Are mergers always stressful? Some evidence from the higher education sector

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 27 October 2014, At: 06:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal of Work andOrganizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Are mergers always stressful?Some evidence from the highereducation sectorProfessor Susan Cartwright a , Michelle Tytherleigh b &Susannah Robertson ca Manchester Business School , Manchester, UKb University of Plymouth , Plymouth, UKc Robertson Cooper Ltd , Manchester, UKPublished online: 02 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Professor Susan Cartwright , Michelle Tytherleigh & SusannahRobertson (2007) Are mergers always stressful? Some evidence from the highereducation sector, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16:4,456-478, DOI: 10.1080/13594320701606391

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701606391

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13594320701606391

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701606391

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Are mergers always stressful? Some evidence from the

higher education sector

Susan CartwrightManchester Business School, Manchester, UK

Michelle TytherleighUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

Susannah RobertsonRobertson Cooper Ltd, Manchester, UK

The disappointing outcomes of many mergers and acquisitions (M&As) havebeen increasingly attributed to the neglect and mismanagement of humanaspects of the activity and the stressful and dysfunctional impact that suchchange events have on the employees involved (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996).M&As in the Higher Education sector are less common than corporate M&Asand have received rather less attention. This study considers the experiences ofemployees involved in the merger of two UK universities. It highlights thestressful potential of the premerger period and the positive role of consultationand involvement.

The continuing high level of merger and acquisition (M&A) activity,coupled with the high failure rate, has led to substantial interest in the causesof M&A underperformance (Cartwright, 2005; Hogan & Overmeyer-Day,1994). Whilst financial and strategic factors are frequently cited reasons asto why M&As fail to deliver the results initially expected by the deal makers(Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006; Cooper & Gregory, 2001; Sudarsanam,

Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Susan Cartwright, Manchester Business

School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]

This article is based on a paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting,

Hilton Hotel, Hawaii, August 2005.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2007, 16 (4), 456 – 478

� 2007 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320701606391

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

2003), the disappointing outcomes of many M&As have been increasinglyattributed to the neglect and mismanagement of the human aspects of theactivity, and the stressful and dysfunctional impact that such change eventshave on the employees involved (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Jick, 1979). Aswell as days lost due to stress-related absence, increased labour turnoverand other withdrawal behaviours, such as lateness and reduced workeffort, are considered to be common negative reactions to M&A stress,which contribute to adversely affect overall M&A performance (Hogan &Overmeyer-Day, 1994).

The human aspects of M&As have been studied from a variety ofperspectives (Stahl & Mendenhall, 2005). Whereas a large body of researchhas focused on the impact of cultural differences between the combiningorganizations (Buono, Bowditch, & Lewis, 1985; Schreyogg, 2006), othershave studied a more extensive range of integration process variables, liketrust (Nikandrou, Papalaxandis, & Bourantes, 2000), communication(Risberg, 1997), learning transfer (Range, 2006), and fairness of treatment(Meyer, 2001). In addition, a rapidly growing literature has focused oninvestigating M&As within a Social Identity Framework (Kleppesto, 1988;van Dick, Wagner, & Lemmer, 2004).

This study examines the experiences of employees involved in auniversity merger from a stress and well-being perspective. Although it islarge corporate mergers that attract the greater attention and make theheadlines in the business press, mergers in the public sector are increasingin frequency throughout the world, particularly in the areas of education,the emergency services, and health. Since the mid-1990s, there has been asteady increase in mergers between Colleges of Further Education, asproviders of post-16 education in the UK. According to Stewart (2003),this activity has been encouraged by the British Government in its drive toachieve cost economies. In contrast, universities or Higher EducationInstitutions (HEIs) have not been subject to the same governmentalpressures to move towards rationalization through collaboration. How-ever, there are financial incentives for such institutions to improvestandards and reputations. Hence, Rowley (1997) suggests that mergersin the HEI sector are more likely to be instigated to enhance academicsubjects and degrees offered and to strengthen their position in thepublished university league tables.

Research evidence suggests that organizational change, more generally, isdifficult to implement and often causes stress, confusion, and reducedproductivity (Koonce, 1991; Nelson, Cooper, & Jackson, 1995). However,the unexpected and nonroutine nature of the M&A event and the associatedscale of changes that follow are considered to set it apart from other formsof organizational change and restructuring, and so increase its stressfulpotential (Schweiger & Ivancevich, 1985). For this reason, it is regarded as

STRESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION MERGERS 457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

presenting a distinct and special challenge to integration management(Cartwright & Cooper, 1996) and HRM professionals.

The announcement of a merger is believed to trigger feelings of loss ofcontrol and uncertainty about what is happening, and promote anxietyabout future job security (Schweiger, Ivancevich, & Power, 1987). The lackof communication and secrecy inherent in the M&A environment can alsolead to uncertainty and speculation amongst employees regarding theleadership and stability of the organization (Hogan & Overmeyer-Day,1994), and may result in an epidemic of employee stress (McHugh, 1995).Furthermore, changes in working practices and cultural differences betweenthe two organizations and disagreements about the direction of futurecultural change is likely to produce tension and integration problems that, inturn, cause acculturation stress (Kavanagh & Ashkansay, 2006; Very,Lubatkin, & Calori, 1998).

Importantly, researchers have highlighted that it is often the expectancyof change and the fears of future survival, rather than the actual changeitself, that trigger merger stress (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; McHugh,1995; Schweiger & Ivancevich, 1985). According to Marks and Mirvis(1997), when faced with the rumour and/or the threat of an impendingM&A, employees tend to ‘‘fear the worst’’ and focus on the potentialpersonal costs rather than the possible gains or benefits. Van Dick, Ullrich,and Tissington (2006) describe this sense of gloom as akin to living under a‘‘black cloud’’. Consequently, the most stressful time for employees is likelyto be the period between learning of the intention to merge and thechange actually being implemented, i.e., during ‘‘organizational limbo’’(Cartwright & Cooper, 2000).

