DP2017-15

Mind Your Language! :Role of Target Firm Language in
Post-Merger Integration*
Ashish MALIK
Ralf BEBENR OTH

May 10, 2017

* The Discussion Papers are a series of research papers in their draft form, circulated to encourage
discussion and comment. Citation and use of such a paper should take account of its provisional character.
In some cases, a written consent of the author may be required.

1

Mind Your Language! : Role of Target Firm Language in Post-Merger Integration
Ashish Malik
Senior Lecturer at University of Newcastle Australia
UON Central Coast, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258
ashish.malik@newcastle.edu.au
Australia
Ralf BebenrothProfessor at Kobe University
Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration
657-8501 Kobe-shi, Nada-ku, Rokko-dai 2-1
mailbox@bebenroth.eu
Japan
Abstract

This paper reviews the role of language in international business in general andspecifically highlights the role in post-merger integration process. Based on our review
and building on earlier works, this paper develops a conceptual model regarding the useof language in different merger and acquisitions integration scenarios and identifies the
key resource mix that may be suited for an effective deployment of language strategies.
We argue that the use of a language at the target depends on the strategicinterdependence as well as the organizational autonomy at the target firm. The paper
states testable propositions for future research in a post-merger integration context.
Keywords:

Language, Integration Structures, Cross-border, Target Autonomy,

Post-Merger Integration, M&A Performance
Introduction
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have been noted as one of the key strategic choicesthat is available for firms to grow and expand their portfolio of products and services or
to enter new markets (Bauer & Matzler, 2014; UNCTAD, 2012). Haspeslagh andJemison’s (1991) seminal work highlights four commonly noted structures of targets
that result following an M&A activity: absorption, preservation, symbiotic and a
subsidiary of a holding company. Depending on the preferred structure at the postmerger integration, bidder firms must decide the extent to which they need to2reconfigure and integrate the new capabilities and competencies into their existingvalue chains to fully realise the potential benefits from the M&A choice. Yet, there is
ample evidence in the literature on post-merger integration that suggests strategic
choices often do not always achieve the desired outcomes as envisaged by the adoptersof these strategic choices (Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006; Haleblian et al., 2009; Tuch
& O’Sullivan, 2007). In a number of cases, acquisitions result in a failure rather than in
the formation of new and successful entities (Agarwal et al., 2001; Cartwright &Schoenberg, 2006; Datta et al., 2001; Jensen & Ruback, 1983). The literature identifies
several reasons for failure in a post-merger integration (PMI) context. Some of thecommonly noted reasons include: lack of culture fit between the bidder and the target
firm (e.g. Graebner et al. 2017), unrealistic expectations on part of the bidder,
overconfidence of the acquiring firm in managing the integration process (Roll, 1986),
distrust between the bidder and the target, and poor post-merger integration capabilityof the bidder.
Inability to translate M&A into a successful and well integrated firm has often
been attributed to failure of the acquiring firm to successfully perform the integration
process (Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991; Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001). Often firms fail tofocus more on the social, cultural and people integration issues and invest their timeand energies more in the technical, strategic and operational aspects of the PMI activity(see e.g. Monin et al., 2013). Building on the literature on M&A failure as a result ofpoor integration efforts, we find limited research on the role of language in PMI. We
argue that for M&As to be successful, the acquiring firm’s capability to successfully
integrate the target firm into the new entity is extremely critical (Hapeslagh & Jemison,
1991; Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001) and note the active role language can play in thischange management process (Harzing et al. 2011). The following section reviews theliterature on PMI with a view to connect it with the use of language at target firms.
Given the poor performance record of M&A integration, it is not surprising to see
why there is a renewed interest in studying PMI failure issues. In the last two decades,
we have seen an increased incidence and diversity in M&A activity. As a result, scholars
are undertaking numerous specialized reviews of PMI in a cross-border context focusing
on a range of areas such as culture, leadership, M&A performance and so on (Ghauri &Buckley, 2003; Gomes et al., 2013; Junni & Sarla, 2014; Schoenber, 2000; Stahl & Voigt,
2008; Steigenberber, 2016; Tuch & O’Sullivan, 2007). In this stream of specialized PMI
reviews, we note that researchers have offered numerous classifications and typologies
regarding the nature of integration (e.g. Ellis & Lamont, 2004; Hapeslagh & Jemison,
1991; Wei & Clegg, 2014), with some reviews even offering a prescriptive approach of

3

critical success factors and best-practices for successful PMI (Datta et al., 2001; Gomes,
E., Angwin, Weber, & Tarba, 2013; Larsson & Finklestien, 1999). More recently,
Graebner, Heimeriks, Huy, and Vaara (2017) in their holistic review, present a
processual understanding of PMI integration and classified the literature on PMI into
three broad areas: strategic integration, sociocultural integration and experience andlearning.
While our brief review points to numerous specialist accounts of research on PMI,
it begs the question, why should we undertake another review of PMI? The answer tothis question lies in a gap of the current explanations in PMI literature–regarding therole of language. Language issues have been largely unexplored, and in cases where
they do appear they tend to be subsumed under the guise of culture and national
differences or as a sub-set of communication studies, rather than receiving attention in
its own right in not just cross-border M&A research but also in PMI studies. The
importance of language as a key variable has recently been highlighted in a number offorums, referring to language as ‘the forgotten factor’ (Marschan, Welch & Welch, 1997)
and that there is a need for ‘speaking in tongues’ of different languages for effective
outcomes (Welch, Welch & Piekkari, 2005). While there is an emerging body of researchthat focuses on language issues in international business and management field, muchof this earlier work focused on communication issues dealing with inter- and intra-unit
communication in a cross-border context (Griffith, 2002). This set of studies illuminatedthe need for a more nuanced understanding of language issues and led to sharpening
the focus of different languages in cross-border research as well as the role languagetranslation plays in such settings (Janssens, Lambert & Steyaert, 2004). Subsequentstudies in this area highlight the impact of multiple languages on communicative
processes in an international business context (Welch, Welch & Piekkari, 2005). Overall,
the wider research on language in cross-border context has tended to focus on threebroad areas: language fluency and competency issues per se, language ofcommunication within and between units in an international business sense and therole and nature of translation studies in an international cross-border business context(Piekkari, & Tietze, 2011). What is apparent in these studies is the limited attention
paid on the strategic side of the target integration. As such, this review focuses on therole of language in M&As in general and on the strategic side of integration inparticular. We focus on what can be learned from the existing set of studies on language
issues in MNCs and international business literature and how learnings from suchstudies may be relevant in advancing research agendas in the realm of PMI research.

