Facilitating inclusive identity: HR practices, perceived fairness, and intergroup cognitions in corporate mergers

Date

2004-11-15

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Texas A&M University

Abstract

Based on social identity theory, self-categorization theory, and justice theories, this study proposed a theoretical framework for studying the psychological processes that employees go through during the period of post-merger implementation. Specifically, this study investigated: (a) the effects of HR practices on employees' intergroup cognition and perceived fairness; and (b) the antecedents and consequences of intergroup cognition (e.g., "us" versus "them" cognition) during post-merger implementation. In addition, I examined the mediating role of intergroup cognition in the psychological process. In Study One, a scenario-based experiment with MBA students, I found that more favorable HR practices after a merger led to a significantly higher level of distributive justice than less favorable post-merger HR practices. Furthermore, more favorable HR practices after a merger led to a significantly lower level of intergroup cognition than less favorable post-merger HR practices. In addition, equally favorable HR practices between the members of two groups in the merged company led to both a significantly higher level of distributive justice and a significantly lower level of intergroup cognition than HR practices that were less or more favorable as compared to those of the other group. In Study Two, a field survey with incumbents, I found that the level of perceived fairness was negatively related to the level of intergroup cognition. In addition, the level of perceived cultural differences was positively related to the level of intergroup cognition. Also, their effects on organizational commitment, resistance to change, and turnover intention during post-merger implementation were mediated by intergroup cognition.

Description

Citation