Puranam, Singh, Chaudhuri (2009)

Question 1

Post-merger integration can destroy the innovative capabilities that made the organization attractive to acquire

Answer 1

Short-term costs: the cost of processes by which structural integration is achieved
Long-term costs: ’loss of autonomy’ effect, lower productivity and motivation, free riding. Changes can alter valuable organizational routines and thus disrupt capabilities

Question 2

Types of Interdependency:

Answer 2

• Pooled, all provide to one
• Sequential, process interdependency
• Reciprocal, two ways, feedback and forward

Question 3

Finding common ground:

Answer 3

• Common ground can give rise to tacit or informal coordination i.o structural integration which uses authority and procedures for coordination
• coordination based on pre-existing common ground is not subject to the disruption effects that accompany structural integration, because no substantial changes to the formal organization are necessary.

Question 4

Supported hypotheses

Answer 4

H1: (SUP) Structural integration is more likely in technology acquisitions, when the acquisition is motivated by obtaining a component technology (rather than a standalone product).

H2: (SUP) The existence of high levels of common ground between individuals from the acquiring and acquired organizations lowers the likelihood that component technology acquisitions will be structurally integrated.

Question 5

Key message

Answer 5

• interdependence helps explain why acquirers pursue post-merger integration in technology acquisitions despite the significant disruptions it is know to cause
• Much like absorptive capacity common ground represents an instance in which knowledge overlap helps with the acquisition of non-overlapping knowledge