Influence of Interlocking Directorates on Integration after the Acquisition of Warsaw Stock Exchange—Listed Companies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Interlocking Directorates in Acquisition Processes
2.2. Determinants of Post-Transaction Integration
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample
3.2. Method of Research
4. Methods of Data Analysis
- • Research Question 1: What is the scope of interlocking directorates in the acquisition processes of companies listed on the stock exchange? In the second stage of the study, the model of own authorship was built, dedicated to identifying the process of post-transaction integration in the time perspective of three years after the acquisition was conducted.
- Research Question 2: How does the relationship through interlocking directorates between transaction partners affect the implemented model of post-acquisition integration?
- Research Question 3: How does the stability of the relationship through interlocking directorates affect the implemented model of post-transaction integration?
- Research Question 4: How does interlocking directorates affect the assessment of a completed transaction?
5. Analysis of the Approach to Post-Transaction Integration and Its Determinants
5.1. Scope of Relationships through Interlocking Directorates
5.2. The Model of Post-Transaction Integration and Its Determinants
- Dynamic-centralized (DC) is the dominant model in persons linked by direct interlocking (nine cases analyzed). In unrelated enterprises, the model stated occurred in four cases.
- Moderately dynamic-decentralized (MDDZ) occurred in six examined interlocking-related companies and seven unrelated companies.
- Inertial-decentralized (IDZ) describes integration activities implemented in four companies related through interlocking and in eight unrelated companies.
6. Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pool, R. Training for Results: Innovative Synergy between Learning and Business Performance. Ind. Commer. Train. 2011, 43, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pun, K.F. A Conceptual Synergy Model of Strategy Formulation for Manufacturing. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2004, 24, 912–918. [Google Scholar]
- Anand, M.; Singh, J. Impact of Merger Announcements on Shareholders’ Wealth: Evidence from Indian Private Sector Banks. Vikalpa 2008, 33, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, M.L.; Stafford, E. Managerial Decisions and Long-Term Stock Price Performance. J. Bus. 2000, 52, 1765–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, R.J. Merger Momentum and Investor Sentiment the Stock Market Reaction to Merger Announcements. J. Bus. 2006, 79, 987–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czerwonka, L. Długookresowy wpływ połączeń przedsiębiorstw na wartość spółek przejmujących. Rynek Kapitałowy 2010, 10, 35–36. [Google Scholar]
- Rappaport, A. Creating Shareholder Value: A Guide for Managers and Investors; The Free Press: Richmond, VA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Bijlsma-Frankema, K. On managing cultural integration and cultural change processes in mergers and acquisitions. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2001, 25, 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svenson, G.; Wood, G.; Callaghan, M. A corporate model of sustainable business practices: An ethical perspective. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miozzo, M.; Walsh, V. International Competitiveness and Technological Change; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Hatch, M.J. Teoria Organizacji; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, M.C. Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and Takeovers. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76, 323–329. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, J.S.; Bosse, D.A.; Phillips, R.A. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myerson, R.B. Game Theory. Analysis of Conflict; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Granovetter, M. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91, 481–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Sevilir, M. Board connections and M&A transactions. J. Financ. Econ. 2012, 103, 327–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chwistecka-Dudek, H. Dywersyfikacja. Strategia Rozwoju Przedsiębiorstwa; Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu w Dąbrowie Górniczej: Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Cording, M.; Christman, P.; King, D.R. Reducing Causal Ambiguity in Acquisition integration: Intermediate Goals as Mediators of Integration Decision and Acquisition Performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 744–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenberg, R. Measuring the Performance of Corporate Acquisitions: An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Metrics. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mizruchi, M. What Do Interlocks Do? An Analysis, Critique and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Directorates. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1996, 22, 271–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q. A Comparative Study of the Effect of Interlocking Directorates on Merger Target Selection under Different Merger and Acquisition Modes. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zdziarski, M. Elita wewnętrznego kręgu i centralne firmy. Wyniki badań relacji przez rady nadzorcze w polskich spółkach giełdowych. Organizacja i Kierowanie 2012, 1, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
- Perez-Calero, L.; Barossa, C. It is useful to consider the interlocks according to the type of board member (executive or non-executive) who possesses them? Their effect on firm performance. Rev. Eur. Dir. Econ. Empres. 2015, 24, 130–137. [Google Scholar]
- Simoni, M.; Caiazza, R. Interlocking directorates’ effects on economic system’s competitiveness. Bus. Strategy Ser. 2013, 14, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodner, J. Post-merger integration. J. Organ. Des. 2018, 7, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chuluun, T.; Prevost, A.; Puthenpurackal, J. Board Ties and the Cost of Corporate Debt. Financ. Manag. 2014, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zona, F.; Gomez-Mejia, L.; Withers, M. Board Interlocks and Firm Performance. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 589–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engelberg, J.; Gao, P.; Parsons, C.A. Friends with money. J. Financ. Econ. 2012, 103, 169–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, D. Broken Ties: Interlocking Directorates and Intercorporate Coordination. Adm. Sci. Q. 1983, 28, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Lütge, C.; Yang, H. Organizational culture affecting post-merger integration. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2019, 29, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Lin, Z.; Peng, M. Behind Acquisitions of Alliance Partners: Exploratory Learning and Network Embeddedness. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 1069–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cukurova, S. Interlocking Directors and Target Selection in Mergers and Acquisitions. Available online: www.igier.unibocconi.it/files/Cukurova.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2019).
