Clicca qui per scaricare

Post-acquisition integration process: use a stick or a carrot? A sensemaking-sensegiving perspective
Autori/Curatori: Martina Gianecchini 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2017 Fascicolo: 2  Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  23 P. 45-67 Dimensione file:  258 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SO2017-002003
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As) are a relevant phenomenon in global eco-nomic scenario. Expected value is realized in M&As, first, if there is a well-executed integration; strategic goals are realized the moment a deal closes, but fi-nancial goals require a subsequent effort. Research on post-acquisition integration processes, which gained traction in the late 1980s, has ever since attracted broad research interest. The aim of this paper is to analyse a case study of the post-acquisition integration process from a sensemaking-sensegiving perspective. The case study is explorative and longitudinal in nature and it illustrates a situation, whereas a procedural integration between two firms is achieved at the expense of human integration. The following question guides this research: How do sense-making and sensegiving unfold in the first period (i.e., 100 days) of a post-acquisition integration process? Adding to the extant literature on post-acquisition integration, the analysis demonstrates the importance of reconciling sensemaking trajectories to avoid contradictions between acquiring and acquired companies’ perspectives, and it identifies triggers that enable divergent sensemaking.

Le operazioni di Fusione e Acquisizione (Merger & Acquisition) sono un fenomeno rilevante nello scenario economico globale. Numerosi però sono i casi di fallimento spesso imputati a una mancata integrazione organizzativa seguente all’operazione. Il presente studio applica una prospettiva cognitivista (sensemaking-sensegiving) al processo di integrazione che ha seguito il processo di acquisizione di un’azienda italiana da parte di una multinazionale americana. Questa integrazione, che si può definire di successo da un punto di vista operativo di integrazione tra procedure, ha mostrato però alcune difficoltà nell’integrazione tra le persone delle due aziende. Attraverso la prospettiva cognitivista è stato possibile evidenziare come queste difficoltà siano collegate a una diversa interpretazione (divergent sensemaking) dei reciproci comportamenti e azioni (sensegiving). Questa diversità di interpretazione è stata inizialmente originata da una scarsa e poco efficace comunicazione del piano di integrazione da parte della multinazionale americana e successivamente dall’utilizzo di alcune tradizionali strategie di supporto, che sono state intese in maniera opposta dagli attori coinvolti. L’analisi presentata contribuisce alla letteratura sull’integrazione post-acquisizione che si è concentrata sugli strumenti e gli effetti del processo, ma raramente sul suo svolgimento.
Keywords: Cambiamento organizzativo, post-acquisizioni, sensemaking, resistenza al cambiamento.

