scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)
Empowerment
in
the
Context
of
Transformational
Change:
A
Study
of
Acquisitions
and
Privatizations
in
Eastern
Europe
Diether
Gebert,
Reiner
Piske,
Tünde
Baga,
Ralf Lanwehr,
&
Eric
Kearney
Technische
Universitat
Berlin
This
paper
examines
conditions
under
which
empowerment
(decision
autonomy,
dialogic
leadership)
is
connected
with
positive
and
negative
effects,
respectively,
in
regard
to
managing
transformational
change
in
Eastern
Europe.
Acquisitions
by
foreign
investors
in
Poland
and
Russia
(N
=
45
companies)
and
privatizations
through
employee
buy-out
in
Romania
(N
=
5
companies)
are
contrasted
in
this
study.
It is
shown
that
empowerment
within
these
two
variants
of
transformational
change
is
connected
in
different
ways
with
success
indicators
of crisis
management.
From
these
findings,
we
deduce
practical
consequences
for
empowerment
and
transformational
change,
along
with
suggestions
for
future
research.
Keywords:
empowerment,
transformational
change,
change
management,
acquisitions,
privatizations.
The
essence
of
the
empowerment
movement
that
has
gained
popularity
in
the
1990s
(Hardy/Leiba-O’Sullivan,
1998;
Herrenkohl
et
al.,
1999)
can
be
summarized
by
the
following
thesis:
Employees
of
an
organization
should
not
be
treated
as
objects
by
a
centralistic
and
directive
form
of
leadership;
instead,
a
decentralized
and
dialogic
leadership
should
provide
them
with
the
opportunities
for
self-regulation
and
for
being
active
subjects
(Pearce
&
Sims,
2002).
In
this
paper,
promoting
the
experience
of
being
an
active
subject
is
the
defining
criterion
of
empowerment.
Less
other-directedness
and
more
self-directedness
thus lead
to
the
two
variants
of
expanding
decision
autonomy
on
the
one
hand
and
facilitating
dialogic
leadership
(critical
upward
communication)
on
the
other.
These
measures
of
granting
decision
autonomy
and
fostering
dialogic
leadership
have
in
common
that
they
both
increase
an
individual’s
potential
for
exerting
influence
on
the
content
of
operational
goals
and
the
way
in
which
these
are
attained.
Each
of
these
measures
(granting
decision
autonomy
and
fostering
dialogic
leadership)
creates
opportunities
for
the
employee
to
enhance
his
or
her
ability
level
(Leach
et
al.,
2005)
and
to
thus
generate
new
potentials.
Moreover,
each
measure
enables
the
employee
to act
in
accord
with
his
or
her
beliefs
and
thus
in
line
with
his
or
her
self-concept
(Fiol
et
al.,
1999).
This
concept
of
empowerment
has
met
with
great
acceptance
in
the
scientific
community
and
has
proved
successful
in
many
Western
countries
(Wageman,
2001).
It
should
not
be
taken
for
granted,
however,
that
the
same
level
of
success
will
occur
naturally
in
Eastern
European
contexts,
since
many
of
the
local
managers
and
employees
were
socialized
in
the
spirit
of
a
&dquo;closed
society&dquo;
(Gebert/Boerner,
1999).
In
this
model
of
the
closed
society,
autonomy,
dialogue,
or
personal
initiatives
are
not
part
of
the
role
definitions
that
members
of
an
organization
develop
for
themselves.
The
cooperation
model
implied
by
the
concept
of
empowerment
thus
contradicts
the
relatively
stable
belief
systems
and
preferences
of
many
members
of
the
organization.
Experience
in
the
context
of
organizational
development
clearly
shows,
however,
that
the
necessary
changes
of
attitudes
require
long-term
learning
processes
(Gebert,
2002).
Empowerment
in
the
sense
of
fostering
the
subject-status
(as
opposed
to
an
object-status)
may
thus
prove
less
successful
in
Eastern
Europe,
and
may
conceivably
even
turn
out
to
be
dysfunctional.
Therefore,
the
consequences
of
empowerment
depend
upon
the
respective
context.
By
context,
one
should
not
merely
think
of
processes
of
socialization,
i.e.
societal
characteristics.
The
specific
and
unique
102
conditions
of
companies
must
also
be
considered
as
a
context
variable
that
influences
the
outcomes
of
empowerment
(Boemer/Gebert,
1997).
In
this
regard,
the
type
of
transformational
change
pursued
in
an
organization
is
crucial
for
mastering
the
economically
critical
situation
following
the
political
changes
of
1989
in
Eastern
Europe
(Staniszkis,
1991).
