| Title |
Management practices and performance of mergers and acquisitions in Pakistan: mediating role of psychological contract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-3184-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muhammad Waseem Bari, Meng Fanchen, Muhammad Awais Baloch |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study is to examine the direct and indirect effect of management practices (procedural justice, coordination approach, communication system, integration strategy, and coping programs) on merger and acquisition (M&A) performance in the Pakistan banking industry. Psychological contract (PC) acts as a mediator between Management practices and M&A performance. The Present study distributes a structured questionnaire to 700 bank employees of different management cadres. The useful response rate is 76 % (536 employees). It uses PLS-SEM technique for data analysis. (1) procedural justice is a key strategy which has highly significant direct and indirect effect on M&A performance; however integration strategy and the communication system have an only direct effect. (2) PC performs partial mediation at different levels between management practices and M&A financial and non-financial performance. This study provides an effective solution to solve the soft issues during and post-M&A process. This is one of the few studies which effectively integrate the five constructs into a single framework to study their effects on M&A performance. Limitations and future research directions are presented in the last section of the study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 31 | 40% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,475,586
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#942
of 1,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,180
of 322,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#100
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.