In this in-depth, qualitative case study, we elucidate how the emotions of middle managers impact their sensemaking and sensegiving practices during post-merger integration (PMI). The recursive and reciprocal interactions between emotions, sensemaking, and sensegiving we observed led to the development of a process model illustrating how middle managers make sense of the PMI phase through the processes of “senseseeking” and “rationalizing.” The model further demonstrates two important sensegiving practices, “emotional reversal” and “emotional hiding,” which turned out to be essential drivers for enacting (positive) emotions among organization members. Our findings have important implications for research on sensemaking and sensegiving, the crucial role of middle managers in organizations, and studies on PMI.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, mergers and acquisitions (M&As) have become increasingly important for organizations competing in a global marketplace. The number of M&As worldwide has increased from 2676 in 1985 to 44,926 in 2020. Similarly, the total value of global M&A transactions has increased from US$347 billion in 1985 to US$2.8 trillion in 2020.1 Unsurprisingly, research on M&As has yielded hundreds of journal articles and dozens of special issues and edited volumes. Although this sheer volume of past research is encouraging, the high failure rates of M&As remain poorly understood (Capasso & Meglio, 2005; Graebner, Heimeriks, Huy, & Vaara, 2017).
Although human factors received increased research attention in the PMI literature, the PMI process is still often treated as a black box. In this regard, studies are somewhat constrained by a streetlight effect (i.e., only looking at where light is and what can conveniently be observed). Especially emotions are difficult to grasp as they can be temporary, heterogeneous, and not easily articulated (Feldman & Greenway, 2020; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Therefore, Graebner et al. (2017) conclude that emotionality during PMI constitutes a fertile agenda for future research.
Emotions also play a vital role in sensemaking and sensegiving processes, which often characterize the PMI phase (Monin, Noorderhaven, Vaara, & Kroon, 2013; Vuori & Virtaharju, 2012). Up to date, the sensemaking literature applied to organizational change has mainly focused on the cognitive processes to explain how organization members respond to unforeseen issues or sudden events (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Maitlis, 2005). As a result, we know relatively little about the role of emotions in sensemaking dynamics, especially about how emotions shape sensemaking and vice versa (Aromaa, Eriksson, Montonen, & Mills, 2020). In line with this observation, Heaphy (2017) calls for more research on the process through which emotions become embedded in sensemaking and sensegiving accounts.
To address these gaps in the literature, we used a single case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989). We had the opportunity to follow the PMI phase between Merck Group and Sigma-Aldrich, two companies involved in the pharmaceutical industry. In 2015, the German Merck Group acquired Sigma-Aldrich, and the company became part of Merck’s life science business. Through a qualitative research methodology in which we used a combination of secondary data, observations, and interviews, we examined the role of middle managers’ emotions in sensemaking and sensegiving practices during PMI.
Our revelatory case study offers the following contributions. First, we contradict the assumption that emotions only lead to poor post-merger outcomes (Graebner et al., 2017). Organization members experience a range of emotions, both positive and negative, dynamically related through sensemaking and sensegiving practices. We demonstrate how negative emotions can also be a driver for a successful PMI trajectory.
Second, our study extends insights from the sensemaking literature by suggesting that sensemaking does not only involve thought and action (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). In particular, we uncover the powerful impact that positive and negative emotions have on middle managers’ sensemaking dynamics. The recursive and reciprocal interactions we observed between emotions and cognitions add to research on the dynamic nature of emotions and their effects on sensemaking processes (Aromaa et al., 2020; Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017; Heaphy, 2017; Schlindwein & Geppert, 2020). We further challenge the assumption that negative emotions are counterproductive and may impede the ability of middle managers to make sense of events (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). By stressing the importance of “emotional hiding,” we also contribute to the literature on sensegiving and its different components, such as “sensehiding” (Vaara & Monin, 2010).
Finally, we reveal the crucial role of middle managers as emotion managers in the PMI phase. The contradictory emotions of middle managers influence their sensegiving and sensemaking activities in dealing with PMI tensions. Our findings illustrate how middle managers deal with their complex role in implementing change (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016) by steering their own emotions as well as their subordinates’ (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Sonenshein, 2010). Our study elaborates on this “agency trap” (Teerikangas & Birollo, 2018).
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. First, a comprehensive literature review presents the main theories and key concepts relevant to understanding the outcomes of our study. This is followed by a detailed overview of our single case study research design. We then analyze our collected data and present our findings. The article ends by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our study, and we provide directions for future research.
Theoretical Background
Emotions During PMI
The PMI phase can be defined as “the multifaceted, dynamic process through which the acquirer and acquired firm or their components are combined to form a new organization” (Graebner et al., 2017, p. 2). This phase can be seen as a black box (Graebner, 2004) divided into multiple stages (Seo & Hill, 2005) and interrelated processes (Reus, Lamont, & Ellis, 2016). PMI is often characterized as an emotional and stressful process that creates turmoil and uncertainty for all those involved (Hoeven, Shapiro, Gandell, Appelbaum, & Belisle, 2020). However, it has not been until recently that the role of emotions has attracted more attention in the M&A literature (Vuori et al., 2018).
Most studies in a PMI context primarily focus on negative emotions. In a PMI process, organization members are exposed to enormous stress because they have to adjust to fundamental changes within a short time frame (Agboola & Salawu, 2011; Buono & Bowditch, 1989). They are often concerned about their new roles and tasks and (new) interpersonal relationships (Marks & Mirvis, 1992). As such, fear is a frequently displayed emotion during PMI (Appelbaum et al., 2000a). High levels of fear, in turn, can manifest as anger, aggression, or distrust (Zagelmeyer et al., 2016).
More recently, scholars looked into the role of positive emotions (Barsade et al., 2018). For example, Steigenberger (2015) argues that hope is crucial for employees’ well-being during stressful events and their willingness to engage in organizational change. Positive emotions may also facilitate PMI and support the relationship between employees and managers (Zagelmeyer et al., 2016). As Harikkala-Laihinen, Hassett, Raitis, and Nummela (2018) suggest, it would be interesting to examine how positive emotions interact with negative emotions in a PMI context.
Emotions and Sensemaking
In our study, we define an emotion “as a transient feeling state with an identified cause or target that can be expressed verbally or nonverbally” (Maitlis, Vogus, & Lawrence, 2013, p. 223). According to cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991), emotions arise from stimuli triggering an appraisal of the situation (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013). Positive emotions arise from situations that an individual appraises as consistent with his or her motives. Negative emotions, on the other hand, result from an inconsistency between the appraisal of the situation and an individual’s motives (Roseman, 1996). Therefore, following cognitive appraisal theory, cognition is a necessary antecedent of emotion. Emotions generated by cognitive appraisal allow an individual to move from thinking to action (Lazarus, 1999).
As Elfenbein (2007) notes, registering emotions involves not only cognitive appraisal but also an act of sensemaking. Sensemaking describes a process in which organization members socially construct their reality in and through interaction with others (Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995), for example, when they work together. This process is triggered by disrupting events that do not correspond to people’s underlying beliefs or assumptions, causing anxiety, ambiguity, or confusion (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Therefore, sensemaking is particularly relevant in times of change (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Mantere, Schildt, & Sillince, 2012).
Within a dynamic change context such as PMI, individuals try to make sense of ambiguous inputs from their environment (Weick et al., 2005) to determine their behavior (Weick, 1995) and enable change (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). According to Weick (1993, p. 635), “the basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs.” During this process, members change their cognitive schemas, which serve as frameworks for interpreting the environment (Kaplan, 2008).
In line with cognitive appraisal theory, the sensemaking literature has mainly focused on the cognitive processes to explain how organization members respond to unforeseen issues or sudden events (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Maitlis, 2005). Chronologically, appraisal relates to an experienced expectancy violation that triggers sensemaking (Maitlis et al., 2013; Weick et al., 2005). However, emotions can also play an important role in how we reconstruct reality in unexpected situations. For example, emotions trigger the need to engage in sensemaking efforts and understand the situation (Maitlis et al., 2013). Still, in their literature review, Maitlis and Christianson (2014) note the surprisingly scarce research on the relationship between sensemaking and emotions.
Weiner (1980) argues that emotions could play a critical role in explaining why certain issues or events trigger sensemaking processes. Moreover, emotions influence the ways sensemaking processes unfold in response to triggering issues or events (Maitlis et al., 2013). For example, anxiety, fear, and frustration may impede the ability of people to make sense of events and arouse well-learned, rigid reactions (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). In this regard, the process of emotional registration is deeply contextualized and situation-specific (Elfenbein, 2007). Managers can interpret strategic issues as opportunities or threats, depending on their emotional appraisals (Jackson & Dutton, 1988). Finally, Maitlis et al. (2013) highlight the importance of emotions during sensemaking conclusion. Sensemaking comes to an end when the interpretation, constructed through the sensemaking process, is consistent with the “sensemaker’s” emotions.
Critical sensemaking theory has enriched Weick’s notion of sensemaking by drawing attention to how power and context, among other factors, are intertwined with the appraisal process and affect sensemaking (Aromaa et al., 2019). While dealing with ambiguous and uncertain events such as often occur in PMI, individuals’ meaning construction can be influenced by providing a preferred direction (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). This process is called “sensegiving” (Fiss & Zajac, 2006), defined as “attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). In this process, leaders frame strategic change and present it to organization members (Fiss & Zajac, 2006) meaningfully and understandably (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Consequently, power and politics are often involved as managers attempt to shape the meanings and interpretations of employees (Clark & Geppert, 2011). In a PMI context, these tactics can have many forms, such as “sensebreaking,” “sense-specification,” and “sensehiding” (Monin et al., 2013).
Sensegiving serves to shape the sensemaking process of others as it guides their thinking toward a given interpretation (Rouleau, 2005; Sonenshein, 2010). At the same time, sensegiving takes into account organization members’ sensemaking (Sonenshein, 2010). Therefore, we see the relationship between sensegiving and sensemaking as a dialogical process (Monin et al., 2013), accounting for the dynamic character of PMI.
The sensegiving process is also likely to be influenced by emotions (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Weick et al., 2005). For example, emotions expressed by leaders can be strategically used in sensegiving efforts (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Taken together, the communication of managerial beliefs and meanings (Mantere et al., 2012) is crucial for leaders to influence organization members and other stakeholders to adopt a certain interpretation and gain support for their managerial beliefs (Rouleau, 2005).
A Middle Manager Perspective
How organization members engage in sensemaking and sensegiving activities depends on their hierarchical level (Rouleau, 2005). Our study focuses on middle managers as they become increasingly important in dealing with organizational change, such as PMI (Rouleau, 2005). The change management literature describes them as change intermediaries (Balogun, 2003), issue sellers (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997), change interpreters (Rouleau, 2005), and emotion managers (Huy, 2002). In the first place, middle managers have to interpret strategic change and understand the events within the organization themselves (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). Subsequently, they influence other members by sharing their knowledge and interpretation (Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008). Teerikangas and Birollo (2018) refer to this as the “agency trap,” of which we seem to have very little understanding.
In a PMI context, emotions also arise at different hierarchical levels in organizations. From an employee perspective, most work is based on “the merger syndrome” (Marks & Mirvis, 1985), in which general feelings of uncertainty, sadness, and loss come to play. More recent studies also provide evidence of excitement about future opportunities in the newly merged firm (Kroon & Noorderhaven, 2018; Stahl et al., 2013). Additionally, there is work on the emotional reactions of top managers (Hassett et al., 2018; Vince, 2006). Top managers from the acquired firm may feel sad about losing their own work, which they had built up, whereas top management from the acquiring firm may feel stressed about the integration process which they have to lead. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions (e.g., Rouleau, 2005), we know little about the emotions of middle managers and how they are affected. We believe this demands further research as middle managers should both drive the change and personally thrive within the change context (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008).
Middle managers often take on an emotional balancing role during strategic change (Huy, 2002) and develop an awareness of employees’ emotions to manage and guide them (Zagelmeyer et al., 2016). The key aspect of middle managers’ activities is the interpretation of change intent (Balogun, 2003), while their emotions may influence their practices during organizational change (Rouleau, 2005). Therefore, making sense of the change themselves before communicating their interpretation with other members can be challenging (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Isabella, 1990). Additionally, change may cause cognitive disorder for middle managers (McKinley & Scherer, 2000) as it challenges their interpretive schemes, triggering anxiety and stress and impeding decision-making (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Hence, we believe that there is a need for further research on how middle managers’ emotions influence their sensemaking and sensegiving practices (and vice versa). Following Schlindwein and Geppert’s (2020, p. 7) observation that “what is still missing in the research on PMI […] is a systematic conceptualization of how emotions shape sensemaking of PMI events and vice versa,” our study was guided by the research question: What is the role of emotions in middle managers’ sensemaking and sensegiving practices during PMI?
Methodology
Research Design
A qualitative research design seems to be most suitable given our open-ended research question and the nascent state of prior theory (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). As outlined by Patton (2015), qualitative data aim to illuminate how individuals create meaning, which corresponds to our sensemaking perspective. The interpretation of open-ended data promises to reveal new constructs or patterns, closing the identified literature gap (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Thus, our qualitative study focuses on processes, meanings, and understanding and mainly adopts an interpretive approach (Flick, 2007). Accordingly, our theory is developed inductively, permitting iteration and flexibility, and supports an understanding of how the sensemaking and sensegiving processes unfold (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).
Our methodological approach is based on a single case study focused on an in-depth analysis of a contemporary event or phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989). Although every merger or acquisition has its unique characteristics, a single case study has the advantage that individuals’ perceptions can be examined in greater detail within a real-life context (Yin, 2018). This approach allows us to elaborate on the emotions of middle managers at an acquiring company and create an understanding of the sensemaking and sensegiving dynamics within the research setting (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this regard, Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Lowe (2002) argue that the observation of processes over time is essential to understand how dynamics unfold within an organization.
Research Context
Our case study focuses on the PMI phase of Merck Group and Sigma-Aldrich Corporation. Merck Group, the oldest pharmaceutical and chemical company worldwide, was founded more than 350 years ago in Germany. In December 2020, the company employed 58,127 employees operating in five regions: Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa (Merck KGaA, 2020). As a “vibrant science and technology company,” Merck is known for offering specialized and high-quality products in three sectors: healthcare, life science, and performance materials (Merck KGaA, 2019).
Sigma-Aldrich is a life science and biotechnology company acquired in 2015, becoming part of Merck’s life science business. This US$17 billion acquisition is the largest in the company’s history and constitutes “a significant milestone in a long-term strategy to invest in life science” (Merck KGaA, 2015). Sigma-Aldrich had a strong presence in the US and Europe, Middle East, and Africa before it was acquired. Hence, Merck’s international presence was strengthened by mainly filling the gaps in the US market. The acquisition significantly contributed to a comprehensive product portfolio, enhanced capabilities, and a more extensive geographical reach. It particularly leveraged integrated supply chain operations, information technology, and an e-commerce platform.
The acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich had far-reaching implications for the Merck Group, particularly its organization members. Merck benefited sustainably from the acquisition due to increased sales and earnings. To this extent, the acquisition was exciting and promising but also challenging for each organizational member as they simultaneously had to adapt to a new structure and organizational identity. Major systems, infrastructure, and distribution networks were in various states of transition and had to be understood and implemented. At the same time, the human side of the integration played an important role for (top) management due to previous acquisitions. Hence, this research context served as a unique opportunity to explore middle managers’ emotions and sensemaking and sensegiving practices during a PMI phase.
Simultaneously, the pharmaceutical industry provided a particularly interesting context as it presents a highly innovative and dynamic industry where companies constantly need to adapt and increasingly conduct M&As to stay competitive (Comanor & Scherer, 2013). This is exemplified by the various M&As which Merck had undertaken in recent years. Management benefitted from this previous experience, which involved the effective identification of challenges and risks as well as integration planning and the implementation of the PMI phase. Some middle managers involved in our study were also involved in previous M&As, such as the acquisition of the Millipore Corporation in 2010. Accordingly, their experience helped them adapt quicker during the current integration phase and recognize issues before they escalated.
Data Collection
Our study started shortly after the legal completion of the acquisition and covers about 5 years. We started to analyze all available documents (e.g., press releases, annual reports, and other company documents) from the beginning of the acquisition in 2015. Then, in 2018, one of the authors conducted a 6-month internship at Merck in the the Netherlands, where she observed the behavior of middle managers and employees during the PMI phase. For the purpose of this study we focused especially on the teams of middle managers who played a substantial role in the acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich. Each middle manager led a team of 10–15 employees, coming mainly from the Merck side. Additionally, the researcher made extensive notes about what middle managers said and did and how employees reacted to their behavior. She also made notes about non-verbal cues and informal discussions during breaks to support the analysis of interactions between emotions, sensemaking, and sensegiving. During these observations, we recognized that middle managers constantly reinforced the company’s new corporate branding and asked employees for ideas, best practices, or solutions to help the transition. Moreover, we noticed that employees perceived the integration as being exciting and promising while, at the same time, they talked with their colleagues about it as being stressful and confusing.
Next to collecting secondary material and making observations, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 middle managers and 14 employees at Merck. We followed a purposive sampling approach to collect data from a small sample of particularly informative respondents. This approach allowed for an in-depth study of information-rich cases which illuminate the research question rather than empirical generalizations (Patton, 2015). Middle managers were particularly relevant in this PMI phase as they have to make sense of information by top management. At the same time, they have to guide their subordinates through the change (Balogun, 2003). Hence, their feelings, emotions, and interpretations may either facilitate or impede post-merger activities or even cause post-merger failure.
Besides middle managers, employees were also relevant to include in this study. They are the “sense receivers” within an organization and are potentially more open to talking about middle managers’ emotions than middle managers themselves. At the same time, these interviews were used to validate middle managers’ responses. Because they offer an opportunity to explore the perceptions employees have about middle managers, these interviews allowed for a greater understanding and higher level of detail about the topic (Yin, 2003). Table 1 summarizes the distribution of interviews and provides an overview of the profile of our informants.
Table 1. Distribution of Interviews.
Interviewee
Hierarchical level
Pre-merger organization
Function
Tenure (in years)
1
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Marketing
15
2
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Marketing
11
3
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
20
4
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
19
5
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
15
6
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
14
7
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
13
8
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
7
9
Middle manager
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
5
10
Middle manager
Merck
Sales
21
11
Middle manager
Merck
Sales
10
12
Middle manager
Merck
Sales
7
13
Middle manager
Merck
Sales
5
14
Middle manager
Merck
Business development
73
15
Middle manager
Merck
Business development
5
16
Middle manager
Merck
Customer service
8
17
Middle manager
Merck
Customer service
4
18
Employee
Merck
Human resources
6
19
Employee
Merck
Customer service
21
20
Employee
Merck
Customer service
19
21
Employee
Merck
Customer service
12
22
Employee
Merck
Customer service
9
23
Employee
Merck
Customer service
8
24
Employee
Merck
Customer service
2
25
Employee
Merck
Customer service
2
26
Employee
Merck
Business development
2
27
Employee
Merck
Accounting
18
28
Employee
Merck
Sales
22
29
Employee
Merck
Sales
21
30
Employee
Merck
Sales
8
31
Employee
Sigma-Aldrich
Sales
9
The interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes with an average duration of 38 minutes and were conducted throughout 2020. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The semi-structured interviews focused on pre-defined themes and questions dealing specifically with emotions (such as, “Did you experience negative/positive emotions with regard to the acquisition? And did these emotions change over time?”), their antecedents, and outcomes (such as, “Do you remember a situation where you acted in a certain way because of your feelings and emotions?”). But we also asked more general questions (such as, “How do you experience the integration phase?”), and we made sure to leave room for emerging topics. Accordingly, the interviews allowed respondents to explore issues they considered most important (Qu & Dumay, 2011).
As we were collecting potentially sensitive data, we closely adhered to consent procedures. We obtained approval from the company to collect, process, and eventually publish the data. Furthermore, research participants were given detailed information about the study. Not only did we assure anonymity and confidentiality, participants had the right to withdraw at any time.
Data Analysis
In the first part of the analysis, where we tried to make sense of our data, the “Gioia method” seemed most applicable (Gehman et al., 2017). We started our analysis by reading and re-reading the interview transcripts, observation notes, and documents, followed by individual category descriptions of emotions via open coding (Locke, 2001). In categorizing emotional statements, we followed Lazarus’ (1993) classification of emotions and core relational themes. In particular, these core relational themes characterize the central harm or benefit which positive and negative emotions evoke. To this end, we analyzed how emotions are defined by their core relational themes and patterns of appraisal (Lazarus, 1991). Thus, when middle managers or employees faced uncertainty or threats, we coded this as “anxiety,” whereas making progress in the integration phase was coded as “happiness.” Our observational data focused on emotional cues, such as crying, laughing, facial expressions, or particular statements about emotional states to derive emotional categories (Vuori & Virtaharju, 2012).
Following the assumption that the initial appraisal of the situation generates emotions that subsequently trigger sensemaking (Lazarus, 1991), we next tried to delineate patterns of sensegiving and sensemaking across middle managers over time. We constructed our own researchers’ narrative (Langley, 1999) of sensegiving and sensemaking practices. This exercise was far from simple as we were dealing with a complex phenomenon, and references to emotions in sensegiving and sensemaking accounts were often implicit. The triangulation of data helped us to distill clear patterns. For example, certain middle managers smiled while talking to their subordinates during team meetings and used encouraging phrases such as “we have got this.” Another manifestation of how engagement toward the integration was reinforced came from our secondary material. An internal letter at the beginning of the integration phase stated that “We have made it… Today marks the start of a new and exciting journey.” We coded these cues as “motivating” and “proactive thinking” and added further codes as they emerged from multiple readings of our interview transcripts and observation notes. To characterize the sensemaking process, we focused on one main characteristic: understanding (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). As an example, we assigned the code “discovery phase” to middle managers who frequently mentioned “thinking” and “wondering” during the interviews.
Our analysis then moved toward the formation of basic categories (Gioia et al., 2013). After identifying the first-order codes based on the above-described open coding process, they were clustered in a manageable number of categories. In this process, we searched for similarities and differences among the categories, leading to second-order themes. For example, we identified and elaborated on two main types of sensemaking: “senseseeking” and “rationalizing,” which are based on the degree to which middle managers had difficulty making sense of the PMI phase and how they actively rationalized the PMI process. We also observed two main types of sensegiving: “emotional reversal” and “emotional hiding,” which are based on how far middle managers tried to steer employees’ emotions into something positive, and how they avoided sharing emotions. These second-order themes served as a framework and were then further conceptualized into third-order “aggregate dimensions” (Gioia et al., 2013), namely, emotional experience, sensemaking, and sensegiving. The complete data structure can be found in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Data structure.
We then proceeded to build theory by “cycling between emergent data, themes, concepts, and dimensions and the relevant literature” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 21), taking into account the longitudinal nature of our data. This process resulted in the development of a process model of middle managers’ emotional experiences, sensemaking, and sensegiving practices during PMI. In developing our model, we applied a systematic and iterative analytical approach where we constantly moved back and forth between our empirical data and existing literature (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Quality Criteria
In order to increase the trustworthiness of our study, certain measures were taken which enhanced credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, we used triangulation of qualitative sources, which improved consistency and reduced bias. Using secondary data, observations, and interviews, we increased credibility, strengthening our confidence in the research findings. Moreover, we compared the findings from interviews with middle managers against the statements made by employees. Any inconsistencies did not indicate low credibility of the results but offered deeper insights and different perspectives (Patton, 2015).
Furthermore, this study’s entire research process was presented clearly and transparently to enhance dependability and confirmability. Dependability was also increased by having both authors code the data independently. This yielded very high reliability (>90%). The remaining cases were discussed to reach an agreement. Last, transferability refers to the “fittingness” of the findings to other contexts, settings, or groups (Noble & Smith, 2015). Therefore, we provide rich detail of context and thick descriptive data, facilitating the evaluation of our conclusions and their transferability to other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Noble & Smith, 2015). In this regard, we also explicitly use the organizations’ actual names to increase the reliability of the case study (Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008). Although not anonymizing the organizations could lead to a positive self-evaluation and/or organizational representation, we did not find evidence of this effect in our case study. Our informants were very motivated to provide us with detailed and in-depth information because they perceived the integration as important for the company’s future. We will now lay out the findings that emerged inductively from our data.
Findings
As we conducted our data analysis, critical themes began to emerge. In the following section, we provide an overview of these themes. In this overview, we follow the chronological order of the PMI process, and based on discussions with top management, we distinguished three phases. A concrete PMI event often marked the beginning of each phase, and each phase was characterized by distinct emotional experiences and middle managers’ sensemaking and sensegiving practices. The first phase of the integration (2015–2016) was surrounded by ambiguity and uncertainty in which middle manager’s “senseseeking” played a key role. The second phase (2016–2018) started with negative emotional expressions, but middle managers increasingly tried to keep themselves emotionally detached from the integration. In the final phase (2018–2020), we observed more positive emotional expressions.
Our findings reveal that sensemaking and sensegiving practices were impacted by the merging of the two cultures. Middle managers described the Merck culture as highly innovative but, at the same time, strict and compliant. On the other hand, Sigma-Aldrich’s culture was considered rather flexible and agile but, at the same time, somewhat “messy.” Consequently, managers had to make sense of cultural differences first to act accordingly and influence their subordinates. One middle manager told us: “Yes, it is a very different culture. We need to learn how to behave and how to navigate this new company.” This cultural change was considered challenging and difficult, but middle managers increasingly recognized the strengths in merging both cultures.
Integration Phase 1 (2015–2016)
The first integration phase started with the official announcement of the acquisition in 2015 and lasted approximately 1 year. Although Sigma-Aldrich officially belonged to Merck both organizations continued to work side-by-side. Besides laying the groundwork for further integration, this phase marked the implementation of a core management structure and unified administrative policies. To this end, a special integration team was formed to lead the transition to the new organization.
Emotional Experience–A Rollercoaster of Emotions
The start of this first integration phase caused much confusion among middle managers about the new organizational structure and tasks, processes, and individual roles. As a result, middle managers displayed ambiguous emotions. Several middle managers were worried about their own job and scared of potential changes. They did not know how their position would change in the future or if they would be made redundant. Moreover, middle managers were concerned that they would need to adapt to a great extent and felt like they were not in control of their own future in the company. One middle manager explained it as follows: “It was like when you are in a laundry machine, you know that you are circling, circling, circling, and you cannot stop, and you cannot understand really well, what is happening.”
Nevertheless, several middle managers were interested in gaining further knowledge, learning new ways of working, and seeing how the integration would unfold. They were also curious to get to know the different organizational cultures, a process often referred to as “learning experience.” Accordingly, emotions were constantly shifting, and middle managers experienced emotional cycles, where they felt both positive and negative feelings.
Sensemaking–“Senseseeking”
Middle managers often described this first phase as a “discovery phase” in which they actively sought to make sense of the PMI process. Confusion impeded decision-making and the speed of integration. Moreover, middle managers had many questions about the integration procedure and new organizational structures.
On the one hand, managers were searching for their identity while making sense of the PMI phase. On the other hand, they also needed to encourage a collaborative mindset among individuals in their teams. A sales manager put it as follows:
“I think one thing that I was very keen on was, you know, identity shouldn’t be designed, it should be discovered. Because I wasn’t trying to change anyone. I was trying to genuinely understand who the people were and then how that rolled up into how the team looked like.”
Middle managers spoke openly about trying to understand who they were as a new organization and what their future goals looked like. For instance, one middle manager said: “If you don’t understand, ask more questions. That’s what I started doing as well. And that’s also why I could be strong and say, I need to involve myself more by asking questions.”
At the same time, senior management reinforced the idea of the new vision in an announcement to all organization members. In this message, one senior manager wrote: “Think and Act Purple every day and in all you do… Raise questions, surface challenges, and offer purple solutions that fit our purple organization based on where [we] are during this transition.” To this end, everyone was invited to participate in virtual meetings where the new strategy, ideas, and best practices could be discussed. Middle managers were also encouraged to raise questions and share their knowledge with other colleagues. This initial phase of the integration lasted until the point where emotions started to turn into negative feelings.
Integration Phase 2 (2016–2018)
The second integration phase started with the ‘go-live’ of the acquisition in the first half of 2016. In an internal letter, top management addressed the integration’s execution and called for further action to drive the business forward. The statement, “2016 will be a busy and exciting year for all of us,” pointed toward the benefits and challenges of this second integration phase.
Emotional Experience–Frustration
As the integration proceeded, we observed that middle managers increasingly expressed their doubts and concerns during informal meetings with their direct managers. The beginning of this second integration phase was characterized by strong negative emotions, which we subsumed under the label “frustration.” One reason was the huge amount of additional work the integration brought about and new procedures with which middle managers, in particular, needed to cope. The alignment of processes was complicated and often difficult while at the same time different expectations had to be met. Thus, the integration put great pressure on middle managers, who explained that they felt stressed and exhausted. As one sales manager put it: “And like end of last year, I was really surprised about myself, how exhausted I was. I never had that feeling before.”
The differences between the two companies’ systems and their misalignment also annoyed Merck’s middle managers. In this context, they often referred to the integration as a “nightmare.” The differences between both companies further triggered several managers to compare their positions and those between teams. This resulted in jealousy and anger. People perceived themselves to be treated differently and disadvantaged compared to members from the other organization.
Frustration was also caused by the slow integration speed. Middle managers complained that the integration process dragged on for a long time and that they invested a lot of time in aligning and learning the different organizational processes, time that they would have rather invested in doing their usual work. Middle managers were frustrated because, in hindsight, they realized many issues could have been prevented. One change manager told us: “The frustration comes from the fact that we could have solved it, not the fact [that] it’s happening, you know?”
During this negative emotional state, we also observed that middle managers had to reinforce business continuity in meetings with their subordinates as well as other managers. Therefore, they moved to a process we labeled “rational sensemaking.” In this regard, their experience within the company but also as managers facilitated the shift, and they described it as their “task” to “quickly understand the change and accept the change” (middle manager).
Sensemaking–Rationalizing
While rationalizing, middle managers tried to keep themselves emotionally detached from the integration and the occurring changes in this phase. To this end, they tried to generalize their behavior and potential emotions. For example, some middle managers indicated that certain issues that occurred during the PMI process may as well happen in different change contexts and were not only caused by the acquisition. In other words, they rationalized the integration process and emphasized a pragmatic approach. As one middle manager said: “I tend to try and rationalize everything, and you know, look at the pros and cons of the situation, and that makes me less emotional than some other people.”
Middle managers tried to be as objective as possible and ensure that everyone was treated equally. We further noticed that they tried to remain confident and reassure themselves that they would have nothing to fear. One middle manager explained that all they could do was to “just be aware, know what you can do, do your best, and don’t stress as this [acquiring another company] has been done in the past, [and] we learn from mistakes.” They combined this rational thinking with more proactive thinking, which was needed to drive the business forward and ensure efficiency. In this regard, middle managers constantly monitored the process for optimization and emphasized the need to be prepared.
Sensegiving–Emotional Hiding
In rationalizing the PMI process, middle managers were conscious of their own emotions and careful about expressing them in front of their teams. If they were confronted with negative feelings about the integration, they did not talk about it with their employees but rather tried to change their attitude by consolidating with peers. Moreover, to avoid panic and concerns among the team, they did not always share all information.
Employees acknowledged that managers tried to be as transparent as possible but sometimes communicated on a “need-to-know basis” to prevent information overload. A clear example of emotional hiding was expressed by employees who noted that managers did not project their anxiety onto them. One employee identified: “I don’t know what the managers and supervisors really felt because they hide these things. They needed to give a positive vibe to the team. No matter what.” This quote illustrates that managers tried to disguise their negative feelings in front of their teams. The goal was to steer employees in the right direction through proactive thinking and a willingness to change.
Emotional Experience–Emotional Distancing
Through the rationalization approach and emotional hiding, middle managers increasingly became emotionally disconnected from the PMI process. They also became aware that feelings tended to distract them from the actual work situation and impeded their understanding of the integration. By maintaining distance, middle managers could prepare for the change, focus on their daily tasks, and prevent themselves from being overwhelmed or stressed by emotions. For instance, one middle manager mentioned: “I need to find a good balance to take care of my team but at the same time to take care of my own world.” In other words, middle managers used this approach to facilitate the integration process and increase their resilience and emotional strength. However, emotionally disconnecting from the PMI did not imply that managers distanced themselves from their employees. On the contrary, as one employee stated, they stayed close and “tried to keep everything under control, even the feelings.”
Middle managers adjusted to the situation and accepted it for what it was until changes eventually became a habit. To this end, they tried to ignore the frustration because, as another middle manager affirmed, “sometimes there’s not a lot you can do about some things.”
Integration Phase 3 (2018–2020)
In 2018, middle managers reinforced the purpose of integrating with Sigma-Aldrich during a general meeting with employees. In this meeting, they presented the integration milestones achieved so far, reflected upon employees’ engagement, and invited them to address doubts and concerns. We marked this meeting as the beginning of the third integration phase. It shows how middle managers now had to cope not only with their own emotions but actively manage their subordinates’ emotions as well.
Sensemaking–Resistance by Employees
In the beginning of this third integration phase, negative emotions (e.g., frustration, annoyance, unhappiness, and disappointment) started to grow among employees. Two areas that caused major stress and frustration were human integration and system integration. Human integration was acknowledged to have been highly challenging, mainly due to the different mindsets and attitudes in both companies. Therefore, employees frequently mentioned the differences between “two sides” and were reluctant to cooperate. As one employee stated: “Yeah, first of all, when they said we have to work together […], I thought, Why should I? I have my own work!” Disagreements between both teams reinforced this feeling. For instance, another employee mentioned that “the bigger problem was fixing problems with other teams. So, for example, you notice that we’re on the telephone, and another team refuses to take calls and has a bit of an attitude […]. This is the kind of thing where we then protest to our managers.”
Further issues resulted from the integration of different systems and the alignment of procedures. Accordingly, employees viewed the integration as “messy” and “chaotic,” which led to annoyance and frustration. During this phase, they became increasingly unsatisfied because they were not used to new ways of working. Moreover, they stated that senior management had planned the integration without considering its effects at the employee level. Initial excitement about the integration resulted in disappointment. As one employee noted: “But at the very beginning, we had really high hopes […] But then we got really disappointed.” Middle managers were increasingly made aware of the resistance and stress with which employees had to cope. Employees also indicated that they would like to know how to manage their emotions, for instance, to deal with stress.
Sensegiving–Emotional Reversal
Middle managers felt that their emotions began to mirror their subordinates’ emotions. If, for instance, they showed that they were scared about certain events, they would pass this feeling onto the team. Therefore, middle managers emphasized the importance of motivating people by explaining the benefits of the acquisition and giving them a reason to engage in the integration process. In this way, they encouraged, in particular, those employees who were displaying negative emotions and resistance toward the change.
Part of this process was the belief in being a role model and the importance of steering peoples’ emotions in a positive direction. As one middle manager explained: “And then you can also be very positive, and that makes people reflect the positivity from you.” Middle managers stated that when the team members saw their energy and ambition, they were more engaged and ready to follow directions. Accordingly, the relationship with the teams, and also across teams, was based on reciprocity. If managers supported their employees emotionally, employees were supportive too and subsequently developed positive emotions. It was sometimes described as a “give and take” game in which managers took care of their team and vice versa. Likewise, middle managers also received strong support and encouragement from higher-level managers. Top management was empathic toward middle managers by listening to their concerns and providing guidance.
This third integration phase was also characterized by more frequent communication with individual team members. Middle managers decided on frequent meetings with their teams to discuss issues and provide support. The time and regularity of these meetings varied, but we observed that most middle managers implemented them on a daily basis. One middle manager stated: “I’ve always been a big believer in something called decompression. And the idea is just to release pressure […] that when you have a team, and you get these emotions and things like this, you have to address them. You can’t leave them. But you have to do it.”
By giving team members enough security and reassurance, middle managers could better guide them through resistance and fear. Employees appreciated that middle managers were active supporters and encouraged individuals to talk about their feelings. As one employee noted: “We were talking about me as an individual… how do I feel in the team? She asked me whether I’m happy.”
Notwithstanding, dealing with employees’ emotions was also challenging, especially when middle managers shared the same negative feelings, such as nervousness, concern, or the need for reassurance. However, this difficulty was characterized as part of the middle manager’s role. They needed to continue with business as usual but, at the same time, had to remain close to people and manage their emotions.
Emotional Experience–Optimism
The integration was seen more and more as energizing and almost felt like a positive challenge among Merck’s middle managers. Hence, positive emotions were the key outcome of this final integration phase. Stress, for example, was described as “positive stress” that helped drive the integration forward. Additionally, managers expressed feelings of pride regarding their team and their achievements. They were also proud to be part of Merck, and the fact that both companies sell high-quality products contributed to their trust in the combined organizational capabilities. This positive attitude came across very clearly when managers stated that they felt happy about the change and excited about what lies ahead. They saw more opportunities within the new company regarding their personal and professional development. Thus, middle managers enjoyed the integration process and felt that it was rewarding. One manager stated that: “At the end of the day, for me, it’s positive, you know, it’s the energy that I get out of it.”
Further evidence of our emerging concepts throughout the different integration phases can be found in Table 2.
Table 2. Illustrative Evidence.
Integration Process
Dimensions
Illustrative Quotes
Integration Phase 1
Emotional Experience
Emotional rollercoaster
- “The hardest times, the hardest years in my life […] the integration, losing customers, managing the team, with all the HR issues. So, the last 3 years have been really, really challenging.” (Middle Manager)
- “It was very mixed. At one point, you got people happy because you’ve given them jobs and stuff going. On the other hand, you have to handle the workload for people who have been working at the organization for 15 years and then aren’t happy to be losing their jobs.” (Middle Manager)
- “But yes, it was exciting and nerve-wracking at the same time.” (Employee)
Emotional Sensemaking
Senseseeking
- “I think there was a lot of … before things started really happening. There was that element of confusion and, you know, not quite knowing what was happening and are our jobs safe and all those uneasy feelings as well.” (Middle Manager)
- “And that’s also why I could be strong and say, I need to involve myself more by asking questions. What are you doing? How are you doing things? And then they explained to me, and I said ‘Okay, I don’t understand this piece. How does it work?’ So, questions, questions, questions, until I understand.” (Middle Manager)
Integration Phase 2
Emotional Experience
Frustration
- “The only emotion I could have is frustration.” (Middle Manager)
- “And for me, that was quite frustrating because you know, you sort of, you have worked to be in a certain position, and suddenly there’s other people who are higher in rank than me.” (Middle Manager)
Emotional Sensemaking
Rationalizing
- “And the facts, you need to have the facts, not only the feelings.” (Middle Manager)
- “I try to minimize the amount of emotions. So, I try to think as logically as possible, when I’m taking complex decisions or whatever within my environment.” (Middle Manager)
Emotional Sensegiving
Emotional Hiding
- “I’m cautious on how I use my feelings, what I say and what I do not say to whom.” (Middle Manager)
- “I mean, from the management standpoint, I think what is important to know what to share and not to share with the team.” (Middle Manager)
- “I don’t know what the managers and supervisors really felt because they hide these things.” (Employee)
Emotional Experience
Emotional distancing
- “The change is there anyway, it’s just up to you to be part of it.” (Middle Manager)
- “I try to ignore it. I try not to get frustrated by it. And just accept that, you know, what I’m doing is valuable.” (Middle Manager)
Integration Phase 3
Emotional Sensemaking
Emotional resistance (employees)
- “We all just grumpily helped and did stuff with colleagues.” (Employee)
- “I’m just getting super frustrated.” (Employee)
Emotional Sensegiving
Emotional reversal
- “But the other way as well, if I feel the resistance longer or, you know, negativity around the change, I can also speak to my colleagues who are more positive about it and learn from them what positivity they see and think ‘oh, yeah, that’s actually good’.” (Middle Manager)
- “And then you can be also very positive and that people reflect the positivity from you.” (Middle Manager)
Emotional Experience
Optimism
- “And I think we’re just kind of learning to change our mentality to not looking at changes as it’s all negative. Kind of looking at it by taking a step back and thinking, ‘Oh, yeah, I could see how this is going to work.’” (Middle Manager)
- “But 1 day we will get there and then it will be awesome. Merck will be really leading the pharmaceutical world together with two or three other companies.” (Employee)
An Emerging Model of Middle Managers’ Emotions and Sensemaking and Sensegiving Practices
Our findings on the role of middle managers’ emotions and their sensemaking and sensegiving practices during a PMI phase led to the development of a process model (see Figure 2), which we will elaborate on in the following section and discuss against the background of existing literature.
Figure 2. A process model of middle managers’ emotional sensemaking and sensegiving practices during post-merger integration.
Identity ambiguity and job uncertainty prevailed at the start of the PMI process, leading to confusion and insecurity among middle managers. As Corley and Gioia’s (2004) study similarly showed, middle managers felt they lost part of their identity and were concerned about their future. Hence, they experienced various emotions and subsequently engaged in a process we labeled “senseseeking.” In this process, middle managers displayed stronger interest for and motivation in the PMI phase, as they tried to understand what the change implied for themselves and their future career (Kusstatscher & Cooper, 2005).
Middle managers’ “senseseeking” initially caused negative rather than positive emotions. More precisely, our findings suggest that the uncertainty at the beginning of the PMI phase triggered frustration among middle managers, accompanied by other negative emotions. This is in line with studies that indicate that M&As initially often give rise to high levels of stress (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro, Belisle, & Hoeven, 2000b).
Although negative emotions are typically considered an impediment to sensemaking, as they may hamper the ability of individuals to understand the events and take appropriate action (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010), our case study revealed the opposite. Frustration served as a driver to address underlying issues during the integration process. Middle managers saw the integration as a challenge, involving constant problem-solving, rationalization, and process optimization. They did not sustain their initial frustration but first tried to understand the underlying reasons for this emotion before they subsequently utilized it to rationalize and improve the PMI process.
Related to our findings, Steigenberger (2015) argues that anger induces a feeling that the situation can be overcome with one’s abilities and, therefore, leads to optimism regarding the future state of the PMI process. Indeed, in our case study, middle managers saw the positive side of the negative emotions they experienced, particularly utilizing frustration as a driver for continuous improvement and rationalizing the situation. This is reflected in the following statement from a middle manager at Merck:
“We often compare our role to firefighters […] And they are also doing a lot of prevention […] But the frustration also comes on these guys when they see basic mistakes being made, which ends up with a fire in the house, for example. So, they will insist on prevention to have a kind of continuous improvement. So, that’s why I seek to do this, frustration […] to cause prevention.”
Part of the explanation of this shift was the observation that middle managers needed to continue “business as usual.” This is in line with recent research suggesting that PMI cannot be seen as detached from other co-evolving processes within the organization (Rouzies, Colman, & Angwin, 2019). Moreover, their experience within the company and previous M&As helped middle managers facilitate the shift from negative emotions to rational sensemaking. For instance, one middle manager noted that: “For me, it was neutral because I have a lot of experience of going through change. So that helped me a lot.”Steigenberger (2017) similarly notes that experience can support a successful integration process.
This “rational sensemaking” process has important implications for middle managers’ emotions and how they deal with them. Studies on emotional contagion provide evidence that negative emotions may easily be transferred to employees (Barsade, 2002). For example, negative emotions may spread to employees, leading to hostility and relationship conflicts (Vuori et al., 2018) or hampering team identification (Sarala et al., 2019). Hence, emotions can have further interpersonal effects and social consequences (Van Kleef, 2009). In our case study, middle managers increasingly acknowledged that the transfer of (negative) emotions could impede successful integration and distract people from focusing on the change, which is why they did not always share their emotions.
Middle managers tried to hide their feelings of injustice and jealousy and aimed to eradicate these feelings among their teams by taking a neutral and unbiased position. Hence, our analysis reveals that middle managers engaged in a process called “emotional hiding.” This process relates to the concept of “sensehiding” (Monin et al., 2013; Vaara & Monin, 2010) and can be defined as a process where individuals intentionally leave out certain aspects or cues during sensegiving to shape the other person’s meaning (Monin et al., 2013). During our observations, we noticed that middle managers at Merck avoided expressing certain emotions, especially negative emotions, by adapting their body language or vocal tone, for example.
This form of sensegiving also caused middle managers to purposefully take an emotional distance from the PMI phase. This became apparent during our observations, where managers tried to avoid emotive language but rather expressed themselves rationally and objectively. Hence, our study indicates that the process of rational sensemaking implies the creation of rational accounts of the environment by avoiding emotions (i.e., emotional hiding), enabling middle managers to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity, and drive the business forward (Maitlis, 2005). This finding corresponds to studies that found a dialogical relationship between sensegiving and sensemaking (Monin et al., 2013).
Our findings also relate to the literature on “emotion suppression,” defined as a process by which individuals inhibit emotion-expressive behavior while being emotionally aroused, to appear neutral (Gross & Levenson, 1993). Our case study revealed that middle managers avoided expressing emotions to shape their subordinates’ emotions and manage their own. Therefore, our findings support the assumption that suppressing the expression of emotions can be effective in influencing others’ emotions and enhancing social interaction (Niven, Totterdell, & Holman, 2009).
We further illustrate how middle managers moved from frustration to rational sensemaking and the final creation of positive emotions. An essential driver to turn these negative emotions into positive emotions was support from top management and communication with direct peers. As one middle manager stated: “I would try first to speak with my peers and with my own manager to get out of this, let’s say, negative feeling.” Top managers’ willingness to listen and the existence of a supportive culture proved to be crucial for a successful change (Dutton et al., 1997).
Although middle managers engaged in steering their subordinate’s emotions, we also observed that employees who lacked direction became increasingly resistant to the integration. In this regard, an important turning point was when middle managers started to reflect on their employees’ frustration toward the integration. Hence, employees’ frustration increased their attention and desire to achieve something (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). One middle manager explained it as follows: “It’s a kind of looking at it by taking a step back and thinking: ‘Oh, yeah, I could see how this is going to work.’ See the positives of it rather than thinking: ‘Now, it’s going to be hard work.’”
Our case study reveals an interesting way middle managers dealt with this resistance by their employees. They engaged in a sensegiving process which we labeled “emotional reversal.” In light of what happened in earlier phases of the integration process, middle managers acknowledged that PMI was difficult, but at the same time, they emphasized the importance of seeing the positive side of it. By drawing their attention to the benefits of the acquisition and overcoming emotional hurdles, middle managers strengthened the belief in a successful outcome of the integration process. This proactive approach helped to avoid creating negative emotions among the team and served to overcome resistance by constantly moving forward. In other words, middle managers mainly leveraged positive emotions, which could then be transmitted to employees to improve their attitude and performance.
This process again worked through “emotional contagion,” which occurs when emotions spread from one person to another at the subconscious and conscious levels (Barsade, 2002). Middle managers expressed positive emotions through their body language and vocal tone, which were subsequently adopted by team members, enhancing task performance and cooperativeness (Barsade, 2002). Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (2005) emphasize that positive emotions are particularly contagious and improve cooperation among group members. During our observations, we also noted that team members who experienced positive emotions, particularly excitement and happiness, were highly compassionate and helpful in interaction with their peers.
Discussion and Conclusion
Our study reveals how emotions impact sensemaking and sensegiving processes and vice versa. By understanding their own emotions and their importance during sensemaking dynamics, middle managers can purposefully decide which emotions they will transmit to their subordinates to influence their feelings. Our findings have important implications for three main research streams: research on PMI, the literature on sensemaking and sensegiving, and studies on middle managers as active change agents.
PMI
Whereas PMI scholars elaborated on crucial ‘soft’ aspects during PMI, such as culture clashes or the loss of identity and trust (Graebner et al., 2017), our case study outlines the importance of emotions in this phase. Analyses of emotions in the management literature assert that emotions are detrimental to rationality and should be eliminated as far as possible (Kusstatscher & Cooper, 2005). Similarly, the M&A literature mainly elaborates on negative emotions and the question of how they can be avoided, reduced, or prevented (Vuori & Virtaharju, 2012). Hence, existing models tend to ignore the emotional aspects of organizational change and associate change with problems that have to be managed rationally (Vince & Broussine, 1996).
In our study, we observed that middle managers sometimes try to avoid negative feelings by being as rational as possible and using neutral terms, such as “difficult” and “complicated,” when talking about negative aspects of the integration phase. At the same time, we found that middle managers can steer their own emotions and their subordinates’. For example, they stressed the importance of positive emotions to create feelings of security, honesty, and trust. Such feelings satisfy employees’ need to feel valued within the team and the organization more broadly (Appelbaum et al., 2000a). In this regard, we could argue that negative emotions can be a driver for positive post-merger outcomes. For example, frustration can translate into optimism through sensemaking and sensegiving dynamics and enhance organization members’ emotional well-being and lead to a proactive attitude and a stronger will to collaborate and take the next step.
Our study also provides more insight into the crucial role of communication during PMI (Appelbaum et al., 2000a; Sinkovics, Zagelmeyer, & Kusstatscher, 2011). By highlighting the processes of emotional contagion, emotional hiding, and emotional reversal, our findings suggest that it is particularly (not) communicating emotions that influence organization members’ sensemaking and determines the progress and outcomes of PMI.
Finally, by developing a process model of middle managers’ emotions and elucidating how they influence sensemaking and sensegiving practices during PMI, we respond to the call for a better understanding of emotional processes (Sarala et al., 2019) as well as the need to gain further insights into the dynamics of PMI (Graebner et al., 2017). We found that time also impacted the transition phases from negative toward positive emotions during the integration process. Therefore, we encourage future research to closely examine the role of pace and integration speed as key factors in successful integration processes. It could help nurture positive feelings and allow time for trust-building (Homburg & Bucerius, 2006; Ranft & Lord, 2002).
Sensemaking and Sensegiving
Our study demonstrates that emotions are important during an organizational change process but particularly impact sensemaking and sensegiving activities, which recursively influence middle managers’ emotional experiences and actions. As Steigenberger (2015) argues, emotions can be both inputs and outcomes of sensemaking processes. Likewise, emotion and cognition are highly intertwined, and interpretations of the environment are inherently emotional (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003). Thus, we suggest a reciprocal relationship between cognition and emotion, where both shape each other (Lazarus, 1991).
Against this background, we move beyond an understanding of one-way interactions and elucidate the reciprocal and recursive relationships between emotions, sensemaking, and sensegiving (Ashkanasy, Humphrey, & Huy, 2017). We believe that without considering emotions, sensemaking processes cannot be fully understood. In this regard, sensemaking can be regarded as an emotional process instead of solely a social process (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008).
By further stressing the importance of emotional hiding and emotional reversal, our findings also add to the literature on specific sensegiving components (Monin et al., 2013; Vaara & Monin, 2010). In our context, emotional hiding can be seen as serving two main outcomes. On the one hand, it prevents employees’ contagion of negative emotions and subsequently reduces negative emotional experiences for middle managers. However, we have also seen that this might come at the expense of employees’ sensemaking and increases resistance towards the acquisition and integration process.
In this light, our findings also contribute to the literature on emotion suppression (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Richards & Gross, 1999), highlighting that people often inhibit their emotion-expressive behavior. There seems to be an established notion that emotion suppression is a maladaptive and dysfunctional strategy (Gross & John, 2003). However, our findings resonate with more recent studies, which indicate that emotion suppression can be a useful emotion regulation strategy depending on the context. In situations that call for it, such as ours, suppression is likely a beneficial strategy and can be helpful for the individual organization member and the team (Kalokerinos, Greenaway, & Casey 2017; Lam, Walter, & Lawrence, 2021). This is particularly true in situations in which the context does not match emotional experiences.
Middle managers responded to the increased resistance of employees through the process of emotional reversal. Previous studies (e.g., Tsai, Chen, & Cheng, 2009) have shown that leaders can influence the mood of their followers during organizational change to gain their support. Our analysis adds to these studies by explaining how middle managers purposefully steered the emotions of their subordinates. Middle managers acted as emotion managers during this process (Huy, 2002; Kusstatscher, 2006).
Middle Managers as Active Change Agents
The PMI literature increasingly acknowledges that M&As may mean very different things to different groups of employees (Brannen & Peterson, 2009; Monin et al., 2013). Although most previous studies assume PMI to be a “one-size-fits-all” approach (Schweizer, 2005, p. 1052), scholars have recently called for a more nuanced perspective (Bauer & Matzler, 2014; Teerikangas & Thanos, 2018). In our study, we focused on middle managers who have been mainly described as issue sellers (Dutton et al., 1997), change agents (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), or change intermediaries (Balogun, 2003), while less attention has been directed to their role as emotion managers (Huy, 2002).
Our study uncovers the powerful impact that positive and negative emotions have on middle managers while at the same time, they can take an emotional distance from the PMI process. Middle managers’ emotions influence their sensegiving and sensemaking activities in dealing with PMI tensions and, as such, underscore their crucial role in implementing change (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016).
We further elaborate on the fundamental role of rationalizing as a (middle manager’s) sensemaking mechanism. Middle managers acknowledged that (negative) emotions might be distracting and prevent them from focusing on daily business operations. Relatedly, our findings answer the question of how negative emotions result in positive outcomes during PMI (Sarala et al., 2019). Here, emotional reversal is a middle manager’s main sensegiving tactic to affect positive feelings among individuals. In this regard, our study also points to the importance of managerial communication and middle managers’ “duty” to acknowledge emotions during times of change (Zagelmeyer et al., 2016).
Managerial Implications
Although middle managers may not have a huge influence on the strategic change direction due to their intermediary position (Balogun, 2003), our findings show that they do have a significant influence on the emotional state of their employees. A key reason for this is the closeness to their subordinates, allowing them to have frequent communication and develop strong relationships. Hence, our findings develop an understanding of how middle managers interpret and control emotional processes during PMI. Active emotion management may support change processes and strategy implementation within organizations (Steigenberger, 2015).
According to Kusstatscher (2006), negative emotions cannot only drive positive emotions, but the latter can also undo negative emotions completely. This became evident in our case study when middle managers realized that challenges and negative feelings could be overcome by keeping a positive attitude and being optimistic throughout the change process. Thus, organization members may want to focus on the feeling opposite to the threatening one, which can serve as a defense mechanism during organizational change (Vince & Broussine, 1996).
Our findings suggest that middle managers understand their own emotions and utilize this knowledge to address and steer their subordinates’ emotions. Thus, our analysis highlights an essential quality of middle managers: emotional intelligence (Sosik & Megerian, 1999). This quality characterizes the ability of middle managers to identify, use, understand, and subsequently manage emotions (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). If managers understand that emotions do not imply a weakness but enable them to react faster and to cope with organizational change, it will lead to improved PMI outcomes.
During this process, guidance and communication are essential to increase employees’ emotional well-being and their willingness to collaborate. Therefore, middle managers are encouraged to engage in regular one-on-one conversations with employees to discuss their feelings and emotional state. At the same time, it is important to show empathy and an understanding of employees’ negative emotions.
Finally, we would like to point out the importance of higher-level management support. Senior managers need to address middle managers’ emotions. They must recognize that middle managers experience similar emotions as employees while simultaneously fulfilling certain role expectations and ensuring “business as usual.” Due to the intermediary position of middle managers (Balogun, 2003), they act as “sensegivers” and, at the same time, as “sensereceivers” within an organization (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The initial “senseseeking” process we observed in our study was influenced by meaning construction coming from top management. Hence, senior managers can pass on their interpretation of change to middle managers to influence their understanding, but more importantly, to provide support during the process of “senseseeking.” Moreover, senior managers need to acknowledge that the PMI outcome depends on how well middle managers understand and utilize their emotions, which will affect not only their own behavior but also the emotional state of their subordinates.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our findings originate from one acquiring company engaging in a particular PMI process. As is often the case with single case studies trying to delve deeper into a specific phenomenon, our study suffers from transferability issues. For example, Merck has undergone several integrations in the past, which probably shaped their response to this acquisition. Therefore, we encourage future research to replicate our findings in different contexts. In this regard, future studies may reveal other types of emotions such as shame (Vince, 2006) or hope (Steigenberger, 2015). The concept of emotional sensemaking and sensegiving could subsequently be applied in various organizational change contexts and provide further insights into the processes that are underlying these dimensions.
Moreover, we were undoubtedly biased by our own sensemaking, framed on capturing recent developments within research on the emotional aspects of sensemaking and sensegiving, and our background and relationships with people in the organizations. Nevertheless, we tried to follow existing guidelines to enhance the reliability of our study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Zhang & Shaw, 2012), such as triangulating data sources and presenting the entire research process of this study as clearly and transparently as possible.
Schlindwein and Geppert (2020) note that the intensity of emotions determines whether actors will engage in sensemaking. Too much emotional intensity is likely to interrupt sensemaking activities as the cognitive capacity needs to be devoted to the emotion rather than the triggering issue or event. On the other hand, a low emotional intensity causes actors not to be motivated for sensemaking as triggering issues or events are interpreted as routine. Future studies could take the intensity of emotions into account.
Our data were collected over a long period, which provided us the opportunity to uncover a variety of emotions in a PMI process. However, we had a limited sample of interviews conducted 5 years after the acquisition was announced. Of course, we triangulated these findings using secondary data and observations, but future research could draw on more informants over time. Here, it could also be interesting to focus on an acquired firm’s perspective or companies with less experience in M&As.
During our interviews, some middle managers may have been less willing to talk about their emotions or even tried to hide their feelings. This became clear when interviewees stated that people generally do not want to talk about emotions. Hence, future research could focus on alternative data collection measures, such as diaries, and consider the informants’ individual characters.
While our study focuses on emotional sensemaking and sensegiving practices among middle managers, our process model also considered employees’ sensemaking in the form of resistance. This provides an interesting area for future research. Studies could elaborate on emotional sensemaking and sensegiving processes at different hierarchical levels and how they influence each other. In this regard, the processes of “emotional reversal,” “emotional hiding,” “senseseeking,” and “rational sensemaking” among senior managers and employees may also be examined because we believe our core findings are analytically generalizable (Yin, 2003). Additionally, Schriber (2012) noted that managers might experience stronger negative emotions than employees during PMI. Therefore, our findings should be offset against increased feelings of insufficiency, role conflicts, and immense workloads leading to exhaustion or burnouts.
In sum, we hope this study will serve as a guide for future research, providing more insight into organization members’ emotions and their relation to sensemaking and sensegiving practices, particularly in times of organizational change.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Appelbaum S. H., Gandell J., Shapiro B. T., Belisle P., Hoeven E. (2000b). Anatomy of a merger: Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre‐ during‐ post‐ stages (part 2). Management Decision, 38, 674-684.
Appelbaum S. H., Gandell J., Yortis H., Proper S., Jobin F. (2000a). Anatomy of a merger: Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre‐ during‐ post‐stages (part 1). Management Decision, 38, 649-662.
Aromaa E., Eriksson P., Helms Mills J., Hiltunen E., Lammassaari M., Mills A. J. (2019). Critical sensemaking: Challenges and promises. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 14, 356-376.
Aromaa E., Eriksson P., Montonen T., Mills A. J. (2020). Emotion as soft power in organisations. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 7, 341-357.
Ashkanasy N. M., Humphrey R. H., Huy Q. N. (2017). Integrating emotions and affect in theories of management. Academy of Management Review, 42, 175-189.
Bartunek J. M., Rousseau D. M., Rudolph J. W., DePalma J. A. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 182-206.
Bauer F., Matzler K. (2014). Antecedents of M&A success: The role of strategic complementarity, cultural fit, and degree and speed of integration. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 269-291.
Brannen M. Y., Peterson M. F. (2009). Merging without alienating: Interventions promoting cross-cultural organizational integration and their limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 468-489.
Buono A. F., Bowditch J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Capasso A., Meglio O. (2005). Knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions: How frequent acquirers learn to manage the integration process. In Capasso A., Dagnino G. B., Lanza A. (Eds.), Strategic capabilities and knowledge transfer within and between organizations (pp. 199-225). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Caruso D., Salovey P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: How to develop and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clark E., Geppert M. (2011). Subsidiary integration as identity construction and institution building: A political sensemaking approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 395-416.
De Noble A. F., Gustafson L. T., Hergert M. (1988). Planning for post-merger integration–Eight lessons for merger success. Long Range Planning, 21, 82-85.
Dutton J. E., Ashford S. J., O’Neill R. M., Hayes E., Wierba E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 407-423.
Ellsworth P. C., Scherer K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In Davidson R. J., Scherer K. R., Goldsmith H. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572-595). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fiss P. C., Zajac E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173-1193.
Gehman J., Glaser V. L., Eisenhardt K. M., Gioia D., Langley A., Corley K. G. (2017). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 284-300.
Gioia D. A., Corley K. G., Hamilton A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15-31.
Gioia D. A., Thomas J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370-403.
Graebner M. E. (2004). Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 751-777.
Graebner M. E., Heimeriks K. H., Huy Q. N., Vaara E. (2017). The process of postmerger integration: A review and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 1-32.
Gross J. J., John O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.
Gross J. J., Levenson R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970-986.
Gunkel M., Schlaegel C., Rossteutscher T., Wolff B. (2015). The human aspect of cross-border acquisition outcomes: The role of management practices, employee emotions, and national culture. International Business Review, 24, 394-408.
Harikkala-Laihinen R., Hassett M., Raitis J., Nummela N. (2018). Dialogue as a source of positive emotions during cross-border post-acquisition socio-cultural integration. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25, 183-208.
Hassett M. E., Reynolds N.-S., Sandberg B. (2018). The emotions of top managers and key persons in cross-border M&As: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. International Business Review, 27, 737-754.
Helpap S., Bekmeier-Feuerhahn S. (2016). Employees’ emotions in change: Advancing the sensemaking approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29, 903-916.
Hoeven E., Shapiro B. T., Gandell J., Appelbaum S. H., Belisle P. (2000). Anatomy of a merger: Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the pre‐ during‐ post‐ stages (part 2). Management Decision, 38, 674-684.
Homburg C., Bucerius M. (2006). Is speed of integration really a success factor of mergers and acquisitions? An analysis of the role of internal and external relatedness. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 347-367.
Huy Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31-69.
Isabella L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41.
Kalokerinos E. K., Greenaway K. H., Casey J. P. (2017). Context shapes social judgments of positive emotion suppression and expression. Emotion, 17, 169-186.
Kroon D. P., Noorderhaven N. G. (2018). The role of occupational identification during post-merger integration. Group & Organization Management, 43, 207-244.
Kusstatscher V. (2006). Cultivating positive emotions in mergers and acquisitions. In Cooper C. L., Finkelstein S. (Eds.), Advances in mergers and acquisitions (Vol. 5, pp. 91-103). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Lam C. K., Walter F., Lawrence S. A. (2021). Emotion suppression and perceptions of interpersonal citizenship behavior: Faking in good faith or bad faith? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42, 365-387.
Lüscher L. S., Lewis M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221-240.
Maitlis S., Sonenshein S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47, 551-580.
Marks M. L., Mirvis P. H. (2011). Merge ahead: A research agenda to increase merger and acquisition success. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 161-168.
Monin P., Noorderhaven N., Vaara E., Kroon D. (2013). Giving sense to and making sense of justice in postmerger integration. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 256-284.
Moors A., Ellsworth P. C., Scherer K. R., Frijda N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5, 119-124.
Ranft A. L., Lord M. D. (2002). Acquiring new technologies and capabilities: a grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organization Science, 13, 420-441.
Reus T. H., Lamont B. T., Ellis K. M. (2016). A darker side of knowledge transfer following international acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 932-944.
Richards J. M., Gross J. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1033−1044.
Rouleau L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1413-1441.
Rouzies A., Colman H. L., Angwin D. (2019). Recasting the dynamics of post-acquisition integration: An embeddedness perspective. Long Range Planning, 52, 271-282.
Sandberg J., Tsoukas H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 6-32.
Sarala R. M., Vaara E., Junni P. (2019). Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: New avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Journal of World Business, 54, 307-321.
Schlindwein E., Geppert M. (2020). Towards a process model of emotional sensemaking in post-merger integration: Linking cognitive and affective dimensions. Critical perspectives on international business. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-02-2020-0008.
Schriber S (2012). Weakened agents of strategic change: Negative effects of M&A processes on integration managers. International Journal of Business and Management, 7, 159-172.
Schweizer L. (2005). Organizational integration of acquired biotechnology companies into pharmaceutical companies: The need for a hybrid approach. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1051-1074.
Seo M.-G., Hill N. S. (2005). Understanding the human side of merger and acquisition: An integrative framework. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 422-443.
Sinkovics R. R., Zagelmeyer S., Kusstatscher V. (2011). Between merger and syndrome: The intermediary role of emotions in four cross-border M&As. International Business Review, 20, 27-47.
Sonenshein S. (2010). We’re changing–Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512.
Sosik J. J., Megerian L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24, 367-390.
Stahl G. K., Angwin D. N., Very P., Gomes E., Weber Y., Tarba S. Y., Yildiz H. E. (2013). Sociocultural integration in mergers and acquisitions: Unresolved paradoxes and directions for future research. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55, 333-356.
Steigenberger N. (2017). The challenge of integration: A review of the M&A integration literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 408-431.
Sy T., Côté S., Saavedra R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295-305.
Tarba S. Y., Ahammad M. F., Junni P., Stokes P., Morag O. (2019). The impact of organizational culture differences, synergy potential, and autonomy granted to the acquired high-tech firms on the M&A performance. Group & Organization Management, 44, 483-520.
Teerikangas S., Birollo G. (2018). Leading M&As in a middle managerial role: A balancing act. In Raitis J., Harikkala-Laihinen R., Hassett M., Nummela N. (Eds.), Socio-cultural integration in mergers and acquisitions (pp. 65-94). London, UK: Palgrave Pivot.
Teerikangas S., Thanos I. C. (2018). Looking into the ‘black box’–unlocking the effect of integration on acquisition performance. European Management Journal, 36, 366-380.
Tsai W.-C., Chen H.-W., Cheng J.-W. (2009). Employee positive moods as a mediator linking transformational leadership and employee work outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 206-219.
Vaara E., Monin P. (2010). A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. Organization Science, 21, 3-22.
Van Kleef G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life–The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184-188.
Vince R., Broussine M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17, 1-21.
Weiner B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)–emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186-200.
Wooldridge B., Schmid T., Floyd S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34, 1190-1221.
Zagelmeyer S., Sinkovics R. R., Sinkovics N., Kusstatscher V. (2016). Exploring the link between management communication and emotions in mergers and acquisitions. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 35, 93-106.
David P. Kroon is Associate Professor of Strategy and Organization at the School of Business and Economics of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He received his PhD from Tilburg University. His current research focuses on inter-organizational collaborations, organizational change and post-M&A integration with a particular emphasis on identity/identification, justice, culture, communication/language, emotions, and trust.
Hannah Reif obtained her Master of Science degree in Business Administration at the School of Business and Economics of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. During her studies she focused on organizational change in general and mergers and acquisitions in particular. She currently works at Merck Chemicals B.V. in Amsterdam.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
David P. Kroon, Management and Organization, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam 1081 HV, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Group & Organization Management.
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