This
is
the
main
point
of
the
following
analysis:
We
examine
two
variants
of
transformational
change
in
Eastern
Europe:
the
acquisition
of
companies
by
foreign
investors
and
the
privatization
of former
state-owned
organizations
by
employee
buy-out,
respectively.
We
will
show
that
empowerment
-
in
the
sense
of
facilitating
a
subject-status
-
is
connected
in
different
ways
with
the
management
of
intra-organizational
change
processes,
depending
upon
whether
empowerment
occurs
in
the
context
of
acquisitions
or
in
the
context
of
an
employee
buy-out.
We
will
show
that
empowerment
is
-
at
least
in
the
initial
stages
-
clearly
conducive
to
managing
change
following
a
takeover
by
a
foreign
investor.
In
the
context
of
privatization
(here:
employee
buy-out
with
no
additional
investments
of
capital
by
third
parties),
however,
empowerment
initially
engenders
significant
detrimental
effects.
We
will
explain
in
detail
why
this
is
so.
On
the
theoretical
level,
we
thus
interpret
the
type
of
transformational
change
as
a
moderator
variable.
Figure
1
illustrates
the
main
points
of
our
analysis.
In
the
acquisition
study,
we
examine
the
relationship
between
empowerment
and
crisis
management
by
operationalizing
the
facilitation
of
the
subject-status
via
the
enhancement
of
decision
autonomy
and
successful
change
management
via
the
(subsequent)
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
acquired
company
and
the
foreign
investor.
In
the
privatization
study,
we
analyze
the
connection
between
empowerment
and
crisis
management
by
operationalizing
the
fostering
of
the
subject-status
via
the
promotion
of
dialogic
leadership
and
crisis
management
via
the
fostering
of
the
innovativeness
of
the
organization
(see
explanations
below).
The
results
of
our
study
show
not
only
that
the
effects
of
empowerment
depend
upon
the
respective
context.
In
the
acquisition
study,
the
relationship
between
empowerment
and
change
management
is
not
merely
linear
and
positive,
but
reveals
an
inverted
u-shaped,
curvilinear
function.
Analogously,
in
the
privatization
study,
the
relationship
between
empowerment
and
change
management
is
not
simply
linear
and
negative,
but
likewise
curvilinear,
albeit
in
this
case
u-shaped.
This
means
that
the
effects
of
empowerment
also
vary
depending
upon
the
level
of empowerment
in
the
respective
setting.
Regarding
the
acquisition
study,
for
example,
very
high
levels
of
empowerment
are
apparently
counterproductive.
Since
the
effects
of
empowerment
are
contingent
upon
context
and
the
level
of
empowerment,
general
statements
about
the
consequences
of
empowerment
seem
to
be
of
little
value.
Comments
Concerning
Methods
Both
studies
were
partial
projects
within
more
long-term
research
projects
studying
transformational
change
in
Eastern
European
companies.
We
had
originally
planned
neither
study
with
the
objective
of
systematically
comparing
empowerment
effects
of
acquisition
processes
with
empowerment
effects
of
privatization
processes.
If
this
had
been
the
original
intention,
the
independent
variable
of
empowerment
as
well
as
the
dependent
variable
of
coping
with
transformational
change
should
have
been
operationalized
in
the
same
way
in
both
studies.
This
is
not
the
case,
however,
as
the
two
studies
were
conducted
in
partial
independence
of
one
another.
This
partial
independence
is
reflected
in
the
fact
that
the
main
question
regarding
the
relationship
between
empowerment
and
managing
transformational
change
is
specified
differently
in
the
two
studies,
in
order
to
adapt
to
the
respective
circumstances
of each
study.
In
the
privatization
study,
we
measure
the
success
of
the
transformational
change
by
the
innovativeness
of
the
organization,
since
successful
changes
in
the
studied
context
depend
primarily
on
innovations
(Baga,
2004).
In
the
acquisition
study,
we
measure
the
(preliminary)
success
of
transformational
change
by
the
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
acquired
company
and
the
foreign
investor,
since
acquisitions
by
foreign
organizations
often
cause
cooperation
problems
due
to
different
cultures
(Piske,
2003;
Kelly
et
al.,
2002).
Analogously,
we
operationalize
the
construct
empowerment
via
dialogic
Figure
1:
Overview
of
the
examined
relationships
leadership
in
the
privatization
study
and
via
decision
autonomy
in
the
acquisition
study.
