Despite existing research examining snapshots of employee reactions to organizational mergers and acquisitions (M&A), there is a complete absence of work theorizing or exploring rates of change in employees’ organizational identification with the merged entity. We address this gap using two three-wave longitudinal panel samples from different M&A settings, tracking change in identification through a two-year period. Theorizing trajectories of change in identification across the organizations in both settings, we make predictions linked to expected antecedents of change in identification. Our research context (M&A-1) involves a merger of three Finish universities tracking 938 employees from each organization in three waves (nine months pre-merger to 24 months post-merger). Our second context (M&A-2) involves a multinational acquisition tracking 346 employees from both the acquired and acquiring organization in three waves (from two to 26 months post-acquisition). Using Latent Growth Modelling, we confirm predicted trajectories of change in identification. Across both samples, a linear increase (across Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3) in justice and linear decrease in threat perceptions were found to significantly predict a linear increase in identification across the post-M&A period. We discuss organizational identification development trajectories and how changes in these two antecedents account for changes in identification across M&A contexts.
AguileraRVDenckerJC (2004) The role of human resource management in cross-border mergers and acquisition. International Journal of Human Resource Management15(8): 1355–1370.
2.
AlbertSAshforthBEDuttonJE (2000) Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review25(1): 13–17.
3.
AmiotCETerryDJCallanVJ (2007) Status, equity, and social identification during an intergroup merger. British Journal of Social Psychology46(3): 557–577.
4.
AshforthBEMaelF (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review14(1): 20–39.
5.
BardiAGuerraVMRamdenyGSD (2009) Openness and ambiguity tolerance: Their differential relationships to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences47(3): 219−223.
6.
BartelsJADouwesRde JongMPruynA (2006) Organizational identification during a merger: Determinants of employees’ expected identification with the new organization. British Journal of Management17(Suppl. 1): S49−S67.
7.
BartelsJAPruynAde JongM (2009) Employee identification before and after an internal merger: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology82(1): 113–128.
8.
BaumeisterRFLearyMR (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin117: 497–529.
9.
BoenFVanbeselaereNCoolM (2006) Group status as a determinant of organizational identification after a takeover: A social identity perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations9(4): 547–560.
BoswellWRBoudreauJWTichyJ (2005) The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology90(5): 882–892.
12.
BoswellWRShippAJPayneSCCulbertsonSS (2009) Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology94(4): 844–858.
13.
BuonoPJBowditchJLLewisJW (1985) When cultures collide: The anatomy of a merger. Human Relations38(5): 477–500.
14.
ByrneZS (1999) Procedural and interactional justice: Understanding multilevel outcomes. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
15.
CartwrightSCooperCL (1993) The psychological impact of merger and acquisition on the individual: A study of building society managers. Human Relations46(3): 327–347.
16.
CollinsLMSchaferJLKamCM (2001) A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing-data procedures. Psychological Methods6(4): 330–351.
17.
DooleyKJZimmermanBJ (2003) Merger as marriage: Communication issues in postmerger integration. Health Care Management Review28(1): 55–67.
18.
DuncanTEDuncanSCStryckerLA (2006) An Introduction to Latent Variable Growth Curve Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
EdwardsMREdwardsT (2012) Procedural justice and post acquisition identification: The moderating effects of job and organizational identity related discontinuity. Human Resource Management Journal22(2): 109–128.
20.
FolgerRCropanzanoR (1998) Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
21.
FortinMCojuharencoIPatientDLGermanH (2016) It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior37(Suppl. S1): S30–S56.
22.
FugateMPrussiaGEKinickiAJ (2012) Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change: The role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management38(3): 890–914.
23.
GiessnerSR (2011) Is the merger necessary? The interactive effect of perceived necessity and sense of continuity on post-merger identification. Human Relations64(8): 1079–1098.
24.
GiessnerSRVikiGTOttenS. (2006) The challenge of merging: Merger patterns premerger status, and merger support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin32(3): 339–352.
25.
GiessnerSRHortonKEHumborstadSIW (2016) Identity management during organizational mergers: Empirical insights and practical advice. Social Issues and Policy Review10(1): 47–81.
26.
GleibsIHMummendeyANoackP (2008) Predictors of change in post-merger identification during a merger process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology95(5): 1095–1112.
27.
GleibsIHNoackPMummendeyA (2009) We are still better than them: A longitudinal field study of ingroup favouritism during a merger. European Journal of Social Psychology40(5): 819–836.
28.
GoodmanJSBlumTC (1996) Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management22(4): 627–652.
29.
GuerreroS (2008) Changes in employees’ attitudes at work following an acquisition: A comparative study by acquisition type. Human Resource Management Journal18(3): 216–236.
HoggMA (2007) Uncertainty-identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology39: 69–126.
32.
HoggMAAdelmanJ (2013) Uncertainty–identity theory: Extreme groups, radical behavior, and authoritarian leadership. Journal of Social Issues69(3): 436–454.
33.
HoltzBC (2015) From first impression to fairness perception: Investigating the impact of initial trustworthiness beliefs. Personnel Psychology68(3): 499–546.
34.
HornseyMJHoggMA (2000) Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review4(2): 143–156.
35.
LaamanenTKeilT (2008) Performance of serial acquirers: Toward an acquisition program perspective. Strategic Management Journal29(6): 663–672.
36.
LazarusRSFolkmanS (1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
37.
LipponenJOlkkonenMMoilanenM (2004) Perceived procedural justice and employee responses to an organizational merger. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology13(3): 391–413.
38.
LittleRJARubinDB (2002) Statistical Analysis with Missing Data (2nd edn). New York: Wiley.
39.
Lupina-WegenerADrzenskyFUllrichJvan DickR (2013) Focusing on the bright tomorrow? A longitudinal study of organizational identification and projected continuity in a corporate merger. British Journal of Social Psychology53(4): 752–772.
40.
MaelFAAshforthBE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior13(2): 103–123.
41.
MaelFAAshforthBE (1995) Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology48(2): 309–333.
42.
MichelAStegmaierRSonntagK (2010) I scratch your back – You scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees’ cooperation during change?Journal of Change Management10(1): 41–59.
43.
MoninPNoorderhavenNVaaraEKroonD (2013) Giving sense to and making sense of justice in post-merger integration. Academy of Management Journal56(1): 256–284.
44.
MoormanRH (1991) Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology76(6): 845–855.
45.
MottolaGRBachmanBAGaertnerSLDovidioJF (1997) How groups merge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to the merger organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology27(15): 1335–1358.
46.
NewsomJT (2015) Longitudinal Structural Equation Modelling: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York, NY and Hove: Routledge.
47.
NgTWHFeldmanDC (2013) Community embeddedness and work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational embeddedness. Human Relations67(1): 71–103.
48.
NgTWHFeldmanDCLamSSK (2010) Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behavior: A latent-growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology95(4): 744–751.
49.
PentzMAChouCP (1994) Measurement invariance in longitudinal clinical research assuming change from development and intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology62(3): 450–462.
50.
PloyhartRRVandenbergRJ (2010) Longitudinal research: The theory, design and analysis of change. Journal of Management36(1): 94–120.
51.
SchaferJLGrahamJW (2002) Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods7(2): 147–177.
52.
ScheckCLKiniekiAJ (2000) Identifying antecedents of coping with an organizational acquisition: A structural assessment. Journal of Organizational Behavior21(6): 627–648.
53.
SchipperKThompsonR (1983) Evidence in the capitalized value of merger activity for acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics11(1–4): 85–119.
54.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 33–47.
55.
TeerikangasSVeryP (2006) The culture-performance relationship in M&A: From yes/no to how. British Management Journal17(S1): 31–48.
56.
TerryDJCallanVJ (1998) In-group bias in response to an organizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, Practice2(2): 67–81.
57.
TerryDJCallanVJSartoriG (1996) A test of a stress-coping model of adjustment to a large-scale organizational change. Stress Medicine12(2): 105–122.
58.
TerryDJCallanVJCareyCJ (2001) Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(3): 267–280.
59.
TylerTRBladerS (2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity theory, and cooperative behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Review7(4): 349–361.
60.
TylerTRDe CremerD (2005) Process-based leadership: Fair procedure and reactions to organizational change. Leadership Quarterly16(4): 529–545.
61.
van den BosKLindEA (2002) Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 34:1–60.
62.
van DickRWagnerULemmerG (2004) The winds of change: Multiple identifications in the case of organizational mergers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology13(2): 121–138.
63.
van DickRUllrichJTissingtonPA (2006) Working ‘under a black cloud’: Sustaining organizational identification after a merger. British Journal of Management17(S1): 69–79.
64.
van KnippenbergDvan KnippenbergBMondenLde LimaF (2002) Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology41(2): 233–252.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
