Mergers and group status: The impact of high, low and equal group status on identification and satisfaction with a company merger, experienced controllability, group identity and group cohesion

Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 203-217

  Fischer, Peter ^a   Greitemeyer, Tobias ^a   Omay, Suat Ilkay ^a   Frey, Dieter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Controllability; Group cohesion; Group status; Identification; Merger; Satisfaction; Social identity

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250008263     PISSN: 10529284     EISSN: 10991298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/casp.874     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. 3rd European Survey on Working Conditions. (2000). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [Online]. Available directory: www.eurofound.ie/publications/files/ EF0121EN.pdf.
2. Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers' turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039.
3. Archer, R. P. (1979). Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 617-626.
4. Bae, S. C., & Aldrich, H. S. (2000). Mergers of equals in the U.S. banking industry: A performance analysis. Joint 2000 ASAC-IFSAM International Conference, Montreal, Canada. Available directory: http://www.kif.re.kr/ps/ jjkwon/link/0004.pdf.
5. Bourhis, R. Y., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 119-135). London: Academic.
6. Buono, A. F., Bowditch, J. L., & Lewis, J. W. (1985). When cultures collide: The anatomy of a merger. Human Relations, 38, 477-500.
7. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The cultural compatibility in successful organizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 57-70.
8. Covin, T. J., Sightler, K. W., Kolenko, T. A., & Tudor, R. K. (1996). An investigation of postacquisition satisfaction with the merger. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 125-137.
9. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
10. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
11. Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. J., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123-140.
12. Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233-246.
13. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, D. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778.
14. Gaertner, S. L., Bachman, B. A., Dovidio, J., & Banker, B. S. (2001). Corporate mergers and stepfamily marriages: Identity, harmony, and commitment. In M. A. Hogg& D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational context (pp. 265-282). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
15. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
16. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity: Recatecorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The European review of social psychology, (Vol. 4, 1-26). London: Wiley.
17. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271-290.
18. Ganster, D. C. (1989). Worker control and well-being: A review of research in the workplace. In S. Sauter, J. Hurrell, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health. (pp. 3-24). New York: Wiley.
19. Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., Nürnberg, C., Frey, D., & Stahlberg, D. (2006). Psychologische Erfolgsfaktoren bei Unternehmenszusammenschlüssen: Der Zusammenhang von aktueller Übernahmeposition, Identifikation mit der Organisation, erlebter Kontrolle und subjektivem Wohlbefinden der Mitarbeiter/innen [Psychological factors of merger success: The association between merger group status, identification with the organization, experienced controllability, and subjective well-being of the employees]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 50, 9-16.
20. Hertel, G., & Kerr, N. L. (2001). Priming in-group favoritism: The impact of normative scripts in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 316-324.
21. Hunt, J. W. (1987). Hidden extras: How people get overlooked in takeovers. Personnel Management, 19, 24-27.
22. Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11, 145-163.
23. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1481-1492.
24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2002). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
25. Joslin, B. (1990). Anatomy of a merger. Business Quarterly, 55, 25.
26. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.
27. Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relationships and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 191-228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
28. 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, 103-123.
29. Manning, F. J., & Ingraham, L. H. (1987). An investigation into the value of unit cohesion in peacetime. In G. Belenky (Ed.), Contemporary studies in combat psychiatry: Contributions in military studies. No.62 (pp. 47-67). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
30. Marks, M. L. (1994). Regrouping after downsizing. In A. K. Korman, & Associates (Eds.), Human dilemmas in work organizations (pp. 125-148). NY: The Guilford Press.
31. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
32. Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.
33. Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 19, 2-21.
34. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfiled, MA: Pitman.
35. Raquib, M. A., Musif, M. P. B., & Mohamed, M. B. (2003). Relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions for small and medium companies: A thoughtful analysis from the viewpoint of challenges of changes. Asia Pacific Management Review, 8, 99-112.
36. Scheepers, D., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). The emergence and effects of deviants in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 611-617.
37. Schweiger, D., & DeNisi, A. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135.
38. Senn, L. (1989). Culture. In S. L. Key (Ed.), The Ernst & Young management guide to mergers and acquisitions (pp. 229-244). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
39. Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.
40. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
41. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity: Theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24), Chicago: Nelson.
42. Terry, D. J., & O'Brien, A. (2001). Status, legitimacy, and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 271-289.
43. Terry, D. J., Carey, C. J., & Callan, V. J. (2001). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 267-280.
44. van Knippenberg, A., & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in intergroup relations. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 17-23). London: Harvester Wheatheaf, and New York: Prentice Hall.
45. van Knippenberg, D., & van Leeuwen, E. (2001). Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of continuity as the key to postmerger identification. In M. A. Hogg, & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational context (pp. 249-264). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
46. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 233-252.