- Wu, Q. Information Conduit or Agency Cost: Top Management and Director Interlock between Acquirers and Targets. SSRN Electron. J. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cremers, K.J.; Nair, V.B.; Kose, J. Takeovers and the Cross-section of Returns. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2005, 22, 1409–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sleptov, A.; Anand, J.; Vasudeva, G. Relational configurations with information intermediaries: The effect of firm-investment bank ties on expected acquisition performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 957–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schonlau, R.; Singh, P. Board Networks and Merger Performance, 2009, 4–14. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1322223 (accessed on 20 September 2019).
- Habeck, M.H.; Kroger, F.; Trum, M.R. After the Mergers: Seven Rules for Successful Post-Merger Integration; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA; Financial Times: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes, E.; Angwin, D.; Weber, Y.; Tarba, S. Critical Success Factors through the Mergers and Acquisitions Process: Revealing Pre- and Post-M&A Connections for Improved Performance. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2013, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pablo, A. Determinants of Acquisitions Level: A Decision making Perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 4, 803–836. [Google Scholar]
- Haspeslagh, P.C.; Jemison, D. Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value through Corporate Renewal; The Free Press: NewYork, NY, USA, 1991; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
- Chase, B. National city’s latest mergers put premium on fast execution. Am. Bank. 1998, 3–4, 163. [Google Scholar]
- Schlaepfer, R.; di Paola, S.; Kupiers, R.; Brauchli-Rohrer, B.; Marti, A.; Brun, P.; Baldinger, G. How can leadership make a difference—An integration survey. PWC 2008, 143, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, F.; Degischer, D.; Matzler, K. Is Speed of Integration in M&A Learnable? The Moderating Role of Organizational Learning on the Path of Speed of Integration on Performance. Zadar, Croatia, 2013. Available online: http://www.toknowpress.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-02-4/papers/ML13-299.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2019).
- Angwin, D. Speed in M&A integration: The first 100 days. Eur. Manag. J. 2004, 22, 418–430. [Google Scholar]
- Homburg, C.; Bucerius, M. Is speed of integration really a success factor of mergers and acquisitions? An analysis of the role of internal and external relatedness. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olie, R. Shades of culture and institutions in international mergers. Organ. Stud. 1994, 15, 381–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, F.; Matzler, K. Antecedents of M&A success: The role of strategic complementarity, cultural fit, and degree and speed of integration. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silverman, D. Prowadzenie Badań Jakościowych; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kawa, A. Orientacja Sieciowa Przedsiębiorstw Branży Usług Logistycznych; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu: Poznań, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, J. Social Network Analysis. A Handbook; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Stankiewicz-Mróz, A. Analiza sieci społecznych jako narzędzie optymalizacji przebiegu integracji po przejęciach przedsiębiorstw. Zesz. Nauk. Politech. Łódzkiej 2016, 1209, 107–121. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook; Sage: BeverlyHills, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Larsson, R.; Lubatkin, M. Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisitions: An international case survey. Hum. Relat. 2001, 54, 1573–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertaux, D. From the Life-history Approach to the Transformation of Sociological Practice. In Biography and Society: The Life History Approaches in the Social Sciences; Bertaux, D., Ed.; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1981; pp. 29–45. [Google Scholar]
- Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Risks of the Modern Merger and Acquisition Market. Report from the Crowe Horwath and FERF 2017 Survey. Available online: https://www.tgc.eu/media/publikacje/Mergers&Acquisitions.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2019).
