18
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
1 
Received: 7th May 2020; revised: 4th January 2021; accepted: 30th January 2021
Exploring the Cultural, Managerial and 
Organizational Implications on Mergers 
and Acquisitions Outcomes
Renato Lopes DA COSTA
1
, João MIGUEL
1
, Álvaro DIAS
1,2
, Leandro 
PEREIRA
1
, José SANTOS
3
1 
ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, BRU-Business Research Unit, Lisboa, Potugal, Renato_Jorge_Costa@
iscte-iul.pt, joaoazmiguel@gmail.com, alvaro.dias@ulusofona.pt (corresponding author), Leandro.Pereira@iscte-iul.
pt
2 
Universidade Lusfófona/TRIE and ISCTE-IUL, Department of Marketing, Strategy and Operations, Lisboa, Portugal
3 
ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Department of Quantitative Methods, WINNING LAB, Lisboa, Portugal, 
Jose.Santos@winning.pt
Background/Purpose: This work is focused on the variables that influence the outcomes of mergers and acquisi-
tions, by learning from past mistakes, adopt better strategies and make wiser decisions to enhance the outcomes 
of their mergers and acquisitions. Using a qualitative approach, this research contributes to existing knowledge on 
mergers and acquisitions performance by exploring the cultural, managerial and organizational factors dimensions 
through an integrative approach using multiple perspectives. 
Methodology: Fifteen interviews were conducted with experienced professionals in multiple areas of mergers and 
acquisitions. Content analysis was used to interpret the results. This enabled to achieve a more complete set of an-
swers and potential solutions while comparing opinions on the same problems from slightly different angles.
Results: Results show the existence of managerial hubris, emotional attachment and over-optimism in mergers and 
acquisitions. There was a relative support towards standardizing the process of mergers and acquisitions deals, but 
respondents advise to keep some creativity and flexibility.
Conclusion: The article concludes by addressing key issues for mergers and acquisitions performance: capabilities 
and experience; organizational communication; internal coordination; and, key issues for decision-making.
Keywords: Mergers and acquisitions, Synergies, Culture, Strategy, Growth, Performance.
DOI: 10.2478/orga-2021-0002
1 Introduction
The mergers and acquisitions failure rate is a matter 
of concern to academics and practitioners. Some authors 
point failure rates in the range of 66 to 75 percent (McK-
insey & Company, 2010). Other shocking studies, put the 
failure rate of mergers and acquisitions between 70 and 
90 percent (Christensen et al., 2011).  The failure rate of 
mergers and acquisitions changes from study to study. 
Measuring the outcomes of mergers and acquisitions is 
hard to do (Beck & Scott Morton, 2020). Both financial in-
dicators and non-measurable abstract variables, such as the 
achievement of the delineated strategic goals, are impor-
tant and can be considered when classifying the outcome 
of a certain deal (Faisal et al., 2016).
There is substantial evidence in McKinsey´s survey 
that there are new interests and attitudes towards merg-
ers. The respondents showed large interest in using merg-
ers and acquisitions to move beyond the already existing 
lines of business and into new strategic areas and create re-
search and development portfolios (McKinsey & Compa-

19
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
ny, 2010). Mergers and acquisitions will continue to exist 
and for sure play a significant role in the future (Kuo et al., 
2013). Some authors argue that researchers are not look-
ing at the right set of variables and that the importance of 
non-financial variables is underestimated in theory and re-
search (Gomes et al., 2013). However, as stated by Kiess-
ling, Vlačić and Dabić (2019) mergers and acquisitions’ 
research is mainly focused on the influence of the ante-
cedents of mergers and acquisitions and the “many aspects 
in the decision-making process of M&A (such as strategy 
formulation, target identification, due diligence, pricing 
of the acquisition, postacquisition integration, and subse-
quent performance)” (p. 1). More specifically, the human 
dimension is still underexplored, specially the cultural and 
organizational preparedness (Friedman, Carmeli, Tishler, 
and Shimizu, 2016; Bereskin et al., 2018). 
As such, the objective of this article is to understand 
which causes are propelling such a high failure rate in 
mergers and acquisitions and propose solutions on how to 
enhance their outcomes. To address the research gap previ-
ously mentioned, this research will focus on specific ante-
cedents, such as cultural and organizational preparation for 
mergers and acquisitions. To understand the complexity of 
the phenomena, we follow a qualitative approach seeking 
to know, from the decision makers’ point of view, how the 
various factors influencing the success of mergers and ac-
quisitions are considered. This methodological approach 
is considered the most appropriate to include the deci-
sion-maker perspective (Risberg, 2015), and the cultural 
and organizational dimensions (Smollan & Sayers, 2009).
The article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses 
relevant literature. Section 3 presents the methodology and 
specifies the research model. Section 4 shows the results, 
which are discussed in section 5. Finally, section 6 pre-
sents the theoretical and practical conclusions as well the 
research limitations and suggestions for future research.
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Pre-deal procedures
A better understanding of the reasons behind so many 
mergers and acquisitions failures is likely to help in con-
ducting better deals and reduce the chances of failing. In 
the pre-merger/acquisition stage is when the decision to try 
to merge or acquire is made and with which company the 
deal should be done. Carefully searching and evaluating 
potential targets is extremely important; choosing the right 
target can determine the success of the deal from the very 
beginning. Taking enough time to deeply understand the 
target´s business and plan accordingly, pays off in mini-
mizing the chances of choosing an unfit company and it 
will help exploring additional synergy sources (Moreira & 
Janda, 2017).
Despite the evidence that mergers and acquisitions 
have played an important role in the past and will continue 
to rise in number and value over the next years as a new 
cycle unfolds, the statistics do not show positive numbers 
regarding merger and acquisition returns (Duan and Jin, 
2019). On average the buyer pays the target all the val-
ue that is generated with the realization of combinational 
synergies, this value ranges from 10 to 35 percent of the 
target´s market value (McKinsey & Company, 2004). 
Predicting accurate synergy values is surely crucial to 
make right decisions, they are important not only to con-
clude if the deal should go forward or not, but at a more 
precise level they make an impact when making smaller 
decisions. With more accurate synergy estimations, better 
decisions can be made, and failures avoided (Garzella & 
Fiorentino, 2017; Moreira & Janda, 2017).
Many mergers and acquisitions deals were already 
condemned from the start as they would not generate 
enough synergy value to make the deal worth (Duan & 
Jin, 2019). The first step in initiating a merger or acquisi-
tion is to look for a suitable partner. The evaluation of the 
potential partner should take into account its strengths and 
weaknesses, investment requirements, quality of the target 
management and implementation barriers such as cultural 
differences (Bereskin et al., 2018; Gomes et al., 2013).
2.2 Culture assessment
Despite the multiple comments from authors in the 
field of mergers and acquisitions that culture is a variable 
with influence on the outcome of deals (Bain & Company, 
2013; King et al., 2015), on the other hand, authors and 
practitioners point fingers towards the negligence organ-
izations demonstrate when they handle cultural problems 
(Lodorfos and Boateng, 2006; Bain & Company, 2013).
Mergers and acquisitions can promise to deliver a lot 
of value (Deloitte, 2017). When this happens, the tempta-
tion to do the deal regardless of cultural problems can be 
hard to avoid. There can be several other reasons to why 
companies engage in mergers and acquisitions, such as the 
existence of a managerial hubris and the use of mergers 
and acquisitions as a way to avoid bankruptcy and achieve 
financial diversification (Barney and Hesterly, 2012).
Organizational culture is a deep and subjective part 
of an organization that possibly evolved through several 
years, therefore it is hard to change and the new habits to 
form (Marks & Mirvis, 1992). The authors highlight the 
use ceremonies to symbolize the transition into the new 
phase, these events help employees detaching from the 
past and embracing change.
Culture is inseparable from any deal because it is em-
bedded in both organizations (Gordon, 1991), so it would 
be great to overcome the cultural problems barrier and find 
a way to make the deal happen well by addressing and/or 

20
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
dodging the cultural problems. It is imperative to conduct 
further research on cultural problems and the possibility to 
minimize their negative impact, that is, how to minimize 
the negative impact of cultural incompatibilities.
2.3 Culture incompatibilities
Organizational culture results from the adaptation to-
wards shared beliefs and expectations, it is particular of 
one firm and it has both a subjective and objective dimen-
sion (Kuo et al., 2013). Cultures are hard to change and 
combine because they have unique characteristics that 
relate to the orientations and goals of the previous sepa-
rate organizations, they can also evolve and consolidate 
throughout several years (Gordon, 1991). One example is 
the failed merger between the auto makers Daimler and 
Chrysler which has increased the awareness towards the 
importance of cultural compatibility in mergers and ac-
quisitions (Badrtalei and Bates, 2007). On the other hand, 
some studies with positive results prove that mergers and 
acquisitions are sources of efficiency and value generation 
(David, 2014). 
A merger or acquisition with a high cultural fit happens 
when cultures are similar and combine well, there is a re-
duced need for organizational integration efforts (Bauer & 
Matzler, 2014). Having a poor cultural fit is bad because 
the uncertainty that is associated with cultural distances 
reinforces the need for monitoring and control and can cre-
ate managerial conflict (Bereskin et al., 2018; Denison & 
Ko, 2016).
In a Bain & Company survey, the number one cause 
appointed by executives on why deals fail to deliver the 
promised value was a cultural clash (Bain & Company, 
2013). Despite the evidence supporting the importance of 
a proper cultural assessment and management, culture is 
still found to have been neglected in a substantial percent-
age of deals (Schraeder & Self, 2003).
The results from McKinseys´s study point out that 92 
percent of executives believe a better cultural understand-
ing prior to the deal would be beneficial, and 70 percent 
of them agree too little attention is given to culture (McK-
insey & Company, 2010). Several questions can be asked: 
are companies being just negligent towards the importance 
of culture or is there also a need for a structural change in 
the way cultural evaluation is conducted? It can also be ar-
gued some companies might lack the expertise to properly 
conduct a good cultural evaluation, in such case, should 
they seek help from an external entity?
2.4 Mergers and acquisitions value 
approaches
The approach towards deals observed during the last 
decades, referred to by some practitioners as the traditional 
risk-mitigation approach, is producing too many failures 
(Christensen et al., 2011; Faisal et al., 2016). There is sub-
stantial support towards the idea of a broader approach to 
value creation, referred to as the value-seeking approach. 
The numbers indicate an increase in value creation be-
tween 30 and 150 percent (McKinsey & Company, 2010). 
In a risk avoidance strategy, the managers, the merger 
and acquisition teams and external consultants focus on 
preventing bad events from happening. The analysis and 
decisions are made quickly and one of the usual assump-
tions that make the deal profitable is the cost savings as-
sociated with merging the companies (McKinsey & Com-
pany, 2010). These cost savings often involve cutting the 
less profitable operations and downsize the number of 
employees, this practice has negative implications towards 
employee morale and cultural conflicts often emerge (We-
ber & Fried, 2011).
The returns on the investments made in transforma-
tional areas (areas with new markets, new customers and 
new products) are, on average, much higher than the in-
vestments made in core business areas. However, compa-
nies invest 70 percent of their innovation investments in 
core areas in which they achieve average returns of only 
10 percent. At the same time, merely 10 percent of the in-
novation investments are made in transformational areas 
and these generate average returns of 70 percent (Deloitte, 
2017).
People respond differently to the changes being im-
posed during the integration process, it is up for top man-
agement to recognize these discrepancies and try to have 
some degree of flexibility. There is no such thing as a 
general integration process, with all its specific steps, that 
works for every type of deal. The integration should adapt 
to the type of deal being pursued (Deloitte, 2017).
Communication is also a variable of great importance 
in mergers and acquisitions, excellent communication 
throughout the whole process helps overcome uncertain-
ty (Angwin et al., 2014). Failing to properly communicate 
with key line managers and give them a chance to be in-
volved in the decision-making process can have replica-
tions throughout the entire organization (Friedman, et al., 
2016). They often are the closest superior for many base-
line employees and if they express discontent and uncer-
tainty towards the merger or acquisition it will negatively 
impact employee morale and performance, these key line 
managers can also promote a communication climate that 
facilitates effective integration (Friedman, et al., 2016). 
Other authors point out that acquirer returns are signifi-
cantly lower and there is less value creation when in the 
presence of social ties between senior executives and di-
rectors of both companies (Ishii & Xuan, 2014).

21
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
2.5 Organization preparation
As defended by some practitioners, transformational 
deals can generate a lot more value when compared to typ-
ical deals (McKinsey & Company, 2010), it is however 
important to know about how to better adjust companies in 
mergers and acquisitions to extract more value and avoid 
risk. It is specifically important to study what practitioners 
think about generating value and avoiding risk in transfor-
mational deals, as this is a topic lacking exploration.
Having a feeling of participation and understanding the 
reasons behind the need for change is important, even the 
individuals that express the largest resistance to change are 
more likely to support the deal (Schraeder & Self, 2003). 
Getting employees into feeling involved in the merger or 
acquisition process is vital to make them more coopera-
tive with the organization’s strategies and consequent ac-
tions, a good way to achieve this is by dividing people into 
teams and creating a feeling of excitement about the future 
(Marks & Mirvis, 1992).
Having trust in top management is a key factor into 
stimulating obedience and positive action in employees to-
wards the deal. A good leader should inspire, be competent 
and transmit credibility into others. When top management 
builds a relationship of trust and induces a feeling of se-
curity it is much easier to get employees into cooperating 
with actions that will somehow affect those (Schraeder & 
Self, 2003). Managers should deal with employee concern 
issues as fast as possible to destroy the negative rumours, 
however, it is not advised to make commitments or state-
ments that the company might not keep (Morrison & Rob-
inson, 1997).
3 Methodology
3.1 Research model
To address the research objectives an explorative qual-
itative research was conducted to obtain deeper insights 
about the causes related with mergers and acquisitions 
high failure rate and to identify solutions to enhance their 
outcomes. Furthermore, this research explores specific an-
tecedents, such as cultural and organizational preparation 
for mergers and acquisitions. We followed a ‘systematic 
combining’ approach (c.f. Dubois & Gadde, 2002) by pro-
moting an intertwined application of the different activities 
in the research process since it is better suited for quali-
tative research than a “standardized conceptualization of 
the research process as consisting of a number of planned 
subsequent ‘phases’” (Dubois & Gadde, 2002, p. 555). Ta-
ble 1 specifies the relationships between the investigation 
specific objectives and the interview questions, as well the 
link with relevant literature.
According to Vilelas (2009), the number of interviews 
is said to be in an acceptable interval when it is located 
between 15 to 20 interviews. However, we followed Fusch 
and Ness (2015) and Saunders et al. (2017) recommenda-
tions by stopping the interviews when the data saturation 
was obtained. This means that the last two interviews add-
ed no new topics or themes.
Following a purposive sampling (Patton, 2005), a total 
fifteen interviews were conducted to business consultants 
randomly selected from a professional database. Each in-
terview was conducted face to face and had an average 
duration of 73 minutes and was conducted by three re-
searchers. Even though the number of interviews is in the 
acceptable interval, the results of this research should be 
taken with caution. Table 2 details the respondents’ char-
acteristics. The interview sample was intentional and was 
selected according to several requirements; such as their 
expertise and experience and their functions in mergers 
and acquisitions.
The study aimed to understand the meaning people 
attribute to this phenomenon more than just interpret it. 
This is because words, actions and gestures have their own 
context and therefore they must be interpreted using in-
duction (Vilelas, 2009). In terms of the qualitative analysis 
technique used for the data interpretation in the interviews, 
this can be resumed to an analysis of content that tried to 
relate the semantic and sociologic structures in such a way 
that the answers are interpreted and put into context with 
the factors that determine their characteristics, such as the 
psychosocial variables, cultural context and ways of repro-
ducing the message (Duriau et al., 2007).
In the figure below, the interview “corpus” is shown. 
This scheme illustrates how the objectives of the research 
translate into the interview questions. The broad topic 
of the variables that influence mergers and acquisitions 
ramifies into the generic categories and later into the sub-
categories. This ramification is the result of the literature 
review and can be interpreted as going deeper and deeper 
into the subject- Figure 1.
The process of clarification, systematization and con-
tent expression of the messages was organized in conform-
ity with the three chronologic pillars of Bardin (1977). The 
interviews were chosen as the preferred method to gather 
information because even though there is an inherent sub-
jectivity in the information collected by using this method, 
it allows the collection of information from the very own 
social actors with the possibility to dynamically adjust the 
direction of the speech as the interview flows (Vilelas, 
2009). 

22
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
Table 1: Relating the investigation objectives to the interview questions and the theoretical support 
Investigation specific objectives Interview questions Authors
Study the variables and actions nega-
tively influencing the decisions at the 
pre-deal stage and achieve a set of rec-
ommendations to improve them. 
What is failing in the estimation of syn-
ergies and what could be done to im-
prove their accuracy?
(a clarification what synergy meat was 
conducted by the interviewer)
Bijlsma-Frankema (2001); Schraeder 
and Self (2003); Garzella and Fiorentino 
(2017); Lodorfos and Boateng (2006); 
McKinsey & Company (2010); Barney 
& Hesterly (2012); Bain & Company 
(2013).
Understand how practitioners perceive 
the importance of culture and if com-
panies are neglecting this variable. 
Are companies neglecting the impor-
tance of culture and that translates into 
a bad cultural evaluation or do they 
also lack internally the capability to 
evaluate culture? 
Schraeder and Self (2003); Lodorfos 
and Boateng (2006); Badrtalei and 
Bates (2007); Weber et al. (2009); Sara-
la (2010); Weber and Fried (2011); Bain 
& Company (2013)
Comprehend why companies engage in 
deals between “incompatible” compa-
nies. 
Develop a set of recommendations on 
how to extract value on this type of 
deals.
If cultural problems are expected but 
the deal must go forward, what can 
be done in terms of integration stage 
agenda, organizational structure and 
others to minimize their negative im-
pact?
Bijlsma-Frankema (2001); Schraeder 
and Self (2003); Lodorfos and Boateng 
(2006); McKinsey & Company (2010); 
Barney & Hesterly (2012); Bain & Com-
pany (2013).
Understand how practitioners perceive 
the current state of making mergers 
and acquisitions, if they think the pro-
cess is too standardized and if there is 
benefit on investing more time and re-
sources trying to capture more value.
Is it true that deals would benefit of 
changing towards a less standardized 
and more flexible approach as some 
practitioners point out? If yes, how to 
optimize time and resources consump-
tion with the need to make a more ex-
tensive research and evaluation in the 
value-seeking approach?
McKinsey & Company (2010); Weber 
and Fried (2011); Christensen et al. 
(2011); Bauer and Matzler (2014); Fais-
al et al. (2016); Deloitte (2017).
Achieve a set of recommendations on 
how to prevent negative outcomes and 
how to generate more value through 
deal-making
How can organizations prepare, and 
which actions can they develop to more 
easily integrate in deals and extract 
maximum value with minimal risk?
McKinsey & Company (2004); McK-
insey & Company (2010); Bauer and 
Matzler (2014).
Nº Function Country Gender
1 Financial Director Portugal Male
2 Head of M&A Germany Male
3 Director of M&A Germany Female
4 Senior Consultant Germany Male
5 Head of Acquisitions Germany Male
6 Senior Expert of Field Development M&A Germany Male
7 M&A Associate Advisor Germany Male
8 M&A Communications Lead Germany Female
9 M&A Expert Portugal Male
10 M&A Director Germany Male
11 M&A Partner Germany Female
12 Strategy & Investments Senior Manager France Male
13 CEO and Owner Belgium Male
14 CEO and M&A Consultant Germany Male
15 M&A and Strategy Responsible Germany Male
Table 2: Characterization of the sample of participants in the interviews

23
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
Figure 1: Categorization and codification of the interview “corpus” for qualitative analysis
The semi-structured technique was developed on an 
organized and standardized set of questions; however, it 
was implicit that the direction of the conversation would 
flow naturally, and in some occasions, questions were gen-
erated as the interview run and a deeper clarification on a 
target concept was necessary (e.g. synergy). This sponta-
neous nature of the interview has contributed for a lot of 
information that would otherwise be missed or left unclear 
(Werr & Styhre, 2002).
As defended by Vilelas (2009), this flexible way of 
conducting the interviews has abolished the need for rigid 
criteria that would damage the level of detail collected in 
the investigation. Regarding the disadvantages of having 
such flexibility is that the results were not standardized 
and there was a high degree of difficulty and required time 
when it came to organize, compare and reach conclusions 
on the results.
4 Results
4.1 Pre-deal assessments: synergy 
estimations
Five respondents pointed indirectly to a managerial 
hubris as a cause for the inaccuracy of the synergy estima-
tions. This managerial hubris might be particularly strong 
in SME´s because leaders have always used their intuition 
to reach their success. As observed in the literature review, 
it can also interest management to grow through mergers 
and acquisitions to receive bonuses and to gain reputa-
tion. However, some respondents mentioned the lack of 
technical capabilities of companies to correctly estimate 
synergies. 

24
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
Several respondents also mentioned the emotional at-
tachment of people for the realization of the deal to why 
companies over-estimate synergies. These people can be 
quite emotionally driven and even be willing to manipu-
late numbers in order to promote a positive decision of the 
board of directors towards the realization of the deal. 
Another mentioned factor that adds to the over-estima-
tion of synergies is that in the most exciting deals, there is 
many times a lot of competition to acquire the business, a 
conservative bidding proposal based on conservative syn-
ergy estimations is unlikely to win against the competitors.
In a general way, over-optimism can be appointed as a 
reason to why estimations end up being short of what was 
expected. But as six respondents directly mentioned, syn-
ergies can be difficult to estimate, and people often work 
with imperfect data. When trying to extract information 
from the target or a potential partner companies face sev-
eral obstacles. The information they are seeking can also 
be confidential, one of the respondents pointed to confi-
dentiality as a reason to why he often is confronted with 
difficulties in calculating synergies.
Two respondents pointed fingers at banks and how 
Table 3: Characterization of the sample of participants in the interviews
Content Analysis 
Nº Text Category
 1
I have a very well-formed opinion about this… I think that there is clearly Hubris and it is con-
stant in this type of businesses. This hubris happens very often on the buyer side. 
I.1.1
3
When they want to buy a company, they make high estimations, because they are excited and 
want to buy it.
I.1.1
5
Probably also that the people who are making the acquisitions are too aggressive (…), and 
over-optimistic.
I.1.1
9
The main factor that influences this gap is the excess of optimism from the buyer´s side and 
overconfidence in the capacities to execute. 
I.1.1
14 Mergers and acquisitions are many times driven by heart and not by facts, I would say. I.1.1
they operate with rules of thumbs, others mentioned that 
companies are not really worried into making these esti-
mations and they are just used to justify what they have 
already emotionally decided. One of the critiques respond-
ents gave to banks is that they have expertise in finance, 
and it is something they are really good at; but they lack 
the operational expertise to be able to accurately estimate 
synergies. In question four some respondents also touched 
the point of the current practice of banks as being the result 
of an adaptation towards efficiency and that this is unlikely 
Nº Text Category
3
What we try to do is to quantify these synergies bottom-up. Yes, they are still much based on 
assumptions, but we do try to quantify each synergy as much as possible and always ask how 
high is the likelihood that this is going to happen.
I.1.1
5
I think it is difficult to estimate the synergies; really, these are cost savings and specially going 
forward. Most of the time you are working with imperfect data, so you need to make some 
assumptions. 
I.1.1
6
When it comes to acquire something and realizing what it is. Again, there are a lot of un-
knowns and it all has to do with the amount of data available at the time of this decision to 
move into this asset.
I.1.1
10
I don´t think you can improve the estimations. What you can do is to prepare a wider arrange 
of variants. In many cases you get a wrong estimation because you didn´t know things in 
advance. 
I.1.1
12
As an M&A director you often need to get permission to discuss the details with the opera-
tional people, because that is confidential information. You cannot ask for bottom-up analy-
sis, so then you have to do top-down analysis and rely on statistics.
I.1.1
Table 4: Evidence for the difficulty in making accurate synergy estimations

25
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
to change because this is the result of many decades of 
experience and a deviation from current practices is likely 
to induce more mistakes and increase the risk of not real-
izing deals.
Three respondents mentioned the importance of mak-
ing bottom-up synergy estimations as opposed to top-down 
synergy estimations. In bottom-up synergies estimations, 
companies calculate the impact change will have on the 
micro and detailed aspects of the business and then arrive 
at the final result by multiplying that for the scale that syn-
ergy is repeated. According to respondents, making top-
down synergy estimations is more abstract and opens room 
for biased perspectives with lack of reality. 
A fact that is appointed by some respondents and that 
is later indirectly confirmed by an analysis of the responses 
and how the work of the respondents is performed is that 
many times the team that is responsible for making the deal 
happen is different from the team that is responsible for the 
integration of the company and all the strategic aspects. 
One of aspects that make companies not achieve the 
results they predicted is that they also fail to account for 
revenue dis-synergies. These revenue dis-synergies can 
happen for the very fact the deal is realized, one of the 
respondents gave the example that a company acquired an-
other and achieved a big market share in the region. As a 
consequence, one of the previous clients decided to break 
the contract because the monopolization of the market 
from this company was making it concerned about being 
overly-dependent on the firm. 
Table 5: Evidence for the preference for making bottom-up synergy estimations
Nº Text Category
 3
Indeed, I think that many companies don´t do it in this diligent way. Often times, the synergy 
targets have been made by investment bankers, advisors or by the top management in a top-
down manner. 
I.1.1
9
The difference in knowledge between sectors makes all the difference when it comes to the 
capacity to make calculations. When we are dealing with a horizontal acquisition, then things 
are much easier, and the estimations must be done in a bottom-up manner.
I.1.1
12
You cannot ask for bottom-up analysis, so then you have to do top-down analysis and rely on 
statistics. (referring to that as a less accurate method)
I.1.1
Some appointed solutions include having an experi-
enced and neutral team that has minimal emotional attach-
ment to the realization of the deal. When there is enough 
time and resources, to calculate synergies in multiple ways 
and compare those perspectives to check for asymmetries. 
Using available databases of past synergies that were 
achieved in similar circumstances also provide another 
way to check if the estimations are realistic.
Holding people accountable for the achievement of 
predicted synergies and incentivize them with money to 
achieve the expected results is another appointed way to 
force people into making accurate predictions and achiev-
ing them. Other referred path to improve the accuracy of 
estimations include having a solid plan B in case some-
thing goes wrong, so that it minimizes the negative impact 
of a deviation from the expected results.
Nº Text Category
4
Mergers often fail because it is very difficult to execute, the reason could be anything, and 
there could be cultural clashes, delay in the implementation or improper execution on the 
operational part of the advisors or even the target company. 
I.1.1
7
The full process of M&A takes a long time. A long time after the acquisition is done, a new team 
which is responsible for executing the integration takes place and I think it is because these 
teams are separated. (referring to what is failing in synergies estimations)
I.1.1
10
In many cases you get a wrong estimation because you didn´t know things in advance. If you 
are more conservative you can reduce the failure rate, on the other hand it also lowers your 
chances of closing the deal because your offer is lower than competitors.
I.1.1
12
There is also an effect of not being able to predict the future. In a company, when you do a 
strategic plan, you do a lot of mistakes because macro-economic effects are not predictable.
I.1.1
Table 6: Problems related with synergy estimations

26
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
4.2 Cultural assessment: importance, 
problems and solutions
This question has received very wide and conflicting 
answers. Six respondents strongly defended the impor-
tance of culture, sometimes pointing fingers and blaming 
the negligence companies have when it comes to cultural 
variables. Three respondents showed no agreement to the 
statement that culture is important, several others were in 
a neutral opinion zone or gave no comments on the topic.
 Some of the practitioners who agree with the im-
portance of culture mention that there can be substantial 
differences between companies of the same country and 
that these are the ones that are more likely to go “under the 
radar”. Defendants of the importance of culture also point 
Table 7: Appointed solutions to improve synergy estimations
Nº Text Category
1
I think that for this, clearly is to have independent teams. I believe that they are often despised 
by the business owners, the business leaders are not “dumb” but they have a lot of incompe-
tence’s. 
I.1.1
3
It´s important to have a check for example from the board of management or in our case the 
M&A department that are not emotionally involved in the deal and takes a really realistic view 
to cross-check if this makes sense. 
I.1.1
6 You can´t just have “plan A”, you need to have plan A, B, C... I.1.1
7
You also have to do really profound work and from my personal view, bankers don´t do this. If 
management can´t do this, they should employ experts. To make it better I would say to hire 
consultants.
I.1.1
15
During the due diligence process, you can adjust your synergy expectations. If you after all see 
they have very different infrastructures, then you should include a discount on your synergy 
expectations. 
I.1.1
that there is too much optimism when it comes to culture 
and that people make the wrong judgment when they think 
that if companies operate in the same business area they 
may be compatible culturally. 
 When it comes to integrate companies, two re-
spondents mentioned that internal teams are biased and 
adopt own firm culture and over-estimate how the other 
firm will perceive operating under a different culture. 
 A possible connection between the levels of 
agreement towards the importance of culture was found 
when analyzing this statement. Almost all the respond-
ents who showed disagreement towards the importance of 
culture, do not work in direct contact with the integration 
stage where culture supposedly creates problems. 
Respondents mentioned that companies can lack that 
capability to evaluate culture and three mentioned that 
hiring consultants is a good alternative, when necessary. 
However, the costs of making the deal happen will in-
crease, and they advised to reflect if after adding those pre-
dicted costs the deal is still profitable. One of the respond-
ents said that it is hard to know exactly who is on the other 
company, they can be manipulative and deceiving and you 
only really know them afterwards, said the respondent re-
calling past events.
Some respondents pointed as a possible way to im-
prove cultural evaluation to take cultural research seri-
ously and include a cultural due diligence in the timeline. 
Three practitioners mentioned the importance of getting 
involved, it can be visiting warehouses, offices, commu-
nicating and getting to know the people of the other com-
pany. Surveys to evaluate satisfaction were also appointed 
twice as a possible solution.
4.3 Cultural incompatibilities: 
performing deals on companies with 
different cultures
As one of the respondents noted, it depends on the 
level cultural incompatibilities are observed. According 
to him, these cultural incompatibilities can happen at nu-
merous levels such as top-management or operational/
employee level. He advises to evaluate which are those 
incompatibilities exactly and which impact will they have, 
because each level requires a specific set of actions and 
depending on the type of company and deal being pursued 
their impact can vary.

27
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
Table 8: Opinion of respondents on the importance of culture
Nº Text Category
2
I agree that companies are neglecting the importance of culture. (…). I would not say that they 
do lack the capability to evaluate culture.
I.2.1
3
At Bayer we are involved in many, many deals. I personally sold and acquired businesses world-
wide and I haven´t come across with cultural issues so much.
I.2.1
4
The key point is that the buyer should know that the cultures differ and imposing the culture 
on theirs can destroy value. That is the key point. Culture should be a part of the strategic 
evaluation,
I.2.1
7
Top management consists of highly educated and experienced people, they are also globalized, 
and they can deal with integrating the company well.
I.2.1
8 For us culture is always a field that we analyze to see if there is cultural fit, which is key. I.2.1
9
I think it is something that can go unnoticed and there is overconfidence, optimism and under-
estimating in the ability of someone in the target company to do things. 
I.2.1
10
There is little opportunity to adapt to other culture needs. There is bad preparation. You also 
should not underestimate culture in deals between neighbouring countries.
I.2.1
11
I think many buyers who are looking for targets fail to evaluate culture, and this is maybe two-
fold. 
I.2.1
13
I think both are true, on one hand companies often neglect culture and the psychological side 
of a deal is also the cultural side.
I.2.1
14
In my point of view, culture is not the reason. I can´t say that these cultural variables are im-
portant.
I.2.1
Table 9: Opinions on how to improve cultural evaluation/planning
Nº Text Category
5
I think this is one of the most difficult things to do, I don´t think that anything within reason can 
be done. It´s my opinion.
I.2.1
9
Everything that has to do with getting to know the target company’s people is essential, manage-
ment meetings, shop visits, factories, warehouses or whatever is extremely useful. 
I.2.1
13
I would say that certainly yes; by being aware of culture and by investigating, asking questions 
and feeling the culture. This is not exact science of course. 
I.2.1
15
During the due diligence process, you can adjust your synergy expectations. If you after all see 
they have very different infrastructures, then you should include a discount on your synergy 
expectations.
I.2.1
Five respondents directly mentioned that the level of 
integration can be set to minimize those incompatibilities. 
The more culturally distant they are, the less integrated/
more independent companies should be. One of the re-
spondents also added that besides this level of integration, 
one should think about how well the target is running alone 
and in case it is a “well-oiled” company to check if an 
intervention is going to destroy that working efficiency. 
Do not integrate them, play with the level of integration 
(depends on how distant culturally they are and how well-
oiled they are you should not destroy a well-oiled compa-
ny. Two respondents mentioned that awareness is key to 
be ready to act.
Firing the target employees, especially the top-man-
agement was a frequent topic to be touched by the re-
spondents. Around four practitioners advised to deal with 
people in a very precise and well thought manner. The 
leaders of the target company can be quite resistant to the 
change and they have a lot of power to negatively influ-
ence the outcome of the deal. What can be done, according 
to the answers is to deal with these people very carefully, 
and if they are causing problems to fire them.
As observed in the literature review it was proposed by 
some authors that making a commitment to retain people 
is beneficial to the outcomes of deals because people get 
less anxious. However, one of the respondents who have 

28
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
experience in the topic said that from her experience the 
several times that commitment was done, that she saw it 
negatively influencing the profitability of the deal, some-
times in severe way. One of the respondents mentioned the 
importance of thinking about the long-term value-erosion 
of dealing with conflicting cultures. He defended that the 
negative effects might perpetuate for longer than expected, 
and he advised that when in doubt that it is better to find 
someone else.
4.4 Approaches to mergers and 
acquisitions: standardization and 
viability of a value-seeking approach
The answers for this question were more abstract and 
complex than other questions, their opinions also referred 
to specific contexts. When carefully analyzing the possibly 
conflicting answers, it is visible that they are directed at 
Table 10: Appointed solutions on how to perform deals in culturally incompatible companies
Nº Text Category
1
I think that, in addition to the prior evaluation that there should be (...), it is fundamental to 
have in the central decision-making team people who understand the culture of the other 
company (...). And then it is the adaptation of internal procedures so that they do not collide 
with that culture. For example, a Portuguese company cannot reach Spain and expect the 
workers to accept it at eight in the morning.
I.3.1
5
Sometimes it makes sense to impose your culture as the leading culture and sometimes they 
should be independent and without a full integration, it´s about the level of integration.
I.3.1
7
In a recent deal, a German company has made a promotional video for the employees about 
the future of the company. I can say that for the lower-skilled employees this has been really 
helpful, they were very excited.
I.3.1
8
Leadership is extremely important in such a case, if you get the leaders of the acquired com-
pany behind you and be promoters of the change, then you´ve done a great thing already.
I.3.1
9
There are internal integration actions that can be launched where the resources of the two 
companies are combined and where one does not only seek to produce something together, 
but to create team spirit and integration.
I.3.1
10
First of all, you talked about integration. But that is not the only way you can create value; the 
other way would be to keep them separated.
I.3.1
15
This kind of situation would be very unlikely to happen. If it´s a geographic thing, then keep 
them independent as the time gap between companies would also make it difficult for inte-
gration.
I.3.1
specific contexts that can complement and fit each other 
without necessarily conflict. Four respondents said that 
standardization exists and that it is essential on an oper-
ational level; several others indirectly defended standard-
ization. 
What four practitioners argued against standardization 
can be interpreted as a critique to standardizing the reasons 
for mergers and acquisitions. And that over-standardiza-
tion, when paired with a lack of creativity, can be a val-
ue-destroying combination.
Three participants referred that the counter-side of im-
plementing a less standardized approach that tries to seek 
and capture value on deeper levels is that it increases the 
risk of the deal not happening. One respondent mentioned: 
having more time to do such things would certainly add 
value; however, no one is interested in giving the target 
more time to create problems. Some respondents high-
lighted the importance of time and that the less standard-
ized you are, the more time you will require and depending 
on the context it can destroy more value than what it adds.
Even though their answers were sometimes abstract 
and hard to compare, it can be said that they agree on the 
fact that standardization with a touch of flexibility is key. 
Some areas only benefit of a high standardization such as 
the legal area, depending on the context, adding a bit of 
time and flexibility can be beneficial. One of the respond-
ents mentioned that such an approach could work if the 
team was entrepreneurial and experienced enough to think 
outside the box and in an efficient manner.

29
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
Table 11: Opinions on the standardization of mergers and acquisitions 
Nº Text Category
1 I think there is parameterization. It has some disadvantages, but it is also important. I.4.1
4
No, it´s not too standardized. What fails is the reason to do the deal, if I can produce something 
myself why should I purchase a company?
I.4.1
6
You can possibly extract guidelines, but remember you need to accustom things to work on the 
situations you are presented with. 
I.4.1
7
Process standardization in my personal view needs to exist as much as possible, and it is good. 
It lowers the risk and reduces the time and effort. 
I.4.1
9
The biggest driver is the level at which the management team thinks outside the box. This will 
determine how the company looks at the approaches. 
I.4.1
15
I don´t think that merger and acquisition transactions are standardized. It´s probably only M&A 
theoretical people that say such a thing. On one hand, standardization is helpful.
I.4.1
Table 12: Opinions on being creative and flexible in the process
Nº Text Category
1
I think what is important is to maintain creativity, in a given scenario, to imagine and create 
something with more value.
I.4.1
6
You need to formulate and adapt to the situation based on the criteria and the principles that 
you are faced with. So yes, you need to be flexible without a doubt.
I.4.1
9
I think the main variable is the degree of entrepreneurship of the management team and the 
company. This will determine the risk aversion that happens in these more transformational 
acquisitions. 
I.4.1
4.5 Preparing an organization to perform 
mergers and acquisitions 
One of the most cited solutions that can help compa-
nies prepare for transformational deals, as pointed by five 
respondents, is having a proactive, multifaceted and expe-
rienced team that can make the deal-making process more 
entrepreneurial while having enough expertise to know 
what they are doing. Team experience will reduce the risk 
of failure due to lack of process regulations. One of the 
respondents also noted that it is not uncommon that the 
people involved in the process are working with different 
IT systems and according to him; it would improve coor-
dination if people were all working with the same system. 
Communicating more and in a clear manner, was re-
ferred by three respondents as a way to make a good prepa-
ration for an upcoming deal. One of the respondents added, 
in case you are trying to sell our business, you should take 
care of all the marketing to be as visible as possible and 
increase the number of interested companies. There are 
important things, such as having a nice and professional 
website page that enables you to pass the image of being a 
modern and professional company, something you should 
want to achieve if you are trying to sell your business. Two 
respondents pointed to the importance of fixing internal 
problems before engaging in any deal. First, they say, you 
should optimize what you have and make sure it is running 
in an efficient and stable way. Two practitioners pointed 
to the importance of prioritizing the upcoming merger or 
acquisition event, to define a timeline and allocate the re-
sources necessary to make a smooth transaction. About 
making a more extensive research and looking for deeper 
sources of value, one of the respondents mentioned that it 
should not be more complex than a regular deal; it is just 
a matter of evaluating and preparing with more time and 
having attention to details.
Two respondents advised to have more transparency 
in the process. And one respondent mentioned the impor-
tance of adjusting the dynamics of both companies so that 
the target knows it is a two-sided process. Regarding other 
aspects that could be improved, one respondent also men-
tioned to define leadership more clearly; the idea is to al-
ways have a board or a committee that is ready to take care 
and supervise the deal. Two respondents mentioned that it 
is a human thing that people don’t like unexpected change, 
especially when it is not in their interests. Therefore, they 
can try to resist changing. What one practitioner advised is 

