Not all M&As are alike--and that matters

Despite all that's been written about mergers and acquisitions, even the experts know surprisingly little about them. The author recently headed up a year-long study sponsored by Harvard Business School on the subject of M&A activity. In-depth findings will emerge over the next few years, but the research has already revealed some interesting results. Most intriguing is the notion that, although academics, consultants, and businesspeople lump M&As together, they represent very different strategic activities. Acquisitions occur for the following reasons: to deal with overcapacity through consolidation in mature industries; to roll up competitors in geographically fragmented industries; to extend into new products and markets; as a substitute for R&D; and to exploit eroding industry boundaries by inventing an industry. The different strategic intents present distinct integration challenges. For instance, if you acquire a company because your industry has excess capacity, you have to determine which plants to shut down and which people to let go. If, on the other hand, you buy a company because it has developed an important technology, your challenge is to keep the acquisition's best engineers from jumping ship. These scenarios require the acquiring company to engage in nearly opposite managerial behaviors. The author explores each type of M&A--its strategic intent and the integration challenges created by that intent. He underscores the importance of the acquiring company's assessment of the acquired group's culture. Depending on the type of M&A, approaches to the culture in place must vary, as will the level to which culture interferes with integration. He draws from the experiences of such companies as Cisco, Viacom, and BancOne to exemplify the different kinds of M&As.