- Schweiger, D.M.; Walsh, J.P. Mergers and Acquisitions: An Interdisciplinary View. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Shaw, B.B., Beck, J.E., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1990; Volume 8, pp. 41–107. [Google Scholar]
- Cuche, D. La Notion de Culture dans les Sciences Sociales. Découverte Rev. Française Sociol. Année 2001, 41, 170–172. [Google Scholar]
- Vaara, E. Cultural Differences and Post-Merger Problems: Misconceptions and Cognitive Simplifications. Organisasjonsstudier 1999, 1–2, 59–88. [Google Scholar]
- Teerikangas, S.; Very, P. The Culture-Performance Relationship in M&A: From Yes/No to How. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, 31–48. [Google Scholar]
- Datta, D.K. Organizational Fit and Acquisition Performance: Effects of Post-Acquisition Integration. Strateg. Manag. J. 1991, 12, 281–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S.; Lubatkin, M.H.; Schweiger, D.M.; Weber, Y. Cultural Differences and Shareholder Value in Related Mergers: Linking Equity and Human Capital. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, R.A.; Camerer, C.F. Cultural Conflict and Merger Failure: An Experimental Approach. Manag. Sci. 2003, 49, 400–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krishnan, H.A.; Miller, A.; Judge, W.Q. Diversification and Top Management Team Complementarity: Is Performance Improved by Merging Similar or Dissimilar Teams? Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faulkner, D.; Teerikangas, S.; Joseph, R. (Eds.) Culture in M&A—A critical synthesis and steps forward. In Handbook of Mergers and Acquisitions; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Riad, S. Of Mergers and Cultures: “What Happened to Shared Values and Joint Assumptions?”. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2007, 20, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahl, G.; Kremershof, J.; Larsson, R. Trust Dynamics in Mergers and Acquisitions. A Case Survey; Human Resources Management; INSEAD: Fontainebleau, France, 2011; Volume 50, pp. 575–603. [Google Scholar]
- Barkema, H.G.; Schijven, M. A How do firms learn to make acquisitions? A review of past research and an agenda for the future. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 594–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barkema, H.G.; Bell, J.H.; Pennings, J.M. Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 12, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, K.M.; Reus, T.H.; Lamont, B.T.; Ranft, A.L. Transfer effects in large acquisitions: How size-specific experience matters. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 1261–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reus, T.H.; Lamont, B.T.; Ellis, K.M. A darker side of knowledge transfer following international acquisitions. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 932–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zollo, M.; Meier, D. What is M&A performance? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2008, 22, 55–77. [Google Scholar]
- Dess, G.; Robinson, R.B. Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures: The Case of the Privately-held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics of the Examined Transaction | Enterprises Related through Interlocking (N = 19) | Unrelated Enterprises (N = 19) |
---|---|---|
Company ownership form: | ||
| 10 | 12 |
| 2 | - |
| 7 | 7 |
Total | 19 | 19 |
Organizational form: | ||
| 3 | 6 |
| 7 | 9 |
| 9 | 4 |
Total | 19 | 19 |
Employment volume before acquisition: | ||
| 8 | 9 |
| 9 | 8 |
| 2 | 2 |
Total | 19 | 19 |
Business profile: | ||
Industrial processing | 17 | 17 |
Construction industry | 2 | 2 |
Total | 19 | 19 |
Job Categories | Number of Respondents | |
---|---|---|
Related Enterprises | Unrelated Enterprises | |
President/Vice-President of the Board | 3 | 2 |
Managing Director | 10 | 9 |
General Director—CEO | 6 | 8 |
Total | 19 | 19 |
Selected Sociometric Measures Describing the Network | Average Value | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|
Closeness centrality | 0.42 | 0.02 | 0.66 |
Eigenvector centrality | 0.36 | 0.08 | 0.54 |
The Area in Which Integration Activities Were Carried Out | Declared Scope of Integration | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Related Enterprises (N = 19) | Unrelated enterprises (N = 19) | |||||
Low | Moderate | High | Low | Moderate | High | |
Marketing and sales | - | 7 | 12 | - | 8 | 11 |
IT systems | - | - | 19 | - | - | 19 |
Accounting procedures | - | 1 | 18 | 1 | 18 | |