Before describing the study in detail, it is perhaps appropriate to brieflyreview existing studies on stress in higher educational institutions (HEIs)generally and stress specifically in the context of M&As.

STRESS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Stress amongst university staff and the teaching profession more generally(Travers & Cooper, 1996) has attracted considerable concern and mediaattention (Smithers, 2003).

Traditionally, the role of academics has been associated with a con-siderable degree of flexibility, control, and autonomy. However, since the1980s significant changes in the sector have occurred (Trow, 1994). Thesehave resulted in greater demands for accountability, value for money,efficiency, and quality, and an increase in remote and autocratic manage-ment styles (Association of University Teachers [AUT], 1990).Consequently, factors such as autonomy and control, which once

458 CARTWRIGHT, TYTHERLEIGH, ROBERTSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

appeared to motivate and ‘‘buffer’’ staff from high levels of stress, are beingeroded.

A survey conducted in the UK by the Association of University Teachers(2003) reported that 93% of its members were suffering from work-relatedstress and 62% were experiencing ‘‘excessive strain’’. Furthermore, thesurvey found that 27% of respondents were considering changing career andalmost half said that their morale had worsened in the past 2 years. Morerecently, in a national study of 14 UK institutions, Tytherleigh, Webb,Cooper, and Ricketts (2005) found that stress levels amongst academicscompared unfavourably with the general working population and thatacademics were most troubled by job security and fears that their jobs wouldchange in the future.

These results are consistent with other studies conducted in the UK(Doyle & Hind, 1998; Jackson & Hayday, 1994) and internationally(Winefield et al., 2003; Winter, & Sarros, 2002). Such studies have identifiedvarious factors as contributing to academic stress, including excessiveworking hours (Court, 1996), high teaching loads and administrativeburdens (Kinman, 1996), pressure to attract external funds (Winefield et al.,2003), role ambiguity and job insecurity (Winter & Sarros, 2002), poormanagement (Winefield et al., 2003), and lack of recognition and reward(Daniels & Guppy, 1994; Winefield et al., 2003).

EVIDENCE OF M&A STRESS

A small but growing number of studies have found evidence of elevatedstress levels in M&As (Begley, 1998; Gibbons, 1998; Very et al., 1998). Forexample, Marks (1997) found signs of stress, as measured by an increasedincidence of high blood pressure, were present in both friendly and hostileM&As. Comparative to the general working population, significantly higherstress levels were found among employees of an acquired television companyin Hong Kong (Siu, Cooper, & Donald, 1997). Cartwright and Cooper(1993) also found that an abnormally high percentage of managers in afinancial services merger reported mental ill-health scores similar, or higherthan, psychoneurotic outpatients.

Within the context of public sector mergers, McHugh (1995) comparedlevels of psychological health between groups of teachers from nonmergedschools, merged schools, and schools under threat of merger using theGeneral Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg, 1972). She found thatteachers from schools under threat of merger had the poorest levels ofmental health and that both threatened and merged groups had significantlyworse mean scores on the GHQ than those in nonmerged schools. Morerecently, Idel et al. (2003) found that nurses involved in a proposed hospital


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

merger experienced the threat of merger as a significant source of stress,which actually increased in strength postmerger. Gulliver, Towell, and Peck(2002) have also found evidence of elevated stress levels and reduced moraleand job satisfaction in a healthcare merger.

Overall, most studies (e.g., Cartwright, 2005; Cartwright & Cooper, 1993;Covin, Sightler, Kolenleo, & Tudor, 1996) indicate that employees from theacquired company or smaller merger partner are likely to experience morestress because they encounter more negative work-related changes, suffer agreater erosion in their status and autonomy, and generally feel less valuedand more vulnerable than their colleagues in the acquiring company ordominant merger partner. However, sometimes acquired-employees con-sider they gain status and improved social identity by joining with a moreprestigious company and actually experience the event as less stressful thantheir colleagues in the acquiring company (Panchal & Cartwright, 2001;Terry, Callan, & Satori, 1996).

Robino and de Meuse (1985) also found that employees of the acquiredor small merger partner report greater reductions in job satisfaction,particularly in relation to job security, communication, and participation.The quality and frequency of merger communication is considered to playa major role in influencing employees perceptions of the fairness of thechange process (Cartwright, 2005) and reducing anxiety and uncertainty(Schweiger & DeNisi, 1988). Similarly, increasing employee involvementthrough consultation about process implementation has been shown toenhance the likelihood of the acceptance of change (Stahl & Mendenhall,2005).

With few exceptions (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Kavanagh &Ashkanasy, 2006; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1988), most studies investigatingmerger stress have been cross-sectional rather than longitudinal indesign and have based their findings on data collected postmerger. In manycases this has been some months into the procedural and socioculturalintegration process (Cartwright & Hudson, 2000), when employees arealready experiencing changes and the reality of merger. In contrast, littleresearch has sought to assess well-being at the potentially most uncertainand stressful time, i.e., when employees may be anticipating merger andfuture change.

Access to collect data from the merging institutions that form this studywas originally negotiated during the precombination stage, i.e., in themonths following the official announcement that the organizations hadformally agreed to merge but prior to the formation of the merged entity.However, during the data collection period it was subsequently discoveredthat, independent of this investigation, a stress audit of one of the partneringorganizations had been conducted 12 months earlier as part of a nationalstudy. This data had been collected during the period when the two


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

organizations were engaged in ‘‘merger talks’’ and it was strongly speculatedthat a future merger was likely to happen. By combining the two data sets ithas therefore become possible to present some partial insight into the levelsof stress prevailing in the organization prior and subsequent to the mergerannouncement.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Universities A and B were based in the same UK city and had a long historyof collaboration including running a number of joint degree courses andshared student facilities. Both were formed in the early 1800s, althoughUniversity B was significantly larger in size than University A. After manymonths of speculation and discussion, an outline proposal to merge the twoinstitutions was brought before the respective governing bodies in Autumn2002 and received a positive vote. In March 2003, following furtherconsultation and discussion, plans to bring together the two HEIs inAutumn 2004 to create a single institution were confirmed. The resultantmerged university, which came into existence in October 2004, has in excessof 25,000 students and a £500 million turnover. At the time of the merger,University A had approximately 2000 employees and University B hadaround 6000 employees.

