Is speed of integration really a success factor of mergers and acquisitions? An analysis of the role of internal and external relatedness

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Challenge of Integration: A Review of the M&A Integration Literature (2017, background): “Tight integration might imply a loss in customer loyalty and market share (Homburg and Bucerius 2006; Kato and Schoenberg 2014) and, in general, decrease employee retention (Angwin 2004b; Angwin and Meadows 2009; Very et al. 1997).”
Synergy Sources, Target Autonomy, and Integration in Acquisitions (2013, background): “Some authors propose that the timing issue is a third important dimension of the implementation process (e.g., Homburg & Bucerius, 2006).”
M&A and innovation: The role of integration and cultural differences—A central European targets perspective (2016, methodology): “Due to the constantly low success rates of about 40–60 percent (Homburg & Bucerius, 2006), it must be stated that the key determinants of post-acquisition performance still remain unclear (Weber, Tarba, & Reichel, 2011a; tion: The role of integration and cultural differences—”
Mergers & acquisitions research: A bibliometric study of top strategy and international business journals, 1980–2010 (2014, background): “…al., 1988), decrease dependency on a set of consumers (Chatterjee, 1986), - 21 - the ability to increase prices for consumers (Hitt et al., 1990), benefit from cost reductions and economies of scale (Homburg & Bucerius, 2006) or an effective coordination of resources (Chatterjee & Lubatkin, 1990).”