30
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
to educate people on these issues and to pay them well to 
keep them satisfied and motivated via the achievement of 
financial bonuses. One respondent commented on the fact 
that trying to extract deep synergies from attractive deals 
has its disadvantages when compared with easier deals. 
Easier deals can also create value by having less competi-
tion and being less time and resources consuming. Another 
responded commented that in mergers and acquisitions if 
one side wins a lot the other side must be losing.
5 Discussion
5.1 Pre-deal Assessments: synergy 
estimations
In the estimation of synergies, this study found proof 
that there is indeed a presence of a managerial hubris and 
an over-optimism involving the realization of deals, this 
Table 13: Opinions on how to prepare an organization to perform mergers and acquisitions
Nº Text Category
7
If you are acquiring to make a completely new company, with a new branding, do it step by 
step. Do it gradually, it is quite important. You need enough time to get everybody used to the 
idea and deploy the resources. 
I.5.1
9
What I would say in a simplistic way is that the more knowledge you have about the industry 
and the more referrals you collect from the target company, the lower the associated risk be-
cause the greater the understanding and the ability to choose what you really want. 
I.5.1
10
You can prepare your organization, (…) having people with experience that can react to that 
specific situation. 
I.5.1
15
A board or an integration committee that is installed to control the process. This is normal in 
large M&A deals. Feedback from employees is also crucial and that goes back to the cultural 
question, when things are not going as expected. 
I.5.1
goes in conformity with the statements of Barney and Hes-
terly (2012). As the authors mention, too often people are 
emotionally attached to the deal and think with their heart 
instead of reason. In an interview, one transaction consult-
ant with many years of experience pointed a figure regard-
ing this topic, according to him; this happens more than a 
half the cases a transaction in done on an SME.
It was also pointed that synergies estimations can be 
hard to estimate, and that it is no problem of the companies 
and managers themselves. One interviewed director point-
ed to his experience as he felt many times frustrated after 
not being able to get essential confidential information 
from the target. The data itself can be imperfect, no one 
can calculate everything to the most minuscule of details, 
even the most well-made synergies estimations are just 
estimations and there are many non-financial variables in-
volved, these results are in conformity with the arguments 
of Gomes et al. (2013).
The importance of making bottom-up synergy predic-
tions instead of top-down estimations was highlighted a 
couple of times. Whenever it is possible and advisable, 
companies should perform bottom-up analysis. This find-
ing is in conformity with the previous literature such as 
the arguments of McKinsey & Company (2010), however 
expands existing knowledge by alerting to avoid over-opti-
mistic involving decision making as suggested by Garzella 
and Fiorentino (2017).
5.2 Cultural assessment: importance, 
problems and solutions
Regarding the cultural variable, the interview respons-
es were contradictory. Some people defended strongly the 
importance of culture, while others even mentioned that 
during their decades of experience they never observed 
the effects of culture to be a significant problem. Most of 
the reviewed literature defends the importance of culture 
although with divergent result (Schraeder and Self, 2003; 
Lodorfos and Boateng, 2006; Badrtalei and Bates, 2007; 
Weber et al., 2009; Sarala, 2010; Weber and Fried, 2011; 
Bain & Company, 2013). The results of this study bring 
additional information on this issue, by identifying that 
culture is effectively important. The belief of some of the 
interviewed professionals that think otherwise only prove 
the existence of cultural negligence, which is defend-
ed by some authors as a cause for the failure of mergers 
and acquisitions (Schraeder and Self, 2003; McKinsey & 
Company, 2010). The majority of interviewed people who 
disagreed with the importance of culture work at the pre-

31
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
stage and due-diligence phases and hold positions in banks 
or large corporations with highly specialized deal-making 
functions and have no responsibility in integrating organ-
izations, this might be a factor contributing for their view 
on the importance of culture. 
5.3 Cultural incompatibilities: 
performing deals on companies with 
different cultures
The obtained results are in conformity with the argu-
ments of the authors studied in the literature review. When 
dealing with deals that are predicting large financial bene-
fits, but companies have cultural incompatibilities, one of 
the mentioned solutions was to play with the level of in-
tegration; to keep the companies independent if it doesn´t 
generate much damage to the capability to reap the syn-
ergies. This complements the argument of Schraeder and 
Self (2003) on the importance of developing a well-sup-
ported plan as well as the argument of Barney and Hesterly 
(2012) that managers should balance the interests of em-
ployees, managers, shareholders and stakeholders of both 
companies in a neutral way and while avoiding conflicts 
of interest. 
Another finding consistent with the literature review 
was on the benefits of communication; to try getting con-
nected with the leaders of the target company to plan things 
together and to involve employees as well. According to 
the authors in the literature as well as the respondents, 
this communication and participation creates team-spir-
it and reduces the resistance to change by changing the 
perception of people that the ones behind the deal are on 
their side (Schraeder & Self, 2003). Gundry and Rousseau 
(1994), also mentioned the importance of having integra-
tion activities. Communication is also important in the per-
spective of Marks and Mirvis (1992), their argument is that 
uncertainties destabilize employee performance, good and 
clear communication certainly helps reduce uncertainties. 
Some respondents mentioned that when dealing with 
distant cultures, managers should not immediately impose 
one over the other. Managers should instead develop inte-
gration activities that slowly build a team-play spirit be-
tween the two sides and after that the speed and degree of 
cultural change can be molded to avoid major conflicts. 
As Gordon (1991) mentions cultures are abstract and hard 
to change. This article expands previous knowledge about 
cultural and human factors on mergers and acquisitions 
(Bereskin et al., 2018; Denison and Ko, 2016) by identify-
ing the managerial hubris as a key factors that creates an 
over-optimism in decision making.
5.4 Approaches to mergers and 
acquisitions: standardization and 
viability of a value-seeking approach 
The value-seeking approach concept as proposed by 
McKinsey & Company (2010), did not receive much ap-
proval from the respondents. However, respondents agreed 
that keeping creativity and flexibility in some areas is vi-
tal, therefore giving partial support to a possible change 
in the way mergers and acquisitions are conducted. The 
consensus among respondents is that standardization leads 
to a faster and more efficient process, but when things are 
running too automatically, some variables are not observed 
and are left untreated because people are working with 
guidelines. Trying to search and explore deeper synergies 
could indeed add value for the deal, but it is also not in the 
interest of the buying company to, in many cases, give the 
target more time to cause problems.
Some respondents said that the theoretical reasoning 
behind the value seeking approach is correct and makes 
sense, but that too often there are very tight time constraints 
as well as other variables such as the negative perks of 
giving the target more time that make this more extensive 
approach not look as good. Therefore the concept for this 
new approach of McKinsey & Company (2010) can work 
out if the proper conditions are in place and more research 
needs to be conducted.
5.5 Preparing an organization to perform 
mergers and acquisitions
Having experienced and proactive teams with a 
well-defined leadership was one of the mentioned topics 
by respondents to prepare organizations to better perform 
deals, this is in accordance with the view of McKinsey 
& Company (2010). Another mentioned action to make 
sure an organization is prepared to perform mergers and 
acquisitions is to make sure that the company is running 
smoothly and efficiently before engaging in a merger or 
acquisition deal, this finding is consistent with previous 
research (c.f. Kiessling, Vlačić, and Dabić, 2019).
The importance of have a good amount and quality of 
communication for the success of mergers and acquisitions 
was appointed by the respondents, this opinion is in line 
with what was observed in the literature review (Wilter-
muth and Neale, 2011; Faisal et al., 2016). As mentioned 
by Konstantopoulos et al. (2009), when there is lack of 
communication, it creates feelings of insecurity and al-
lows negative rumors to spread. On this vein, this research 
extends previous research (e.g. Friedman, et al., 2016) by 
providing a more deep detail of the communication cli-
mate that must be developed to prepare the organization 
for mergers and acquisitions. This article also expands ex-