4

In view of the above, we structure the rest of the paper as follows. We begin byproviding a brief review of studies on PMI. This is an important step as it sets the scene
for the strategic conditions and dominant approaches that occur as a result of an M&A
event and allows us to focus more clearly on language issues as a result of different
dimensions of integration that are put in place. Building on Haspeslagh and Jemison’s(1991) classification of integration types, we argue that different integration dimensions
are variously affected by language issues. Therefore we review what the extant
literature on language refers to an effective PMI. To this end, we offer a review of
research on language generally, and more specifically, in relation to M&A and PMI.
Based on our review of PMI and language studies, we develop a conceptual model for
analyzing common language strategies that are available to a range of integration
dimensions that result from an M&A. We overlay Haspeslagh and Jemison’s (1991)
seminal work on the strategic dimensions of integration with our review of language inevaluating appropriate language strategies for a PMI context. In their framework,
Haspeslagh and Jemison (1991) analyse M&A activity across two dimensions: thedegree of strategic interdependence between the acquirer and the acquired firm and thedegree of organizational autonomy at the target firm to yield four distinctive categories.
There is evidence that M&A activity increases in firms from countries where English is
not their mother tounge (Harzing et al. 2011). Therefore, we develop a conceptual modelthat proposes language strategies where managers of the bidder and the target firm are
non-native English language speakers and may elect to use English as the lingua francaor suggest the use of the bidder or the local language at the target firm. We extend
Haspeslagh and Jemison’s (1991) important work in this area by proposing the mostsuited language strategy (ies) depending on the degree of strategic interdependence andthe need for organisational autonomy at the target firm.
Overview of PMI Research
In this section, we provide a general review of PMI, so as to inform the role language
plays in PMI integration. Steigenberger (2016) provides an inductively developed
conceptual framework for understanding the terrain of research undertaken in PMI.
Steigenberger (2016) notes that successful integration in an M&A context is essentiallya change management process, which is dependent on the context, structural andcommunication interventions that are undertaken by key stakeholders who are central
to the integration process. Graebner (2004), in line with March’s (1991) work onorganisational learning, highlights that for firms to effectively manage change theymust focus on the twin modes of learning–exploration and exploitation of new ideas to5

successfully implement change. Graebner (2004) notes that leaders must continuously
balance exploratory and exploitative learning for realizing the best outcomes in a PMI
context. While managing such a duality is vital, March (1991) noted that there arenecessarily going to be trade-offs in balancing one mode of learning at the cost of theother (Puranam, Singh and Zollo, 2006). Hence investing in relationship and trust
building activities with the key leadership positions of the acquired firms is a criticalaspect for successful PMI. Although firms can leverage excellent leadership skills of theacquired firm during the PMI process, which may then help in realizing the dual modeof learning, this may be harder to achieve in reality due to the trade-offs and mental
models and routines that are deeply embedded in firms.
To overcome some of the inertia issues in change management processes,
Steigenberger (2016) proposes that the stakeholders have to interact with both thestructural as well as contextual factors involved in the integration process to implementa successful PMI. Such a processual approach involves constant negotiation andsensemaking by all the concerned stakeholders. His review also points to several future
research areas that have hitherto been underexplored. For example, the review
highlights the need to further investigate interactions between structural interventions
and leadership; project management and integration teams’ composition; and how thecontextual factors interact with the sensemaking processes among these stakeholders.
Future research efforts could focus on the temporal dimension of PMI. This processualchange management approach is akin to Nilakant and Ramnarayan’s (2006) model of
key change tasks for successfully implementing change: appreciating the need forchange; mobilizing support for change; developing competencies and capabilities forchange; and executing change. Essential in their research is the importance ofcommunication at each of the four tasks of change. The intent, genuineness and clarity
of communication supported by appropriate levels of leadership is vital for the successof any change management initiative. In what is essentially a change management
activity, PMI must therefore not undermine the role communication and language
strategies play in its success.
Graebner et al.’s (2017) review on PMI classified research into three categories.
First category focuses on strategic integration issues. These include the rationale of the
M&A; presence of top-down communications; extent of autonomy provided to the target;
allocation of resources and reconfiguration and renewal in units; and ensuring how
knowledge is transferred between the bidder and the target. Second category focuses onsocio-cultural integration differences between the bidder and the target firm. Target
unit managers’ and individuals’ experiences of change in their social identity in a new

6

PMI context. This often results in generating negative emotions such as a lack ofperceived justice, trust breaches, status changes and other emotions such as anxiety
and stress associated (Ismail and Bebenroth, 2016). Finally, the third stream ofresearch focuses on the impact of prior experience in a PMI context on performanceoutcomes of the M&A in question. It also focuses on how and why firms learn anddevelop (or not) as a result of such PMI processes. Again, for each group of studies, thestakeholders must establish the legitimacy of their actions through appropriate
communication and language strategies for the PMI to succeed. Lack of attention toappropriate communication and language strategies has been noted to result in a
number of adverse consequences for individual managers, teams and groups of target
companies. These issues are discussed in brief in the following section.

