Thesis Proposal
tippy0410
Material-_3Yalabik2013Mergersandacquisitionsdoesorg.pdf
Mergers and acquisitions: does organizational socialization matter?
Zeynep Y. Yalabik*
School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK
(Received 20 September 2012; final version received 31 May 2013)
This study investigates the relationship between the helpfulness of organizational socialization practices and organizational commitment (OC) during the post-merger integration period. Drawing on questionnaire data collected from two acquired firms in Turkey, the results show that training programs have a positive impact while observa- tion and social activities have a negative impact on the OC of employees during the post-merger integration period. The implications for human resource development field are specifically discussed.
Keywords: mergers and acquisitions; information acquisition; organizational socialization; OC; HRD
Introduction
Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are major change events that require specific focus on human resources management (HRM) (Marmenout 2011; Shook and Roth 2011). However, M&As often result in failure because of HRM problems during the post-merger integration period (Marks and Mirvis 2001; Weber and Tarba 2010). There is evidence that the success of M&As increases if human resource development (HRD) is taken into consideration starting from the due diligence period (McIntyre 2004; Waight 2004). However, the importance of this HRD contribution has been only recognized recently and is in need of further research (Jeris, Johnson, and Anthony 2002; Kongpichayanond 2009; Waight 2004).
McIntyre (2004) argues that to increase the success rates of M&As, HRD should be part of the planning and integration process, and the role of HRD should be expanded beyond performance management. Due to the uncertainty the merger event creates, the main concern of employees is to obtain information as soon as they hear about the merger (Michaela and Vena 2012; Schweizer and Patzelt 2012). HRD professionals, thus, must address the needs and concerns of employees about gaining consistent and adequate information during and after the merger. While various studies emphasize the importance of communication and learning in the M&As context (Grotenhuis and Weggeman 2002; Schweiger and DeNisi 1991), we know little about how employees acquire their informa- tion following a merger event. The organizational socialization (OS) is a ‘learning process’ through which the employees acquire information about how to perform their job and fit into their organization (Ghosh, Reio, and Bang 2013, 171). Information acquisition is crucial since how employees learn during the socialization process impacts their future attitudes and behaviour (Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks 2007; Bauer et al. 2007).
Once employees hear about the merger, they immediately start thinking about ‘what they want’, ‘where they are going’ and ‘how the deal impacts them’ (Daniel 1999). They
*Email: [email protected]
Human Resource Development International, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2013.813739
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
usually start feeling lost, angry, anxious, stressed, confused and insecure and worrying about their future (e.g. Cartwright, Tytherleigh, and Robertson 2007). Such mindsets negatively affect employees’ commitment and job satisfaction (e.g. Pucik and Evans 2004; Schweiger and DeNisi 1991). The merging organizations, hence, are concerned about how to keep their employees attached to the merged organization (Carey, Ogden, and Roland 2004; Pucik and Evans 2004).
This study focuses on the relationship between the perceived helpfulness of OS practices – as information acquisition sources – and OC during the post-merger integra- tion period. The OS process is an important part of workplace learning (e.g. Louis 1980; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Saks and Ashforth 1997), and thus HRD (Garavan 2007; Korte 2009). OS is necessary for employees to understand the changing and new aspects of their organizations and jobs during the post-merger integration period.
HRD focuses on learning and development of both employees and organizations (Garavan, Heraty, and Barnicle 1999; Jacobs and Washington 2003; McGoldrick, Stewart, and Watson 2001; van der Sulis 2007). ‘Need and expectations of learning’ are the key concerns of HRD field (Garavan, McGuire, and O’Donnell 2004, 419). OS is an important part of HRD since it contributes to the development of expertise and performance of employ- ees (Korte 2010, 40). HRD professionals are expected to ‘enhance employees’ capacity to learn; to help employees to overcome the barriers to learning; and to help organizations to create a culture that promotes learning’ (Watkins 1995, cited in Barrie and Pace 1998). Upon entering an organization, employees continuously acquire information about their organiza- tion, job and role, which contributes to three types of learning: organizational knowledge, task mastery and role clarity (Morrison 2002). As the merger event leads to change in their organization and job, HRD professionals have to understand and manage how employees acquire information on these aspects during the post-merger integration period.
The merging organizations are full of uncertainty and missing information, and any misunderstanding or misinterpretations by employees might result in the development of learning in an unintended direction. Information refers to the flow of meaningful messages gathered from various sources (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Information acquisition contributes to learning and knowledge creation, which takes a long time to develop (Bauer, Morrison, and Callister 1998; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992). During the post- merger integration period, HRD professionals are key agents of knowledge management, which results from the interaction between formal and informal learning processes (Kongpichayanond 2009; McIntyre 2004; Waight 2004). The OS practices are the tools that drive learning of employees as they help employees to acquire information about their organization and job (Bauer, Morrison, and Callister 1998; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Saks and Ashforth 1997). The focus in this current study is on the following OS practices: supervisors, training programs, orientation programs, written materials, coworkers, obser- vation and social activities. Even though it is not a formally defined OS practice in the literature, ‘HRM Department’ is included due to the repeated importance of HRM in the M&As literature (e.g. Pucik and Evans 2004; Shook and Roth 2011).
To our knowledge, socialization theory has not yet been applied to the M&As context. Only the study by Hart, Miller, and Johnson (2003) examines the role of socialization during a restructuring period. Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2006, 493) explain that the increased number of ‘workplace interventions, such as mergers, require additional socia- lization of employees’. Understanding whether employees prefer certain information acquisition practices during the post-merger integration process adds to our knowledge of how employees respond to the merger and how they adopt to the newly merged organization.
2 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
The rest of the paper explains the link between OS process and OC in M&As context. A survey administered in Turkish organizations is utilized to test the relationship between helpfulness of OS practices and commitment. The importance and implications for HRD literature is discussed throughout the paper.
Literature review and hypotheses
The OS theory and OC
Organizational socialization (OS) is the ‘process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role’ (Van Maanen and Schein 1979, 211). The OS theory specifically explains how newcomers learn and internalize the beliefs, values, orientations, behaviours and skills necessary to fulfil their new roles and perform effectively within an organization (Bauer et al. 2007; Cooper- Thomas and Anderson 2006; Saks and Ashforth 1997; Van Maanen and Schein 1979). Newcomers continuously seek information to learn the characteristics of their new organization and job (Louis 1980; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Saks and Ashforth 1997). The OS provides employees significant information about the appropriate roles and behaviours in their organization and job (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Saks and Ashforth 1997). By around the ninth month, newcomers master such information, which turns into learning (Louis 1980).
‘How’ and ‘what’ newcomers learn during the OS process impacts their attitudes and behaviours (Bauer et al. 2007; Korte 2009; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Saks, Uggerslev, and Fassina 2007). Organizational commitment (OC) is one of the most studied outcomes in the OS literature (Bauer et al. 2007). OC is ‘a psychological link’ between an employee and his/her organization that makes it less likely that the employees voluntarily leave the organization (Allen and Meyer 1996, 252). OC could be affective, normative and con- tinuous (Allen and Meyer 1990, 1996). The most researched dimension is the affective commitment due to its significant relationship with employee retention and turnover (Meyer et al. 2002). The affective OC is defined as an ‘emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization’ (Meyer et al. 2002, 21). The employees with high affective commitment perceive that they belong to their organization and they stay with it because they want to.
