkar, M. B. and Chittoor, R. (2010). ‘Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The case of India firms’. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 397–418.

Hambrick, D. C., Cannella, A. A. (1993). Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures of acquired executives. Acad. Management Journal, 36, 733–762.

Haspeslagh P. C., Jemison D. B. (1991) “Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal,” New York: Free Press.

Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N‐form corporation. Strategic management journal, 15(S2), 73-90.

Hunt, J. W., Egon Zehnder International, & London Business School. (1987). Acquisitions, the Human Factor. Egon Zehnder International.

Inkpen, A. C., Sundaram, A. K., & Rockwood, K. (2000). Cross-border acquisitions of U.S. technology assets. California Management Review, 42, 50—71

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A., (eds.) (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Kim, D. H. (1998). The link between individual and organizational learning. The strategic management of intellectual capital, 41-62.

Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Mergers and Acquisitions: Strategic–Organizational fit and outcomes. Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall: Department of Management, The Wharton School-University of Pensilvania.

(42)

42 Lundy, O., & Cowling, A. (1996). Strategic Human Resource Strategy.

Lupina-Wegener, A.A., Schneider, S.C. and Van Dick, R. (2011), “Different experiences of socio-cultural integration: a European merger in Mexico”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 65-89.

M&A Statistics - Worldwide, Regions, Industries & Countries. Retrieved February 22, 2017, from https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/

Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (2011b), “A framework for the human resources role in managing culture in mergers and acquisitions”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 859-877. Marks, M. L. (2005). Consulting in mergers and acquisitions: Interventions spawned by recent

trends. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 267–279.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1992). Rebuilding after the merger: Dealing with “survivor sickness”. Organizational dynamics, 21(2), 18-32.

Marks, M. L., Mirvis, P.H. (1982). Merging human resources: A review of current research. Mergers and Acquisitions, 17(2), 38-44.

Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996). Principles of self-regulation: The nature of willpower and self-control. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 329–360). New York: Guilford Press.

Mogg, K., McNamara, J., Powys, M., Rawlinson, H., Seiffer, A., & Bradley, B. P. (2000). Selective attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 14(3), 375-399.

Morris, T., & Wood, S. (1991). Testing the survey method: continuity and change in British industrial relations. Work, Employment and Society, 5(2), 259-282.

Mueller, M. W. (1982), Applying Human Capital Theory to Women's Changing Work Patterns. Journal of Social Issues, 38: 89–95.

Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Neuman, W.L. (2005) Social Research Methods (6th edn). London: Pearson.

Ogbonna, E. (1992). Managing organisational culture: fantasy or reality?. Human Resource Management Journal, 3(2), 42-54.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

2.6 Normatieve informatie en intentie, attitude en gedrag met betrekking tot bewegen Net als bij onderzoek naar message framing met betrekking tot lichamelijke beweging, is er

confirm with KPSS Calculate fractional integration parameter Compare to first differencing continue to ADF with intercept Calculate fractional integration parameter Compare to

In order to get a glimpse of the complexity of the subject: mergers and acquisitions, this introductory chapter will give a brief overview of possible types of M&As,

“An analysis of employee characteristics” 23 H3c: When employees have high levels of knowledge and share this knowledge with the customer, it will have a positive influence

The number one reason for change efforts that fail is due to insufficient sponsorship (ProSci, 2003). Also at AAB it appeared that leadership style had an effect on the

The grade of the small business owner without employees was significantly higher, so the self-perceived mental health status of small business owners with employees is better

Only a handful of studies on neonicotinoid insecticides in tea have been carried out and this study was therefore performed to determine the concentrations of seven

● Indien nog niet geïnventariseerd: Komen hoge brilsterkte (een sterkte hoger dan +6 of -5) op basisschoolleeftijd, amblyopie, slechtziendheid, scheelzien of andere oogafwijkingen