PMI Impacts on Managers
Typically managers facing a PMI context experience with a sense of anxiety, stress andjob insecurity (Choi et al., 2012; Hubbard & Purcell, 2001; Joshi & Goyal, 2013). Thereis evidence that managers do not cope well emotionally (Kiefer, 2002) as well as
experience adverse well-being and resilience outcomes (Makri & Antoniou, 2012).
Although firms would rather expect high-commitment and high-involvement frommanagers in these contexts (Thomson & McNamara, 2001), as PMI has been noted as achange management process, it engenders a natural resistance from managers, which isoften manifested in the form of abovementioned emotional and psychosocial responses
that prevents them from demonstrating a positive attitude towards the PMI process(Greenwood et al., 1994). Often times also, the expectations of the stakeholders in thechange management process are not communicated well to the target firm’s managers,which often results in failing in the first task of managing change (Nilakant &Ramnarayan, 2006) and leads to passive and active resistance behaviors by managers
as well as lead to the formation of informal in- and out-groups with different social
identities (Bijlsma-Frankema, 2004; Brannen & Peterson, 2009; Lin & Wei, 2006; Kroon
et al., 2009). Changes to an organisation’s identity is also noted to have an adverse
impact on managers’ perceptions about the PMI process (Dick et al., 2006; Olie, 1994;
Shanley & Correa, 1992). In such cases, it is important that key leaders, either those
directly involved as part of PMI team or HR managers, must ensure that the language
and communication that is implemented leads to a perception of fairness (Choi et al.,2012; Hubbard & Purcell, 2001;Marie & Collerette, 2011). Not attending to some of theemotional and psychological well-being states of managers, may indeed result in a
psychological breach that may eventuate in a PMI context (Maguire & Phillips, 2008;

7

Makri & Antoniou, 2012; Shleifer & Summers, 1988; Yidliz, 2016). Attending to thistask of change might address some of the issues of perceived injustice and fairness
issues that are typically associated with these processes (Bebenroth and Thiele, 2016;
Hubbard & Purcell, 2001; Searle & Ball, 2008) and may pave the way for appreciating
the need for change.
Performing the second task of change–of mobilising support–becomes difficult if theneed for appreciating change has not been fully attended to. Clearly, from the bidders
perspective, they must not only identify the key employees who have the key skills,
knowledge and the abilities that might be critical to the success of the PMI, but theymust also be able to retain such talent, and where necessary provide them with thenecessary support and incentives to actively contribute (Cannella & Hambrick, 1993;
Ranft & Lord, 2002). Doing this effectively will ensure success in the second task ofchange by mobilising the necessary support for implementing change. Once anorganisation is able to convince the need for change and mobilize appropriate resources
for implementing change, they must also provide support, tools and techniques to their
managers and the key stakeholders, including its leaders to implement the third andthe fourth tasks of change: tools and capabilities for change and executing change in a
PMI context. While there are several change levers and tools that have been identified
in the voluminous literature on change management, there is a lack of research on how
language influences a successful implementation of PMI. We argue that language is a
key tool and that managers should develop capability in language skills and its
application at a target. The following section reviews the literature on the importance of
language in international business and management generally, and in relation to M&A
and PMI in particular.
Overview of Language Studies
With the emergence of research on language, research in this ar can be classified into
three broad streams: the linguistic distance between the bidder/parent andtarget/subsidiary operations; use of common corporate language as a communication
strategy; and the role of language competencies and translation services in overcoming
language barriers (see for example, Piekkari & Tietze, 2011). Furthermore, in thecontext of integration in M&As which is essentially a change management processes,
high levels of communication intensity is required between the target/subsidiary andthe bidder/parent for effective PMI (Hapeslagh & Jemison, 1991). Additionally, asorganisations are socio-technical systems, the transmission of communication andlanguage

is

often

throughhumanresourcesandmanagerial

processesof8inter-functional coordination (Reiche, Harzing & Pudelko, 2015), employing a range oftools such as technology-based systems is common in an organisational setting. In viewof the above, we review the contributions of language and communication research as
appropriate tools and techniques for effectively embedding and implementing change in
an international management setting more generally, and PMI context, in particular.

Linguistic distance studies
Doing business across borders often presents complex nature of challenges for
multinationals (MNCs). A common challenge that has been identified in theinternational management of business units is the impact of country-specific culturaldifferences between the parent and its subsidiary operation (Hofstede 1980, 2001). In
much of the research that followed, culture distance and difference has continued todominate the research in this area (Harzing, 2003). Only in the last two decades or so,
we have seen the emergence of a separated discussion of the role of language such as
linguistic distance in contrast to it being studied under the umbrella of communication
strategies or as a sub-dimension of culture (Griffith, 2002; Harzing, Koster & Magner,
2011; Janssens, Lambert, & Steyaert, 2004; Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999;
Piekkari & Tietze , 2011; Piekkari, & Zander, 2005).
In line with research that focuses on linguistic similarity or differences,
Navío-Marco et al. (2016) analysed the impact of language differences in PMI success inthe telecommunication industry. While they found an overall negative impact or value
destruction for the industry overall in their sample, in the longer term analysis,
however, they found that there was evidence of value creation and a positive outcome intheir data for cases where the bidder and the target used the same language. In asimilar vein, Kedia and Reddy (2016) analysed the effect of language on post-acquisition
performance based on a sample of US firms. The authors argue that the success of PMI
performance is explained by the linguistic distance between the bidder and the target
firm’s country. Using data from 1120 US acquisitions in 33 countries over a six year
period, the authors found linguistic distance to be a significant explanatory factor in
explaining the performance in a post-acquisition context. More specifically, the authors
investigated the impact of two main integrating processes: human integration and task
integration, in examining the relationship between linguistic distance and performancein an M&A context. The authors found a significant and negative effect of linguistic
distance on M&A performance. They further note the moderating effect of the acquirer’s
experience in a cross-border M&A context to be significant in explaining therelationship between linguistic distance and M&A performance.

