What, When and Who:Manager Involvement in Predicting Employee Resistance to Acquisition Integration

Applying sensemaking research to acquisition integration, we outline factors that influence employee resistance to acquisitions. While integration is widely viewed as important to acquisition outcomes, there is limited systematic study of how employees react to the integration process. Using survey data from Chinese acquirers and applying partial least squares structural equation modeling, we examine what changes with human and task integration with the speed of when changes are made to explore relationships with employee resistance. Consistent with a temporal perspective of acquisition processes and sensemaking we find slower task integration may mitigate employee resistance to acquisition integration. However, employee resistance to the speed that changes are made likely varies for who is involved, suggesting different roles for top and middle managers. Specifically, middle management involvement with slow human integration and top management involvement with fast task integration reduces employee resistance following an acquisition

Failure or success? Defensive strategies and piecemeal change among racial inequalities in the Brazilian banking sector

We analyze how Brazilian Black Movement organizations and banks deployed different mechanisms like cooperation, cooptation, and confrontation that generated affirmative action initiatives in the banking sector at the beginning of this century. Black movement organizations triggered an institutional change by connecting fields and exploring a constellation of strategies. However, Brazilian banks adopted defensive strategies aiming to accommodate their interests. We find that only piecemeal change occurred, as the field’s structures – resource distribution and power – remained unscratched. We conclude by noting how the success of social movement strategies can depend upon the framing and sense-giving work that social movements conduct in their continuous jockeying activity toward incumbents

History in organization and management theory: more than meets the eye

There has been a growing debate about the role of history in management research with several authors making suggestions on how to bring the two (back) together and others even highlighting the need for a “historic turn”. What we argue in this paper is that, while history was indeed sidelined by the scientization of management since the late 1950s, it started to make a comeback from the 1980s onwards and is increasingly employed in a number of research programs. We stress that the crucial question for management scholars engaging with history (or wanting to do so) is how it relates to theory. First of all, we present a systematic overview of the way history has been used—both at the micro (organizational) and macro-levels of analysis—distinguishing between what we refer to as “history to theory” and “history in theory”. In the former, we consider those research programs, such as (neo-)institutionalism, where history serves as evidence to develop, modify or test theories. In the case of “history in theory” we identify research programs where history or the past are part of the theoretical model itself as a driver or moderator, with “imprinting” as a prime example. Second, we also identify a growing number of studies that go further by displaying what we call “historical cognizance” in the sense of incorporating period effects or historical contingencies into their theorizing efforts. Finally, drawing on our broad overview, we make more specific suggestions for increasing the visibility and influence of history in organization and management theory