As the merger event increases anxiety and stress, the OC of employees decreases (Cartwright, Tytherleigh, and Robertson 2007; Ozag 2006; Schweiger and DeNisi 1991). Overcoming employees’ perceptions of uncertainty, which causes negative feelings and emotions, is crucial to increase employees’ OC during the post-merger integration (Michaela and Vena 2012; Schweizer and Patzelt 2012). The committed employees support organizational efforts and contribute to the success of the merged organization (Nikolaou, Vakola, and Bourantas 2011).
Before the link between OS practices and OC is hypothesized in the context of M&As, it is important to explain why the employees of merging organizations need socialization. Two reasons are discussed: reality shock and boundary crossing. Both reasons emphasize why information acquisition and learning are inevitable following an organizational change. As newcomers try to make sense of their new organizational environment, they experience ‘reality shock’ as a result of facing an ambiguity and uncertainty as well as lacking the necessary reference points in the new setting (Louis 1980). The employees of the merging organizations also face a highly uncertain environment and they are expected to become a member of the new organization and
Human Resource Development International 3
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
group as a result of an imposed change (Boeh and Beamish 2007; Clarke and Salleh 2011). Any ‘major passage’ or ‘role change’ – i.e. ‘boundary crossing’– necessitates information acquisition about the organization and the job (Louis 1980). Even experi- enced workers need to become re-socialized as they change their position or organization (Chao et al. 1994). The merger event is a ‘major passage’, which creates an ambiguous and uncertain environment, since the status quo is disrupted by the merger announcement (Seo and Hill 2005; Shook and Roth 2011). Even if employees keep the same positions in the merged organization, the organization they are working in now is not a single organization anymore but the part of or the partner of a second organization. As a result, the employees have to learn the ropes in the merged organization.
Information acquisition: OS practices
The role of information acquisition and the learning process of newcomers are the two key characteristics of the OS (Cooper-Thomas and Anderson 2006; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Saks and Ashforth 1997). Newcomers’ learning during OS process is explained via the uncertainty reduction theory (Berger and Calabrese 1975), which argues that indivi- duals seek and exchange information to reduce uncertainty and to create a predictable environment. The learning process during OS is about ‘how’ the information is acquired (i.e. OS practices) and ‘what’ kind of information is acquired (i.e. OS domains or content areas). Korte (2010, 29) explains that employees need to learn ‘what to do (technical knowledge), how to do it (practical knowledge) and why it is done this way (values and affect)’ during OS. Such learning content is achieved via ‘how’ – or OS practices – which directly contributes to the uncertainty reduction since they provide information in various ways formally and informally (Saks and Ashforth 1997).
The social exchange theory (SET) provides the theoretical framework to understand why OS practices might impact OC. According to SET, as employees receive valuable exchange content from their organizations, they feel obliged and reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviours (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). High-exchange relationships as a result of the ‘norm of reciprocity’ are positively related to OC and job satisfaction (e.g. Tekleab and Chiaburu 2011). Following the SET framework, I argue that if the employees are provided information during the post-merger integration, then they are expected to reciprocate with higher OC to the newly merged organization since acquiring information about their organization and job is of the utmost importance for them to alleviate the negative feelings they experience during this uncertain period.
The OS practices focused in this study are grouped by Louis, Posner, and Powell (1983). The specific OS practices are selected due to their importance and availability to the merging organizations in this study. The common point between the first groups of the OS practices – supervisors, HR department and staff, training programs, orientation and written material – is that they guide the employees in the same direction since they provide structured information and leave no room for speculations.
Supervisors and coworkers are perceived as the most helpful information acquisition sources by newcomers. According to role-making theory, which is rooted in SET, when employees are not clear about their position in an organization, they clarify their role by interacting and exchanging information with other organizational members such as their supervisors and coworkers (Graen 1986). The supervisors and coworkers help newcomers to acquire any relevant information, to interpret such information and to deal with the any difficulties faced (Hart 2012; Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Morrison 1993). If super- visors are not perceived as available and helpful, newcomers feel insecure, and their OC
4 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
decreases (Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992). In M&As context, the employees expect to acquire information from their supervisors as supervisors are more likely to be informed about the merger’s consequences than the employees (Boeh and Beamish 2007; Seo and Hill 2005).
It is only natural that the employees might also expect support and information from the HRM department given that this department has been one of the most important information sources for them since their joining in the organization (Tsui 1987). However, in the OS literature, the HRM department is not considered as an information acquisition source perhaps due to the fact that HRM department is responsible for managing new- comers’ orientation and training programs, which are considered as separate sources in the OS literature. During post-merger integration, however, the HRM department is expected to go beyond only providing orientation and training programs. It is also expected to manage employees’ attitudes and behaviours, thus, the involvement of HRM department in the merger process is crucial for future success (Daniel and Metcalf 2001; Pucik and Evans 2004). The role of HRM department in shaping the OC of employees after a merger is explored in this study.
The training and orientation programs provide newcomers the relevant and structured information regarding their job and the organization so that their anxiety and uncertainty diminish (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Saks 1996). In the SET framework, the employees supported via training and orientation programs are expected to reciprocate such support with positive attitudes and behaviour. The employees who are exposed to a training program become socialized sooner than the employees who are left on their own to infer organizational characteristics over time (Klein and Weaver 2000). The helpfulness of the formal training programs positively impact newcomers’ OC (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Nelson and Quick 1991; Saks 1996). As training and orientation programs are the most common, formal socialization practices employed by organizations, the merging organizations also focus on these programs to structurally guide their employees (Schweiger and Lippert 2005). Both training and orientation programs are expected to increase employees’ OC during the post-merger integration period since they provide formal and structured information.
Written materials such as organizational brochures, booklets and newsletters might be used to shape employees’ expectations after the merger. It should be noted that the benefits of such materials to newcomers are not explored in detail in the OS literature. However; since organizations continuously depend on them, they are viewed as potential helpful sources (Cooper-Thomas and Anderson 2006). The written information revealed through company intranet, e-mail messages, etc. provide the immediate, formal and structured information employees need during the integration period. The written materi- als help employees to deal with the uncertainty since such sources provide uniform and formal information.
Following the uncertainty reduction theory and the SET, I hypothesize that merging organizations should depend on the OS practices of supervisors, HR department and staff, training programs, orientation and written materials to decrease uncertainty and ambiguity since these sources provide formal and structured information. During the integration period, the merging organizations cannot afford to let their employees find their own information since there is need for immediate action (Shimizu et al. 2004). If the newly merged organizations would like their employees to feel emotionally attached to them, then they should support their employees by providing the information their employees strive for. Therefore, it is hypothesized that during the post-merger integra- tion period,
Human Resource Development International 5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
H1a – H1b: If employees perceive their supervisors and the HRM department/staff as helpful, their organizational commitment will be higher.
H2a – H2b: If employees perceive training and orientation programs as helpful, their organizational commitment will be higher.
H3: If employees perceive written sources as helpful, their organizational commitment will be higher.