  1. Angwin, D. (2004), “Speed in M&A Integration: The First 100 Days”, European Management Journal, 22(4): 418-430.
  2. Balogun, J. (2006), “Managing change: Steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated outcomes”, Long Range Planning, 39(1): 29-49.
  3. Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., Håkanson, L. (2000), “Managing the post‐acquisition integration process: How the human integration and task integration processes interact to foster value creation”, Journal of Management Studies, 37(3): 395-425.
  4. Bower, J. L. (2001), “Not All M&As Are Alike-and That Matters”, Harvard Business Review, 3: 92-101.
  5. Cartwright, S., Cooper, C. L. (1995), “Organizational marriage:“hard” versus “soft” issues?”, Personnel Review, 24(3): 32-42.
  6. Cartwright, S., Schoenberg, R. (2006), “Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent advances and future opportunities”, British Journal of Management, 17: S1-S5.
  7. Cassell, C., Symon, G. (Eds.). (2004), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
  8. Clark, E., Geppert, M. (2011), “Subsidiary integration as identity construction and institution building: A political sensemaking approach”, Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 395-416.
  9. Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Thomas, J. B. (2010), “Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3): 397-438.
  10. Deloitte (2016), M&A Trends Report 2016, Research report, Available from: [ mergers-acquisitions-report-trends-2016.pdf]. Last access: 10/11/2016.
  11. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
  12. Gioia, D.A., Chittipeddi, K. (1991), “Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation”, Strategic Management Journal, 12(6): 433-448.
  13. Gomes, E., Angwin, D. N., Weber, Y., Yedidia Tarba, S. (2013), “Critical success factors through the mergers and acquisitions process: revealing pre- and post-M&A connections for improved performance”, Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(1): 13-35.
  14. Goulet, P. K., Schweiger, D. M. (2006), Managing culture and human resources in mergers and acquisitions. In Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (Eds.). Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  15. Harding, D., & Rouse, T. (2007), “Human due diligence”, Harvard Business Review, 85(4): 124-31.
  16. Haspeslagh, P.C., Jemison, D.B. (1987), “Acquisitions--Myths and Reality”, Sloan Management Review, 28(2): 53-58.
  17. Haspeslagh, P.C, Jemison, D.B. (1991), Managing acquisitions. Creating value through corporate renewal, New York, The Free Press.
  18. Hubbard, N., Purcell, J. (2001), “Managing employee expectations during acquisitions”, Human Resource Management Journal, 11(2), 17-33.
  19. Kavanagh, M. H., Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006), “The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger”, British Journal of Management, 17(S1): S81-S103.
  20. King, D., Dalton, D., Daily, C., Covin, J. (2004), “Meta‐analyses of post‐acquisition performance: Indications of unidentified moderators”, Strategic Management Journal, 25(2): 187-200.
  21. Kostova, T., Roth, K. (2002), “Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects”, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215-233.
  22. Larsson, R., Finkelstein, S. (1999), “Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization”, Organization Science, 10(1): 1-26.
  23. Maitlis, S. (2005), “The social processes of organizational sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, 48(1): 21-49.
  24. Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.
  25. Maitlis, S., Lawrence, T. B. (2007), “Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 57-84.
  26. Marmenout, K. (2010), “Employee sensemaking in mergers: How deal characteristics shape employee attitudes”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(3): 329-359.
  27. Meglio, O., Risberg, A. (2010), “Mergers and acquisitions—Time for a methodological rejuvenation of the field?”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1): 87-95.
  28. Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., Kroon, D. (2013), “Giving sense to and making sense of justice in postmerger integration”, Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 256-284.
  29. PwC (2017), PwC’s 2017 M&A Integration Survey Report, Research report. Available from: Last access: 24/09/2017.
  30. Rouleau, L. (2005), “Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day”, Journal of Management Studies, 42(7): 1413-1441.
  31. Shrivastava, P. (1986), “Postmerger integration”. Journal of Business Strategy, 7(1): 65-76.
  32. Stahl, G. K., Angwin, D. N., Very, P., Gomes, E., Weber, Y., Tarba, S. Y., ... Durand, M. (2013), “Sociocultural integration in mergers and acquisitions: Unresolved paradoxes and directions for future research”, Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(4): 333-356.
  33. Stahl, G. K., Larsson, R., Kremershof, I., Sitkin, S. B. (2011), “Trust dynamics in acquisitions: A case survey”, Human Resource Management, 50(5): 575-603.
  34. Steigenberger, N. (2016), “The Challenge of Integration: A Review of the M&A Integration Literature”, International Journal of Management Reviews (
  35. Vaara, E. (2003), “Post‐acquisition integration as sensemaking: glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization”, Journal of Management Studies, 40(4): 859-894.
  36. Vaara, E., Monin, P. (2010), “A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions”, Organization Science, 21(1): 3-22.
  37. Van Maanen, J. (1979), “The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 539-550.
  38. Weber, M. S., Thomas, G. F., Stephens, K. J. (2015), “Organizational disruptions and triggers for divergent sensemaking”, International Journal of Business Communication, 52(1): 68-96.
  39. Weber, Y., Fried, Y. (2011), “Guest editors' note: The dynamic of employees' reactions during postmerger integration process”, Human Resource Management, 50(6): 777-781.
  40. Weick, K. E. 1995, Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  41. Yin, R. K. (2003),Case study research: design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martina Gianecchini, Le integrazioni post-acquisizione: meglio il bastone o la carota? Il processo di integrazione in una prospettiva di sensemaking in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 2/2017, pp. 45-67, DOI:10.3280/SO2017-002003


FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche