1 / 12

Transfer Effects in Large Acquisitions: How Size-specific Experience Matters

Transfer Effects in Large Acquisitions: How Size-specific Experience Matters. Kimberly M. Ellis, Taco H. Reus, Bruce T. Lamont, Annette L. Ranft Academy of Management Journal In Press. AMJ Timeline. 2009 January 29 Initial submission April 5 Reviews & decision received

shlomo
Download Presentation

Transfer Effects in Large Acquisitions: How Size-specific Experience Matters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Transfer Effects in Large Acquisitions: How Size-specific Experience Matters Kimberly M. Ellis, Taco H. Reus, Bruce T. Lamont, Annette L. Ranft Academy of Management Journal In Press

  2. AMJ Timeline 2009 • January 29 Initial submission • April 5 Reviews & decision received • October 19 Second submission • December 18 Reviews & decision received 2010 • April 19 Third submission • June 6 Reviews and conditional accept • Oct 6 Fourth submission • Oct 19 Accepted

  3. Round 1 Main Issues Revisions Focused the paper around its contribution to transfer theory instead of M& A and transfer—returned to original psychology literature, complete rewrite Deleted hypothesis 1 • Theoretical motivation and contributions are unclear • Hypothesis 1 is too general, obvious (and probably indefensible)

  4. Round 1 Main Issues Revisions Focused on size-related experience, controlled others. Changed title. More data. Robustness checks. Clarified target-to-target & bidder-to-target focus, major rewrite of hypotheses, all grounded in transfer theory • Need to differentiate types of experience, not just general experience • Clarify theory and hypotheses development

  5. Round 1 Main Issues Revisions Clarified data description Revised performance measure per Reviewer 1. Clarified cultural measure • Data description not clear; data may be inadequate • Cultural and performance measures dubious

  6. Round 1It just keeps going… Main Issues Revisions Pre-deal performance of target and acquirer, size, simultaneous deals added. Alternate analyses as robustness checks. Heckman procedure learned and added • Need to include more controls • Endogeneity

  7. Round 1Reviewer Wrap-up We focused primarily on Reviewers 1 & 3; they offered very detailed critical comments . This strategy got us through the next round, not without alienating Reviewer 2, however. • Reviewers 1 is demanding better theory • Reviewers 1 & 3 were the most critical • Reviewer 3 had extensive methodological concerns • Reviewer 2 doesn’t believe the results

  8. Round 2 Main Issues Revisions Issues we interpreted as minor were nor perceived that way by Reviewer 2 We better understood and were able to address the conceptual concerns, this was the main focus again in this round • Reviewer 2 turned hostile • Hypotheses development still a big issue, went too far in some ways and not far enough in others

  9. Round 2 Main Issues Revisions We added more literature to be complete and systematic, which wasn’t what they wanted Slight modification of DV Collected archival culture data to validate culture measure • Literature needs more precision and coverage • Still minor problems with dependent measure • Survey measures need validation, Reviewer 2 is focused on culture

  10. Round 2 Main Issues Revisions Added 4 appendices & 23 tables of alternate analyses in responses to the reviewers Reduced length from 56 to 42 pages • Supplemental analyses are needed • Paper is too long, 35 page request

  11. Round 3 Remaining issues Revisions Revised moderation arguments for all three hypotheses, but 2a & b were the primary culprits Deleted huge parts of the literature review, removed two “offensive” citations Reduced paper to 35 pages • Reviewer 3 has renewed theoretical concerns • Reviewers 1 & 2 have signed off • Moderation arguments need strengthening • Streamline literature review • Paper too long

  12. Observations and advice • It’s not a race, although perseverance is important • Clarifying your theoretical contribution is THE key • The first revision is the toughest and most important • Don’t reject your own paper • Don’t cut length initially • Don’t treat the “minor” comments lightly • Don’t be afraid to collect more data • Do present all of the results of alternate analyses for the reviewers to see, possibly in appendices • Do take advantage of the learning opportunities

More Related