Access to collect data, etc.

It was hypothesized that employee stress levels would be higher at thetime of greatest uncertainty Time 1 than Time 2. Furthermore, it washypothesized that health outcomes would be linked to merger attitudes.

METHOD

Time 1—early Summer 2002

University A, the smaller partner, was one of 14 institutions thatparticipated in a national study of stress in tertiary education funded bythe Higher Education Funding Council for England (Tytherleigh et al.,2005). Data was collected during May and June 2002 using the ASSETorganizational stress screening tool (Cartwright & Cooper, 2002). At thattime, merger discussions were well under way and there was intensespeculation about the future of the two organizations.

Sample. Questionnaires were distributed to a stratified random sampleof employees representing academic and research, administrative, clerical,and support staff. The pencil-and-paper questionnaires were sent out by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

University A with a covering letter and a request that these be returnedanonymously in prepaid envelopes direct to the researchers. In total, 676questionnaires were distributed, representing approximately 35% of thetotal population, and 241 completed questionnaires were returned. Thisrepresents a response rate of 32%. Of the respondents, 42% were maleand 58% were female. Sixty-seven questionnaires were received fromacademic/academic related staff and the remainder were returned by clerical/support staff.

Time 2—early Summer 2003

Data was collected from employees of University A and B duringJune 2003 as part of the merger-specific study. This also involved theuse of the ASSET organizational stress screening tool (Cartwright &Cooper, 2002), supplemented by a number of merger-specificitems relating to merger attitudes, the degree of consultation, andcommunication.

Sample. Questionnaires were distributed to a stratified random sampleof employees representing academic and research, administrative, clerical,and support staff. Questionnaires were distributed electronically to themajority of staff across the two institutions with a covering note from theresearchers. A number of administrative and support staff in University Breceived a pencil-and-paper version. At the request of their Trade Unionrepresentatives, respondents returned the electronic questionnaire to asecure host site; those receiving the pencil-and-paper version wererequested to return the questionnaire to the researchers via the internalmail system. In total, 1230 questionnaires were distributed and 336 werereturned, representing an overall response rate of 27%. The response ratefrom employees of University A was 29% (n¼ 122) and for University B itwas 26% (n¼ 214). Of the respondents, 46% were male and 54% werefemale. One hundred and ninety-two questionnaires were returned byacademic/academic-related staff; 138 were returned by clerical/supportstaff. The remainder (six) were returned with missing data relating to jobcategory.

Measures

The instrument used at both data collection points was the ASSET measure(Cartwright & Cooper, 2002) which has proven reliability and validity anda large normative database (Faragher, Cooper, & Cartwright, 2004). Thenormative database consists of over 9000 UK managers, professionals, andwhite collar workers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

ASSET has four main sections:

. Perceptions of your job. This section measures common sources ofstress and consists of 37 items arranged on eight subscales,namely work relationships, work-life balance, overload, job security,control, resources and communication, pay and benefits, and joboverall. Respondents are asked to state how troubled they are byeach stressor on a 6-point Likert rating scale, whereby 1¼ stronglydisagree and 6¼ strongly agree that the item is a source of stress thattroubles them. Hence, high scores are indicative of high levels ofstress.

. Attitudes towards your organization. This section is concerned withemployee engagement and attachment to the organization. It consistsof nine items divided into two scales: commitment of the organizationto the employee and commitment of the employee to the organization.Commitment of the organization to the employee relates to the extentto which employees feel that they are trusted and respected and feelthat it is worth investing extra effort in meeting organizationalobjectives. These items are similarly rated on a 6-point Likert scale,whereby higher scores indicated greater commitment.

. Your health. This section assesses physical and psychological healthover the last 3 months using 19 items arranged on two subscales:physical health and psychological well-being. Respondents arerequired to indicate on a 4-point scale the extent to which they haveexperienced the ill-health symptom or change of behaviour, wherebyhigher scores¼ poorer health.

. Supplementary information. This consists of a number of customizeditems to obtain biographical and demographical information specificto the sample population and included a self-report measure ofproductivity.

In addition, the questionnaire measure administered at Time 2 included athree-item Intention to Leave Scale (Mobley, Horner, & Hollingworth,1978) and five items, specifically designed for the study, assessing mergerattitudes. These items assessed the extent to which individuals con-sidered that the merger was positively beneficial to (a) the individual and(b) the organization, as well as assessing the extent to which employees feltthat they had been consulted about the integration process and thequality and adequacy of the communication they received. Higher scores onthe Intention to Leave scale were indicative of a greater propensity toquit the organization. Higher scores on the five merger items wereindicative of more positive attitudes and greater perceived involvementand consultation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Reliability of the ASSET measure with this sample. A series ofCronbach’s alphas were calculated for each of the questions forming thesubscales of ASSET at both data collection points. At Time 1, reliabilitycoefficients were in the range of .61 – .84, with only two subscales, control(.61) and work-life balance (.64), recording coefficients less than .70. AtTime 2, reliability coefficients were in the range of .60 – .92, with threesubscales, overload (.60), resources and communication (.60), and overalljob (.65), recording coefficients less than .70.

RESULTS

A series of analyses was conducted. This was concerned with:

. comparing the prevailing levels of stress, commitment, and health atTime 1 with normative data

. comparing the levels of stress, commitment, and health at Time 2 withnormative data

. examining any differences between the two merger partners

. examining the relationships between the variables, particularly thoselinked to health outcomes and leaving intentions

. establishing any differences between Time 1 and Time 2(Organization A).