Suppliers and distribution channels | 6 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
Human resources management | 4 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 3 |
Brands | 3 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 10 | 6 |
Technologies | 6 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
Organisational culture | 12 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 2 | - |
Experience in Acquisition Transactions | Model of Post-Transaction Integration | ||
---|---|---|---|
Personally Related Enterprises | |||
DC (N = 9) | MDDZ (N = 6) | IDZ (N = 4) | |
Yes (N = 11) | 7 | 3 | 1 |
No (N = 8) | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Enterprises not related personally | |||
DC (N = 4) | MDDZ (N = 7) | IDZ (N = 8) | |
Yes (N = 4) | 2 | 1 | 1 |
No (N = 15) | 2 | 6 | 7 |
Integration Plan and Its Characteristics | Integration Model in Related Enterprises | Integration Model in Unrelated Enterprises | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DC [9] | MDDZ [6] | IDZ [4] | DC [4] | MDDZ [7] | IDZ [8] | |
Possession of an integration plan (N = 12) | 5 | 1 | - | 4 | 2 | - |
Prepared before transaction (N = 2) | 2 | - | - | - | - | - |
Prepared after transaction (N = 10) | 3 | 1 | - | 4 | 2 | - |
No integration plan (N = 26) | 4 | 5 | 4 | - | 5 | 8 |
Plan characteristics | ||||||
General plan (N = 7) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | - | |
Detailed plan (N = 1) | 1 | - | - | - | - | - |
Plan only for selected functional areas (N = 4) | 2 | - | - | 2 | 1 | - |
Implemented Integration Model | Circumstances of Concluding the Acquisition Transaction | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Related Enterprises (N = 19) | Unrelated Enterprises (N = 19) | |||||
Strategy | Opportunity | Included in Strategy but Using the Opportunity | Strategy | Opportunity | Included in Strategy but Using the Opportunity | |
DC (N = 13) | 6 | - | 3 | 3 | - | 1 |
MDDZ (N = 13) | 6 | - | 1 | 6 | - | - |
IZD (N = 12) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | - |
Total | 14 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 1 | 1 |
Possession of an Integration Strategy | Implemented Post-Transaction Integration Model | ||
---|---|---|---|
DC (N = 13) | UDZD (N = 13) | IZD (N = 12) | |
Yes, in the form of a document (N = 8) | 3 | 4 | 1 |
Yes, but not in the form of a document (18) | 10 | 4 | 4 |
No (N = 12) | - | 5 | 7 |
The stage of the acquisition process at which the integration strategy was created | |||
Pre-transaction phase (N = 1) | 1 | - | - |
Transaction phase (N = 0) | - | - | - |
Post-transaction phase (N = 25) | 12 | 8 | 5 |
Implemented Post-Transaction Integration Model | Level of Satisfaction with the Transaction | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enterprises Related through Interlocking | Unrelated Enterprises | |||||
High | Moderate | Undetermined | High | Moderate | Undetermined | |
Dynamic-centralized model (N = 13) | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | - |
Moderately dynamic decentralized model (N = 13) | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
Inertial-decentralized model (N = 12) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
Total | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 2 |
Criterion for Assessing the Post-Acquisition Integration Process | Evaluation of the Importance of the Criterion | |
---|---|---|
Personally Related Enterprises | Unrelated Enterprises | |
Experience in acquisition transactions | High | Moderate |
Acquisition approach (strategy/market opportunity) | High | Moderate |
Transaction motivation | High | High |
Dynamics of integration activities | High | Moderate |
Possession of an integration plan | High | Moderate |
Form of integration (centralized/decentralized) | High | High |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stankiewicz-Mróz, A. Influence of Interlocking Directorates on Integration after the Acquisition of Warsaw Stock Exchange—Listed Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246955
Stankiewicz-Mróz A. Influence of Interlocking Directorates on Integration after the Acquisition of Warsaw Stock Exchange—Listed Companies. Sustainability. 2019; 11(24):6955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246955
Chicago/Turabian StyleStankiewicz-Mróz, Anna. 2019. "Influence of Interlocking Directorates on Integration after the Acquisition of Warsaw Stock Exchange—Listed Companies" Sustainability 11, no. 24: 6955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246955