The second set of hypotheses is about the negative impact of OS practices – coworkers, observation and social activities – on OC. The common point between these OS practices is that the amount of information provided depends on each employee’s active role and exchange. In addition, the information acquired through these OS practices can’t be fully controlled by organizations (Cooper-Thomas and Anderson 2006). As explained, accord- ing to the role-making theory, employees interact with their coworkers to clarify their positions in their organization. The exchanges between newcomers and their coworkers provide substantial information and support to the newcomers (Hart 2012; Louis 1980; Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Morrison 1993). Newcomers view coworkers as their main information source and support compared to the formal orientation programs (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992). Coworkers help newcomers to socialize effectively because of their previous experience in the organization and their awareness of what is expected, and as a result, they impact newcomers’ attitudes and behaviours (Anakwe and Greenhaus 1999; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992). However, when there is a merger, all employees are surrounded by the same level of uncertainty, which is likely to limit effective information exchange among coworkers.
Observation and social activities are among the least researched OS practices as information acquisition sources. Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) have found that observa- tion is perceived as a helpful information source compared to the coworkers and super- visors; however, their study is the first to support this relationship. They also find a positive relationship between observation and OC. While observation does not create a direct exchange between employees as discussed by the SET, employees observe the exchange relationships which might contribute to uncertainty reduction. Similarly, social activities are part of the organizations. The information exchanged during social activ- ities contributes to the learning process of the employees; however, helpfulness of social activities is lower than other sources (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983). In the M&As context, social activities might be seen as information sources since employees are anxious to reduce uncertainty and receive support (Cole, Bruch, and Vogel 2006; Marmenout 2011).
In a nutshell, the OS practices of coworkers, observation and social activities posi- tively contribute to newcomers’ socialization. However, during a change period, it is expected that these OS practices will negatively impact employees’ attitudes. In the M&As context, the interaction with coworkers does not reduce uncertainty since all employees go through the same merger experience. Still, the employees exchange infor- mation to clarify their position and to reduce uncertainty since the coworkers are a source of support (Marmenout 2011). Similarly, the employees continue their observations and being part of social activities. Since employees do not necessarily have more information than their fellow coworkers, depending on coworkers, observation and/or social activities is not expected to positively impact employees’ OC. In addition, the anxiety and the stress the merger event creates might result in exchange of information that might negatively contribute to OC (Marmenout 2011).
6 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
Furthermore, regardless of their previous merger experience, all employees go through the merger process together with similar uncertainty and anxiety since every merger is unique (Daniel and Metcalf 2001; Shook and Roth 2011). The laid-off employees (if there are any) or the employees who are planning to leave the merged organization might give other employees the idea that there is a way out of the current uncertain environment (Seo and Hill 2005). As a result, if the employees of merging organizations perceive their coworkers, observation and social activities as helpful information acquisition sources, then their commitment to the merged organization might decrease. Although employees might acquire substantial information through their interaction with coworkers, observation and social activities, the merging organiza- tions need to depend more on structured OS practices. If the employees are left alone without structured information, their anxiety and uncertainty increase further, causing their attachment to the merged organization to decrease. Therefore, it is hypothesized that during the post-merger integration period,
H4a – H4b – H4c: If employees perceive coworkers, observation and social activities helpful, their organizational commitment will be lower.
Methodology
The cross-sectional data for this study was collected from the non-managerial employees of two acquired Turkish organizations during the post-merger integration period. Foreign organizations invest in Turkey mainly because of the inexpensive labour and Turkey’s key geographic location bridging Europe and Asia (Jennings 1996). The continuing efforts by Turkey to improve the existing standards to become a European Union member indicate its eagerness to adopt Western values.
The SDC Platinum Database was used as the sampling frame. Only the companies that merged in the last two years were selected from the database. Ten companies were named and contacted, and only two organizations agreed on the data collection. Both companies are located in Istanbul, which is the industrial and business hub of Turkey.
The first organization, Firm A, is a manufacturing firm producing glass products for home appliances, such as ovens and refrigerators. This organization was acquired by a German company (i.e. cross-border merger) in 2005. Firm A had a total of 450 employees in two plants. The data was collected from the Istanbul plant, which had 150 non- managerial employees. Forty surveys (27% response rate) were returned. The second organization, Firm B, was acquired by another Turkish firm, (i.e. a domestic merger) in 2006. Firm B was part of a large national bank and provided insurance services with 528 non-managerial employees. The survey was distributed to all non-managerial employees at the end of 2006. Fifty-eight surveys were returned (11% response rate). The final sample size was 98. The HR managers of both firms had confirmed that none of their employees were laid-off due to the merger decision.
The survey was translated and back translated by following the proper procedures. The OC scale in Turkish was provided by Dr. Wasti since she had validated Allen and Meyer’s OC scale in different Turkish organizations (Wasti 1999). The missing data was at random, thus, the missing values for all variables – except demographics ones – were replaced by using the single mean imputation method to increase the power of the statistical analyses (McKnight et al. 2007).
Human Resource Development International 7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
Measures
Dependent variable: OC
A total of 11 items from Allen and Meyer (1990)’s OC scale was used (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.734). A Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was adopted. An example item is ‘One of the few serious consequences of leaving my firm would be the scarcity of available alternatives’. The second-order confirmatory factor analysis revealed an adequate goodness of fit (CMIN = 41.506, df = 41).
Independent variables: helpfulness of OS practices
OS practices were drawn from Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992)’s survey. Eight OS practices were included: supervisors, HRM department/staff, training, orientation, written materials, coworkers, observation and social activities. CEOs and HR managers of both organiza- tions confirmed the availability of these OS practices during the post-merger integration period. OS domain items were drawn from Chao et al. (1994) study to specify the information content acquired through OS practices. The domains focused on were indi- vidual task roles, organizational goals and values, people, organizational politics and language. In addition, two additional domains were created: ‘reason of the merger’ and ‘changes the merger event caused’.
To measure the helpfulness of the OS practices, a table was created. The OS practices (columns) and OS domains (rows) were listed in the table, which as a result had 8 columns (i.e. OS practices) and 21 rows (i.e. OS domains). The respondents were asked to evaluate how helpful each OS practice was perceived to acquire information about domain. A Likert scale of 3 was used (0 = left blank, meaning ‘not helped at all’, 1 = helped a little and 2 = helped a great deal). This way of collecting data (i.e. by using at least a 2 × 2 matrix table) is called ‘Three Mode Data Analysis’, which is reduced to a two-mode data by averaging over subjects (Veldscholte, Kroonenberg, and Antonides 1998). The helpfulness of each OS practice was calculated by taking the average of the scores across all OS domains items. For example, to create ‘helpfulness of coworkers’ (OS practice) variable, the average of all 21 items (OS domain items) is calculated. Finally, eight OS practice variables were created: supervisors (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.945), HR Department (0.954), training (0.947), orientation (0.957), written materials (0.936), coworkers (0.961), observation (0.966) and social activities (0.946).
Control variables
Age was a categorical variable: 18–25, 26–33, 34–41 and ‘42 and above’. The respon- dents were asked to report their age on their last birthday. Two additional age categories – 50–55 and 56 and above – were combined with the previous category to create ‘42 and above’ since there were only two respondents. Gender was a dummy variable (male = 1 and female = 0). The education level was a categorical variable: primary school, middle school, high school, high school specialized in a profession, 2-year university degree, undergraduate degree and master’s degree and higher. The blue-collar workers in Turkey usually graduate from ‘high school – specialized in a profession’ which focuses on specific crafts. The respondents were asked to report the last degree they hold. Tenure was calculated as the difference between the year the respondent started to work for the firm and the year the survey was administered. The firm type was a dummy variable (Firm A = 1 and Firm B = 0).
