This study contributes to the understanding of how target firm employees perceive organizational change after a cross-border acquisition. Based on the tenets of the group engagement model, we pick procedural and interpersonal justice and investigate how it influences the organizational identification of target employees. We extend previous findings from the literature, that employees who are treated better have a higher organizational identification to the new firm. Overall we find that procedural justice matters more to target employees than interpersonal justice does. Furthermore, while procedural justice matters earlier at the post-acquisition integration, interpersonal justice becomes more salient a year after the deal. Managers are therefore advised to inform their target employees immediately after the deal about procedures, and especially about their (possible) future stay at the new firm. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
BebenrothR. and ThieleK.O., When Organizational Justice Matters for Affective Merger Commitment. Thunderbird International Business Review, Forthcoming.
2.
BiesR. and MoagJ., Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness, Research on Negotiation in Organizations1(1) (1986), 43–55.
3.
BladerS. and TylerT.How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness? In
GreenbergJ., and ColquittJ. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 329–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005.
4.
BlahovaM., PalkaP. and ZelenyM., Contemporary trends in Japanese business environment: A review of existing empirical evidence, Human Systems Management33(3) (2014), 57–70.
5.
CheneyG., On the various and changing meanings of organizationalmembership: A field study of organizational identification, CommunicationsMonographs50(4) (1983), 342–362.
6.
ColquittJ. and RodellJ.Measuring justice and fairness, In
CropanzanoR and AmbroseM (Eds.), The oxford handbook of justice in work organizations (187–202). Oxford, UK: The Oxford University Press, 2015.
7.
ColquittJ. and ZipayK., Justice, fairness, and employee reactions, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1 (2015), 75–99.
8.
ColquittJ., On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure, Journal of Applied Psychology86 (2001), 386–400.
9.
CreasyT., Communication and identity - how they affect an employee’s attitude and behaviors within a Merger or acquisition environment, Case Western ReserveUniversity Research Paper of the Executive Doctor of Management Program, 2005.
10.
EllisK., ReusT. and LamontB., The effects of procedural and informational justice in the integration of related acquisitions, Strategic Management Journal30 (2009), 137–161.
11.
ElstakM., BhattM. and Van RielC.,
PrattM. and BerensG., Organizational identification during a merger: The role of self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction motives during a major organizational change, Journal of Management Studies52(1) (2015), 32–62.
12.
GeorgeJ. and JonesG., The role of time in theory and theory building, Journal of Management26(4) (2000), 657–684.
13.
GreweA., Integration akquirierter Unternehmen, Frankfurt am Main, 2005.
14.
GunkelM., SchlaegelC., RossteutscherT. and WolffB., The human aspect of cross-border acquisition outcomes: The role of management practices, employee emotions, and national culture, International Business Review24 (2015), 394–408.
15.
KimT., HornungS. and RousseauD., Change-supportive employee behavior: Antecedents and the moderating role of time, Journal of Management37(6) (2011), 1664–1693.
16.
KlendauerR. and DellerD., Organizational justice and managerial commitment in corporate mergers, Journal of Managerial Psychology24 (2009), 29–45.
17.
LeventhalG., What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship, In:
GergenK.,
GreenbergM. and
WillisR. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (27–55). New York: Plenum Press: 1980.
18.
LillyJ. and DurrD., Technology changes at work and employee reactions: The role of leader behavior, Human Systems Management31 (2012), 193–201.
19.
NoerD.Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
20.
PettigrewA., WoodmanR. and CameronK., Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research, Academy of Management Journal44(4) (2001), 697–713.
21.
PodsakoffP., MacKenzieS., LeeJ. and PodsakoffN., Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology88(5) (2003), 879–903.
22.
SchreursB., Van EmmerikI.,
GünterH. and GermeysF., A weekly diary study on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee performance, Human Resource Management51(2) (2012), 259–279.
23.
SchumacherD., SchreursB., Van EmmerikH. and
De WitteH., Explaining the relation between job insecurity and employee outcomes during organizational change: A multiple group comparison, Human Resource Management (2015), 1–19.
24.
TylerT. and BladerS.Cooperation in groups, procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2000.
25.
TylerT. and BladerS., The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior, Personality and Social Psychology Review7(4) (2003), 349–361.
26.
Van DickR.,
UllrichJ. and TissingtonP., Working under a black cloud: How to sustain organizational identification after a merger, British Journal of Management17 (2006), 69–79.
