Search

The causal attribution of performance has not been explicitly considered in the performance feedback literature, despite its potential value in learning from prior performance. In this study, we develop a theory concerning the attribution in learning from performance feedback and explore how the attribution of past alliance performance can influence a firm's choice between future acquisitions and alliances. We also examine the mechanisms by which attribution manifests by exploring how three theoretical factors, known to influence attribution, can moderate the relationship—the diffusion of responsibility, the perceived capability of partners, and the ambiguity of performance information. We find strong evidence supporting our predictions. This study contributes to the performance feedback literature by integrating attribution with performance feedback theory. It also extends research on corporate strategy by providing a behavioral account of the choice between acquisitions and alliances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on performance aspirations has tended to assume that historical and social aspirations work in parallel and influence strategic behavior in a similar manner. We posit that these two distinct modes of performance comparison in fact lead to dissimilar firm behavior. We also explore how variability in prior acquisition performance influences the relationship between aspiration levels and subsequent strategic behavior. We examine our questions in the context of mergers and acquisitions within the U.S. commercial banking industry from 1988 to 2005. Consistent with our opening prediction, we find that firms' acquisition behavior varies significantly depending on whether historical or social comparisons are used. We also find that high variability in the previous acquisition performance of a firm intensifies the relationship between acquisition performance relative to aspirations and the probability of the firm making acquisitions below historical and social aspirations, but attenuates the relationship above such aspirations.

Most traditional research on mergers and acquisitions tends to focus on the role of similarity in explaining acquisition performance. While scholars have recently begun to examine acquisition complementarity, there is still little evidence concerning how complementarity influences acquisition performance. Further, previous research has not drawn the connections between related contexts and the potential benefits from complementarity. In this article, we move the study of acquisition complementarity forward by investigating the effects of strategic and market complementarity on acquisition performance in the context of related horizontal acquisitions. We also propose that two key attributes of acquirers—strategic focus and out-of-market acquisition experience—will moderate this relationship. We investigate our research questions in the context of all 2,204 acquisitions made by publicly traded U.S. commercial banks during the 12-year period from 1989 to 2001. Our findings are generally supportive, suggesting complementarity is an important antecedent of acquisition performance, and raising important issues on the nature of acquisition research in general. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study examines the impact of strategic and market complementarity on acquisition performance, proposing acquirers attributes of out-of-market acquisition experience and strategic focus. Findings support the importance of complementarity based on data on acquisitions of 2,204 U.S. commercial banks from 1989 to 2001.