If you could help me look at the article at the link below, I'd be very grateful. I was told to pay special attention to the methodology used here, as well as the gap and the paper's key solutions reached. Thanks in advance.
What is interesting with what Larsson and Finkelstein (1999) did is they created an integrated 'history' or model of a typical merger and acquisition from "theoretical perspectives from economics, finance, and especially strategy, organization theory, and human resource management" (p. 1). With this, I was a bit excited to learn how the authors designed their methodology to be able to create this integrative model. It is actually surprising to note that this is the first article I have read that attempted to create an integrative theory of mergers and acquisitions.
On the other hand, I disagree with what the author said as regards to their claim that their "approach differs from traditional methods of studying mergers and acquisitions" (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999, p. 1). Though they enumerated three ways their approach differs from traditional methods, it is with only one of these three ways I disagree with: "the success of a merger or acquisition is gauged by the degree of synergy realization rather than more removed and potentially ambiguous criteria such as accounting or market return" (Larsson & Finkelstein, 1999, p. 1). In most of the articles I ...
The expert examines integrating strategic, organizational and human resource perspectives.