9

In a slightly different vein, Schomaker and Zaheer (2014) investigate the role oflanguage relatedness in knowledge transfer to geographically dispersed units in a US
MNC. Contrary to linguistic distance, the authors focus on linguistic relatedness toanalyse the overlaps in the structural and functional aspects of language. The authors
found support for a positive relationship between linguistic relatedness and its impact
on ease of communication and accurate understanding, but a negative impact onknowledge understanding. The authors also find support for a positive relationshipbetween linguistic relatedness and normative integration.
Vidal-Suárez and López-Duarte (2013) analysed the role language distance plays
in determining strategic choices of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Employing
the theoretical lens of transaction cost economics the authors evaluate the ex-ante andex-post costs in a PMI context. Analysing quantitative data of Spanish firms, theauthors conclude that firms tend to avoid M&A that involves high linguistic distance
between the bidder and target firm as it will most likely increase transaction costs forthe bidder firm and can become a decision point for the bidder firms to look at otherGreenfield investments. Their study confirms the view that ex-ante and ex-post costs
are higher in acquisitions where there is a significant language distance, which
encourages foreign direct investments to take other routes such as Greenfield
investments.

Common Language Strategy Studies
Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, (1999) explore the impact of language on internal
communications in a large multinational that has operations and business units
globally located. The importance of interunit coordination and communication has been
identified as a critical attribute for building internal cohesion among managers ofgeographically dispersed subsidiaries of MNCs (Ghoshal, Korine & Szulanski, 1994).
Employing a qualitative case study design of 25 units/subsidiaries of a Finnish
multinational–Kone Elevators, Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999) explored how language
imposes a structure on communication flows and personal networks. The authors
sampled 110 employees from subsidiaries or units in non-English speaking countries
and developed eight major themes from their analysis of semi-structured interviews.
They found that language served both as a barrier as well as a facilitator for internalinter-unit communication. Lack of knowledge of the headquarter language by thesubsidiaries created adverse impacts. Further, they argue that in cases where theemployees at the subsidiary operation had limited knowledge of the head quarter’s
dominant language, their ability to develop social and work relationships was adversely

10affected. In such cases the employees have to rely on translators. Further, the findings
suggest that language served as an informal source of expert power.
Welch, Welch and Piekkari (2005) investigate the importance of language ininternational business activities. Building on the established notion that multinational(MNC) firms often seek control and coordination of their businesses through astandardization approach, the authors argue that MNCs can also achieve this byadopting a common corporate language (CCL). The authors highlight several
advantages of a CCL such as better inter-unit coordination and group cohesiveness.
However, the lack of language proficiency at the target or subsidiary operation may
indeed create insecurity, exclusion and social isolation. Moreover, in cases where the
CCL is English but not the native language of either the bidder or the target firm, it will
engender feelings of exclusion among managers at the subsidiary or target firm.
Additionally, those managers who are proficient and fluent in the use of English as the
CCL, often stand to benefit disproportionately from the expert power this dynamic
creates. Others have also identified the role of common corporate language ininternational mergers and acquisition studies as it adversely affects managers’ social
identity and affiliation with the new bidder firm (Kroon et al., 2015; Piekkari et al.,2005; Vaara, 2003). The use of a language in a hostile takeover may also differ. It could
be the language of the bidder enforced rather than to opt for a common language both
firms feel comfortable with. In other words, forced acquisitions lead target managers toreceive less resources and knowledge and often leave them with a negative
identification (Reus et al., 2015). It is also important to understand the role HR
managers

playin

implementing

suchstrategies(Antila,2006;

Tanure&Gonzales-Durante, 2007).
Harzing, Koster & Magner (2011), using a qualitative research strategy,interviewed managers in eight German and Japanese parent company-subsidiary dyads
to explore how the use of common corporate language becomes a barrier and what are
the possible solutions that cross-border firms may implement to overcome such barriers.
Building on their earlier work (Feely and Harzing, 2003), the authors come up with a
total of 12 solutions, seven of which were new solutions for overcoming the differencesin language barriers. Among several strategies, they proposed solutions in three maincategories: solutions which rely on day-to-day informal approaches; solutions that are
structural and formal; and identify for example, bridge individuals in dealing withlanguage problems. Their study is significant as it highlights the importance of informal
and bottom-up approaches as against formal and top-down approaches. Additionally,
they note that by flexibly changing the language from common to a local language, or11what they state as ‘code-switching’, individuals can effectively put in place a strategy
that is easy to implement. This can be done without the need for formal structural
solutions such as a common corporate language, or to rely too heavily on expensive
translators and language training for managers. Another distinctive finding from theirstudy is the use of bridge individuals. These are individuals who are notorganizationally assigned, but are still very effective in communicating and translating
context-rich information to groups of people using their multi-lingual skills.
Kroon et al. (2015) in a cross- border M&A context, examine how employees’
English language fluency in the use of a CCL, which in their research case was English,
has an impact on the reactions of individuals towards their changed social identities.
The use of English as the lingua franca in a merger between a French and a Dutch
Airline lead to increases in perceived anxiety caused by a fear of job losses, integration
tensions and feelings of uncertainty for employees with low to medium levels of fluency
in English, relative to employees with high English language fluency. Similarly, relative
to employees with high English language fluency, employees with low to medium levelsof fluency in English, these employees experienced changes to their existing status
wherein they experienced domination, or felt a sense of exclusion and inequality. Finally,
these groups of employees also experienced ambivalence, resistance and a lack ofsupport, leading to a somewhat decreased sense of social identity.
Tenzer and Pudelko (2017) recently investigated the impact of language
differences on power dynamics in multinational teams. Proficiency in using a language
was examined as a proxy for expert power and/or deploying the language as the CCL.
The authors note several advantages and disadvantages of such language policies andits impact on team member dynamics. Overall the study highlights the moderating roleof language policies, language structures–formal and informal and differences inlanguage proficiency in studying its impact on positional and expert power differentials
in MNCs. This study highlights the complexities in undertaking language research inhighly diverse workforce environments, especially in studying the dyad of an acquirer
and the acquired firm at a team level. In another recent study by Lønsmann (2017) on
the use of CCL, the author noted that the effectiveness of CCL is contingent on the local
linguistic context, wherein the language competence of individuals and their ability to
see the benefits from the use of a CCL. This finding links back in part to the first task ofchange: developing an appreciation for change, which suggests that without taking theinitiative to highlight the need for change, most change initiatives are likely to be
unsuccessful.
As it is evident from the above review, bulk of the studies fall under the realm of12