32
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
isting knowledge about mergers and acquisitions synergies 
(Moreira & Janda, 2017) by including the cultural dimen-
sion besides the financial one.
6 Conclusion
This investigation reinforces the arguments of some 
previous authors and brings light into several topics of 
mergers and acquisitions. Regarding synergy estimations, 
the managerial hubris and over-optimism need to receive 
more attention from managers and organizations. This 
study reinforces the argument for the presence of a mana-
gerial hubris that has been indicated by Barney and Hester-
ly (2012). Multiple respondents referred to this variable as 
being a negative impediment for the neutral and efficient 
realization of deals. In the future, the field needs regulate 
itself by making sure professionals are not emotionally bi-
ased in the deals. The process of decision-making needs 
to avoid rules of thumbs and engage in more rational data 
calculations by adopting clear and standardized methods. 
Another proposed solution achieved in this work is to 
make people accountable for their mistakes as well as their 
achievements, by adopting this reward system people will 
be more careful to check if they are building their argu-
ments without emotional bias.
The cultural variable received controversial and con-
flicting answers, overall, professionals gave both positive 
and negative answers regarding the importance of culture. 
This conclusion means that there is a misalignment be-
tween the beliefs of practitioners regarding the importance 
of culture, which obviously will influence how they handle 
the variable when they are performing deals. The results 
also conflict with the authors studied the literature review, 
since most of them defended the importance of culture. If 
culture is important, this study brings evidence and rein-
forces the argument of authors blaming cultural negligence 
as a contributor for failure in mergers and acquisitions. If 
culture is important after all, a solution needs to start by 
raising the awareness of professionals for its importance, 
this can be done by performing more studies to prove why 
and how culture can influence the outcomes of mergers 
and acquisitions.
When dealing with culturally distant companies, this 
study also makes several suggestions, it might be advisable 
for firms to not impose culture and try to excite the leader 
of the target to avoid having conflicts and do things in a 
friendly way instead. Employee integration actions help as 
well, when there are cultural conflicts and employees from 
both companies need to work collectively, companies can 
progressively develop projects that slowly integrate em-
ployees and build the team spirit.
The value seeking approach is a relatively new con-
cept in the field of mergers and acquisitions. This study 
brings light into what practitioners think of adopting such 
an approach and how they perceive the current state of the 
sector. Standardization on mergers and acquisitions re-
ceived support from most respondents, however, they also 
advise to keep some level of creativity and flexibility. An-
other contribution to the field of mergers and acquisitions 
is how practitioners perceive the need to change the way 
mergers and acquisition are conducted, there were divided 
answers, some practitioners believe that the process can be 
improved and others don´t.
For managers and entrepreneurs without much expe-
rience that want to be prepared to engage in a merger or 
an acquisition, this investigation suggests several actions. 
Firstly, firms can start by defining the leadership very well 
and include people with experience in mergers and acqui-
sitions in the team. Leaders also need to consider the im-
portance of communication from the very beginning, an 
increase in quantity and quality of the information being 
communicated can have positive results in many levels. It 
can be internal and lead to an increase in internal coordi-
nation, or it can be external and lead to an increase of the 
awareness in the context of the deal and enable firms to 
make better decisions. 
Considering the nature of the current research, as well 
as the topic being investigated, it is imperative to reflect 
on several limitations. Performing a broad and holistic 
study is very hard given the limited resources available to 
perform this investigation. Therefore, the achieved con-
clusions need to be taken with caution as the study is not 
broad enough to induce in undeniable conclusions. It also 
needs to be well-thought-out that the achieved conclusions 
might be true only for the context upon which they were 
extracted. Therefore, this research is restricted regarding 
both contextualization and sample size. Another limitation 
was that some of the respondents favored to not disclose 
their identity or to not allow the interview to be recorded, 
which affected the detail of the information. In any case, 
the ones who opted for anonymity all agreed to disclose 
their identities for the evaluation committee in case there 
is scrutiny over the validity of their interviews.
Literature
Angwin, D. (2001). Mergers and acquisitions across Eu-
ropean borders: National perspectives on preacquisi-
tion due diligence and the use of professional advisers. 
Journal of World Business, 36(1), 32-57. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1090-9516(00)00053-5 
Angwin, D. N., Mellahi, K., Gomes, E., & Peter, E. (2016). 
How communication approaches impact mergers and 
acquisitions outcomes. The International Journal of 
Human Resource Management, 27(20), 2370-2397. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985330 
Badrtalei, J., & Bates, D. L. (2007). Effect of organiza-
tional cultures on mergers and acquisitions: The case 

33
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
of DaimlerChrysler.  International Journal of Manage-
ment, 24(2), 303.
Bain & Company (2013). Integrating cultures after a merg-
er. Bain & Company Report. Available at https://me-
dia.bain.com/Images/BAIN_BRIEF_Integrating_cul-
tures_after_a_merger.pdf 
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo [Content Analy-
sis]. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2012). Strategic manage-
ment and competitive advantage. Upper Saddle River, 
NJ: Pearson Education.
Bauer, F., & Matzler, K. (2014). Antecedents of M&A 
success: the role of strategic complementarity, cultur-
al fit, and degree and speed of integration. Strategic 
Management Journal, 35 (November 2012), 269–291. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2091 
Beck, M. & Scott Morton, F.M. (2020). Evaluating the Ev-
idence on V ertical Mergers. Available at SSRN: https://
ssrn.com/abstract=3554073 
Bena, J., & Li, K. (2014). Corporate innovations and merg-
ers and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 69(5), 
1923-1960. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12059 
Bereskin, F., Byun, S. K., Officer, M. S., & Oh, J. M. 
(2018). The effect of cultural similarity on mergers 
and acquisitions: Evidence from corporate social re-
sponsibility. Journal of Financial and Quantitative 
Analysis, 53(5), 1995-2039. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022109018000716 
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2001). On managing cultur-
al integration and cultural change processes in 
mergers and acquisitions. Journal of European 
Industrial Training, 25(2), 192–207. https://doi.
org/10.1108/03090590110395807 
Capron, L., Mitchell, W., & Swaminathan, A. (2001). 
Asset divestiture following horizontal acquisitions: A 
dynamic view. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 
817–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.175 
Clayton, C., Alton, R., Rising, C., & Waldeck, A. (2011). 
The big idea: The new M&A playbook. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 89(3), 49-57.
David, J. (2017). The Aggregate Implications of Merg-
ers and Acquisitions (August 30, 2017). Available at 
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2033555 or http://
dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2033555 
Deloitte. 2017. Making the Deal Work: Perspectives on 
driving merger and acquisition value. Deloitte M&A 
Institute Report.
Denison, D. R., & Ko, I. (2016). Cultural due diligence 
in mergers and acquisitions. Advances in Mergers 
and Acquisitions, 15, 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/
S1479-361X20160000015004 
Donnelly, T., Mellahi, K., & Morris, D. (2002). The Euro-
pean automobile industry: escape from parochialism.  
European Business Review, 14(1), 30–39. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09555340210414223   
Duan, Y., & Jin, Y. (2019). Financial constraints and syn-
ergy gains from mergers and acquisitions. Journal 
of International Financial Management & Account-
ing, 30(1), 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12091 
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combin-
ing: an abductive approach to case research.  Journal 
of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8  
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K. and Pfarrer, M.D., (2007). A 
Content Analysis of the Content Analysis Litera-
ture in Organization Studies, Research Themes, Data 
Sources and Methodological Refinements. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 10(1), 5-34. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428106289252 
Faisal, M., Tarba, S., Liu, Y ., Glaister, K., & Cooper, C. 
(2016). Exploring the factors influencing the negotia-
tion process in cross-border M&A. International Busi-
ness Review, 25, 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ibusrev.2015.06.001  
Friedman, Y., Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Shimizu, K. 
(2016). Untangling micro-behavioral sources of failure 
in mergers and acquisitions: a theoretical integration 
and extension. The International Journal of Human 
Resource Management, 27(20), 2339-2369. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1042003 
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data 
saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Re-
port, 20(9), 1408.
Garzella, S., & Fiorentino, R. (2017). Inside Synergy As-
sessment: Towards the Real Value of M&As. In Syn-
ergy Value and Strategic Management (pp. 35-52). 
Springer, Cham.
Gomes, E., Angwin, D. N., Weber, Y ., & Yedidia Tarba, 
S. (2013). Critical success factors through the mergers 
and acquisitions process: revealing pre‐and post‐M&A 
connections for improved performance. Thunderbird 
International Business Review, 55(1), 13-35. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tie.21521 
Gordon, G. (1991). Industry Determinants of Organi-
zational Culture. Academy of Management Review, 
16(2), 396–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/258868 
Gundry, L. K., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Critical Incidents 
in Communicating Culture to Newcomers: The Mean-
ing is the Message. Human Relations, 47(9), 1063–
1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700903 
Ishii, J., & Xuan, Y . (2014). Acquirer-target social ties 
and merger outcomes. Journal of Financial Econom-
ics, 112(3), 344-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfine-
co.2014.02.007 
Junni, P., & Teerikangas, S. (2019). Mergers and Ac-
quisitions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Busi-
ness and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acre-
fore/9780190224851.013.15    
Kiessling, T., Vlačić, B., & Dabić, M. (2019). Mapping 
the future of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: 