8 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
The knowledge of the merger was a continuous control variable measured as ‘I know that my Firm A merged with Firm B in year’. The next control variable was the perceived need for socialization. The two items, which were developed for this study, measure the perceived need for socialization (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.813): ‘I had to relearn various aspects of my job (tasks, responsibilities, terminology, etc.)’ and ‘I had to relearn various aspects of the merged firm (goals, values, internal hierarchy, etc.)’. The Likert scale of 1 (definitely no) to 5 (definitely yes) was used for both variables. The last control variable was the OS domain knowledge measured with 14 items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.671). The Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was adopted. The example items are ‘I do not know how to act and behave with my work group’ and ‘I understand the priority of various tasks and assignments my job entail’. As discussed in the ‘literature review’ section, for socialization to occur, there is need for change. The control variables of knowledge of the merger and the need for socialization specifically account for change. The OS domain knowledge variable is included since if the employees think that they master the knowledge in all OS domains, then they might not perceive any of the OS practices included helpful.
Analyses and findings
The descriptive statistics are listed in Table 1. The correlations between the eight OS practices are relatively higher compared to the correlations with the control variables. This is the result of averaging across subjects in order to reduce three-mode data to two-mode (Veldscholte, Kroonenberg, and Antonides 1998). Thus, the multi-collinearity statistics are reported in the regression analyses. The first three hypotheses (H1a to H3) predict that the perceived helpfulness of supervisors, HR department, training, orientation and written material are positively related to the OC. The sources of coworkers, observation and social activities (H4a-b-c) are expected to be negatively related with OC. The impact of each source was analysed in a separate model (Models A to J in Table 2) while controlling for age, gender, education, tenure, merger knowledge, perceived need for socialization, OS domain knowledge and firm dummy.
In Model I, OC was regressed on the control variables. There were three significant effects: gender (β = 0.008, p ≤ 0.01), perceived need for socialization (β = 0.175, p ≤ 0.01) and OS domain knowledge (β = 0.373, p ≤ 0.05). When the independent variables were added (i.e. Model J), none of the control variables had a significant coefficient. This indicates that there was no difference between the respondent characteristics, and between the two firms.
As shown in Table 2, only the training variable (Model A) was positive and statistically significant (β = 0.296, p ≤ 0.05), providing full support for H2a. While the coefficients for supervisors, HR department, orientation, written materials, observation and social activities were in the expected direction, they were not statistically significant. The helpfulness of coworkers variable coefficient was positive but insignificant while it was predicted as negative. It was concluded that the perceived helpfulness of training (β = 0.394, p ≤ 0.1), observation (β = − 0.248, p ≤ 0.1) and social activities (β = − 0.594, p ≤ 0.1) were related to OC. These findings provided marginal support for H2a, H4b and H4c.
The multi-collinearity measures, tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF), were checked. The tolerance measures, which are smaller than 0.10, and the VIF measures, which are higher than 10, are indicators of multi-collinearity (Neter et al. 1996). Considering these values as the cut-off values, it was concluded that multi-collinearity did not exist in the analyses (Model J: Tolerance = from 0.253 to 0.810, VIF = from 1.215 to 3.953).
Human Resource Development International 9
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
T ab le
1 .
D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs .
V ar ia b le
n am
e M ea n
S ta n d ar d
d ev ia ti o n
N 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1 0
11 1 2
1 O C
3 .1 5 7
0 .6 1 8
9 8
1 2
S o ci al
ac ti v it ie s
0 .1 5 7
0 .3 3 3
9 8
0 .1 5 2
1 3
T ra in in g
0 .4 8 8
0 .5 2 8
9 8
0 .4 1 8 * *
0 .5 8 0 * *
1 4
H R d ep ar tm
en t
0 .2 5 3
0 .4 2 6
9 8
0 .3 0 2 * *
0 .7 0 0 * *
0 .5 5 0 * *
1 5
C o w o rk er s
0 .4 6 8
0 .5 7 2
9 8
0 .1 4
0 .5 5 3 * *
0 .4 0 4 * *
0 .5 4 9 * *
1 6
W ri tt en
m at er ia l
0 .3 3 9
0 .4 2 7
9 8
0 .3 2 1 * *
0 .6 2 7 * *
0 .7 1 5 * *
0 .6 0 8 * *
0 .4 2 5 * *
1 7
O b se rv at io n
0 .7 1 0
0 .6 6 3
9 8
0 .0 1
0 .3 8 1 * *
0 .4 0 6 * *
0 .3 6 2 * *
0 .4 0 5 * *
0 .4 8 3 * *
1 8
S u p er v is o r
0 .5 8 2
0 .5 5 1
9 8
0 .2 4 3 *
0 .4 7 9 * *
0 .5 2 8 * *
0 .5 0 8 * *
0 .4 8 3 * *
0 .5 4 0 * *
0 .4 9 8 * *
1 9
O ri en ta ti o n
0 .3 0 5
0 .4 5 5
9 8
0 .2 5 3 *
0 .5 9 1 * *
0 .6 7 2 * *
0 .4 8 5 * *
0 .3 7 7 * *
0 .7 1 3 * *
0 .4 8 5 * *
0 .4 7 6 * *
1 1 0
M er g er
k n o w le d g e
4 .7 0 1
0 .7 6 1
9 8
0 .0 8 5
0 .0 8 8
0 .1 9 4
0 .1 8 1
0 .1 4
0 .1 7 1
0 .2 2 8 *
0 .2 4 9 *
0 .1 5 4
1 11
N ee d fo r O S
2 .4 2 1
1 .0 4 6
9 8
0 .2 8 6 * *
0 .2 1 0 *
0 .2 9 2 * *
0 .3 5 4 * *
0 .1 9 4
0 .2 6 7 * *
0 .0 2 1
0 .1 4 9
0 .1 5 2
− 0 .0 4 2
1 1 2
O S d o m ai n
k n o w le d g e
3 .7 3 4
0 .4 2 7
9 8
0 .2 6 6 * *
0 .0 8 7
0 .3 0 4 * *
0 .0 7 9
0 .0 0 9
0 .2 2 8 *
0 .0 6 9
0 .2 3 1 *
0 .1 7 2
0 .3 0 8 * *
− 0 .0 6 1
1
N o te s: * p ≤ 0 .0 5 .
* * p ≤ 0 .0 1 .
10 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
T ab le
2 .
M u lt ip le
re g re ss io n an al y se s.
V ar ia b le s
A B
C D
E F
G H
I J
A g e
0 .1 1 7
0 .0 9 5
0 .1 1 0
0 .0 9 6
0 .0 9 2
0 .1 0 7
0 .0 9 9
0 .1 1 3
0 .1 0 5
0 .1 9 0
G en d er
− 0 .0 1 9
0 .0 0 4
0 .0 0 4
− 0 .0 0 3
− 0 .0 0 7
0 .0 0 7
0 .0 0 7
0 .0 1 5
0 .0 0 8 *
− 0 .0 6 8
E d u ca ti o n
0 .0 3 3
0 .0 0 2
0 .0 0 9
0 .0 11
0 .0 0 9
− 0 .0 0 1
0 .0 0 2
− 0 .0 0 2
− 0 .0 0 1
0 .0 4 7
T en u re
0 .0 2 2
0 .0 2 8
0 .0 2 0
0 .0 2 7
0 .0 2 7
0 .0 2 8
0 .0 2 9
0 .0 2 9
0 .0 2 8
0 .0 1 4
M er g er
k n o w le d g e
0 .0 1 2
0 .0 3 0
0 .0 3 2
0 .0 3 7
0 .0 2 4
0 .0 4 3
0 .0 3 6
0 .0 5 9
0 .0 4 3
0 .0 1 9
N ee d fo r O S
0 .1 3 5 * *
0 .1 6 5 * *
0 .1 5 2 * *
0 .1 6 7 * *
0 .1 4 2 * *
0 .1 7 6 * *
0 .1 7 0 * *
0 .1 7 8 * * *
0 .1 7 5 * * *
0 .0 8 2
O S d o m ai n k n o w le d g e
0 .2 9 1
0 .3 5 2 *
0 .3 4 2 *
0 .3 6 1 * *
0 .3 7 5 * *
0 .3 7 3 * *
0 .3 7 4 * *
0 .3 7 9 * *
0 .3 7 3 * *
0 .2 6 0
F ir m
d u m m y
0 .0 0 1
− 0 .0 0 1
0 .0 2 9
0 .0 0 3
0 .0 1 5
− 0 .0 3 8
− 0 .0 3 0
− 0 .0 7 9
− 0 .0 3 7
0 .0 6 1
T ra in in g
0 .2 9 6 * *
0 .3 9 4 *
S u p er v is o r
0 .1 1 4
0 .0 7 8
W ri tt en
m at er ia l
0 .2 2 5
0 . 1 4 1
O ri en ta ti o n
0 .1 0 6
0 .0 3 6
H R d ep ar tm
en t
0 .2 0 5
0 .2 9 8
S o ci al
ac ti v it ie s
− 0 .0 1 5
− 0 .5 9 4 *
C o w o rk er s
0 .0 4 5
0 .0 6 6
O b se rv at io n
− 0 .0 9 0
− 0 .2 4 8 *
A d ju st ed
R 2
0 .1 8 0
0 .1 4 0
0 .1 5 0
0 .1 3 6
0 .1 4 8
0 .1 3 1
0 .1 3 2
0 .1 4 0
0 .1 4 3
0 .1 9 2
F Δ
2 .9 9 4 * * *
2 .4 8 9 * *
2 .6 0 3 * *
2 .4 3 6 * *
2 .5 8 7 * *
2 .3 7 5 * *
2 .3 9 1 * *
2 .4 8 1 * *
2 .7 0 8 * *
2 .2 1 4 * *
N 8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
8 3
N o te s: O C is th e d ep en d en t v ar ia b le .
* p ≤ 0 .1 .
* * p ≤ 0 .0 5 .
* * * p ≤ 0 .0 1 .
Human Resource Development International 11
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
Discussion
Employees strive for information about their organization and job following a merger decision to deal with the uncertainty, anxiety and stress the merger event creates (Cartwright, Tytherleigh, and Robertson 2007; Marmenout 2011). However, there is not much known about the information sources the employees depend on after a merger. In this study, it is argued that the types of OS practices perceived as helpful by the employees impact their commitment to the merged organization. The findings specifically suggest that the perceived helpfulness of the training programs increases employees’ OC during the post-merger integration period while the perceived helpfulness of observation and social activities decreases it. Following the uncertainty reduction theory, the findings support that the employees are in need of formal and structured information during the post-merger integration while leaving these employees on their own to make sense of what is going on might impact their attitudes negatively. Overall, it is supported that it is important for merging firms to find ways to effectively share information and commu- nicate with their employees.
Implications for HRD
The first finding, the positive impact of training on commitment during the post-merger period, reemphasizes one of the key roles HRD professionals undertake. Training and development is one of the significant functions HRD professionals manage in organiza- tions (e.g Garavan, Heraty, and Barnicle 1999; McGoldrick, Stewart, and Watson 2001; Weinberger 1998). During times of change, such as mergers, identifying the needs for leadership and/or training the managers become HRD professionals’ main responsibility (McIntyre 2004). The perceived helpfulness of training programs suggests that the employees are also in need of training to deal with change. As emphasized by Holton III (1996, 248), ‘no learning task should be left to incidental learning but rather should be intentional and systematic even when using informal methods’. As a result of interviews with managers and HRD professionals, Waight (2004) shows that HRD professionals are actively involved in training of and communicating with employees after a merger decision. The findings of the current study supports that of Waight (2004) while focusing on the employees’ perspective rather than HRD professionals’, and confirms that training positively impacts employees’ commitment after the merger.
During a merger process, training provided by HRD professionals should be aimed not only at managers but also at employees. It might involve any type of training such as technical as well as leadership. As Waight (2004) argues, the training after a merger event should be beyond solely communicating the merger-related changes. The HRD profes- sionals should lead ‘how’ the employees should acquire information and about ‘what’ aspects of their job and organization during the training programs. The content and duration of the training programs might be reconsidered as well as supported by the written materials to provide consistent information. In addition, HRD professionals might emphasize the supporting role of supervisors, who are one of the key information sources for employees, and offer training to supervisors about how to provide information to and communicate with the employees as well as how to support the employees’ socialization during the integration period. HRD professionals might offer specific details about how to be an effective supervisor during the time of change through coaching programs or leadership counselling. In addition, HRD professionals should encourage frequent and regular interaction between supervisors and employees (Korte 2010).
12 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
The initial interviews with the HR managers of both organizations in this study revealed that the employees were offered training to clarify what to expect after the merger. However, regardless of whether a training program was offered, the employees still found the information collected via observation and social activities helpful, although the information collected via these sources negatively impacted their OC. These findings imply that the information and support sought by the employees has not been fully satisfied by the training programs alone. The employees engage in receiving support from their surroundings via observation and social activities. Learning in organizations is a result of the ‘collaboration, cooperation, mutual support and empathy’ among the employees (Korte 2010, 30). When employees acquire information on their own through observation and social activities, they might probably face the difficulty of receiving key information due to the uncertain environment in the merged organization. They find these sources of informal information helpful; however, the information they receive about the organization, job and role aspects does not contribute to their attachment to the merged organization positively. While HRD professionals should encourage and facilitate inter- action among employees through various social activities (Korte 2009), they should still aim to impact the nature of the information flow.
Both newcomers and the employees of the merging organizations perceive ‘observa- tion’ as a helpful information source although the effect of the observation on the commitment of newcomers and the merging organizations’ employees differ. Observation is a way of learning (Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992), however; in an uncertain environment, such as M&As, it might not create a positive experience for the employees who might feel alone and alienated. Marmenout (2011, 787) explains that during the time of uncertainty, it is difficult for individuals to decide how to react and, thus, they seek support and conformation from their colleagues. Furthermore, the collectivist culture in Turkey might be shaping the link between observation and commitment. In collectivist cultures, social support is sought by employees as the employees define themselves with the group they are part of (Hofstede 1980).