use of CCL in cross-border language research, and within this latter stream, several
solutions have been proposed. These include the use of repetition, bridge individuals
and code-switching–which involves the temporary use of the acquirer or acquired firm’s
local language in explaining, discussing and clarifying an aspect during their formalinteractions before reverting to the expected CCL (Vigier & Spencer-Oatey, 2017).
However, even this solution is not free from its detractors. The authors further
note that it is not a question of whether or not to use code-switching where CCL is thedefault language, but it is more a matter of how one manages the expectations of teammembers in the events where code-switching interactions occur between team members.
Similarly, the impacts of CCL without actually understanding when and how to use it
also often results in adverse outcomes for inter-group dynamics between bidder andtarget firms, especially if the target firms language diversity is very high (Woo & Giles,
2017). The extent to which CCL has a positive and/or a negative impact on various
dimensions of group cohesiveness such as group involvement, conflict and trust also
requires a processual approach and contextual sensitiveness (Lauring & Selmer, 2010).
The above research points to our earlier discussion regarding providing the managers
with the relevant tools and techniques in effectively managing the third task of change–
executing change, wherein managers are empowered with the right tools andcapabilities as well as the organisation provides an enabling and supportive climate forsuccessfully executing change.

Studies on language competencies and translations
While it is not always possible to find studies that will fall into one distinctive group, as
both firms and researchers employ more than one focus in dealing with and studying
language issues in MNCs in an M&A context. We have grouped these studies based on
our understanding of the above three categories. Some overlap as seen in the studies by
Tenzer and Pudelko (2017) and Kroon et al. (2015) on the use of CCL and developing acompetency in the use of English language fluency and its impact on people, isunavoidable. In one of the earlier works in this area, Piekkari and Zander (2005)
highlight the importance of developing language competencies and the use of language
training and communication strategies for developing competence in managing change
and people in international contexts. The role of translation services as a strategy has
also been evident in studies of language differences when both the acquirer and theacquired firm are non-native English language speakers (Feely & Harzing, 2003;
Harzing et al, 2011). Adopting a cultural and political approach to study the impact oftranslation services, Usunier (2017) notes that the use of standardized approaches to13translation in multi-lingual settings often leads to distortions in meaning. Other
translation studies have also highlighted that messages often get lost in translation incross-border research (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Welch et al., 1999). In some cases itmaybe deliberate on part of the translators to present a neutral or a less confrontational
message to the target/bidder, nevertheless, such an approach leads to longer-term
issues of breach of trust and delayed decision-making between the communicating
parties. Moreover, translation strategy is not always a desirable strategy as in several
language contexts there are numerous words that do not have an exactly translatable
word from the local language to English (Blenkinsopp, & Shademan Pajouh, 2010;
Usunier, 2017).
Tietze, Tansley and Helienek (2017) analyse the effectiveness of knowledge transfer
through the use of translation services and highlight the central position played by atranslator in such a role, however, the authors also warn that discourse and context
cannot be separated. As a consequence, there is always potential for some messaging to
be lost in translation, or what the authors argue is as a result of the ‘discursive void’,
which adversely affects knowledge transfer outcomes. Tréguer-Felten (2017), employing
the lens of cross-cultural management analysed the use of translation services indealing with complexities associated with language differences in cross-cultural
settings. Comparing differences between French and English language in a French
multinational, she revealed anomalies in different translation outputs as evidenced in
the French Corporate Code of Conduct. She notes there were differences due to the ways
the message was put across by the French. While the above highlights an important role
played by translators in communicating messages effectively, these studies also
highlight the challenges inherent in translations. In dealing with some of the language
issues presented above, Aichhorn and Puck (2017) propose the use of ‘company speak’
instead of a common language, translation services or a combination of the two (bidder
and target firm’s) languages, as a way forward.
Towards a Conceptual Model of Language Strategies for PMI
In the following, we develop a conceptual model based on the idea of a cross borderacquisition, having both, the target and the bidder as non-native English language
speakers. We connect Haspeslagh and Jemison’s (1991) seminal work with the use oflanguage who developed four categories shown in Figure 1 below. In acquisitions where
the degree of strategic interdependence is high and acquired firm’s need for autonomy islow, the acquisition is according to Haspeslagh and Jemison (1991) classified as‘absorption’; where the degree of strategic interdependence is low and the acquired

14

firm’s need for autonomy is high, the acquisition is classified as ‘preservation; where thedegree of strategic interdependence is high and acquired firm’s need for autonomy ishigh, the acquisition is classified as ‘symbiotic acquisition’; and finally where the degreeof strategic interdependence is low and acquired firm’s need for autonomy is also low,
the acquisition is classified as a ‘holding company’ as there is full integration.

High

Absorption

Symbiotic

HoldingCompany

Preservation

Low

Degree of strategic interdependence

Figure 1: Mapping Acquisitions: Strategic Interdependence and Need for Autonomy

Target Company’s Need for Autonomy
Low

High

Based on the above classification and informed by the literature on language, wedevelop a set of appropriate language strategies at the target firms depicted in Figure 2
below. Firms that fall into the absorption category, get subsumed and merged into thebidder firm’s structure and as such present opportunities for rationalization andsavings in resources and other capabilities. There is evidence from research on
subsidiaries of MNCs, which suggests that subsidiaries are severely affected bylanguage differences in their inter-unit communications. We apply this logic to thetarget firms. Bidder may either introduce their (own) language to the target, as wasseen in the case when a Swedish bank overtook a Finnish bank and the Finns had toadjust at the beginning of the PMI to the Swedish language (Piekkari, Vaara, Tienari,and Saentti, 2005). The other choice is the use of a CCL as an advantageous strategy(Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Feely & Harzing 2003; Harzing et al., 2011; Lauring &15

Selmer, 2010). To sum up, we argue that acquiring firms most likely implement either
their own language at the target firm or implement a CCL, such as English. The choiceof language implementation also depends on the degree of similarity. Owing to thepotential language differences in cross-border merger deals, the absorbed target firm ismost likely to benefit from a common corporate language in case the bidder and target
languages differ considerably. This gives rise to two testable propositions for research.

Proposition 1.1: Target firm’s managers at absorptive firms will either need to adjust to
the bidder language or have to switch to a common corporate language (CCL) such as
English.
Proposition 1.2: The higher the language distance of the bidder and target, the more
likely, a common corporate language (CCL) will be introduced.

High

Absorption

Symbiotic

Bidder Language

Hybrid of Target andBidder Language,'Company Speak' oror Common
Corporate Language
(CCL)

CCL

Holding Company

Preservation

No language effectTarget Country
Language(s) with
InfrequentTranslation Service(Communicating
Shareholder
Expectations)

Low

Degree of strategic interdependence

Figure 2: Mapping Acquisitions with Language Strategies

Target Company’s Need for Autonomy
Low

High

In the second category of preservation firms, the nature of language challenges is quite
low as the intensity of interactions between the bidder and acquirer is limited given its
low degrees of strategic interdependence and a high status of organizational autonomy.
We argue in line with previous research, in cases where the nature of interaction andcoordination between inter-organizational units is low and the autonomy is high, local

16target firm managers continue to use their target country language with infrequent useof translators (Piekkari & Zander 2005). Especially in preservation acquisitions, we
argue that the target firm’s language(s) could be continued, but it may also be
supplemented with the use of mediators (e.g. translators) –internal or external–who are
proficient in the use of both the languages–i.e. that of the acquirer and the acquired
firm. It is also worth highlighting here that the cultural and political dimensions oftranslation services should not be forgotten as it may lead to divergence in meaning(Usunier, 2017). This gives rise to the next proposition.

Proposition 2: Target firm’s managers at preservation firms will continue to use theirown country language with infrequent use of translators.
In the third category of symbiotic firms, the nature of challenges are manifold as theintensity of interactions between the bidder and target are very high given their highdegrees of strategic interdependence and so is their need for organizational autonomy.
Owing to the potential language differences in cross-border merger deals, we argue for a
hybrid approach at symbiotic acquisitions wherein the target firm’s common language
may continue along with bidder’s common language spoken by the headquarter’s sent
managers. At this strategic choice, code switching activities would be most common.
That means, country teams would speak first in their “own” language and then join
together with the other side to exchange and to find the best solutions. Especially in thisconstellation of a symbiotic target firm, the bidder may send some skilled expatriates orother managers to the target who may be multilingual to enforce bridge building
activities. In this scenario, it would be also advisable to develop some multilingual local
managers fluent in the use of both the languages–that of the acquirer and the acquired
firm. As Beeler and Lecomte (2017) highlight, firms are better off in the long run withthe use of an inclusive language approach if they were to promote hetroglossia in theirorganisations. A lower possibility in this case would be to have a common language
implemented such as English. Finally, some researchers have suggested the use of‘company speak’ (Aichhorn & Puck, 2017) as a potential solution for such acquisitions.
This leads to the next proposition.

Proposition 3: Target firm’s managers at symbiotic firms will predominantly use theirown language along with a parallel use of the bidder firm language spoken byheadquarter sent managers. A common language or company speak for the long run isrecommended.

17

In the final and the fourth category of a holding company, the nature of challenges
present here are minimal as the intensity of interactions between the bidder andacquirer is virtually non-existent (Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991). The focus in suchacquisitions is more on return on investment for the shareholders of the holding
company. In such cases the focus is rather on managing the shareholders’ expectationsof the holding firm regarding revenue increase, profits and returns. Even though there
are language differences, we argue that the target firm’s language should be enoughwith some basic language translation skills in terms of financial metrics that thisacquisition is expected to contribute to the parent company of this holding company.
This leads to the final proposition of this research.

Proposition 4: Target firm’s managers at holding subsidiaries will continue speaking
their own language.
Discussion and Conclusion
Based on the above review and our propositions, we note several gaps in the language
research in post-merger integration period. Namely, much of the work has focused on
general issues of language strategies involving a top-down approach such as evident in
the use of a CCL. There is paucity in the research on language distance and how it
informs resource allocation decisions, provision of translation services and/ or language
training to overcome language differences. To our knowledge, no thought has been given
to strategic issues of target integration at M&A and the role of language. There are also
several methodological gaps in the research undertaken in this area. Much of theresearch remains adopting a reductionist approach using cultural and language
distance indices as a means of analyzing the impact of language on international
management issues such as managing differences at an inter- and intra-unit level. A
number of studies have employed databases for studying M&A performance anddecisions in a PMI context (Kedia & Reddy, 2016; Navío-Marco et al., 2016). Thissuggests that there is a need for a more nuanced understanding in segmenting strategic
M&A scenarios.
There are some encouraging signs using dialogical approaches in uncovering the“dark side” of language (Beeler & Lecomte, 2017). Beeler, Cohen, de Vecchi,
Kassis-Henderson, and Lecomte’s (2017) recent special issue on language in suchcontexts is a welcome step in the right direction as it encourages scholars to ask
questions of how people are experiencing the challenge rather than about people