Time 1: Organization A versus normative data

The results for Organization A were compared to the normative data forASSET (general population norms n¼ 9210) using t-tests (adjusted byBonferonni correction) (Table 1). It was found that employees atOrganization A were reporting significantly higher levels of stress asemanating from work relationships (p5 .01) and job security (p5 .01). Inaddition, employees at Organization A were reporting significantly lowerlevels of stress compared to the general working population in respect ofwork-life balance, overload, and overall job. Levels of psychological well-being were comparable with normative data and in terms of physical healththe sample were significantly better than the general working population(p5 .01).

Time 2: Total sample versus normative data

As shown in Table 2, whilst the total sample compared favourably with thegeneral population in terms of most of the sources of stress scales, they didreport significantly greater stress as emanating from job security (p5 .01).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE 1Comparison of ASSET subscales and normative data for University A only at Time 1

ASSET subscales

Organization

A sample mean

(n¼ 222)

General

population

mean

(n¼ 9210)

Significance

levels

Perceptions of your job

Work relationships 21.33 19.23 p5 .01

Work-life balance 10.84 12.49 p5 .01

Overload 11.59 12.88 p5 .01

Job security 13.14 10.73 p5 .01

Control 12.96 12.70 ns

Resources and communication 12.77 12.29 ns

Job overall 22.41 25.64 p5 .01

Pay and benefits 3.38 3.45 ns

Attitudes towards organization

Commitment of organization to employees 19.69 20.19 ns

Commitment of employees to organization 17.17 17.50 ns

Physical health 13.38 14.16 p5 .01

Psychological well-being 23.91 23.95 ns

TABLE 2Comparison of ASSET subscales and normative data for the total sample (i.e.,

University A and B combined)

ASSET subscales

Combined

sample

mean

(n¼ 333)

General

population

mean

(n¼ 9210)

Significance

levels


Work relationships 19.45 19.23 ns

Job overall 21.32 25.64 p5 .01

Overload 11.92 12.88 p5 .01

Control 12.32 12.70 p5 .05

Job security 11.33 10.73 p5 .01

Resources and communication 12.19 12.29 ns

Work-life balance 11.52 12.49 p5 .01

Pay and benefits 3.40 3.45 ns


Commitment of organization to employees 19.67 20.19 ns

Commitment of employees to organization 17.29 17.50 ns

Physical health 13.07 14.16 p5 .01

Psychological well-being 22.65 23.95 p5 .05


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

In terms of health outcomes, university staff also reported significantly betterphysical and psychological health than the general working population.

Time 2: Differences between organizations

ASSET subscales. A series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted tocompare the mean scores on the ASSET subscales across the twoorganizations (see Table 3). It was found that respondents fromOrganization A (the smaller merger partner) reported significantly moreperceived commitment from their organization (p5 .05) than OrganizationB. On all other items, there were no significant differences.

Intention to leave. The total mean score on this scale for the sampleoverall was 7.50 (SD¼ 5.55) out of a maximum of 21. The mean score forOrganization A was 7.47, compared to a mean score for Organization B of7.52. There were no significant differences between the organizations onthis scale, although there were significant gender differences (p5 .05) withmen (mean¼ 8.28) showing a greater propensity to leave than women(mean¼ 6.81).

TABLE 3Means on ASSET subscales compared across organizations at Time 2

ASSET subscales

Organization A

(n¼ 122)

Organization B

(n¼ 214)

General

population

norm

(n¼ 9210)

Significance

levels


Work relationships 18.94 19.75 19.23 ns

Aspects of the job overall 20.90 21.56 25.64 ns

Overload 11.60 12.11 12.88 ns

Control 12.06 12.46 12.70 ns

Job security 11.05 11.50 10.73 ns

Resources and communication 11.95 12.32 12.29 ns

Work-life balance 11.68 11.42 12.49 ns

Pay and benefits 3.24 3.49 3.45 ns


Commitment of organization

to employee

20.47 19.21 20.19 p5 .05

Commitment of employee to

organization

17.82 16.98 17.50 ns

Physical health 13.03 13.07 14.16 ns

Psychological well-being 22.79 22.56 23.95 ns


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Merger-specific items. A series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted toascertain whether opinions regarding the merger differed significantlybetween organizations. As shown in Table 4, respondents fromOrganization A (the smaller merger partner) considered that they hadbeen involved in significantly more consultation than employees ofOrganization B (p5 .05). Both organizations considered that OrganizationB would be the more dominant partner, with employees of Organization Aperceiving Organization B to be significantly more dominant than theirmerger colleagues (p5 .01). Perceptions regarding their ability to influencemerger plans and decisions were low for this 7-point scale item. However,employees at Organization A considered that they had significantly moreopportunity to exercise influence than employees at Organization B(p5 .05).

Time 2: Relationships between variables

Tables 5 and 6 show the correlations of the scores on the ASSET sourcesand outcomes of stress scales, the merger-specific items, and intentions toleave. As can be seen, a number of significant correlations were revealed(range .11 – .68). Some significant correlations were as low as r¼7.11 and itshould be noted that the power to detect effects for this sample size (n¼ 321)is still above .7.

Positive individual appraisal (PIA) of the merger correlated significantlyand negatively with all the ASSET sources of stress except work-life balance.This means that the more individuals perceived that the merger wouldbenefit them personally, the less stress they reported. The strongestrelationship was with control (7.35). PIA also correlated significantly withincreased commitment on both scales (r¼ .41 and r¼ .36), better physicalhealth (r¼ .69), and less intention to quit (r¼ .59). There were significantnegative correlations between positive organizational appraisal (POA) withall the sources of stress other than job security indicating less stress amongthose who considered the merger to be good for the organization. Again the

TABLE 4Comparison of merger-specific items means across organizations

Item

Organization A

(n¼ 122)

Organization B

(n¼ 214)

Significance

levels

Level of impact on you personally 3.86 3.64 ns

Level of impact organizationally 3.81 3.76 ns

Perception of partner dominance 5.75 5.06 p5 .01

Amount of influence 3.88 3.28 p5 .05

Amount of consultation 1.99 1.66 p5 .05


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E5

Co

rre

lati

on

sb

etw

ee

nm

erg

er-

spe

cifi

cit

em

sa

nd

stre

ssle

ve

ls

PIA

POA

Consult

Influence

Stressorscales

1

Work

relationships

2

Job

overall

3

Overload

4

Control

5

Job

security

6

Resources

and

commitment

7

Work-life

balance

8

Payand

benefits

Positiveindividual

attitude(PIA

)

Positiveorganization

attitude(POA)

.59

Consult

.39

.33

Influence

7.34

.30

.52

1.Work

relationships

7.23

7.18

7.18

7.21

2.Joboverall

7.25

7.22

7.27

7.27

.63

3.Overload

7.11

7.20

.02

.02

.48

.37

4.Control

7.35

7.28

7.30

7.33

.68

.60

.32

5.Jobsecurity

7.17

7.06

7.28

7.20

.30

.23

.11

.33

6.Resources

and

communication

7.26

7.27

7.29

7.26

.71

.56

.50

.65

.26

7.Work-lifebalance

7.09

7.15

.05

.09

.33

.27

.64

.17

.06

.37

8.Payandbenefits

7.11

7.17

7.008

7.11

.40

.37

.39

.34

.17

.39

.26

Correlations4

.10significantwithp5

.05;correlations4


.01.

468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E6

Co

rre

lati

on

sb

etw

ee

nm

erg

er-

spe

cifi

cit

em

sa

nd

stre

ssle

ve

ls,

com

mit

me

nt,

he

alt

h,

an

dle

av

ing

inte

nti

on

s

Commitmentof

organization

Commitmentof

employee

Physical

health

Psychological

well-being

Intentionto

leave

Positiveindividualattitude

.41

.36

7.13

7.10

7.32

Positiveorganizationattitude

.32

.31

7.07

7.12

7.23

Consult

.40

.28

7.03

7.03

7.23

Influence

.39

.29

7.15

7.16

7.18

Perceptionsofyourjob

Work

relationships

7.53

7.39

.35

.44

.46

Joboverall

7.48

7.38

.34

.36

.36

Overload

7.25

7.12

.26

.40

.23

Control

7.56

7.44

.27

.32

.40

Jobsecurity

7.26

7.09

.12

.12

.19

Resources

andcommunication

7.53

7.38

.31

.38

.41

Work-lifebalance

7.18

7.01

.18

.26

.29

Payandbenefits

7.26

7.15

.17

.19

.21

Attitudes

towardsorganization

Commitmentoforganizationto

employee

—.75

7.28

7.31

7.59

Commitmentofem

ployee

toorganization

——

7.15

7.19

7.34

Physicalhealth

——

—.69

.23

Psychologicalwell-being

——

——

.26

Intentionto

quit

.59

7.34

.23

.26

—

Correlations4


.05;correlations4


.01.

469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

strongest relationship was between POA and control (7.28). POA was alsosignificantly correlated with increased commitment on both scales (r¼ .32and r¼ .31), better psychological well-being (r¼ .12), and less propensity toleave (r¼7.23).

Increased perceptions of consultation were significantly correlated withless stress on all sources of stress, other than work-life balance, pay andbenefits, and overload. Again the strongest relationship was with control(r¼7.30). Consultation was also significantly and positively correlatedwith commitment and significantly and negatively correlated with intentionto leave.

A higher level of perceived influence was also significantly associated withless stress emanating from work relationships, your overall control (againthe strongest relationship), job security, resources and communication, andpay and benefits. Increased influence was also significantly correlated withincreased commitment, better physical and psychological health, and lesspropensity to leave.

Since the mean for the perceived influence item was fairly low(mean¼ 1.77), a one-way ANOVA was also carried out comparingrespondents who scored very low (i.e., 1 and 2), with those who scoredvery high (i.e., 4 and 5). Analysis revealed that respondents who scored highon perceived influence reported significantly higher perceived commitment tothe employee, F¼ 25.87, p5 .01, and to the organization, F¼ 13.26, p5 .01,significantly better physical health, F¼ 5.44, p5 .01, and psychological well-being, F¼ 5.84, p5 .01, significantly lower intention to leave, F¼ 6.68,p5 .01, and significantly higher job satisfaction (overall job), F¼ 12.11,p5 .01, thus supporting the results of the correlational analysis.

A series of regression analyses was subsequently conducted to furtherexplore the relationships with health and behavioural outcomes. It wasfound that perceived influence alone was the best predictor forphysical health (R2 adjusted¼ .02) and psychological well-being (R2

adjusted¼ .02), and that the additions of perceived consultation didnot explain any additional variance. In contrast, perceived consultationwas found to be the best predictor of intention to leave (R2 adjusted¼ .05).Analysis revealed that reported health levels were not linked to age.