HRD-related activities are sources of ‘creating and reinforcing positive employee perceptions toward an organization’ (Rurkkhum and Bartlett 2012, 168). The employees can observe anybody or any activities that surround them in the organization. For HRD professionals, it might not be possible to directly impact every observation made by employees. Still, HRD professionals might encourage employees to share their views and feelings in feedback or dialogue sessions (e.g. Foster 2010), which might give them information about the observations made by the employees through the process. In addition, rather than controlling the employees’ observation experiences, HRD professionals might aim to control employees’ surroundings so that the type of information that is observed by the employees will have a positive impact on their attitudes. In other words, the aim should be to proactively impact observation experience of employees through organized activities (e.g. Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks 2007). HRD professionals might try to increase the interac- tion between supervisors and coworkers during the change process since employees are more likely to observe their leaders, supervisors and coworkers (e.g. Ghosh, Reio, and Bang 2013; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992). The training of leaders and managers by HRD professionals might increase the perceived helpfulness of observation by employees as it is more likely that the managers will become more effective in dealing with change and with employee expectations during the time of change.
While social activities are not found to be helpful for newcomers (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983), the employees find social activities to be helpful after the merger. During the time of uncertainty, employees are in need of more social support (Cole, Bruch, and Vogel
Human Resource Development International 13
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
2006). As opposed to newcomers, the employees of the merging organizations identify with their pre-merged organization and this feature might bring these employees closer during the post-merger integration. This finding might also suggest that the employees of the merging organizations depend on each other for social support through social activities rather than for acquiring information to clarify their positions in the merged organization. While employees need support from each other after the merger, the social exchange among the employees – which is needed to increase their psychological safety – reinforces the negative feelings of anxiety and stress the merger creates (Marmenout 2011). As a result, the employees’ attitudes are negatively affected since through such social exchange, the negative emotions created by the merger are also communicated.
During post-merger integration, the HRD professionals should recognize the impor- tance of relational structures (Korte 2010). As Scherrer et al. (2010) argue, social activities facilitate further interaction such as ‘corridor’ conversations. However, the current results indicate that social activities should be organized and structured as much as possible so that the exchange of informal, inadequate or incorrect information among employees is limited. Korte (2010) finds that newcomers are in need of building relationships and suggests that HRD professionals should provide explicit and systematic opportunities for newcomers to achieve such aims. Similarly, during post-merger integration, HRD profes- sionals should understand the importance and helpfulness of social activities. They should first identify the possible social activities the employees might engage in. During the time of change, social activities, such as departmental meals, outings or sports, might be encouraged and/or organized by HRD professionals. These types of social activities might also contribute positively to further teamwork (Korte 2010). It is typical to create task forces during the merger process (e.g. Boeh and Beamish 2007). HRD professionals might also aim to encourage social activities within and/or across task forces. Moreover, supervisors might be encouraged by HRD professionals to attend such activities so that they can provide necessary guidance even in an informal environment.
The current study reemphasizes the importance of the involvement of HRD profes- sionals during and after the merger announcement as suggested by previous studies (e.g. Jeris, Johnson, and Anthony 2002; Kongpichayanond 2009; McIntyre 2004; Waight 2004). The HRD professionals’ involvement with and guidance of employees and man- agers is expected to impact bottom line. As Egan (2011) emphasizes, the organizational context is also an important determinant of HRD’s role. The merger event shifts the status quo and increases the uncertainty involved in the organizational context. Learning, development and performance are key parts of the HRD function in organizations and have an impact on organizational performance (MacKenzie, Garavan, and Carbery 2012; Ruona and Gibson 2004). The increased uncertainty necessitates an OS that supports individual learning in organizations (Bauer, Morrison, and Callister 1998; Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Saks and Ashforth 1997), which in turn results in organizational learning and better performance (Korte 2010). Thus, a well-managed socialization process means that HRD practices might positively contribute to organizational performance.
van der Sulis (2007, 100) discusses that continuous individual learning helps organiza- tions to deal with uncertain environments and sustain competitive advantage. The positive impact of OS on individual performance has been supported by previous studies (e.g. Morrison 1993; Saks and Ashforth 1997), and the positive impact of employees’ attitudes on organizational performance is evident as well (e.g. Judge et al. 2001; Ostroff 1992; Taris and Schreurs 2009). In other words, the implications of individual learning that are triggered by the OS process have implications on organizational performance that should be part of strategic management of HRD and recognized by HRD professionals especially at the times
14 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
of change, such as mergers. This means that at least some HRD practices should be prioritized and aligned with the management of the merger event. Such an alignment, as Egan (2011) explains, is expected to strengthen the organizational performance as a result.
As emphasized by Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2012), the HRD practices have important implications for employee perceptions and it is important that organizations recognize this impact when they shape the strategic position of HRD. The involvement of HRD professionals in the merger planning and integration means that the merged organizations are concerned with and can control the knowledge creation in a desired way in the merged organization. In addition, as HRD professionals play an important role in the cultural integration during the merger integration period (e.g. McIntyre 2004; Waight 2004), they can shape such integration by focusing on the OS process.
Limitations
The cross-sectional data in this study is collected from non-managerial employees. Therefore, as in many survey studies, this study is under the threat of common method bias, due to the single source of data. The Harman’s single factor test revealed more than one factor for the variables included in this study, and procedural remedies of psychological separation, adopting different scales as well as using positive- and negative-worded items across the survey have been adopted (for detailed suggestions, please see Podsakoff and Organ (1996) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012)). While the one-factor test and the procedural remedies adopted do not fully eliminate the common method bias, they show that common method bias is not a major source for this study. In order to avoid this bias further, future studies might benefit from obtaining data from both employees and managers and/or via longitudinal data collection. The second limitation is the low response rate. This is because of two factors: approaching employees during a delicate time, such as a merger, and collecting data from Turkey as Turkish businesses tend to be sceptical regarding the confidentiality of data collection and not properly protected against data violation.
The generalization of findings is limited since the data comes from Turkey. Even though the impact of globalization has seriously directed Turkish organizations’ practices towards Western standards, future studies explore the same relationships in different contexts. In addition, inclusion of specific organizational and merger-related character- istics in the model might also help to explain why certain OS practices have been perceived to be helpful. Although the type of merger (cross-border and domestic) does not impact the helpfulness perceptions about the OS practices, future studies might consider the cultural distance between the merging organizations. This interpretation comes from the ‘firm dummy’ variable in the analyses since there were only two firms in the sample. Such differences are important to recognize because every organization develops characteristics, such as organizational culture, that are different from the context that surrounds them (Zucker 1983) and understanding them might facilitate the general- ization of results. Future studies might also consider the socialization of managers since the socialization process managers and non-managerial employees go through before and after a merger decision differs (Seo and Hill 2005). Such differentiation might result in a wider applicability of OS practices and domains in the M&As context.
Conclusion
The application of OS to the M&As context helps us to understand how employees let go of their old roles as a result of an imposed decision (i.e. merger) instead of a choice they
Human Resource Development International 15
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
make on their own as newcomers. This study shows that following a merger decision, the employees perceive training, observation and social activities as helpful information sources. However, the effect these information sources create on employees’ commitment to the merged firm differs depending on the source. It is found that training impacts employees’ commitment positively while observation and social activities affect their commitment negatively.
Even though it was widely researched in the 1990s, recently OS is a more of a neglected topic (Cooper-Thomas and Anderson 2006). The increased mobility in the current workforce highlights the increased need to unfold the OS process in different contexts (Bauer et al. 2007). While this study is not without limitations, its results have direct implications for merging organizations to handle the management of their employ- ees. Moreover, organizations are going through massive lay-offs more recently due to the current economic recession. Even though downsizing is different from a merger, the downsizing organizations might still benefit from this study’s findings to manage the socialization process of ‘survivors’ after downsizing.
Understanding which kind of information is acquired and how it is acquired might help the merging organizations to communicate with and answer the expectations of their employees in a more effective way. Moreover, the overlap among various OS practices in relation to the type of information communicated could be considered in the future studies to direct the focus of HRD professionals. Perceiving HR department not as a helpful source might be indicating that the two organizations in this study have followed the norm during the merger, i.e. they have not included the HR department during the merger process. Future studies should continue exploring the role of HR during a merger event and how such role is perceived by the employees.
Acknowledegments I would like to thank the editor, Prof. Alexandre Ardichvilli, and the three anonymous HRDI reviewers for their many valuable suggestions in the development of this manuscript.
References Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1990. “Organizational Socialization Tactics: A Longitudinal Analysis
of Links to Newcomers’ Commitment and Role Orientation.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 847–858.
Allen, N. J., and J. P. Meyer. 1996. “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: An Examination of Construct Validity.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 49: 252–276.
Anakwe, U. P., and J. H. Greenhaus. 1999. “Effective Socialization of Employees: Socialization Content Perspective.” Journal of Managerial Issue 11 (3): 315–329.
Ashforth, B. E., D. M. Sluss, and A. M. Saks. 2007. “Socialization Tactics, Proactive Behavior, and Newcomer Learning: Integrating Socialization Models.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 70 (3): 447–462.
Barrie, J., and R. W. Pace. 1998. “Learning for Organizational Effectiveness: Philosophy of Education and Human Resource Development.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 9 (1): 39–54.
Bauer, T. N., T. Bodner, B. Erdogan, D. M. Truxillo, and J. S. Tucker. 2007. “Newcomer Adjustment During Organizational Socialization: A Meta-Analytic Review of Antecedents, Outcomes, and Methods.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (3): 707–721.
Bauer, T. N., E. W. Morrison, and R. P. Callister. 1998. “Organizational Socialization: A Review and Directions for Future Research.” Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 16: 149–214.
Berger, C. R., and R. J. Calabrese. 1975. “Some Explorations in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication.” Human Communication Research 1 (2): 99–112.
16 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
Boeh, K. K., and P. W. Beamish. 2007. Mergers and Acquisitions: Text and Cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carey, D. C., D. Ogden, and J. A. Roland. 2004. The Human Side of M&As: Leveraging the Most Important Factor in Deal Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, S., M. Tytherleigh, and S. Robertson. 2007. “Are Mergers Always Stressful? Some Evidence from the Higher Education Sector.” European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 16 (4): 456–478.
Chao, G. T., A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, S. Wolf, H. J. Klein, and P. D. Gardner. 1994. “Organizational Socialization: Its Content and Consequences.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (5): 730–743.
Clarke, N., and N. M. Salleh. 2011. “Emotions and Their Management During a Merger in Brunei.” Human Resource Development International 14 (3): 291–304.
Cole, M. S., H. Bruch, and B. Vogel. 2006. “Emotion as Mediators of the Relations Between Perceived Supervisor Support and Psychological Hardiness on Employee Cynicism.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27 (4): 463–484.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., and N. Anderson. 2006. “Organizational Socialization: A New Theoretical Model and Recommendations for Future Research and HRM Practices in Organizations.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21 (5): 492–516.
Cropanzano, R., and M. S. Mitchell. 2005. “Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.” Journal of Management 31: 874–900.
Daniel, T. A. 1999. “Between Trapezes: The Human Side of Making Mergers and Acquisitions Work.” Compensation and Benefits Management 15 (1): 19–37.
Daniel, T. A., and G. S. Metcalf. 2001. The Management of People in Mergers and Acquisitions. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Egan, T. M. 2011. “Key Intersections Between HRD and Management.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 22 (2): 223–234.
Foster, R. D. 2010. “Resistance, Justice, and Commitment to Change.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 21 (1): 3–39.
Garavan, T. N. 2007. “A Strategic Perspective on Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 9 (1): 11–30.
Garavan, T. N., N. Heraty, and B. Barnicle. 1999. “Human Resource Development Literature: Current Issues, Priorities and Dilemmas.” Journal of European Industrial Training 23 (4): 169–179.
Garavan, T. N., D. McGuire, and D. O’Donnell. 2004. “Exploring Human Resource Development: A Levels of Analysis Approach.” Human Resource Development Review 3 (4): 417–441.
Ghosh, R., T. G. Reio Jr., and H. Bang. 2013. “Reducing Turnover Intent: Supervisor and Co- Worker Incivility and Socialization-Related Learning.” Human Resource Development International 16 (2): 169–185.
Graen, G. B. 1986. “Role-Making Processes Within Complex Organizations.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette, 1201–1245. New York: John Wiley.
Grotenhuis, F. D. J., and M. P. Weggeman. 2002. “Knowledge Management in International Mergers.” Knowledge & Process Management 9 (2): 83–89.
Hart, Z. P. 2012. “Message Content and Sources During Organizational Socialization.” Journal of Business Communication 49 (3): 191–209.
Hart, Z. P., V. D. Miller, and J. P. Johnson. 2003. “Socialization, Resocialization, and Communication Relationships inthe Context of anOrganizationalChange.”Communication Studies 54(4):483–496.
Hofstede, G.. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holton III, E. F. 1996. “New Employee Development: A Review and Reconceptualization.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 7 (3): 233–252.
Jacobs, R., and C. Washington. 2003. “Employee Development and Organizational Performance: A Review of Literature and Directions for Future Research.” Human Resource Development International 6 (3): 343–354.
Jennings, J. 1996. “Global Insurance Opportunities Cited.” National Underwriter 100: 23. Jeris, L. S., J. R. Johnson, and C. C. Anthony. 2002. “HRD Involvement in Merger and Acquisition
Decisions and Strategy Development: Four Organizational Portraits.” International Journal of Training and Development 6 (1): 2–12.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001. “The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.” Psychological Bulletin 127 (3): 376–407.
Human Resource Development International 17
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
Klein, H. J., and N. A. Weaver. 2000. “The Effectiveness of an Organizational-Level Orientation Training Program in the Socialization of New Hires.” Personnel Psychology 53: 47–66.
Kongpichayanond, P. 2009. “Knowledge Management for Sustained Competitive Advantage in Mergers and Acquisitions.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 11 (3): 375–387.
Korte, R. 2010. “First, Get to Know Them: A Relational View of Organizational Socialization.” Human Resource Development International 13 (1): 27–43.
Korte, R. F. 2009. “How Newcomers Learn the Social Norms of an Organization: A Case Study of the Socialization of Newly Hired Engineers.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 20 (3): 285–306.
Louis, M. R. 1980. “Surprise and Sense-Making: What Newcomers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings.” Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 226–251.
Louis, M. R., B. Z. Posner, and G. N. Powell. 1983. “The Availability and Helpfulness of Socialization Practices.” Personnel Psychology 36: 857–866.
MacKenzie, C. A., T. N. Garavan, and R. Carbery. 2012. “Through the Looking Glass: Challenges for Human Resource Development (HRD) Post the Global Financial Crisis–Business as Usual?” Human Resource Development International 15 (3): 353–364.
