Advertisement

Case 4: Japanese Cross Border M&A and German Target Employee Alienation Issues

  • Ralf BebenrothEmail author
  • Roman Bartnik
Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) occur frequently all over the world and about 70% are categorized as cross-border deals with the aim of multinational firms to undertake investments in foreign countries (Peng 2008). There is evidence that cross border deals are more difficult to successfully realize than domestic deals because employees not only experience a different organizational culture but also have to interact with a different national culture (Chung et al. 2014). The rule of thumb is that integrations become increasingly difficult as cultural distance and differences increases between the bidder and the target in a M&A context. Most of the studies take it for granted that employees are heavily affected by direct involvement in a cross border acquisition (e.g. Chung et al. 2014; Nemanich and Keller 2007). Yet, indirect effects of social identification can also affect the lack of direct interaction between employees from both parties (the acquirer and the acquired). This case study deals about a Japanese steelmaker who overtook a German engineering firm specializing in waste disposal business. Challenges in the post-merger integration and especially between the expatriated Japanese managers to the German subsidiary and the German employees are discussed.

Publication Bibliography

  1. Ahammad, M. F., Tarba, S. Y., Liu, Y., & Glaister, K. W. (2014). Knowledge transfer and cross-border acquisition performance: The impact of cultural distance and employee retention. International Business Review, 25(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, J., Douwes, R., Jong, M., & Pruyn, A. (2006). Organizational identification during a merger: Determinants of employees’ expected identification with the new organization*. British Journal of Management, 17(S1), S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, F., Matzler, K., & Wolf, S. (2015). M&A and innovation: The role of integration and cultural differences—A central European targets perspective. International Business Review, 25(1).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björkman, I., Stahl, G. K., & Vaara, E. (2007). Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social integration. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brannen, M. Y., & Peterson, M. F. (2008). Merging without alienating: interventions promoting cross-cultural organizational integration and their limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 468–489.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hassan, I., Chidlow, A., & Romero-Martínez, A. M. (2016). Selection, valuation and performance assessment: Are these truly inter-linked within the M&A transactions? International Business Review, 25(1), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.  https://doi.org/10.2307/259266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing identity: Predicting adjustment to organizational restructure as a function of subgroup and superordinate identification. The British Journal of Social Psychology/The British Psychological Society, 41(Pt 2), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–333.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01759.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peng, M. W. (2008). Global business. Mason: Cengage Learning/South Western.Google Scholar
  14. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Yildiz, H. E. (2016). “Us vs. them” or “us over them”? On the roles of similarity and status in M&As. International Business Review, 25(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.Cologne Business SchoolCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations