Search

Purpose: Strategic alliances play a key role in a company's growth strategy. They are an alternative to the organic option of creating a new company from scratch and a less risky option than conducting a merger or an acquisition. For five years, most recently in 2022, the results of PwC's 22nd Annual CEO Survey have shown that 40% of U.S. CEOs plan to enter into a new strategic alliance or joint venture to boost their company's growth or profitability in the coming year. These operations demand a high level of trust, collaboration and equitable risk-sharing, as well as autonomy granted to both firms. Through an in-depth case study, this study aims to reveal how an alliance was formed between two companies, navigating between entrepreneurial experience and the co-construction of a network to share a technological tool. Design/methodology/approach: The author conducted several interviews with one of the founders of Beta France, and the author had access to a large amount of information on the launch of the entrepreneurial project. Findings: The author presents the reasons for Beta France to join a network of alliances rather than entering into a joint venture. In doing so, the author emphasizes the importance of independence between actors as a key element triggering innovation. Originality/value: This study points out how a fintech startup opens up perspectives for new digital market participants. The author lists the risks that CEOs joining an alliance must be aware of, and the author details how to avoid falling into an asymmetrical alliance by keeping a center of expertise that cannot be duplicated by other partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: When talking about mergers and acquisitions (M&As), few announcements clearly define if the operation will deal with a merger (where firms have an equal-to-equal relation) or acquisition (when one firm is in control of the operation and decides the integration process). Operations are commonly labeled M&A. Nevertheless, mergers remain rare, and the authors see that most of the time, operations designed and integrated with firms as equals end in the control of one of the entities over the other. Design/methodology/approach: The authors investigate how two CEOs and their managers communicate during the due diligence period of a merger. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data. Findings: This in-depth case study provides new insights into the due diligence period and the differences between M&As. The findings highlight how the decision to add an associate from a rival firm to the board ended the merger project as the situation evolved toward an acquisition in CEOs' minds. Research limitations/implications: The limitations are those concerning a single case study. Practical implications: The paper highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the due diligence process, whereas first defining the operation as a merger or an acquisition is a first step in identifying the degree to which autonomy and interdependence will be given across firms, and how some strategic decisions will be implemented. This case study highlights two specific items that can be understood by managers as key elements in deal success: defining operations as a merger or an acquisition help internal and external stakeholders in planning the operation; leaving space for adjustment among partners engaged in negotiations during the due diligence period is also useful. Social implications: Despite their frequency, merger and acquisition failures remain surprisingly high. This paper explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations. Originality/value: The case provides insights into the due diligence period and the way minor events can impact the planned integration. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. To the best of the authors' knowledge, few studies address insights on strategic decisions made as the negotiation period remains a secret and sensitive stage, especially for a failed deal, but we were able to delve beneath the surface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coopetitive tensions can arise as strategic decisions are imposed on firms that challenge them to pursue competition and collaboration with other organizations. Regulators—such as the state—can interfere in merger strategies. Using a longitudinal case study, the objective of the study is: (1) to analyze which regulators influence coopetitive tensions in a merger process (including negotiation and integration stages); and (2) to explore how coopetitive tensions are coped with during the process. We found that the state and customers have architectural roles as regulators during the process (negotiation period, deal, and integration process). We explore coopetition paradox management at different levels (interorganizational, organizational, and individual levels) over the merger process. Points for practitioners: Our study sheds light on tensions experienced by managers with conflicting identities at the beginning of the integration and on the way they coped with such tensions. Indeed, our study shed lights on the integration principle as managers were able to transcend the paradox in their decisions and actions implemented at the organizational level through reorganizing the organization and favoring tandem teams and joint piloting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Coopetition includes cooperation and competition, sometimes simultaneously, among firms from a specific industry involved in a merger and acquisition (M&A) operation. However, despite their high number, most mergers end in failure. Therefore, looking at how firms cooperate and compete when planning a merger operation can be a key to better understand post-merger integration, set achievable synergies for both parties and better understand the organizational culture of both companies. Also, external events in a rapidly changing environment can affect the global strategy of organizations and impact the desire for firms to engage in mergers and acquisitions. Design/methodology/approach: The author investigates how merger negotiations were conducted and influence coopetition among two firms engaged in such an operation. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data. Findings: This in-depth case study provides new insights into coopetition dynamics during merger negotiations and the influence of a global crisis on the overall strategy of two firms. The authors specifically detail how cooperation and competition were present in M&A negotiations and how the rapidly changing environment influenced the planned operation. First, cooperation was privileged as companies enhanced information sharing and communication for their joint strategy. Then, with the evolution of the environment, new opportunities were given to the target company, which decided to quit the merger project. Therefore, both firms engaged in a competitive context as the crisis helped the target company (in difficulty at the beginning of negotiations) to develop new projects and to become a real rival of the acquiring company in its local ecosystem. Research limitations/implications: The limitations are those concerning a single case study. Practical implications: The study highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by integration stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the merger process. The study questions coopetition issues in regional clusters as both firms operate in the same industry in the same region. For practitioners, the study questions how to balance the risks and rewards of coopetition activities over time. The case addresses information sharing in coopetition projects and the fear that the data and information revealed during negotiations will affect the company's competitive advantage once the merger plan is abandoned. In the context of the rapidly changing environmental crisis, managers will reflect on continuing to cooperate with their competitors or pursuing their activities on their own. Social implications: Despite their high number, M&A failures remain surprisingly high. This study explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations and how external events impact such negotiations and merger projects by raising coopetitive tensions among firms. Originality/value: The case provides a vivid illustration of firms' adaptation to a rapidly evolving context due to a global crisis. The research questions coopetition in business ecosystems and the unexpected in merger processes. The study addresses critical risks in knowledge exchange during merger negotiations and coopetitive dynamics among stakeholders over time. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores which managerial biases that are present during the negotiation period of a merger influence post-merger integration. With a longitudinal case study, this paper explores which managerial bias constituencies influence the integration process. The paper presents a longitudinal case study of a merger of two listed French companies. The data were collected from participant observation, interviews, and archival documentation over two years. The case involves retrospective (premerger negotiation period) and real-time (merger period) data. Our study reveals three managerial biases during the negotiation period: (1) Anchoring bias with availability bias: a disappointing past experience for the acquiring firm; (2) Temporal bias: temporal pressure on the CEO and stakeholders; (3) Hubris bias and brakes: schizophrenia/ambiguity from the leaders of the acquired company. We also identified two factors reinforcing these biases during the integration process: (1) Social pressure of a major project: Greater Paris; (2) Expert's role: failure to take into account the contributions of the other company. The study provides insight into organizational change in a merger context. The study contributes to the merger literature by highlighting managerial biases and reinforcing mechanisms during negotiation and integration periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facilitating the postmerger integration process between organizations requires that they combine opposite institutional logics through the creation of a new authority, identity, and legitimacy. We underline that the implementation of strategic change during the merger process was fostered by the ability of the actors to combine institutional logics through three concrete practices: redefining the authority, identity, and legitimacy of the new organization. Managerial recommendations from the institutional logics perspective are provided to facilitate the postmerger integration process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]