ABSTRACT
Notably lacking in contemporary research on mergers and acquisitions are studies accounting for how motives are formed and made sense of by top managers involved in a merger and acquisition process where an element of hostility is an integral part. Mergers and acquisitions are often examined as rational strategic phenomena and as outcomes of organizational processes. Only a limited number of studies focus on factors that contribute to managerial resistance or cooperation in an acquired firm (Harrison, O'Neill, and Hoskisson 2000). There is an emphasis on the need to plan well in advance while taking into consideration how procedures and human resources affect the resulting outcomes (Seo and Hill 2005). What happens in the course of the merger and acquisition process is a function of strategic objectives driving the process (Schweiger and Very 2003), without concern for surprising events, and a tension-laden relationship between top managers that influence motives and trigger sense-making. Previous research on merger and acquisition motives (e.g., Chatterjee 1986; Goldberg 1983; Hunt 1990; Napier 1989; Steiner 1975; Trautwein 1990; Walter and Barney 1990) has devoted little interest to how motives are formed and made sense of in connection with what is considered to be at stake from a top manager's viewpoint as a merger and acquisition process unfolds.