Marks, M. L., and P. H. Mirvis. 2001. “Making Mergers and Acquisitions Work: Strategic and Psychological Preparation.” Academy of Management Executive 15 (2): 80–94.
Marmenout, K. 2011. “Peer Interaction in Mergers: Evidence of Collective Rumination.” Human Resource Management 50 (6): 783–808.
McGoldrick, J., J. Stewart, and S. Watson. 2001. “Theorizing Human Resource Development.” Human Resource Development International 4 (3): 343–356.
McIntyre, T. M. 2004. “A Model of Levels of Involvement and Strategic Roles of Human Resource Development (HRD) Professionals as Facilitators of Due Diligence and the Integration Process.” Human Resource Development Review 3 (2): 173–182.
McKnight, P. E., K. M. McKnight, S. Sidani, and A. J. Figueredo. 2007. Missing Data: A Gentle Introduction. New York: Guilford Press.
Meyer, J. P., D. J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, and L. Topolnytsky. 2002. “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedent Correlates, and Consequences.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 61 (1): 20–52.
Michaela, J. L., and J. Vena. 2012. “A Dependence-Regulation Account of Psychological Distancing in Response to Major Organizational Change.” Journal of Change Management 12 (1): 77–94.
Morrison, E. W. 1993. “Newcomer Information-Seeking: Exploring Types, Modes, Sources, and Outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal 36: 557–589.
Morrison, E. W. 2002. “Newcomers’ Relationships: The Role of Social Network Ties During Socialization.” Academy of Management Journal 45 (6): 1149–1160.
Nelson, D. L., and J. C. Quick. 1991. “Social Support and Newcomer Adjustment in Organizations: Attachment Theory at Work?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 12: 543–554.
Neter, J., M. H. Kutner, W. Wasserman, and C. J. Nachtsheim. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Irwin, CA: McGraw-Hill.
Nikolaou, I., M. Vakola, and D. Bourantas. 2011. “The Role of Silence on Employees’ Attitudes: The Day After a Merger.” Personnel Review 40 (6): 723–741.
Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ostroff, C. 1992. “The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes and Performance an Organizational Level Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (6): 963–974.
Ostroff, C., and S. W. J. Kozlowski. 1992. “Organizational Socialization as a Learning Process: The Role of Information Acquisition.” Personnel Psychology 4 (4): 849–874.
Ozag, D. 2006. “The Relationship Between the Trust, Hope, and Normative and Continuance Commitment of Merger Survivors.” Journal of Management Development 25 (9): 870–883.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2012. “Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It.” Annual Review of Psychology 65: 539–569.
Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1996. “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects.” Journal of Management 12 (4): 531–544.
Pucik, V., and P. Evans. 2004. “The Human Factor in Mergers and Acquisitions.” In Managing Complex Mergers: Real World Lessons in Implementing Successful Cross-Cultural Mergers and Acquisitions, edited by P. Morosini and U. Steger, 161–187. New York: Prentice Hall.
18 Z.Y. Yalabik
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
Ruona, W. E. A., and Gibson, S. K. 2004. “The Making of Twenty-first Century HR: An Analysis of the Convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD.” Human Resource Management 43 (1): 49–66.
Rurkkhum, S., and K. R. Bartlett. 2012. “The Relationship Between Employee Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Thailand.” Human Resource Development International 15 (2): 157–174.
Saks, A. M.. 1996. “The Relationship Between the Amount and Helpfulness of Entry Training and Work Outcomes.” Human Relations 49 (4): 429–451.
Saks, A. M., and B. E. Ashforth. 1997. “Organizational Socialization: Making Sense of the Past and the Present as a Prologue for the Future.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 51: 234–279.
Saks, A. M., K. L. Uggerslev, and N. E. Fassina. 2007. “Socialization Tactics and Newcomer Adjustment: A Meta-Analytic Review and Test of a Model.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 70 (3): 413–446.
Scherrer, P., L. Sheridan, R. Sibson, M. M. Ryan, and N. Henley. 2010. “Employee Engagement with a Corporate Physical Activity Program: The Global Corporate Challenge.” International Journal of Business Studies 18 (1): 125–139.
Schweiger, D. M., and A. S. DeNisi. 1991. “Communication with Employees Following a Merger: A Longitudinal Field Experiment.” Academy of Management Journal 34 (1): 110–135.
Schweiger, D. M., and R. L. Lippert. 2005. “Integration: The Critical Link in M&AValue Creation.” In Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Culture and Human Resources, edited by G. K. Stahl and M. E. Mendenhall, 17–49. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schweizer, L., and H. Patzelt. 2012. “Employee Commitment in the Post-Acquisition Integration Process: The Effect of Integration Speed and Leadership.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 28: 298–310.
Seo, M., and N. S. Hill. 2005. “Understanding the Human Side of Merger and Acquisition.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41 (4): 422–443.
Shimizu, K., M. A. Hitt, D. Vaidyanath, and V. Pisano. 2004. “Theoretical Foundations of Cross- Border Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review of Current Research and Recommendations for the Future.” Journal of International Management 10: 307–353.
Shook, L., and G. Roth. 2011. “Downsizings, Mergers, and Acquisitions: Perspectives of Human Resource Development Practitioners.” Journal of European Industrial Training 35 (2): 135–153.
Taris, T. W., and P. J. G. Schreurs. 2009. “Well-Being and Organizational Performance: An Organizational-Level Test of the Happy-Productive Worker Hypothesis.” Work & Stress 23 (2): 120–136.
Tekleab, A. G., and D. S. Chiaburu. 2011. “Social Exchange: Empirical Examination of Form and Focus.” Journal of Business Research 64: 460–466.
Tsui, A. S. 1987. “Defining the Activities and Effectiveness of the Human Resource Department: A Multiple Constituency Approach.” Human Resource Management 26 (1): 35–69.
van der Sulis, L. E. C. 2007. “Umbrella for Research into Human Resource Development (HRD).” Human Resource Development International 10 (1): 99–106.
van Maanen, J., and E. Schein. 1979. “Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization.” Research in Organizational Behavior 1: 209–264.
Veldscholte, C. M., P. M. Kroonenberg, and G. Antonides. 1998. “Three-Mode Analysis of Perceptions of Economic Activities in Eastern and Western Europe.” Journal of Economic Psychology 19: 321–351.
Waight, C. L. 2004. “HRD Involvement in the Investigative Phase of a Merger & Acquisition.” International Journal of Training and Development 8 (2): 157–169.
Wasti, S. A. 1999. “Organizational Commitment in a Collectivist Culture: The Case of Turkey.” PhD diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Watkins, K. E. 1995. “The Case for Learning.” The Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings, St. Louis, MO, March 2–5, 1–7.
Weber, Y., and S. Y. Tarba. 2010. “Human Resource Practices and Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions in Israel.” Human Resource Management Review 20 (3): 203–211.
Weinberger, L. A. 1998. “Commonly Held Theories of Human Resource Development.” Human Resource Development International 1 (1): 75–93.
Zucker, L. 1983. “Organizations as Institutions.” In Research in Sociology of Organizations, edited by S. B. Bacharach, 1–47. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Human Resource Development International 19
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
N ew
Y or
k U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 10
:4 2
15 J
ul y
20 13
