Introduction The modern day corporate world has been characterized by an increased frequency of mergers. Mergers have occurred mostly in MNCs as well as in companies doing business locally. There are various reasons why companies undergo mergers and acquisitions. Traditionally companies that underwent mergers did so in as an expansion program. In the modern day business environment, businesses undergo mergers in order to fit into the various business environments. Politics play a vital role in determining whether the company will undergo merger or not. This is more so found in the MNCs where the need to come into a new market compels the company to acquire another one or merge with a local company. When a big company merges with another one, the merger is referred to as a mega-merger. A perfect example of a mega-merger is the one that occurred between AT&T and T-mobile or between Daimler Benz and Chrysler. The ever changing market conditions have been largely responsible for mergers Many management scientists have argued for and against the practice of mergers. Mergers can be termed as desirable depending on various measurement tools. These tools include the market they serve, the nature of their products, their strategic goals and so on. The concept of dubious logic of global mega-mergers also presents an explanation of the reasons behind many mega-mergers that have taken place. It should however be noticed that the ultimate purpose of mergers should not be to gain a market share so as to control the market by such acts as price setting (Kingx, Dalton, Daily, & Covin, 2004, p. 193). This paper critically analyzes the arguments for and against mergers with a look at the dubious logic of global mega-mergers and also presents some measures that firms can take to reduce the risk of failure in both the pre-merger and post merger phases. The need for mergers and the concept of dubious logic in Global mega-mergers In the modern day merger context, the aspect of dubious logic of global mega-mergers has spurred the increased rate of the mergers. It is commonly thought that ‘bigger is better’. As such many, organizational managers have developed a bias towards expansion through mergers and acquisitions. The aspect of globalization that has presented the worlds as a global village has fuelled cross border mergers which have consequently resulted in firms expanding exponentially into the international markets and new global frontiers. However, this general thought of bettering the organization through global mergers has been criticized by many management scientists. One of the ways to relent from this common management myth that ‘bigger is better’ is accepting that the global economy is not a ‘winner take it all’. The management scientists argue that there are better and more viable options for managers who are seeking expansion plans for their companies. Besides, empirical evidence shows that the most of the global mega-mergers have failed to achieve their primary merger objective. As a result the companies have faced a rather hostile post-merger environment and operations have been highly affected (Lamoreaux, 1985, p. 132). Once such a scenario occurs, the com