18

managing these challenges. Even though CCL has been noted as an efficient strategy inthe above stream of studies, some scholars have highlighted the problems inherent insuch approaches as language imposes a power structure as well as invokes emotions
and a loss in status among non-native English language speakers, especially if they are
not competent in the use of such CCL (Neely et al., 2012; Woo & Giles, 2012).
The above discussion opens important gaps for future research on language. We
believe, based on our review of the literature on language and M&As in particular, thescholarship can benefit from the conceptual model developed in this paper as it will help
guide future research and practice regarding the nature of language at PMI in M&A.
Moreover, from a target’s perspective, knowing which language strategy would be mostdesirable to facilitate a smooth post-merger integration is a key theoretical contribution
we offer in our paper.
The paper is not without its limitations. Our propositions need to be tested infuture studies. It may be difficult to not only to collect data on segmenting such firms
but also to investigate about the language used at the target firms. Also, a
generalization is difficult as firms differ in regard to their country of origin. Japanesefirms, for example, normally allow cross-border targets an autonomous status, while
European cross-border targets, for example taken over by German firms are most likely
to be absorbed. To this end, a purposive sampling approach using a qualitative casestudy design investigating in individual employees rather than managers could be vitalto yield a better understanding of the challenges a language brings with its use at thetarget.

19

References
Agrawal, A., Jaffe, J.F., & Mandelker, G.N., (1992). The Post-Merger Performance ofAcquiring Firms: A Re-examination of an Anomaly. Journal of Finance 47, 1605-1621
Antila, E.M. (2006). The role of HR managers in international mergers and acquisitions:a multiple case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, pp.
999–1020.
Aichhorn, N., & Puck, J. (2017). Bridging the language gap in multinational companies:
Language strategies and the notion of company-speak. Journal of World Business, 52(3),386-403.
Bauer, F., & Matzler, K. (2014). Antecedents of M&A success: the role of strategic
complementarity, cultural fit, and degree and speed of integration. Strategic

Management Journal, 35, pp. 269–291.
Bebenroth, R., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). When organizational justice matters for affective
merger commitment. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(2), 227-241.
Beeler, B., Cohen, L., de Vecchi, D., Kassis-Henderson, J., & Lecomte, P. (2017). Special
issue on language in global management and business. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management, 17(1) 3–6
Beeler, B., & Lecomte, P. (2017). Shedding light on the darker side of language: A
dialogical approach to cross-cultural collaboration. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management, 1470595816686379.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2004). Dilemmas of managerial control in post-acquisition
processes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, pp. 252–268.
Blenkinsopp, J., & Shademan Pajouh, M. (2010). Lost in translation? Culture, language
and the role of the translator in international business. Critical perspectives oninternational business, 6(1), 38-52.
Brannen, M.Y., & Peterson, M.F. (2009). Merging without alienating: interventions
promoting cross-cultural organizational integration and their limitations. Journal of20International Business Studies, 40, pp. 468–489.
Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions
research: recent advances and future opportunities. British Journal of Management,
17(S1), pp. S1–S5.
Choi, S., Holmberg, I., L¨owstedt, J. & Brommels, M.(2012). Managing clinicalintegration: a comparative case study in a merged university hospital. Journal of

Health Organization and Management, 26, pp. 486–507.
Datta, D.K., Rajagopalan, N., & Rasheed, A.M.A., (1991). Diversification and
Performance: Critical Review and Future Directions. Journal of Management Studies

28, 529-558
Ellis, K.M., & Lamont, B.T. (2004). ‘Ideal’ acquisition integration approaches in relatedacquisitions of equals: a test of long-held beliefs. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions,3, pp. 81–102.
Feely, A. J. & Harzing, A. (2003). Language management in multinational companies.
Cross

CulturalManagement:

An

International

Journal,10(2),

37-52.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527600310797586
Ghauri, P.N. & Buckley, P.J. (2003). International mergers and acquisitions: past,present and future. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 2, pp. 207–229.
Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in
multinational corporations. Management Science, 40, 96–110.
Gomes, E., Angwin, D.N., Weber, Y., & Yedidia Tarba, S. (2013). Critical success factors
through the mergers and acquisitions process: revealing pre- and post-M&A connections
for improved performance. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55, pp. 13–35.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C.R., & Brown, J. (1994). Merging professional service firms.

Organization Science, 5, pp. 239–257.
Graebner, M. E. (2004). Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value
in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 751-777.

21

Graebner, M., Heimeriks, K., Huy, Q., & Vaara, E. (2017). The process of post-merger
integration: a review and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals,
11(1), 1–32.
Haspeslagh, P.C. & Jemison,D.B. (1991). Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value

Through Corporate Renewal. New York: Free Press; Collier Macmillan Canada;
Maxwell Macmillan International.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). The influence of organizational acquisition
experienceonacquisition

performance:abehavioral

learning

perspective.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 29–56.
Harzing, A.W.K. (2003). The role of culture in entry mode studies: From negligence tomyopia? Advances in International Management, 15: 75–127.
Harzing, A. W., Köster, K., & Magner, U. (2011). Babel in business: The language barrier
and its solutions in the HQ-subsidiary relationship. Journal of World Business, 46(3),279-287.
Hofstede, G. (1980 and 2001). Culture’s consequences, international differences inworkrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hubbard, N., & Purcell, J. (2001). Managing employee expectations during acquisitions.

Human Resource Management Journal, 11, pp. 17–33.
Ismail, M., & Bebenroth, R. (2016). Organizational justice and organizational
identification of millennials in mergers and acquisitions: a conceptual framework. Eur J

Soc Sci, 51(4), 397-409.
Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies forinternational companies: The contribution of translation studies. Journal of World

Business, 39(4), 414-430.
Jemison, D.B., & Sitkin, S.B. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: a process perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 11, pp. 145–163.