Differences between Time 1 and Time 2—Organization A

Finally, ANOVAs were conducted comparing ASSET subscales betweenTime 1 and Time 2 for Organization A. As Table 7 shows, therewere significant differences in respect of work relationships (p5 .01), jobsecurity (p5 .01), and overall job (p5 .05). Compared with Time 2,respondents at Time 1 reported significantly more stress as emanatingfrom these stressors. Interestingly, employees at Time 1 also rated


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E7

Me

an

sa

nd

resu

lts

of

on

e-w

ay

AN

OV

As

com

pa

rin

gm

ea

nsc

ore

sfo

rA

SS

ET

sub

sca

les

for

Org

an

iza

tio

nA

on

lyp

rem

erg

er

(i.e

.,a

tT

ime

1)

an

dd

uri

ng

-me

rge

r(i

.e.,

Tim

e2

)

ASSET

subscales

Tim

e1

(n¼222)

Tim

e1

SD

Tim

e2

(n¼122)

Tim

e2

SD

F

Significance

levels

Perceptionsofyourjob

Work

relationships

21.33

1.66

18.94

1.61

8.35

p5

.01

Work-lifebalance

10.84

1.69

20.90

2.04

2.74

ns

Overload

11.59

0.91

11.60

0.94

0.00

ns

Jobsecurity

13.14

1.36

12.06

0.83

24.79

p5

.01

Control

12.96

0.45

11.05

1.00

3.06

ns

Resources

andcommunication

12.77

0.53

11.95

0.87

3.27

ns

Aspects

ofthejoboverall

22.41

2.46

11.68

1.30

5.11

p5

.05

Payandbenefits

3.38

0.38

3.24

0.36

0.66

ns

Attitudes

towardsorganization

Commitmentoforganizationto

employee

19.69

1.62

20.47

1.11

1.82

ns

Commitmentofem

ployee

toorganization

17.17

0.76

17.82

0.86

2.23

ns

Physicalhealth

13.38

0.52

13.03

0.94

0.60

ns

Psychologicalwell-being

23.91

1.50

22.79

1.66

1.959

ns

471

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

themselves as being significantly less productive (p5 .040) than respondentsat Time 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that employees at both organizations wererelatively healthy in terms of sources and effects of stress at this stage in themerger than might have been expected. This is in contradiction with thefindings of other studies in the sector (e.g., Tytherleigh et al., 2005),suggesting that academic life is more stressful than many other occupa-tions. However, Tytherleigh et al. did find that stress was more prevalent in‘‘new’’ (established post-1992) universities than ‘‘old’’ (established pre-1992). As both merger partners were ‘‘old’’ universities and enjoyed astrong academic reputation in terms of both teaching and researchexcellence, this may have contributed to the well-being of its employees.Furthermore, unlike most circumstances of corporate merger, theorganizations operated in close physical proximity on neighbouring sitesand employees at both institutions had a previous history of collaboration.Compared to corporate mergers, there was less secrecy and more publiccommunication.

However, job security was a significant and continuing source of stress.Stress relating to job security appeared to be significantly greater at a time(Time 1) when individuals were experiencing uncertainty as to whether ornot the merger would go ahead than when it was actually confirmed. Thisconfirmation may have come as something of a relief at the end of alengthy period of speculation and anticipation, particularly as it wasaccompanied by a statement made by senior management that there wouldbe no compulsory redundancies. Both immediately prior to Time 1 andcontinuing up to Time 2, some departments of both universitiesexperienced increased levels of staff turnover and this is likely to havehad a destabilizing effect on the workforce. It is interesting to note thatuncertainty and preoccupation with the merger appeared to be impactingmore on productivity at Time 1 than at Time 2. It is also important to notethat when the Time 2 data was collected, the actual merger was still notscheduled to actually take place for another 15 – 16 months and the neworganizational structures had yet to be finalized. Since then a wide range ofchanges have taken place as a result of the merger and a follow-up study isbeing conducted.

It is interesting to consider these findings in the context of Ivancevich,Schweiger, and Power’s (1987) Transactional Model of M&A stress. Thissuggests that merger stress is triggered by two factors: the nature of themerger event and individual characteristics. These factors interact toproduce a cognitive appraisal of the merger situation and its anticipated


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

changes. If the potential changes are negatively appraised as presentingharm or threat to the individual, stress will result. On the other hand, if theyare positively appraised and potential changes are viewed as presentingopportunities, e.g., enhanced status or increased job prospects, then stresswill be minimal. Alternatively, there may be situations when the M&A eventis appraised as being irrelevant to the individual and neutral in terms ofoutcome. In this study, there was clear evidence that those who appraisedthe merger positively experienced less stress, were more committed, were lessinclined to leave, and were in better health. Not surprisingly, positiveindividual appraisal appeared to have a stronger impact than positiveorganizational appraisal on employee outcomes. Positive appraisal amongstemployees at the smaller partner might be indicative of their strongidentification with a larger and perhaps more prestigious university. Suchexplanations would be consistent with Social Identity Theory and thefindings of Panchal and Cartwright (2001).

Also of importance is the role of employee involvement and consultation.Employees at Organization A, despite their belief (perhaps realistically) thatthe other larger partner would be dominant in the forthcoming organiza-tional marriage, were, perhaps surprisingly, less stressed, more committed,and in better health than their colleagues in Organization B. However, theyalso felt that they had been more consulted and involved in what washappening. Follow-up interviews conducted with senior managementsuggested that more effort had been invested in communication atOrganization A than Organization B, and this seems to have been successfulin allaying fears and concerns at that time. As a much smaller and, apossibly, more cohesive organization, it may have been easier to achievegreater communication and consultation. Therefore, these findings lendsupport to the assertion in the literature that communication is the mostimportant variable during the entire merger process (Applebaum, Gandell,Yortis, Proper, & Jobin, 2000). In a smaller scale study than this, Schweigerand DeNisi (1988) also found that an extensive merger communicationprogramme presenting a ‘‘realistic merger preview’’ reduced dysfunctionalmerger outcomes. Other researchers (Brandon, 1999; Sloan, 1993) have alsolinked merger success with extensive communication.

The emergence of the strong relationship between appraisal and controlwas not surprising and is consistent with the demand – control model ofKarasek (1979).

In this study, increased perception of consultation was significantlyassociated with less stress, greater commitment, and less propensity to leave.The results suggest that perceived influence may be an even more importantvariable in terms of its relationship with stress as it was found that perceivedinfluence was the best predictor of physical health and psychological well-being.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Limitations of the study

The difficulty of collecting data at any time in the M&A process, particularlyfrom both employee groups, has to be acknowledged, and methodologicalimperfections are difficult to avoid. Collecting matched data for the samesample at different time points in a merger process, even if practicable,inevitably leads to significantly diminished sample sizes (Cartwright &Cooper, 1996). However, some recent research evidence from Kusstatscherand Cooper (2005) suggests that emotional responses at different stages inthe M&A process are relatively homogeneous within employee groups.In this case, the original study (Time 2) was to be of a cross-sectional designbut, opportunistically, it was possible to access premerger data collected fora different purpose as it was felt this would add to our understanding of themerger process.

Since all the data collected relied on self-report measures, the influence ofcommon methods variance cannot be ignored, nor can the limitations ofcorrelational analysis. However, a review of shared method variance(Spector, 1987) has concluded that properly developed measures with soundpsychometric properties, such as ASSET, are actually fairly resistant to suchproblems.

It should also be noted that, at Time 2, the questionnaire was distributedin both electronic and paper form. However, evidence suggests (Buchanan &Smith, 1999; Newstead, 1985; Stanton, 1998) that the two formats tend toyield the same information.

Despite its limitations, this study provides some useful insights into theway in which employees respond to merger and highlights the importance ofcommunication and employee involvement in gaining acceptance andreducing the potential stressful and dysfunctional impact of M&As.

Implications for practice

The study confirms the potential benefits of large-scale merger communica-tion programmes and employee consultation and involvement at all levels.In particular, it is important for organizations to emphasize the potentialbenefits of the merger at both the individual and organizational level. In thiscase, regular project bulletins were sent out to create a sense of knowledgeand understanding within the organization. Merger-related departmentalmeetings became a regular feature and interorganizational working groupswere set up to discuss merger plans. By emphasizing the opportunities forpersonal growth and skills development that increased organizational size islikely to deliver and the enhanced reputation that could be achieved by themerger, employees are likely to develop more positive attitudes. Providingrealistic merger information on a regular basis is also important in reducing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

the potential disappointment employees might experience due to unmetexpectations. Consultation and involvement appears to play a significantrole in restoring employees’ perceptions of control at a time when they arelikely to experience a sense of powerlessness. Control is recognized(Cartwright & Cooper, 2000) to be an important moderator of the stressresponse generally but specifically in relation to stress amongst academics(Tytherleigh et al., 2005).

However, the process of consultation must be genuine and not a fallacy.The input from employees will need to be reflected in the way in whichchange is subsequently implemented, for if individuals feel that their viewswere not listened to, their negativity towards the merger or acquisition islikely to be heightened. This issue will be followed up in our ongoing studyof this merger.

REFERENCES

Applebaum, S. H., Gandell, J., Yortis, H., Proper, S., & Jobin, F. (2000). Anatomy of a merger:

Behaviour of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre-during-post stages

(Part 1). Management Decision, 36, 649 – 662.

Association of University Teachers (AUT). (1990). Goodwill under stress: Morale in UK

institutions. London: Author.

Association of University Teachers (AUT). (2003). Survey of members. London: Author.

Begley, T. M. (1998). Coping strategies as predictors of employee distress after an organi-

zational consolidation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 71, 305.

Brandon, M. C. (1999). The making of a merger. Communication World, 16, 23 – 25.

Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the Internet for psychological research personality

testing on the Worldwide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125 – 127.

Buono, A. F., Bowditch, J. L., & Lewis, J. W. (1985). When cultures collide: The anatomy of a

merger. Human Relations, 38, 477 – 500.

Cartwright, S. (2005). Mergers and acquisitions: An update and appraisal. In G. P. Hodgkinson

& J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20,

pp. 1 – 38). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The psychological impact of merger and acquisition on

the individual: A study of building society managers. Human Relations, 46, 327 – 347.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Managing mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances:

Integrating people and cultures. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). HR know how in mergers and acquisitions. CIPD:

London.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). ASSET: An organizational stress screening tool—the

management guide. Manchester, UK: Robertson Cooper Ltd.

Cartwright, S., & Hudson, S. L. (2000). Coping with mergers and acquisitions. In R. Burke &

C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The organization in crisis: Downsizing, restructuring and renewal

(pp. 269 – 283). London: Blackwell.

Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). 25 years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent

achievements and future opportunities. British Journal of Management, 17, 51 – 55.

Cooper, C. L., & Gregory, A. (2001). Advances in mergers and acquisitions. London: JAI

Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Court, S. (1996). The use of time by academic and related staff. Higher Education Quarterly, 50,

237 – 260.

Covin, T. J., Sightler, K. W., Kolenleo, T. A., & Tudor, R. K. (1996). An investigation of

post acquisition satisfaction with merger. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 32,

125 – 142.

Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). An exploratory study of stress in a British University. Higher

Education Quarterly, 48, 135 – 144.

Doyle, C., & Hind, P. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female academics.

Gender, Work and Organizations, 5, 67 – 82.

Faragher, E. B., Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (2004). A shortened stress evaluation tool

(ASSET). Stress and Health, 20, 189 – 201.

Gibbons, C. (1998). An investigation into the effects of organizational change on occupational

stress in further education lecturers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 22, 315.

Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Gulliver, P., Towell, D., & Peck, E. (2002). Staff morale in the merger of health and social

care organizations in England. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 10,

101 – 107.

Hogan, E. A., & Overmeyer-Day, L. (1994). The psychology of mergers and acquisitions.

In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and

organizational psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 247 – 281). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Idel, M., Melamed, S., Merlob, P., Yahav, J., Hendel, T., & Kaplan, B. (2003). Influence of a

merger on nurses’ emotional well being. Journal of Nursing Management, 11, 59 – 63.

Ivancevich, J. M., Schweiger, D. M., & Power, F. R. (1987). Strategies for managing human

resources during mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource Planning, 10, 19 – 35.

Jackson, C., & Hayday, S. (1997). Staff attitudes at the University of Central Lancashire.

Brighton, UK: Institute of Employment Studies.

Jick, J. D. (1979). Processes and impact of a merger: Individual and organizational perspectives.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for

job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285 – 308.

Kavanagh, M., & Ashkansay, N. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management

strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance during a merger. British

Journal of Management, 17, S83 – S105.

Kinman, G. (1996). Occupational stress and health among lecturers working in further and higher

education. London: National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education.

Kleppesto, S. (1988). A quest for social identity: The pragmatics of communication in mergers

and acquisitions. In M. C. Gertsen, A.-M. Soderberg, & J. E. Torp (Eds.), Cultural

dimensions of international mergers and acquisitions (pp. 147 – 166). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Koonce, R. (1991). The ‘‘people side’’ of organizational change: Evidence from a merger.

Credit, 17, 22 – 25.

Kusstatscher, V., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). Managing emotions in mergers and acquisitions.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Marks, M. L. (1997). Consulting in mergers and acquisitions interventions spawned by recent

trends. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10, 267 – 279.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1997). Revisiting the merger syndrome: Dealing with stress.

Mergers and Acquisitions, 31, 21.

McHugh, M. L. (1995). Organizational mergers: A stressful challenge? In Review of employment

topics (Vol. 3, pp. 126 – 156). Belfast, NI: Labour Relations Agency.

Meyer, C. B. (2001). Allocation processes in mergers and acquisitions: An organizational justice

perspective. British Journal of Management, 12, 47 – 67.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of

hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408 – 414.

Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The impact of

privatization on employee job satisfaction and well being. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 68, 57 – 71.

Newstead, P. R. (1985). Paper versus online presentation of subjective questionnaires.

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 231 – 247.

Nikandrou, I., Papalaxandis, N., & Bourantes, D. (2000). Gaining employee trust after

acquisitions: Implications for managerial action. Employee Relations, 4, 334 – 345.

Panchal, S., & Cartwright, S. (2001). Group differences in post merger stress. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 16, 424 – 433.

Range, A. (2006). Knowledge preservation and transfer during post acquisition integration.

In C. L. Cooper & S. Finkelstein (Eds.), Advances in mergers and acquisitions (Vol. 5,

pp. 51 – 67). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Risberg, A. (1997). Ambiguity and communication in cross cultural acquisitions. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 18, 257 – 267.

Robino, D., & de Meuse, K. (1985). Corporate mergers and acquisitions: Their impact on

HRM. Personnel Administrator, 30, 33 – 44.

Rowley, G. (1997). United we stand: A strategic analysis of mergers in higher education. Public

Money and Management, 17, 7 – 12.

Schreyogg, G. (2006). The role of corporate culture diversity in integrating mergers and

acquisitions. In G. K. Stahl &M. E. Mendenhall (Eds.),Mergers and acquisitions: Managing

culture and human resources (pp. 108 – 125). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Schweiger, D., & DeNisi, A. (1988). Communication with employees following a merger: A

longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110 – 135.

Schweiger, D. M., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1985). Human resources: The forgotten factor in

mergers and acquisitions. Personnel Administrator, November, pp. 47 – 61.

Schweiger, D. M., Ivancevich, J. M., & Power, F. R. (1987). Executive action for managing

human resources before and after acquisition. Academy of Management Executive, 2,

127 – 138.

Siu, O., Cooper, C. L., & Donald, I. (1997). Occupational stress, job satisfaction and mental

health amongst employees of an acquired TV company in Hong Kong. Stress Medicine, 13,

99 – 107.

Sloan, T. J. (1993). Empowered employees fuel successful merger. Public Relations Journal,

49, 22.

Smithers, R. (2003). Third of academics want to quit. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://

education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,911140,00.html

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artefact in self-reported affect and perceptions at

work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438 – 443.

Stahl, G., & Mendenhall, M. (2005). Mergers and acquisitions: Managing culture and human

resources. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel

Psychology, 51, 709 – 726.

Stewart, G. (2003). College mergers: Lessons to be learned from other sectors. Research in Post

Compulsory Education, 8, 305 – 327.

Sudarsanam, S. (2003). Creating value through merger and acquisitions: The challenges, an

integrated and international perspective. London: Financial Times, Prentice Hall.

Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Satori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to an organizational

merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences. Stress Medicine, 12, 105 – 122.

Travers, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the teaching profession.

London: Routledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Trow, M. (1994). Managerialism and the academic profession: The case of England. Higher

Education Policy, 7, 11 – 18.

Tytherleigh, M. Y., Webb, C., Cooper, C. L., & Ricketts, C. (2005). Occupational stress in UK

higher education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories. Higher Education

Research and Development, 24, 44 – 61.

Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., & Tissington, P. A. (2006). Working under a black cloud: How to

sustain organizational identification after a merger. British Journal of Management, 17,

569 – 579.

Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Lemmer, G. (2004). The winds of change: Multiple identifications

in the case of organizational mergers. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 13, 121 – 138.

Very, P., Lubatkin, M., & Calori, R. (1998). A cross-national assessment of acculturative stress

in recent European mergers. In M. C. Gertsen, A.-M. Soderberg, & J. E. Torp (Eds.),

Cultural dimensions of international mergers and acquisitions (pp. 85 – 108). Berlin: De

Gruyter.

Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003).

Occupational stress in Australian university staff. International Journal of Stress Manage-

ment, 10, 51 – 63.

Winter, R., & Sarros, J. (2002). The academic work environment in Australian universities: A

motivating place to work? Higher Education Research and Development, 21, 243 – 258.

Original manuscript received July 2006

Revised manuscript received February 2007

First published online 13 October 2007


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

6:37

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Are mergers always stressful? Some evidence from the higher education sector

Documents

Transcript of Are mergers always stressful? Some evidence from the higher education sector