34
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
a review and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on 
Engineering Management, 68(1), 212-222. https://doi.
org/10.1109/tem.2019.2954799 
Konstantopoulos, N., Sakas, D., & Triantafyllopoulos, Y. 
(2009). Lessons from a case study for Greek banking 
M&A negotiations. Management Decision, 47(8), 1300–
1312. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984550  
Kuo, H., Lin, L., Plesse, J. (2013). Merger and Acquisi-
tion: Definitions, Motives, and Market Responses. En-
cyclopedia of Finance, 541.
Lodorfos, G., & Boateng, A. (2006). The role of cul-
ture in the merger and acquisition process: Evi-
dence from the European chemical industry. Man-
agement Decision, 44(10), 1405-1421. https://doi.
org/10.1108/00251740610715722 
Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1992). The Human Side of 
Mergers and Acquisition Planning: Assessing and Ana-
lyzing “Fit.” Human Resource Planning, 15(3), 69–92.
McKinsey & Company (2004). Where mergers go wrong. 
The McKinsey Quarterly, (2), 92–99.
McKinsey & Company. (2010). Perspectives on merger 
integration. McKinsey & Company Report June 2010.
Meglio, O., King, D.R., & Risberg, A. (2015). Improving 
acquisition outcomes with contextual ambidexteri-
ty. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s29-s43. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21721 
Moreira, D., & Janda, K. (2017). Measuring the M&A 
value of control and synergy in Central and Eastern 
European transition economies with the case of Avast-
A VG acquisition. European Financial and Accounting 
Journal, 12(3), 157-170.
Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S.L. (1997). When em-
ployees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological 
contract violation develops. Academy of Management 
Review, 22(1), 226–256. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1997.9707180265 
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Encyclopedia 
of statistics in behavioral science.
Risberg, A. (2015). Qualitative and longitudinal studies of 
mergers and acquisitions. The Routledge companion to 
mergers and acquisitions. London: Routledge.
Sarala, R.M. (2010). The impact of cultural differences 
and acculturation factors on post-acquisition conflict. 
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1), 38–56. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2009.07.001 
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, 
J., Bartlam, B., & Burroughs, H. C. Jinks (2017). Sat-
uration in qualitative research: exploring its conceptu-
alization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 
52(4), 1893-1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-
0574-8  
Schraeder, M., & Self, D. R. (2003). Enhancing the success 
of mergers and acquisitions: an organizational culture 
perspective. Management Decision, 41(5), 511–522. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310479359  
Smollan, R. K., & Sayers, J. G. (2009). Organizational cul-
ture, change and emotions: A qualitative study.  Jour-
nal of Change Management, 9(4), 435-457. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14697010903360632 
Vilelas, J. (2009). Investigação: o processo de construção 
do conhecimento [Research: the process of building 
knowledge]. Lisboa: Sílabo
Weber, Y., & Fried, Y. (2011). The role of HR practices 
in managing culture clash during the postmerger inte-
gration process. Human Resource Management, 50(5), 
565–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20449  
Weber, Y., Tarba, S.Y., & Reichel, A. (2009). Interna-
tional mergers and acquisitions performance revis-
ited - The role of cultural distance and post-acquisi-
tion integration approach. Advances in Mergers and 
Acquisitions, 8, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
361X(2009)0000008003 
Weingart, L. R., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2004). 
Quantitative Coding of Negotiation Behavior. In-
ternational Negotiation, 9, 441-455. https://doi.
org/10.1163/1571806053498805 
Werr, A., & Styhre, A. (2002). Management consul-
tants-friend or foe? Understanding the ambiguous 
client-consultant relationship. International Studies 
of Management & Organization, 32(4), 43-66. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2002.11043670 
Wiltermuth, S. S., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Too much in-
formation: The perils of nondiagnostic information in 
negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 
192–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021871
Renato Lopes da Costa holds a PhD in General 
Management, Strategy and Business Development 
at ISCTE (Portugal) has published articles in several 
journals in the East, the United States, Canada, 
Africa, South America and Portugal. He is currently 
a researcher and member of the Scientific Council of 
the BRU-UNIDE and professor at ISCTE where guides 
master’s and PhD theses and teaches Business 
Strategy.  Since 2016 is the MscBA director in ISCTE, 
master listed on Financial Times Report. During the 
school year 2013/2014, he started as a guest professor 
at the Military Academy. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
9364-534X
João Miguel holds a Master in Business Administration 
from ISCTE Business School.
Álvaro Dias holds a Ph.D. on International Marketing 
in 2006, aggregation on Firm Economics in 2009, 
MSc in Strategy in 2003 and BaC in Management in 
1994.  He was Associate Professor of Management 
and Economics, Department Director at Universidade 

35
Organizacija, V olume 54 Issue 1, February 2021 Research Papers
Kulturni, vodstveni in organizacijski dejavniki vpliva na rezultate prevzemov in združitev 
Ozadje / namen: Raziskava se osredotoča na spremenljivke, ki vplivajo na rezultate združitev in prevzemov , iz -
hajajoč iz analize preteklih napak, da bi managerji lahko izluščili boljše strategije in sprejemali modrejše odločitve 
za izboljšanje rezultatov združitev in prevzemov. Študija prispeva k obstoječemu znanju o uspešnosti združitev in 
prevzemov z raziskovanjem razsežnosti kulturnih, vodstvenih in organizacijskih dejavnikov s pomočjo integrativnega 
pristopa z več perspektivami.
Metodologija: Opravljenih je bilo petnajst intervjujev z izkušenimi strokovnjaki na več področjih združitev in prev -
zemov. Za interpretacijo rezultatov smo uporabili vsebinsko analizo. To je omogočilo celovitejši nabor odgovorov in 
možnih rešitev, ob primerjanju mnenj o istih problemih, obravnavanih z nekoliko različnih zornih kotov.
Rezultati: Študija kaže na vpliv vodstvene ogroženosti, čustvene navezanosti in preveč optimizma pri združitvah in 
prevzemih. Pokazala se je zmerna podpora standardizaciji postopkov združitev in prevzemov, vendar anketiranci 
svetujejo, da ne pozabimo na kreativnost in prilagodljivost.
Zaključek: Članek zaključuje z strnitvijo ključnih vprašanj glede uspešnosti združitev in prevzemov: zmogljivosti in 
izkušnje, organizacijska komunikacija, notranje usklajevanje in ključni dejavniki pri odločanju.
Ključne besede: Združitve in prevzemi, Sinergije, Kultura, Strategija, Rast, Izvedba.
Autónoma de Lisboa (UAL), and he is currently Full 
Professor at Universidade Lusófona and invited 
professor in ISCTE-IUL. He is also collaborating with 
several institutions in Brazil and Angola as invited 
professor and co-supervisor of MSc and Ph.D. student. 
He was Director and founder of CEEFE/UAL - Research 
center for strategy and finance. https://orcid.org/0000-
0003-4074-1586 
Leandro Pereira holds a Ph.D. in Project Management. 
He is also CEO and Founder of WINNING Scientific 
Management and Professor at ISCTE Business School. 
Dr. Pereira is also former President of Business Case 
Institute, PMI Portugal Chapter and Training Specialist 
of the Court of Auditors. As CEO, Dr. Pereira receives 
from Best Teams Leaders the award of Best Team 
Leader and CEO of Portugal in 2017 in Portugal. He is 
also PMP from PMI and ROI certified. As researcher, 
he published more than 50 scientific publications and 
10 books. As student, he received the best student 
award from University of Minho. Dr. Pereira is an 
international expert in Strategic Management, Project 
Management, Benefits Realization Management, and 
Problem Solving. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4920-
0498 
José Santos is a PhD student and the Head of 
Winning LAB, the scientific laboratory of his company, 
Winning Scientific Management. He has an extensive 
knowledge in management and already published 
several scientific papers and well as participated in 
several conferences as a speaker. He has more than 
ten years of professional experience.