Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Deals without delusions.

Dan Lovallo1, Patrick Viguerie, Robert Uhlaner

  • 1University of Western Australia Business School, Perth. dan_lovallo@external.mckinsey.com

Harvard Business Review
|February 21, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluation of an electronic health record Drug Interaction Customization Editor (DICE).

American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists·2024
Same author

A Dose-Finding Study to Guide Use of Verapamil as an Adjunctive Therapy in Tuberculosis.

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics·2023
Same author

Barriers to Adoption of Tailored Drug-Drug Interaction Clinical Decision Support.

Applied clinical informatics·2023
Same author

A dose-finding study to guide use of verapamil as an adjunctive therapy in tuberculosis.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2023
Same author

Reply: Drugs That Interact With Colchicine Via Inhibition of Cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-Glycoprotein: A Signal Detection Analysis Using a Database of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Events (FAERS).

The Annals of pharmacotherapy·2023
Same author

Drugs That Interact With Colchicine Via Inhibition of Cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-Glycoprotein: A Signal Detection Analysis Using a Database of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Events (FAERS).

The Annals of pharmacotherapy·2023
Same journal

The Case for Capitation.

Harvard business review·2016
Same journal

How to Pay for Health Care.

Harvard business review·2016
Same journal

How to Preempt Team Conflict.

Harvard business review·2016
Same journal

The Secrets of Great Teamwork.

Harvard business review·2016
Same journal

Leading the Team You Inherit.

Harvard business review·2016
Same journal

Wicked Problem Solvers.

Harvard business review·2016
See all related articles

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are challenging due to executive biases. Targeted debiasing strategies can help overcome cognitive pitfalls throughout the M&A process for better outcomes.

Area of Science:

  • Business Strategy
  • Organizational Behavior
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are complex strategic maneuvers fraught with potential pitfalls.
  • Executives often fall prey to cognitive biases, negatively impacting M&A success rates.
  • Unrecognized faulty assumptions can derail even well-intentioned M&A initiatives.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify common cognitive biases encountered during various stages of the M&A process.
  • To propose practical strategies for mitigating these biases, termed 'targeted debiasing'.
  • To enhance decision-making and improve the likelihood of successful M&A outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of biases during preliminary due diligence, including confirmation bias, overconfidence, underestimation of cultural differences, and the planning fallacy.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of biases during the bidding phase, such as the winner's curse and anchoring.
  • Strategies for overcoming post-bidding biases like the sunk cost fallacy.

    • Main Results:

    • Confirmation bias can be countered by actively seeking disconfirming evidence.
    • Overconfidence in synergy identification is mitigated by learning from past M&A precedents.
    • The planning fallacy is addressed by establishing and revisiting best practices.
    • Winner's curse and anchoring are managed through alternative deal generation and strict bidding rules.
    • Sunk cost fallacy is overcome by objective re-evaluation of the investment case post-bid.

    Conclusions:

    • Awareness and proactive management of cognitive biases are crucial for successful M&A.
    • Targeted debiasing offers a structured approach to navigate M&A complexities.
    • Implementing these strategies can lead to more rational decision-making and improved deal performance.