I explore the conditions under which mergers of two poorly performing firms can create value and how such conditions behave differently in mergers including at least one well-performing firm. I argue that in mergers of poor performers, the greater the disruption of routines induced by the merger, the higher the post-merger performance. In this study, I conceptualize a merger as the combination of two firms' existing routines and propose that such a combination can provide the impetus necessary to break from the past by creating a new set of routines. When two weak firms merge, such a break from the past becomes desirable because the existing value creation system does not work properly and routine disruption becomes a necessary condition for deriving good post-merger performance. I test these ideas on a sample of M&As from multiple industries in the U.S. between 1994 and 2006. Using an industry-adjusted Tobin's q based on the "Chop-shop" approach as a criterion to classify firms into weak and strong categories, I find that disruption of routines is indeed desirable in mergers of poor performers while it should be minimized in mergers including a well-performing firm. This dissertation makes theoretical contributions by highlighting the role of a M&A in a firm's evolutionary process. It also has practical implications for managers and policymakers.
University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. August 2012. Major: Business Administration. Advisor: J. Myles Shaver. 1 computer file (PDF); vii, 134 pages.
Creating value by combining two weak firms: the role of routine disruption in mergers and acquisitions.
Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
Content distributed via the University of Minnesota's Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor.