National cultural differences have long been recognized as influential in cross-border merger and acquisition (CBM&A)<fnref n="1" /> outcomes (e.g., Shenkar, 2001; Björkman *et al.*, 2007; Sarala *et al.*, 2019), yet a consensus on their impact remains elusive. Studies have yielded mixed results, with outcomes being at times negative (e.g., Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006), positive (e.g., Morosini *et al.*, 1998), or a combination of both (e.g., Reus & Lamont, 2009). To conceptualize and analyze the cultural challenges in CBM&As, scholars have predominantly used the cultural distance framework (Beugelsdijk *et al.*, 2018). However, this framework addresses macro-level differences between countries but does not adequately examine the micro-mechanisms at play during the integration processes (Harzing & Pudelko, 2016), which encompass multi-level elements in a highly contextualized setting (Ye *et al.*, 2023).

In investigating cross-cultural issues, we adopt a multi-paradigmatic research approach (Romani *et al.*, 2018) and borrow from Shenkar’s (2001) metaphor of friction, which emphasizes contacts and interactions (Drogendijk & Zander, 2010). Cultural friction, originally proposed as an alternative metaphor to cultural distance, stems from incompatibilities rooted in differing assumptions, values, behaviors, or norms. It acknowledges that situations exist where very different cultures (high cultural distance) work well together (low friction), while similar cultures (low cultural distance) may clash (high friction) (Shenkar *et al.*, 2008).

Although progress has recently been made toward understanding the outcomes of friction in international settings (Campagnolo & Vincenti, 2022; Koch *et al.*, 2016; Fuad & Gaur, 2019; Ye *et al.*, 2023), gaps remain regarding individual-level interactions. Cultural friction as an individual-level phenomenon pertains to an individual’s attitude toward sociocultural differences as a source of tension during interactions with individuals from different cultures (Durand, 2018). When friction occurs, such as when managers or employees disagree about the content of their exchange relationships, it is usually associated with lower individual outcomes (e.g., job dissatisfaction or unsatisfied work motives) (Robert & Wasti, 2002). Although research on CBM&As increasingly recognizes the importance of cultural differences in CBM&A performance, how cultural differences affect integration outcomes at the managerial level is still underexplored (Ye *et al.*, 2023).

This study uses social identity theory (SIT) to examine how managerial perceptions of cultural friction affect individual-level work-related attitudes in the context of CBM&As. The contribution of SIT to our research purpose is twofold. First, M&As are viewed as a formal recategorization of two formerly different social groups into a new one. This major change in group membership (Van Knippenberg *et al.*, 2002) generates ambiguity and uncertainty (Hogg & Mullin, 1999), and threatens the stability and continuity of employees’ current identities (Hogg & Terry, 2000). In terms of social identity, M&As are social events that involve the confrontation of groups (Terry, 2001). CBM&As thus represent a scenario for potential confrontation (Terry, 2001), not only between groups from different organizations but also between groups from different countries, requiring a double-layered acculturation (Barkema, 1996). This increases uncertainty (Diduc, 2022), and challenges employees’ values, attributes, and practices (Colman & Lunnan, 2011; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020). SIT helps explain these processes.

Second, in CBM&As individuals experience a range of multiple sub-group belongings (Fiol *et al.*, 2009), increasing in-group/out-group biases and culture-related conflicts. The presence of cultural friction accentuates stereotyping processes and can disrupt the process by which identification induces changes in behavior, attitudes, or beliefs to match the group individuals belong to. These dynamics can contribute to issues associated with work-related attitudes such as distrust, conflicts, and reduced collaboration. However, they can also boost identification processes that accelerate a new identity formation. SIT is suitable for understanding these processes.

Research has shown, in a variety of work contexts, that organizational identification results in increased work effort, higher performance, and more frequent engagement in collaborative behaviors (Van Dick *et al.*, 2006a; Ullrich & Van Dick, 2007). In the context of M&As, findings demonstrate that post-merger identification plays a central role in shaping interpersonal dynamics and cooperative behaviors. Post-merger identification, trust, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) ) ––actions that go beyond job roles and benefit the organization–– have been recognized as key factors in achieving post-M&A success: post-merger identification has been shown to be an important determinant of post-M&A success (Kroon *et al.*, 2009); scholars have highlighted that trust plays a central role in fostering integration (Stahl & Sitkin, 2010; Weber *et al.*, 2012; Graebner *et al.*, 2017); and finally, OCB has been recognized as a key factor of overall successful integration (Cho & La, 2014). Research suggests that identification fosters a sense of belonging and alignment with the collective identity of the merged entity, leading to increased employee trust in colleagues, and engagement in cooperative behaviors, such as OCB (Van Knippenberg *et al.*, 2002; Lipponen *et al.*, 2020).

We argue that cultural friction affects such work-related attitudes, as well as the interactions between those attitudes, and contributes to revealing the sociocultural micro-mechanisms behind the integration process. We thus address the following research question: How does cultural friction, as an individual-level phenomenon, interact with work-related attitudes such as post-merger organizational identification, interpersonal trust, and OCB? To tackle this question, we employ structural equation modeling to unravel the intricate relationships between post-merger organizational identification and OCB. To further investigate the role of cultural friction in the post-M&A integration processes, we introduce interpersonal trust as a mediator in the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB and analyze the direct and indirect effects of cultural friction on these variables.

This research contributes to the social identity approach and cross-cultural studies in the field of CBMAs, expanding our understanding of cross-cultural dynamics in this context. It offers insights into the role of cultural friction on the sociocultural micro-mechanisms underpinning integration processes in CBM&As. Our study emphasizes the role of interpersonal trust and cultural friction at the individual level, particularly the full mediating effect of interpersonal trust in the well-established relationship between post-merger identification and OCB, as well as the positive indirect effect of cultural friction on OCB through post-merger identification and interpersonal trust. It adds to the literature that uses multi-paradigmatic approaches in studying cross-cultural issues (Romani *et al.*, 2018).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we develop the theoretical background, hypotheses, and research models. Then, we present the research method, including data collection and measures, after which we present the data analysis and results. Next, we discuss our findings in relation to theory and past research and our contributions. Finally, we present our conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

<footnote n="1">Although a merger has many different characteristics in comparison to an acquisition, Zaheer *et al.* (2003) estimated that only 45 out of 90,480 European M&A transactions between 1985 and 2001 could be considered as mergers of equals. So, in fact, ‘pure’ mergers are extremely rare even if it is very common for practitioners and academics to refer to a ‘merger’ when it is in fact an ‘acquisition’.</footnote>
# Theoretical background and hypothesis development

## Social identity theory, mergers and acquisitions, and work-related outcomes

Social identity theory (SIT) explains attitudes and behaviors in terms of the importance of group belonging based on the inherent value humans place on social group membership, and their desire to view their specific social groups in a positive light (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). M&As imply the formal recategorization of two previously different social groups as a new one. Post-M&A integration process disrupts the social group memberships of the employees involved (Van Knippenberg *et al.*, 2002; Weber, 2019; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020), threatening the stability and continuity of employees’ current identities (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Ullrich *et al.*, 2005; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2011). In CBM&As, identity is not only embedded into belonging to the organizational group but also into the national culture (Stahl & Voigt, 2008), which increases in-group/out-group biases and “us” vs. “them” social categorization (Yildiz, 2016). In-group/out-group biases underscored by the mere existence of two different cultures may provoke potential conflict (Hogg & Terry, 2000) because the members of the out-group might be perceived as not sharing key values.

The sociocultural integration stage is thus a phase of identity transition in which multiple identities interplay (Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020), resulting in identity conflict or ambiguity (Fiol *et al.*, 2009; Vaara *et al.*, 2012; Karamustafa-Köse *et al.*, 2022), and in which pre-merger and post-merger identities may coexist and be challenged (Rouzies, 2011; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020). Identities need to be integrated and (re)built through a socially constructed process (Vaara, 2000; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020) in which new norms must be established through social interactions, individual negotiations, and cultural conflict resolution (Rouzies & Colman, 2012).

Research has shown in a variety of contexts that organizational identification results in increased work effort, higher performance, reduced staff turnover, and more frequent engagement in collaborative behaviors (Riketta, 2005; Van Dick *et al.*, 2006a; Ullrich & Van Dick, 2007). A positive and significant relationship between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behavior**(**OCB) has already been found. In their meta-analysis, Van Dick *et al.* (2006a) confirmed the causal relationship of organizational identification impacting OCB (and not vice versa) across different cultural groups. Given this, we place this relationship at the core of our research models: first, we analyze the moderating effect of cultural friction on the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB (Model 1); second, we consider the direct and indirect effects of cultural friction in the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB, mediated by interpersonal trust (Model 2).

In M&A contexts, post-merger identification, trust, and OCB have been recognized as key factors in achieving post-M&A success (Kroon *et al.*, 2009; Cho & La, 2014; Graebner *et al.*, 2017). Findings demonstrate that post-merger identification plays a central role in shaping interpersonal dynamics and cooperative behaviors such as OCB. Post-merger identification corresponds to the organizational identification concept at the post-M&A integration stage. It reflects the extent of “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to the combined entity where the individual perceives him or herself in terms of the organization(s) in which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). OCB has its roots in the work of Katz and Kahn (1978), who explicitly recognized it as a form of “spontaneous cooperation.” OCB is defined as an “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Cho & La (2014) recognized OCB as a key factor for overall success integration. Scholars suggest that identification fosters a sense of belonging and alignment with the collective identity of the new entity, resulting in increased trust in colleagues and active engagement in cooperative behaviors, such as OCB (Van Knippenberg *et al.*, 2002; Lipponen *et al.*, 2020).

Although cultural friction is known to emphasize contact and interactions (Drogendijk & Zander, 2010; Luo & Shenkar, 2011), this concept has not yet received the attention it deserves. This is perhaps due to its high degree of complex operationalization or its organizational rather than individual original focus (Shenkar *et al.*, 2008). Shenkar *et al.* (2022, p. 526) argued that “a contact-based perspective could and should be tuned to individual actors, embedded as they are in their respective organizations and nations”. Even though progress has recently been made toward understanding the outcomes of cultural friction in international settings (Koch *et al.*, 2016; Fuad & Gaur, 2019; Ye *et al.*, 2023), these empirical studies rely heavily on cultural distance frameworks and do not capture the micro-individual nature of the cultural friction at play during sociocultural integration. Ambos and Håkanson (2014) claimed that it is necessary to focus on frictions in individuals’ interactions, and *cultural friction*––proposed by Durand *et al.* (2024) as a microfounded attitudinal variable stemming from grounded critical incidents––is consistent with this view. Cultural friction as an individual-level phenomenon pertains to an individual’s attitude towards sociocultural differences as a source of tension during interactions with individuals from different cultures. Cultural friction arises when an individual’s values, attitudes, and behaviors do not align with what the individual perceives in his/her organization, provoking tensions, and conflicting demands (Durand, 2018). When friction occurs, such as when managers or employees disagree about the content of their exchange relationships, it is often associated with lower outcomes for individuals (e.g., job dissatisfaction or unsatisfied work motives) (Robert & Wasti, 2002).

Empirical studies applying a cultural-friction perspective to examine the impact of different cultures in international settings have found counter-intuitive positive effects. For instance, Koch and colleagues (2016) examined the correlation between cultural friction in leadership beliefs and the survival of foreign-invested enterprises and found that cultural friction can be more beneficial than detrimental. More recently, in CBM&A settings, Campagnolo and Vincenti (2022) found that heightened frictions stemming from national cultural differences between the parties involved in CBM&As could, paradoxically, lead to increased profitability for target firms. Ye *et al.* (2023) employed cultural friction as a case-based concept and measurement for cultural differences, which captures multi-level differences in a more contextualized setting and reflects real cultural contacts during the CBM&A process. They found a U-shaped relationship between cultural friction and CBM&A performance, concluding that cultural friction can yield positive, negative, or neutral outcomes.

As Romani *et al.* (2018) proposed, no single research paradigm in cross-cultural studies is equipped to provide the full picture of a phenomenon. Our research can be described as multi-paradigmatic because it combines different paradigms to enrich the analysis and trigger new research questions. Cultural differences have been traditionally considered challenging since they increase conflicts and negative attitudes (Björkman *et al.*, 2007; Stahl & Voigt, 2008; Yildiz & Fey, 2016). To study the effects of cultural differences on post-merger outcomes, researchers have predominantly used the cultural distance framework (Beugelsdijk *et al.*, 2018) in a positivist tradition (Romani *et al.*, 2018). However, this framework addresses macro-level differences between countries and does not adequately consider the micro-mechanisms at play during integration processes (Harzing & Pudelko, 2016), which encompass multi-level elements in a more contextualized setting (Ye *et al.*, 2023).

Beyond national differences, cultural differences exist in the minds of individuals and influence their perceptions, interpretations of meanings, and interactions with their counterparts (Zueva-Owens *et al.*, 2012; Yildiz & Fey, 2016). At the interindividual level, interactions become difficult, especially when they occur between individuals from different countries, such as in the case of CBM&As (Shenkar, 2001, 2012; Rouzies & Colman, 2012), with the resulting discomfort during social interactions affecting work-related attitudes. By combining interpretivist, postmodern, and critical research paradigms, we analyze cultural friction at the individual level, considering meanings and sense-making with a focus on interpersonal interactions (a system of social interactions with negotiated contextual meanings) and local understanding (Romani *et al.*, 2018).

In considering the moderating role of cultural friction on the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB, we argue that the perception of cultural challenges arising during the post-merger integration stage can generate conflicts that may adversely affect the way post-merger identification translates into cooperative behaviors. Drawing on a social identity perspective, even if individuals see themselves as part of the entity as a result of the CBM&A, they may feel uncertain about what is regarded as good or bad behavior, especially by the out-group members; consequently, individuals may hesitate to adopt (or not) behaviors that are not formally enacted in the new entity because of their potential to increase conflict (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The process by which social identification induces modifications in terms of behavior, attitudes, or beliefs to match the group that individuals belong to (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) is disrupted by the presence of cultural friction, which fosters in-group/out-group biases (Yildiz, 2016). Thus, when cultural friction is higher, the strength of the relationship between post-merger organizational identification and OCB decreases. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis relating to the post-M&A integration stage in CBM&As:

```
H1: Cultural friction negatively moderates the relationship between post-merger
              identification and OCB.
```

This hypothesis is represented in Figure 1.

## Direct and indirect effects of cultural friction

The post-M&A integration process involves a major change in group membership (Rouzies, 2011; Weber, 2019; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020), disrupting organizational members’ identification (Van Dick *et al.*, 2006b). We propose that cultural friction plays a pivotal role in the sociocultural integration processes after CBM&As. Cultural friction as an individual-level phenomenon pertains to an individual’s attitude towards sociocultural differences as a source of tension during interactions with individuals from different cultures. In-group/out-group biases, “us” vs. “them” social categorization, and stereotyping processes are accentuated, preventing identity-building (Fiol *et al.*, 2009; Vaara *et al.*, 2012). Based on these arguments, we propose the following hypothesis pertaining to the post-merger integration stage in CBM&As:

```
H2a: Cultural friction negatively affects post-merger identification.
```

From a social identity perspective, individuals have different social identities, and they behave in terms of one in particular (Reicher, 2004). In CBM&A settings, conflicts can be accentuated because individuals have a range of multiple sub-group belongings (Fiol *et al.*, 2009), increasing in-group/out-group biases and culture-related conflict. Individuals see themselves as part of their national-culture group (in-group) in contrast to the foreign-culture group (out-group). This enhanced differentiation process may result in particular behaviors (for instance, willingness or not to engage in cooperative behavior) and reactions during interactions that result from dealing with cultural friction.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 — Moderation of cultural friction in the relationship between post-merger identification and organizational citizenship behavior (Model 1)</figcaption></figure>

Thus, when cultural friction is perceived, individuals might feel more threatened during intercultural interactions and become unlikely to engage in collaborative behaviors. Individuals may be less willing to participate in non-formal activities to avoid reinforcing identity threats resulting from the merger; this results from a fear of being misunderstood by the out-group members, since during the post-merger integration stage what is seen as the norm for good or bad behavior is not yet well-established (Hogg & Terry, 2000). In the same vein, Kroon *et al.* (2009, p.25) stated that “perceived cultural differences should be expected to be negatively related to positive attitudes toward the merger”. In line with this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis for the post-merger integration stage in CBM&As:

```
H2b: Cultural friction negatively affects OCB.
```

Although the role of trust in the post-merger integration stage has been widely studied and found to play a central role in fostering integration (Björkman *et al.*, 2007; Stahl & Sitkin, 2010; Weber *et al.*, 2012), the processes of building trust/distrust and how it affects outcomes at the post-merger integration stage are only partially understood (Graebner *et al.*, 2017), especially at the individual level (Lipponen *et al.*, 2020).

Trust is “built up over time in a social exchange process whereby the parties learn, step by step, to trust each other” (Hakansson & Snehota, 2000, p. 77). Trust has been defined as “a psychological state comprising the intention of accepting vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau *et al.*, 1998, p. 395). In the case of CBM&As, where employees’ current identities can be threatened (Colman & Lunnan, 2011; Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2020), acceptance of this vulnerability may be difficult. According to SIT and social categorization, the out-group (“them”) might be perceived as threatening and less trustworthy (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), leading to the idealization of the in-group to maintain a positive identity and affecting the trusting relationship.

Trust exists at different levels, both organizational and interpersonal. Organizational trust is analyzed at the firm level (Vlaar *et al.*, 2007), while interpersonal trust refers to the level of trust between individuals (Ganesan & Hess, 1997) and is directly related to social interactions and contacts between individuals. In our study, we use interpersonal trust given that our analysis focuses on social interactions and micro-exchanges at the individual level. From a social identity perspective, the link between trust and identity has been highlighted. Fiol (2002, p. 659) posited that “people’s willingness to identify with a social group is predicated on trust, that itself is based on a common shared identity”.

We suggest that when cultural friction is perceived, interpersonal trust is reduced because individual interactions become a source of discomfort that makes shared understanding difficult at the group level (Dao *et al.*, 2017), thus reinforcing out-group/in-group differences. Consequently, individuals do not feel free to exchange and are unable to fully understand each other (Lipponen *et al.*, 2020). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis concerning the post-M&A integration process in CBM&As:

```
H2c: Cultural friction negatively affects interpersonal trust.
```

The role of interpersonal trust in the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB remains underexplored, even though trust has been recognized as a critical factor in successful integration (Weber *et al.*, 2012; Stahl & Sitkin, 2010; Lipponen *et al.*, 2020) and found to influence the level of cooperation in sociocultural integration processes (Hajro, 2015) as it facilitates micro-exchanges between employees and prompts them to develop cooperative behaviors. We propose that, during the integration process, individuals’ identification with the new entity positively affects interpersonal trust formation, and that interpersonal trust, in turn, positively impacts OCB. This occurs regardless of the effect of post-merger identification on OCB proposed previously. In other words, interpersonal trust partially mediates the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB. This hypothesis attempts to disentangle the complex micro-mechanisms in the sociocultural integration process of CBM&As by explaining part of the relationship widely observed in the literature between organizational identification and OCB (Van Dick *et al.*, 2006a). Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis:

```
H2d: Interpersonal trust partially mediates the relationship between post-merger
              identification and OCB.
```

This mediation hypothesis complements the set of hypotheses dedicated to testing the direct and indirect effects of cultural friction on the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB as depicted in Figure 2.
# Research method

## Research design

This cross-sectional study is based on an instrumental-variable design, with Likert-type scales, and structural equation modeling using EQS 6 software. An instrumental variable is a third variable, used in structural equation modeling (including regression and path analyses) to establish causality when dealing with *potentially endogenous predictors* (variables that might be influenced by other variables in the model, including their error terms) (Antonakis *et al.*, 2010). Endogeneity occurs when a variable in a model is presumed to be independent but is actually dependent. Including instrumental variables allows researchers to control for potential endogeneity, omitted variables, reverse causation, and common-method variance and obtain consistent estimates (Antonakis *et al.*, 2010; Kim & Steiner, 2016).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 — Direct and indirect effects of cultural friction (Model 2)</figcaption></figure>

The use of instrumental variables in management research is extensive. Just to mention a couple of examples, Maydeu-Olivares *et al.* (2020) used market orientation as an instrumental variable in analyzing the effects of innovation performance (the potentially endogenous variable) on market share in a sample of insurance companies in Europe. Gu *et al.* (2020) used industry average firm age and size as instrumental variables in analyzing the effects of local state ownership (the potentially endogenous variable) on CBM&As in China. Using instrumental variables is “the most useful and most-used method to ensure consistency of estimates threatened by endogeneity” (Antonakis *et al.*, 2010, p. 1100). In our research, we use global mindset and age as instrumental variables in analyzing the moderating effects of cultural friction (the potentially endogenous variable) on the effect of post-merger identification (also, a potentially endogenous variable) on OCB, in Model 1; and global mindset as an instrumental variable in analyzing the effects of post-merger identification (the potentially endogenous variable) on OCB and interpersonal trust, in Model 2. We explain these models in detail below.

The introduction of instrumental variables as antecedents of the potentially endogenous variables allows us to consider only those variations of the independent variable that are not attributable to other variables in the model (namely post-merger identification, OCB, and interpersonal trust, including their error terms). This subsequently enables the establishment of causal relationships between variables in cross-sectional studies (Antonakis *et al.*, 2010).

The use of instrumental variables also reduces the problems related to the common method variance, in other words, the variance attributed to the measurement method rather than the constructs the measurements are supposed to represent. The issue is that the variance of systematic errors can have a significant confounding influence on empirical results, yielding potentially misleading conclusions. An important aspect of this common method variance is that, ultimately, it causes endogeneity because the independent variable can be correlated with the error terms of the dependent variable. To address this concern, we followed the recommendation of Podsakoff *et al.* (2003) to apply both procedural and statistical remedies.

Regarding procedural remedies, we carefully adapted the items from the literature to avoid vague terms, keep questions simple, and improve comprehension. To reduce evaluation apprehension and minimize the possibility of bias resulting from socially desirable responses, we guaranteed anonymity to the respondents and assured them that there were no right or wrong answers. We made clear that they simply had to answer the questionnaire as honestly as possible.

Regarding the statistical remedies, we included a *single unmeasured latent common method factor* to account for common method variance as well as other possible common sources of variance. The variance of the responses is thus partitioned into three components: trait, method, and random error. In this manner, this technique controls for any systematic variance between the constructs of interest, rendering estimates for the trait factors consistent. The variance in the data that is explained by the survey instrument itself is included in the model to purge the estimates from the effect of this variance. By introducing a latent unmeasured variable that explains all manifest variables in the model (and constraining the variance of this common factor to be 1) the measurement effects are separated from the trait effects and consistent estimates can be obtained. This is useful as researchers are usually not interested in identifying the specific factors responsible for common method effects (Podsakoff *et al.*, 2003).

The unit of analysis in this study is the individual manager’s perception. Thus, all variables are measured at the individual level. Survey data were analyzed using factor analysis to assess the validity and reliability of measures; then, complete structural models and path analysis were used for hypothesis testing.

## Survey instrument, sample, and data collection

The questionnaire consisted of two sections: one was dedicated to obtaining the respondent’s profile to verify that they met the inclusion criteria (i.e., having experienced at least one CBM&A and using English as their working language), and the other contained the items measuring the variables included in the research models. The scales, which were taken or adapted from previous studies, are all self-reported measures of attitudinal variables. The questionnaire included 36 items to measure the variables in the model, plus four additional variables: age, education, gender, and global mindset (composed of six items, see the Appendix). Age is used as an instrumental variable in Model 1; education and gender are used as control variables in Model 1; age and gender are used as control variables in Model 2; and global mindset is used as an instrumental variable in both Model 1 and Model 2. It was made clear in the instructions that each item should be addressed within the post-deal CBM&A context.

