When the role fits: How firm status differentials affect corporate takeovers
- 23 September 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Strategic Management Journal
- Vol. 35 (13) , 2012-2030
Abstract
This study explores the implications of interfirm status differentials for firm behaviors in corporate takeover transactions. We argue that the more the status differential between two firms is aligned with expectations of their roles embedded in the specific economic activity, the easier it is for them to agree on the appropriate means to reach consensus on the transaction. Using the empirical context of the U.S. corporate takeover market, we found that the greater the status differential between an acquirer and a target, the more positively the market reacts to both the acquirer and the target upon the announcement of the acquisition deal, the more likely it is for the deal to be completed, and the more likely the acquirer is to achieve better post‐acquisition performance . Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 76 references indexed in Scilit:
- An Expanded Model of Status Dynamics: The Effects of Status Transfer and Interfirm CoordinationAcademy of Management Journal, 2012
- Meeting Expectations: A Role-Theoretic Perspective on ReputationSSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
- On the role of acquisition premium in acquisition researchStrategic Management Journal, 2007
- Corporate Governance and Acquirer ReturnsThe Journal of Finance, 2007
- Analyst Coverage and Financing DecisionsThe Journal of Finance, 2006
- What's In It for Me? CEOs Whose Firms Are AcquiredThe Review of Financial Studies, 2003
- The productivity and wage effects of foreign acquisition in the United KingdomThe Journal of Industrial Economics, 2002
- The Global Reputation Quotient Project: First Steps Towards a Cross-Nationally Valid Measure of Corporate ReputationCorporate Reputation Review, 2002
- Toward a Role‐Theoretic Conception of EmbeddednessAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1998
- Corporate Acquisitions: A Process PerspectiveAcademy of Management Review, 1986