22

Jensen, M.C., & Ruback, R.S., 1983. "The Market for Corporate Control - The Scientific
Evidence." Journal of Financial Economics 11, 5-50
Joshi, V., & Goyal, K.A. (2013). Post-merger appraisal of stress level among bank
employees: a case study. Journal of Social and Development Sciences, 4, pp. 152–163.
Junni, P., & Sarala, R.M. (2014). The role of leadership in mergers and acquisitions: areview of recent empirical studies. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 13, pp. 181–200.
Kedia, B. L., & Reddy, R. K. (2016). Language and cross-border acquisitions: An
exploratory study. International Business Review, 25(6), 1321-1332.
Kiefer, T. (2002). Understanding the emotional experience of organizational change:
evidence from a merger. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, pp. 39–61.
Kroon, D., Noorderhaven, N., & Leufkens, A. (2009). Organizational identification andcultural differences: explaining employee attitudes and behavioral intentions during
postmerger integration. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 8, pp. 19–42.
Kroon, D.P., Cornelissen, J.P., & Vaara, E. (2015). Explaining employees’ reactions
towards a cross-border merger: the role of English language fluency. Management

International Review, 55, pp. 775–800.
Larsson, R., & Lubatkin, M. (2001). Integrating strategic, organizational, and humanresource perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization.

Organization Science, 10(1), 1-26.
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2010). Multicultural organizations: Common language andgroup cohesiveness. International journal of cross cultural management, 10(3), 267-284.
Lønsmann, D. (2017). Embrace it or resist it? Employees’ reception of corporate
language policies. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1), 101-123.
Lin, C.Y.-Y., & Wei, Y.-C. (2006). The role of business ethics in merger and acquisition

23

success: an empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, pp. 95–109.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in
multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-598.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999). In the shadow: The impact oflanguage on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International

Business Review, 8(4), 421-440.
Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D.

(2013). giving sense to andmaking sense of justice in post-merger integration. Academy of Management Journal,
56, pp. 256–284.
Navío-Marco, J., Solórzano-García, M., Matilla-García, M., & Urueña, A. (2016).
Language as a key factor of long-term value creation in mergers and acquisitions in thetelecommunications sector. Telecommunications Policy, 40(10), 1052-1063.
Nilakant, V., & Ramnarayan, S. (2006). Change management: Altering mindsets in a

global context. SAGE Publications India.
Neeley, T. B., Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2012). The (un) hidden turmoil of languagein global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 236-244.
Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Managing thecoordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management

Journal, 49(2), 263-280.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration?
Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in across-border merger. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3),330-344.
Ranft, A.L. (2006). Knowledge preservation and transfer during post-acquisition
integration. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 5, pp. 51–67.
Reus, T.H., Lamont, B.T., & Ellis, K.M. (2015). A darker side of knowledge transfer

24followinginternational

acquisitions.

Strategic

Management

Journal,doi:10.1002/smj.2373.
Reiche, S., Harzing, A., & Pudelko, M. (2015). Why and how does shared language affectsubsidiary knowledge inflows? A social identity perspective. Journal of International

Business Studies, 1-24
Roll, R. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of business,
197-216.
Schoenberg, R. (2000). The influence of cultural compatibility within cross-borderacquisitions: a review. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 1, pp. 43–59.
Stahl, G.K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences matter in mergers andacquisitions? A tentative model and examination. Organization Science, 19, pp. 160–
176.
Steigenberger, N. (2016). The challenge of integration: A review of the M&A integration
literature. International Journal of Management Reviews. . doi:10.1111/ijmr.12099
Piekkari, R.,Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Saentti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration?
Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in across-border merger. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, pp.
330–344.
Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. (2011). A world of languages: Implications for international
management research and practice. Journal of World Business. 267-269.
Tanure, B., & Gonzales-Duarte, R. (2007).Managing people in radical changes (M&As):
the adoption of intrinsically consistent HRM strategies in Brazilian companies.

International Journal of Manpower, 28, pp. 369–383.
Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2017). The influence of language differences on power
dynamics in multinational teams. Journal of World Business, 52(1), 45-61.
Tietze, S., Tansley, C., & Helienek, E. (2017). The translator as agent in management

25

knowledge transfer. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1),151-169.
Tréguer-Felten, G. (2017). The role of translation in the cross-cultural transferability ofcorporate codes of conduct. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1),137-149.
Thomson, N., & McNamara, P. (2001). Achieving post acquisition success: the role ofcorporate entrepreneurship. Long Range Planning, 34, pp. 669–697.
Tuch, C., & O’Sullivan, N. (2007). The impact of acquisitions on firm performance: areview of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, pp. 141–170.
UNCTAD (2012). Towards a new generation of investment policies. Geneva: United
Nations.
Usunier, J. C. (2011). Language as a resource to assess cross-cultural equivalence inquantitative management research. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 314-319.
Vaara, E. (2003). Post-acquisition Integration as sensemaking: glimpses of ambiguity,
confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 859–
894.
Vigier, M., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2017). Code-switching in newly formed multinational
project teams: Challenges, strategies and effects. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management, 17(1), 23-37.
Vidal-Suárez, M., & López-Duarte, C. (2013). Language distance and international
acquisitions: A transaction cost approach. International Journal of Cross Cultural

Management, 13(1), 47-63.
Wei, T., & Clegg, J. (2014). Successful integration of target firms in international
acquisitions: a comparative study in the medical technology industry. Journal ofInternational Management, 20, pp. 237–255.
Welch, D., Welch, L., & Piekkari, R. (2005). Speaking in tongues: The importance of26

languageininternational

management

processes.

International

StudiesofManagement & Organization, 35(1), 10-27.
Woo, D., & Giles, H. (2017). Language attitudes and intergroup dynamics inmultilingual organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1),39-52.