Respondents were managers randomly selected and surveyed through Qualtrics<fnref n="2" />. Random sampling allows researchers to obtain a sample that is representative of a certain population whose results are expected to be generalizable (Short *et al.*, 2002). It has been recognized as the optimal sampling technique to control for confounding effects in quasi-experimental designs. A random sample is suitable because it provokes external variables that can cause the results to cancel each other out (Pourhoseingholi *et al.*, 2012). In this manner, particular characteristics of the deals, the managers, and their companies and industries are less likely to affect the results. While random sampling can help reduce the impact of unmeasured confounders, it does not guarantee their complete elimination. There will always be a degree of uncertainty when dealing with unobserved variables. We include instrumental variables to mitigate this risk.

Random sampling was therefore carried out on a population willing to take part in research studies. The inclusion criteria were being Western managers and using English as their working language. From this panel, the Qualtrics algorithm selects potential respondents that meet the inclusion criteria. This selection is made using the application’s random function. Our sample was therefore randomly selected from a population composed of managers from different countries in Western Europe and North America, working in different business sectors, with a variety of company sizes, levels of education, roles/levels of management, genders, and ages. When they started the survey, our filter question asked them if they had already experienced at least one cross-border M&A within the 24 months before the survey. In total, 163 respondents took part in the survey, but 21 were excluded because they had M&A experience, but not cross-border M&A experience.

All respondents had experienced at least one CBM&A in the 24 months before the survey, thus ensuring solid recall of the unfolding events. Our managers had rich, diverse experience in CBM&As. Some were experienced in acquiring other organizations, others had experience in being acquired, and some had even experienced both. For this reason, we chose not to specify the difference between managers experiencing acquiring and being acquired. Rather, we relied upon their status as knowledgeable agents in the field of CBM&As. Descriptive statistics of the sample are shown in Table 1. We observe that no single sector represents more than 12% of the total sample, so the sample is not sector biased. Also, demographics of the respondents show a good variation, as well as the size of the companies and the number of CBM&As experienced. All potential confounders are ruled out by introducing the instrumental variables in the models and, consequently, do not threat the consistency of our results.

## Measures

**Cultural friction.**This is measured using the Cultural Friction Index, which is a scale developed by Durant & Very (2025) based on a grounded methodology using critical incidents (Durand, 2016). This scale consists of seven hypothetical critical incidents and 21 items—three items per critical incident. It measures two different types of cultural friction: internalized and externalized. Internalized cultural friction is related to the discomfort derived from cultural differences experienced by the individual that he or she is not willing to deal with openly, while externalized cultural friction refers to the same discomfort that the individual is willing to deal with openly. Because of the way the scale is constructed, both internalized and externalized cultural friction must be measured together. However, in this study, we only use externalized cultural friction because internalized cultural friction was found to overlap with our measure of post-merger identification.

**Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).** This is measured using the eight-item scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002), which measures OCB that benefits the organization. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which the respondent agrees that they engage in a particular behavior. Two of the eight original items were discarded because of cross-loadings in the factor analysis, and the remaining six items were retained.

**Post-merger identification.**This is measured using a three-item scale based on Van Knippenberg *et al.* (2002). Respondents were asked to portray themselves according to their degree of agreement or disagreement, on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with items related to the new entity resulting from the merger or acquisition. Each item was adapted to make the M&A context explicit.

**Interpersonal trust.** This is measured based on the four-item, affect-based interpersonal trust scale developed by McAllister (1995). Respondents were asked to portray themselves according to their degree of agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We adapted the items to highlight the context of the new entity.

**Global mindset.** This is an instrumental variable measured using the six-item scale developed by Gupta and Govindarajan (2002). According to these authors, a global mindset is “one that combines an openness to and awareness of diversity across cultures and markets with a propensity and ability to synthesize across this diversity” (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002, p. 117). Through both openness and integration processes, a global mindset is related to the extent to which the individual identifies with the new entity and constructs a managerial identity after the M&A. It is also related to the perception of cultural friction that is experienced as a consequence of the CBM&A because of the awareness of differences between cultures (Durand, 2016). Global mindset is an attitude that is formed in the long term based on personal history and experience (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002), thus it could be considered exogenous to the model. This concept explains cultural friction, but it is not explained by the other variables in the model. These elements make global mindset a suitable instrumental variable for our research. In our survey, global mindset is measured by asking the respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree with several statements related to cross-cultural interactions using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One of the six original items was discarded because of cross-loadings in the factor analysis, and the five remaining items were retained.

<table><caption>Table 1 — Descriptive statistics of the sample (N = 142)</caption><tr><td>Characteristics of respondents%SexFemale37Male63Age (years)25–35
            5135–443744–541054–642EducationBachelor’s degree32Master’s degree51PhD12Not
            available5Current company sectorTechnology12IT9Commerce/Sales & Retail
            9Manufacturing9Banking & Insurance  8Construction & real estate6Communication
            & advertising6Law & Accounting6Audit & Consulting6Healthcare
            6Transportation5Services 5Food & Drinks 4Engineering 4Other 5Current company size in
            number of employeesLess than 1038Between 10 and 4931Between 50 and 19919More than
            20012Number of CBM&As experienced during their work life1482–4375–89>86Years
            since last cross-border integration<1251–563>512Duration of the last cross-border
            integration (months)<6106–121812–182218–2430>2420Manager levelMiddle
            manager62Senior manager38</td></tr></table>

## Validity and reliability of measures

Discriminant validity is shown through factor analysis including all the constructs in the models. Table 2 shows the factor loadings and communalities for all the remaining items in the measurement model, as well as the reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for each construct. Discriminant validity is confirmed because no items load significantly on more than one factor. All the measures show good reliability: all factors yield a Cronbach’s alpha between 0.76 and 0.93 (Hair *et al.*, 2011). Additionally, in Table 3 we present the Pearson correlations between every pair of constructs, as well as the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). The fact that the AVE values (in the diagonal) are higher than any other element in the table provides evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

<table><caption>Table 2 — Factor analysis for the constructs in the model</caption><tr><td>ItemFactor LoadingsCultural FrictionOrganizational Citizenship BehaviorPost-Merger
            IdentificationInterper-sonal TrustGlobal MindsetCommuna
            lities10.59050.16080.1410-0.07060.20030.44040.68170.11540.04290.01040.22570.53170.51850.17530.34790.0470-0.12620.439160.71230.04850.09590.19910.08290.565190.6047-0.07250.16550.12340.11990.428230.11310.76530.12540.11260.15870.652240.13120.74010.16280.21140.19130.673250.12070.81930.17410.10640.15430.751260.04220.77920.13320.1580.24090.710270.05340.82660.08640.14150.20250.755290.04000.74690.06210.09210.24390.631300.23460.20510.77110.2330.17330.776310.26870.18110.71760.23840.12620.693320.19890.17410.74640.32250.10930.743330.05330.23640.21600.71590.19010.654340.14270.19470.2440.77450.05880.721350.04560.09350.12470.74080.19800.614360.07610.13010.12830.81380.16240.728380.10840.26600.34730.06500.55200.512390.25530.1569-0.04950.18560.53340.411400.16160.23140.07680.12830.69030.579410.15420.28320.03440.31620.65590.635420.05510.32570.19820.12480.71010.668Eigenvalue2.678.471.242.121.69Variance
            explained (%)16.330.015.820.217.7Cronbach’s alpha0.7600.9340.9270.8970.833</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 3 — Pearson correlations and the square root of AVE (in diagonal)</caption><tr><td>ConstructAverageStandard DeviationOCBPMIdGlobal MindsetInter-personal TrustCultural
            FrictionOrganizational Citizenship Beh¢avior (OCB)3.741.030.824Post-Merger
            Identification (PMId)3.391.250.3540.815Global
            Mindset3.610.840.5800.3960.692Interpersonal Trust3.621.030.4120.5760.4790.823Cultural
            Friction2.90.910.2600.4650.4030.3220.687</td></tr></table>

<footnote n="2">Qualtrics is an online platform used extensively in scientific research that allows researchers to reach respondents who fit specific criteria (Lowry *et al.*, 2016).</footnote>
# Statistical analysis and results

## Techniques for the statistical analysis

For hypothesis testing, first, we test the moderating effect of cultural friction on the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB (Figure 1 – Model 1), and second, we test the direct and indirect effects of cultural friction on post-merger identification, interpersonal trust, and OCB (Figure 2 – Model 2). We used global mindset and age as instrumental variables in Model 1. Also, we used gender and education as control variables in this first model. In Model 2, we used global mindset as an instrumental variable as well as age and gender as control variables.

In Model 1, we test for moderation using a two-step approach in a path model. In the first step, independent regression models are estimated, including the instrumental variables (global mindset for post-merger identification, and age for cultural friction) to obtain the predicted values of the potentially endogenous variables to be introduced in the second step. We use this procedure to avoid convergence problems. In the second step, we run a path model in which OCB is regressed on post-merger identification, cultural friction, and the moderating term (post-merger identification × cultural friction); these last three variables were estimated in the first step. Error terms are allowed to correlate to obtain consistent estimates, as recommended by Antonakis *et al.* (2010).

<table><caption>Table 4 — Non-standardized path coefficients — Significance of the path coefficients: *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, † p < 0.1.</caption><tr><td>Independent VariableDependent VariableDirect effects Indirect effectsModel
            1Cultural FrictionOrganizational Citizenship Behavior-3.752*Post-merger
            Identification1.577***Cultural Friction X Post-merger Identification-1.250*Fit
            indicators for Model 1: Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square = 6.112, degrees of freedom =
            6, p-value for the chi-square test > 0.41, CFI = 1.000, 90% confidence interval of
            RMSEA = 0.00–0.110.Model 2Cultural FrictionPost-merger Identification1.793*Interpersonal
            Trust0.4591.356*Organizational Citizenship Behavior0.4621.281†Post-merger Identification
            Organizational Citizenship Behavior0.1480.424Interpersonal Trust0.756***Inter-personal
            TrustOrganizational Citizenship Behavior0.560*Global MindsetCultural Friction0.407*Fit
            indicators for Model 2: Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square = 231.86, degrees of freedom =
            232, p-value for the chi-square test > 0.49, CFI = 1.000, 90% confidence interval of
            RMSEA = 0.00–0.035.</td></tr></table>

In Model 2, we follow Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) recommendation: first, we address validity and reliability in the measurement model, and second, we test the hypotheses using a full structural model. We perform the statistical analyses using the EQS 6 software with the maximum-likelihood robust method estimation. Robust estimation corrects for multivariate kurtosis that, in our study, was evidenced by a normalized Mardia’s coefficient of 9.6 in the measurement model. Consequently, we report the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square statistic (SB χ²). We include a *single unmeasured latent common method factor* to account for common method variance as well as other possible common sources of variance as described by Podsakoff *et al.* (2003). This technique controls for any systematic variance between the constructs of interest, rendering estimates for the trait factors consistent. We also use global mindset as an instrumental variable to reduce the threats of spurious relationships, reverse causation, and endogeneity (Antonakis *et al.*, 2010).

Both the measurement and structural models present a good fit according to the criteria for model assessment proposed by Hatcher (1994). The measurement model including all the items in Table 1 shows good fit indicators: SB χ² = 191.34; degrees of freedom = 196; *p*-value for the chi-square test > 0.58; CFI = 1.000; the absolute value for the *t* statistic for each factor loading exceeds 1.96; and the 90% confidence interval of RMSEA is 0.00–0.034. All variances and covariances were correctly estimated.

## Hypothesis testing

In Model 1, we observe a negative and significant moderating effect (B = -1.250, *p* < 0.019); that is, when cultural friction is higher, the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB is weaker. This finding confirms H1.

In Model 2, we find a positive and significant effect of cultural friction on post-merger identification (B = 1.793, *p* < 0.002), rejecting H2a; however, the direct effects of cultural friction on OCB (B = 0.462, *p* < 0.14) and interpersonal trust (B = 0.459, *p* < 0.17) are not significant. Thus, H2b and H2c are not supported. However, we observe significant indirect effects of cultural friction on interpersonal trust through post-merger identification (B = 1.356, *p* < 0.04) and on OCB through post-merger identification and interpersonal trust (B = 1.281, *p* < 0.07). Table 4 presents the statistical results and fit indicators for both models.

The specific path through which cultural friction affects the three other attitudinal variables is interesting. Cultural friction directly affects post-merger identification, and through this, it affects interpersonal trust. Finally, through post-merger identification and interpersonal trust, cultural friction affects OCB. The results for both total and indirect effects, as well as their significance, are provided by the EQS software. In Model 2, the total effects of cultural friction on OCB (B = 1.744, *p* < 0.004) and interpersonal trust (B = 1.814, *p* < 0.01) are positive and significant, even if the corresponding direct effects were found to be nonsignificant. These findings reveal specific explanatory mechanisms by which cultural friction affects work-related attitudes during the post-merger integration process in CBM&As. In this case, we observe that the introduction of cultural friction makes the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB nonsignificant (B = 0.148, *p* < 0.39), revealing the full mediating role of interpersonal trust, instead of a partial mediation as proposed in H2d.
# Discussion

This research empirically investigates and analyzes the impact of cultural friction as an attitudinal variable at the individual level, on post-merger identification, trust, and OCB, as well as the interactions between those attitudes. We find a negative moderating effect of cultural friction on the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB. When cultural friction is perceived, the impact of post-merger identification on OCB weakens. This finding can be explained at the micro-individual level by cultural friction that affects individuals’ willingness to engage and to contribute to extra-role behavior within the new entity (see also Kroon *et al.*, 2009). Employees may feel insecure about participating in non-formal activities because what could be regarded as acceptable or unacceptable normative behavior has not yet been well-established during the post-merger integration process (Hogg & Terry, 2000).

In addition, our findings challenge the conventional wisdom that cultural differences and perceived cultural conflict negatively influence post-M&A work-related outcomes (Fiol *et al.*, 2009; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Vaara *et al.*, 2012; Dao *et al.*, 2017; Weber, 2019; Lipponen *et al.*, 2020). In contrast, we offer evidence of positive indirect effects of cultural friction on OCB, fully mediated by post-merger identification and interpersonal trust. We provide stimulating and counterintuitive insights demonstrating that cultural friction that manifests at the micro-individual level is not necessarily disruptive. Rather it can be beneficial in improving work-related outcomes. When an individual openly deals with the discomfort he or she experiences because of cultural issues, identification with the new entity is improved because he or she contributes to establishing the new norms, creating a sense of belonging. This process might be stimulated through intergroup interactions, which play a crucial role in sociocultural integration, thus enhancing the possibility of creating a shared identity (Lupina-Wegener *et al.*, 2015).

The positive effect of cultural friction on post-merger identification could be linked to the effort made by the individual to manage cultural conflict through negotiations. This provokes social interactions that build a new *status quo*, resulting in higher identification with the group (here, the new entity). Dealing openly with cultural friction might be a means to reducing uncertainty and ambiguity, thus fostering greater identification with the new entity. This is consistent with Hogg and Mullin’s (1999) study of the antecedents of organizational identification which showed that identification is contingent on the desire to reduce uncertainty.

Following SIT, employees enhance their sense of belonging by means of openly dealing with cultural differences, provoking inter-individual and/or inter-group confrontations and negotiations that reduce uncertainty, improve interpersonal trust, and in turn spark initiative, innovation, and creativity. Studies have shown that conflicts present a source of creativity and an opportunity to improvise or try something new that can improve the organization (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Andrade *et al.*, 2008). “Conflicts urge managers to act mindfully and be more sensitive to enhance chances of success” (Colman & Lunnan, 2011, p. 24). Thus, as Stahl and Tung (2015) pointed out, it is not cultural differences *per se* that lead to conflict, but rather the way that cultural differences are recognized, perceived, and managed.

During the post-merger integration process, individuals may act because they want to be included in the new collective and have their role acknowledged by stimulating actions (Colman & Lunnan, 2011). Lupina-Wegener *et al.* (2015) identified three different types of identity threats in M&As and argued that each of them has different consequences. When a value threat is perceived (as could be the case with cultural friction), employees may react by engaging more actively in the integration process, demonstrating specific behaviors that are valued (such as extra-role cooperation). Cultural friction fosters post-merger identification by triggering the kind of interactions and personal contacts that are relevant in shaping the new entity (Rouzies & Colman, 2012). This is also in line with Kroon *et al.* (2021), who emphasized the crucial role of interaction processes in promoting or hindering willingness to collaborate by reducing prejudice and bias.

Finally, we also find evidence of a full mediating effect of interpersonal trust in the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB. The consistently observed effect of organizational identification on OCB (Riketta, 2005; Van Dick *et al.*, 2006b; Reiche *et al.*, 2014) is not direct but fully mediated by trust, as revealed when integrating cultural friction in the mediation model. In other words, extra-role engagement in organizational behavior is driven by the degree to which employees identify with the organization, but only through interpersonal trust. To our knowledge, this is the first study to consider this particular role of trust. Therefore, we cannot compare our findings with those of previous research. Interpersonal trust seems to be a necessary condition for transforming post-merger identification into OCB because the degree of interactions and personal contacts is intensified when managers identify with the new entity (Rouzies & Colman, 2012). Thus, interpersonal trust increases, which in turn increases the involvement of managers in extra-role activities.

The identification with the new entity improves interpersonal trust because the individual progressively feels part of the new group and consequently is willing to accept certain vulnerabilities under the expectation of a positive response, improving interpersonal trust (Björkman *et al.*, 2007; Lipponen *et al.*, 2020). In turn, interpersonal trust improves OCB because it reduces the risk of misunderstandings in assuming unenacted behavior (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). This is part of the novelty of our research, emphasizing micro-level explanatory mechanisms of the sociocultural integration process.
# Contributions

Our research contributions are threefold. First, it contributes to the social identity approach in M&As providing valuable insights into the explanatory micro-mechanisms related to the perceptions of cultural friction. When individuals openly deal with cultural friction, it enhances their identification process and other work-related attitudes. Perception of cultural friction may provoke an identity threat that encourages managers to interact with their foreign counterparts, yielding them reduced uncertainty, identifying as members of the combined entities, and developing interpersonal trust. This, in turn, motivates them to engage in extra-role behavior.

Second, by drawing on the cultural friction perspective, this study complements sociocultural integration and the CBM&A literature by analyzing the mediation effect of interpersonal trust in the relationship between post-merger identification and OCB. Our study attempts to disentangle the micro-mechanisms underpinning this relationship. It demonstrates part of this relationship reiteratively observed between organizational identification and OCB is fully mediated by interpersonal trust in the presence of cultural friction. It improves our understanding of *how* cultural differences matter to translate organizational identification into organizational citizenship behavior.

Third, our research adds to the literature by employing a multi-paradigmatic approach to studying cross-cultural phenomena (Romani *et al.*, 2018). It demonstrates the utility of cultural friction as a microfounded variable to investigate perceptions of cultural differences and their effects on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Shifting attention from the macro-level paradigm of national culture to the microfoundational approach of studying individual perceptions and interactions allows us to identify the explanatory micro-mechanisms at stake during intercultural and interpersonal interactions. This study reveals a new lens through which researchers can analyze cultural issues, by revisiting cultural challenges at a micro-individual level of analysis. It approaches cultural friction not as a threat to sociocultural integration, but as an opportunity to enhance the possibility of successful post-M&A integration.
# Conclusions

This study presents cultural friction at the individual level as a complementary paradigm and new lens in the study of the post-merger integration processes in the case of CBM&As. It offers insights into the role of cultural friction as an individual-level phenomenon on the sociocultural micro-mechanisms underpinning integration processes in CBM&As (Durand *et al.*, 2024). We demonstrate that cultural friction affects work-related attitudes (namely post-merger organizational identification, interpersonal trust, and OCB), as well as the interactions between those attitudes. This paper questions the common belief that identity threats negatively influence post-acquisition outcomes; it does not take for granted that cultural differences are necessarily disruptive but rather explains that the identity threat caused by cultural friction could drive positive outcomes.

The implications of this research can be categorized into theoretical, managerial, and methodological. First, theoretically, this research confirms the importance of cultural friction in individual interactions in the identification process during the post-merger integration stage in CBM&As. It offers insights into recent cultural friction studies, emphasizing the beneficial role of cultural friction (Koch *et al.*, 2016; Campagnolo & Vincenti, 2022; Ye *et al.*, 2023). Scholars pointed out the cultural distance framework addresses macro-level differences between countries but does not adequately explore the micro-mechanisms at play during the integration processes (Harzing & Pudelko, 2016) and gaps remain regarding individual-level interactions. Although research on CBM&As increasingly recognizes the importance of cultural differences in CBM&A performance, how cultural differences affect integration outcomes at the managerial level is still underexplored (Ye *et al.*, 2023). In adopting a multi-paradigmatic research approach (Romani *et al.*, 2018) and borrowing from Shenkar’s (2001) metaphor of friction, we filled these gaps. We analyze cultural friction at the individual level, considering meanings and sense-making with a focus on interpersonal interactions.

Second, from a managerial perspective, our research highlights specific micro-mechanisms that enhance OCB during post-merger integration by leveraging the positive effects of cultural friction on work-related attitudes. Addressing the discomfort from perceived cultural differences promotes post-merger identification and strengthens interpersonal trust, ultimately enhancing OCB. Our conclusions on synergistic effects of cultural friction present an opportunity to deepen understanding of the skills required to manage post-CBM&A integration effectively. Managing cultural frictions enables individuals to adapt to new circumstances and perform varied tasks more efficiently. Managers should be encouraged to enhance their intercultural conflict negotiation competencies as managing such behavior is crucial for maintaining long-term relationships with colleagues, partners, and customers in international business relationships. This can be achieved by reinforcing interpersonal interactions, facilitating exposure to diverse backgrounds and promoting mutual learning about each other’s cultural contexts. This is in line with Kroon *et al.* (2021), who emphasized the crucial role of interaction processes in promoting or hindering willingness to collaborate by reducing prejudice and bias. Implementing intercultural training workshops can foster understanding and positive attitudes toward cultural differences, recognizing that cultural friction occurs at the individual level and affects personal interactions, requiring management at the micro-level. Facilitating discussions on the critical incidents of cultural friction can help reduce identity threats and uncertainty, build trust, and enhance extra-role behaviors; engaging in critical thought processes can lead to favorable outcomes in intercultural interactions (Durand *et al.*, 2024). This approach can mitigate workplace conflicts arising from misaligned cultural norms, values, practices in CBM&As.

Third, methodologically, this research exemplifies the utility of cultural friction measured at the individual level to investigate and obtain a nuanced explanation of the micro-mechanisms at play in sociocultural integration processes.
# Limitations and future research orientations

The limitations of this research relate to the sampling and data collection methods used. We only included participants who use English as their working language, so our results might not be generalizable to a wider population of managers. Also, we used a single instrument to collect data, which can raise common-method-variance concerns. To address this issue, we introduced an unmeasured common method factor and instrumental variables to purge the models of common method variance, spurious relationships, reverse causation, and endogeneity, following the recommendations of Antonakis *et al.* (2010) and Podsakoff *et al.* (2003). In addition, although a random sample is useful in mitigating the confounding effects of unmeasured variables, there will always be a degree of uncertainty when dealing with unobserved variables. By integrating instrumental variables in the analysis, we mitigate this risk.

Future research on this topic could include other variables to observe potential interaction effects with cultural friction; for example, intention to quit, work satisfaction, cross-cultural training, M&A motives, types of integration, or acquiring vs. being acquired status. Moreover, future studies could combine micro-level antecedents, such as cultural friction and interpersonal trust, with macro-level outcomes, such as organizational performance and speed of integration, as suggested by microfoundational approaches (Contractor *et al.*, 2019; Kano & Verbeke, 2019). Additionally, the study of cultural friction and its relations with organizational culture may be of interest. Also, studies empirically comparing the cultural-distance and cultural-friction perspectives could be interesting in assessing the explanation capacities of these approaches. Finally, longitudinal studies combining both qualitative and quantitative research methods would be useful in improving our understanding of sociocultural integration processes in CBM&As.

## Références

B., & Håkanson, L. 2014. The concept of distance in international management research.
        *Journal of International Management*, 20(1): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2013.10.003

J. C., &
        Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
        two-step approach. *Psychological Bulletin*, 103(3): 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Andrade, L., Plowman, D.
        A., & Duchon, D. 2008. Getting past conflict resolution: A complexity view of conflict.
        *Management Department Faculty Publications*, 62.

J., Bendahan,
        S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review and
        recommendations. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 21(6): 1086-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J.
        H., & Pennings, J. M. 1996. Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning.
        *Strategic Management Journal*, 17(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199602)17:2&lt;151::AID-SMJ799&gt;3.0.CO;2-Z

S., Kostova,
        T., Kunst, V. E., Spadafora, E., & Van Essen, M. 2018. Cultural distance and firm
        internationalization: A meta-analytical review and theoretical implications. *Journal of
        Management*, 44(1), 89–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729027

I., Stahl, G. K.,
        & Vaara, E. 2007. Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border
        acquisitions: The mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and
        social integration. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 38(4): 658-672. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400287

D., &
        Vincenti, G. 2022. Cross-border M&As: The impact of cultural friction and CEO change on
        the performance of acquired companies*. Journal of International Management*, 28(4),
        100942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100942

S., &
        Schoenberg, R. 2006. Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent advances and
        future opportunities. *British Journal of Management*, 17(S1), S1–S5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00475.x

Cho, Y. S., & La, K. A.
        2014. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on synergy creation in mergers and
        acquisitions, according to levels of OCB and types of M&A. *Academy of Accounting and
        Financial Studies Journal*, 18(2): 93-106.

H.L., & Lunnan
        R. 2011. Organizational identification and serendipitous value creation in post-acquisition
        integration. *Journal of Management*, 37(3): 839-860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309354645

F., Foss, N.
        J., Kundu, S., & Lahiri, S. 2019. Viewing global strategy through a microfoundations
        lens. *Global Strategy Journal,* 9(1): 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1329

M. A., Strobl, A.,
        Bauer, F., & Tarba, S. Y. 2017. Triggering innovation through mergers and acquisitions:
        the role of shared mental models. *Group & Organization Management*, 42(2),
        195-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117696573

S. 2022. Integration
        team members’ approaches to uncertainty management in M&A. *European Management
        Journal*, 40(6), 917-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.10.002

R., &
        Zander, L. 2010. Walking the cultural distance: in search of direction beyond friction.
        *Advances in International Management*, 23: 189-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-5027(2010)00000230015

M. 2016. Employing
        critical incident technique as one way to display the hidden aspects of post-merger
        integration. *International Business Review*, 25(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.05.003

Durand, M. 2018. Effects of
        managerial perceptions of cultural challenges and job changes on motivational work-related
        outcomes in post-merger integration stage of cross border mergers and acquisitions: a focus
        on cultural friction. PhD dissertation, Aarhus BSS, Denmark.

M., Lamotte, O.
        & Thomas, M. 2024. The individual nature of cultural friction in cross-border M&As:
        exploring the role of face when working with Asian counterparts. Journal of Asia Business
        Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-04-2023-0148

M., & Very, P.
        2025. Measuring cultural friction in cross-border mergers and acquisitions using a
        microfoundation-based approach. *Critical Perspectives on International Business.*https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-04-2024-0035

C. M. 2002.
        Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities.
        *Organization Science*, 13(6), 653-666. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502

Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G.,
        & O’Connor, E. J. 2009. Managing intractable identity conflicts. *Academy of
        Management Review*, 34(1), 32-55.

C., & Larcker,
        D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
        measurement error. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

M., & Gaur, A. S.
        2019. Merger waves, entry-timing, and cross-border acquisition completion: A frictional lens
        perspective. *Journal of World Business*, 54(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.12.001

S., & Hess, R.
        1997. Dimensions and levels of trust: implications for commitment to a relationship.
        *Marketing letters*, 8(4), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007955514781

M.E., Heimeriks
        K.H., Huy Q.N., & Vaara E. 2017. The process of postmerger integration: A review and
        agenda for future research. *Academy of Management Annals*, 11(1): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0078

Q., Ju, C., & Bao,
        F. 2020. The cross-border mergers and acquisitions of local state-owned enterprises: the
        role of home country government involvement. *Sustainability*, 12(7), 3020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073020

A. K., &
        Govindarajan, V. 2002. Cultivating a global mindset. *Academy of Management
        Perspectives*, 16(1): 116-126. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.6640211

J. F., Ringle,
        C. M., & Sarstedt, M. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of *Marketing
        Theory and Practice*, 19(2): 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

A. 2015. Cultural
        influences and the mediating role of socio-cultural integration processes on the performance
        of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. *The International* *Journal of Human
        Resource Management*, 26(2): 192-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.922354

H., &
        Snehota, I. 2000. The IMP Perspective, Assets and Liabilities of Relationships. In J. Sheth,
        (Ed.). *Handbook of relationship Marketing*, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231310.n3

A. W., &
        Pudelko, M. 2016. Do we need to distance ourselves from the distance concept? Why home and
        host country context might matter more than (cultural) distance. *Management
        International Review*, 56(1): 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0265-4

L. 1994*. A
        step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation
        modeling*. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1996.10484524

Heifetz, R. A., &
        Laurie, D. L. 2001. The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 79(11).

Hogg, M. A., & Mullin,
        B. A. 1999. Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group
        identification. *In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social
        cognition*, 249–279. Oxford: Blackwell.

M. A., & Terry,
        D. I. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.
        *Academy of Management Review*, 25(1): 121-140.

L., & Verbeke, A.
        2019. Theories of the multinational firm: A microfoundational perspective. *Global
        Strategy Journal*, 9(1): 117-147. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1332

G.,
        Schneider, S. C., & Davis, J. D. 2022. Unpacking the dynamics in acquisition of
        capabilities: the role of identities during postmerger integration. *Journal of
        Organizational Change Management*, 35(8): 13-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2021-0053

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L.
        1978. *The social psychology of organizations* (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York:
        Wiley.

Y., &
        Steiner, P. 2016. Quasi-experimental designs for causal inference. *Educational
        Psychologist*, 51(3-4), 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207177

P. T., Koch, B.,
        Menon, T., & Shenkar, O. 2016. Cultural friction in leadership beliefs and
        foreign-invested enterprise survival*. Journal of International Business Studies*,
        47(4): 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.16

D. P., Noorderhaven,
        N. G., Corley, K. G., & Vaara, E. 2021. Hard and Soft Integration: Towards a Dynamic
        Model of Post-Acquisition Integration. *Journal of Management Studies.* https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12766

D., Noorderhaven,
        N., & Leufkens, A. 2009. Organizational identification and cultural differences:
        Explaining employee attitudes and behavioral intentions during postmerger integration. In
        *Advances in mergers and acquisitions*. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-361X(2009)0000008004

K., & Allen, N. J.
        2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and
        cognitions. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 87(1): 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131

J., Kaltiainen,
        J., Van der Werff, L., & Steffens, N. K. 2020. Merger-specific trust cues in the
        development of trust in new supervisors during an organizational merger: A naturally
        occurring quasi-experiment. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 31(4): 101365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101365

P. B., D’Arcy, J.,
        Hammer, B., & Moody, G. D. 2016. “Cargo Cult” science in traditional organization and
        information systems survey research: A case for using nontraditional methods of data
        collection, including Mechanical Turk and online panels. *The Journal of Strategic
        Information Systems*, 25(3): 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.06.002

Y., & Shenkar, O.
        2011. Toward a perspective of cultural friction in international business. *Journal of
        International Management*, 17(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2010.09.001

A. A.,
        Karamustafa, G., & Schneider, S. C. 2015. Causes and consequences of different types of
        identity threat: perceived legitimacy of decisions in M&As. In *The routledge
        companion to mergers and acquisitions* (pp. 378-390). Routledge.

A. A.,
        Liang, S., Van Dick, R., & Ullrich, J. 2020. Multiple organizational identities and
        change in ambivalence: the case of a Chinese acquisition in Europe. *Journal of
        Organizational Change Management.* https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2019-0260

F., & Ashforth,
        B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of
        organizational identification. *Journal of organizational Behavior*, 13(2): 103-123.
        https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

A., Shi,
        D., & Fairchild, A. J. 2020. Estimating causal effects in linear regression models with
        observational data: The instrumental variables regression model. *Psychological
        Methods*, 25(2), 243. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000226

D. J. 1995.
        Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal co-operation in
        organisations. *Academy of Management Journal*, 38(1): 24-59.

P., Shane, S.,
        & Singh, H. 1998. National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition
        performance*. Journal of International Business Studies*, 29(1): 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490029

Organ, D. W. 1988.
        *Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.* Lexington, MA:
        Lexington Books.

P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. 2003. Common method
        biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
        Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Pourhoseingholi, M. A.,
        Baghestani, A. R., & Vahedi, M. 2012. How to control confounding effects by statistical
        analysis. Gastroenterology and Hepatology from Bed to Bench, 5(2): 79-83.

B. S., Cardona, P.,
        Lee, Y. T., Canela, M. Á., Akinnukawe, E., Briscoe, J. P.,... & Grenness, T. 2014. Why
        do managers engage in trustworthy behavior? A multilevel cross-cultural study in 18
        countries. *Personnel Psychology*, 67(1): 61-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12038

S. 2004. The
        context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change*. Political
        Psychology*, 25, 921–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00403.x

T. H., & Lamont,
        B. T. 2009. The double-edged sword of cultural distance in international acquisitions.
        *Journal of International Business Studies*, 40(8): 1298–1316. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.25

M. 2005.
        Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 66:
        358-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005

C., & Wasti, S.
        A. 2002. Organizational individualism and collectivism: Theoretical development and an
        empirical test of a measure. *Journal of Management*, 28(4), 544-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800404

L., Barmeyer, C.,
        Primecz, H., & Pilhofer, K. 2018. Cross-cultural management studies: state of the field
        in the four research paradigms. *International Studies of Management &
        Organization*, 48(3), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1480918

Rousseau, D. M., &
        McLean Parks, J. 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations. *Research in
        Organizational Behavior*, 15: 1-1.

D. M., Sitkin, S.
        B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view
        of trust. *Academy of Management Review*, 23(3): 393-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617

A. 2011.
        Antecedents of employees’ identification with a merger: A three-stage empirical study.
        *International Studies of Management & Organization*, 41(3): 25–41. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825410302

A., & Colman,
        H. L. 2012. Identification processes in post-acquisition integration: The role of social
        interactions. *Corporate Reputation Review*, 15(3): 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2012.8

R. M., Vaara, E.,
        & Junni, P. 2019. Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: New avenues for
        research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). *Journal of
        World Business,* 54(4): 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.10.001

O. 2001. Cultural
        distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural
        differences. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 32(3): 519-535. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490982

O. 2012. Beyond
        cultural distance: Switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences.
        *Journal of International Business Studies*, 43(1): 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.42

O., Luo, Y., &
        Yeheskel, O. 2008. From “distance” to “friction”: Substituting metaphors and redirecting
        intercultural research. *Academy of Management Review*, 33(4), 905–923. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421999

O., Tallman, S.
        B., Wang, H., & Wu, J. (2020). National culture and international business: A path
        forward. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 53, 516-533 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00365-3

J. C., Ketchen Jr,
        D. J., & Palmer, T. B. 2002. The role of sampling in strategic management research on
        performance: A two-study analysis. *Journal of Management*, 28(3): 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800306

G. K., & Sitkin,
        S. B. 2010. Trust dynamics in acquisitions: The role of relationship history, interfirm
        distance, and acquirer’s integration approach. In C. L. Cooper, & S. Finkelstein (Eds.),
        *Advances in mergers and* acquisitions (pp. 51-82). Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
        Bingley. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-361X(2010)0000009006

G. K., & Tung,
        R. L. 2015. Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in international business studies:
        The need for positive cross-cultural scholarship. *Journal of International Business
        Studies,* 46(4): 391-414. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.68

G. K., & Voigt,
        A. 2008. Do cultural differences matter in mergers and acquisitions? A tentative model and
        examination. *Organization Science*, 19(1): 160-176. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0270

Tajfel, H., & Turner,
        J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin
        (Eds.) *Psychology of intergroup relations* (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Terry, D. J. 2001.
        Intergroup relations and organizational mergers. In Hogg & Terry (Eds.) *Social
        identity processes in organizational contexts.* Psychology Press, New York, 229-247.

J., &
        Van Dick, R. 2007. The group psychology of mergers & acquisitions: Lessons from the
        social identity approach. In Cooper & Finkelstein (Eds.) *Advances in mergers and
        acquisitions*, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-361X(07)06001-2

J., Wieseke, J.,
        & Dick, R. V. 2005. Continuity and change in mergers and acquisitions: A social identity
        case study of a German industrial merger. *Journal of Management Studies*, 42(8),
        1549-1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00556.x

Vaara, E. 2000.
        Constructions of cultural differences in post-merger change processes: A sensemaking
        perspective on Finnish-Swedish cases. *M@n@gement*, 3(3): 81–110.

Vaara, E., Sarala, R.,
        Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. 2012. The impact of organizational and national cultural
        differences on social conflict and knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
        *Journal of Management Studies*, 49(1), 1-27.

Van Dick, R., Grojean, M.
        W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. 2006a. Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between
        organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. *British Journal
        of Management*, 17(4): 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006. 00520.x

Dick, R., Ullrich, J.,
        & Tissington, P. A. 2006b. Working under a black cloud: How to sustain organizational
        identification after a merger. *British Journal of Management*, 17(S1): S69-S79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00479.x

Knippenberg, D., Van
        Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. 2002. Organizational identification after a
        merger: A social identity perspective. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 41:
        233-252. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760060228

P. W., Van den
        Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal
        coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: Toward an integrative
        framework. *Group & Organization Management*, 32(4): 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106294215

Y. 2019. The role of
        organizational identity in post-merger integration. In A. Thrassou, D. Vrontis, Y. Weber, R.
        Shams, & E. Tsoukatos (Eds.) *The Synergy of Business Theory and Practice. Advancing
        the Practical Application of Scholarly Research*(pp. 91-107). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17523-8_5

S., Zhou, J., Jiang,
        Y., & Liu, X. 2023. Managers as the bridge: How cultural friction influences the
        integration of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. *International Business
        Review*, 32(4), 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2023.102138

H. E. 2016. Us vs.
        them or “Us over them”? On the roles of similarity and status in M&As. *International
        Business Review*, 25(1): 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.05.002

H. E., & Fey,
        C. F. 2016. Are the extent and effect of psychic distance perceptions symmetrical in
        cross-border M&As? Evidence from a two-country study. *Journal of International
        Business Studies*, 47(7), 830-857. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.27

S., Schomaker, M.,
        & Genc, M. 2003. Identity versus culture in mergers of equals. *European Management
        Journal*, 21(2), 185-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(03)00013-6

A., Fotaki,
        M., & Ghauri, P. 2012. Cultural evaluations in acquired companies: Focusing on
        subjectivities. *British Journal of Management*, 23(2), 272–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00738.x