Initially,
we
had
expected
an
inverted
U-
shaped
relationship
between
empowerment
and
successful
crisis
management
in
both
studies.
Ex
post,
however,
this
hypothesis
was
only
confirmed
in
the
acquisition
study,
not
in
the
privatization
study.
The
differences
regarding
the
empirical
relationship
between
empowerment
and
indicators
of
crisis
management
have
led
us
to
ponder
the
explanation
for
these
differences.
Only
after
this
analysis
were
we
able
to
&dquo;discover&dquo;
similarities
and
differences
in
the
processes
of
the
two
variants
of
transformational
change
that
we
had
not
considered
before.
We
then
revised
our
explanations
concerning
the
results
of
both
studies.
In
the
following,
we
will
present
this
revised
and
most
current
interpretation.
The
explanations
provided
below
are
predominantly
of
an ex
post-nature
and
thus
require
further
study.
We
have
developed
these
explanations
in
some
detail,
in
order
to
stimulate
further
research.
Despite
the
different
operationalizations
of
the
respective
dependent
and
independent
variables,
we
believe
that
it
is
possible
to
discuss
both
studies
within
the
same
frame
of
reference:
granting
decision
autonomy
and
fostering
dialogic
leadership
are
merely
different
operationalizations
of
the
same
basic
construct
&dquo;empowerment&dquo;,
which
we
have
defined
as
the
degree
to
which
an
individual’s
influence
on
the
content
of
operational
goals
and
the
way
in
which
these
are
attained
is
increased
(see
above).
This
constitutes
the
crucial
link
between
the
two
studies.
The
same
holds
true
with
respect
to
the
dependent
variable:
the
quality
of
(trustful)
cooperation
and
innovativeness
are
functionally
equivalent
success
criteria
concerning
transformational
change
management.
They
are
both
prerequisites
for
future
economic
success.
Thus,
we
not
only
deem
it
possible,
but
also
sensible
to
discuss
both
studies
in
one
paper.
Theory
Acquisitions
and
privatizations
constitute
a
so-called
transformational
change
(Tushman
&
Romanelli,
1985).
A
transformational
change
occurs
when
the
depth
structure
of
an
organization
-
the
so-called
archetype
(Greenwood/Hinings,
1996)
-
is
altered.
Gersick
(1991)
defines
this
depth
structure
as
a
specific
configuration
of
product,
market,
and
technology
units,
the
concomitant
power
and
control
distributions,
as
well
as
the
basic
beliefs
and
values.
Usually,
such
a
transformational
change
is
an
answer
to
massive
changes
in
the
environment
(Romanelli/Tushman,
1994).
Indeed,
this
characterizes
the
circumstances
regarding
the
acquisitions
and
privatizations
in
the
late
1990s
studied
here.
Following
the
political
transitions
in
1989
in
Eastern
Europe
(Staniszkis,
1991),
the
change
processes
occur
in
a
context
marked
by
a
profound
societal
and
104
economic
crisis
(Baga,
2004).
At
that
time,
many
of
the
companies
participating
in
the
study
stood
on
the
verge
of
financial
ruin
(Piske,
2003).
This
was
evident,
for
instance,
in
the
companies’
massive
reduction
of
their
work
force.
Moreover,
many
companies
could
no
longer
pay
their
employees,
many
of
whom
thus
experienced
existential
fears.
Concerning
theory,
it
thus
appears
useful
to
study
this
transformational
process
against
the
backdrop
of
the
stress
and
coping
model
proposed
by
Lazarus
(1991).
This
model
describes
how
persons
attempt
to
cope
with
threatening
situations.
Within
his
action
theory,
Lazarus
(1991)
distinguishes
between
two
cognitive
appraisal
processes.
In
the
first
appraisal
(primary
appraisal),
the
situation
is
evaluated
with
respect
to
its
relevance
and
to
the
degree
to
which
it
constitutes
a
threat.
In
the
subsequent
secondary
appraisal,
a
situation
that
has
previously
been
categorized
as
threatening
is
evaluated
regarding
whether
or
not
the
person
has
action
options
at
his
or
her
disposal
to
cope
with
the
threatening
situation.
In
the
secondary
appraisal,
the
situation
is
thus
appraised
concerning
the
degree
of
situational
control.
The
construct
situational
control
is
defined
by
the
degree
to
which
the
person
possesses
action
options
for
mastering
the
aversive
situation.
If
a
person
perceives
sufficient
situational
control,
he
or
she
will
exhibit
coping
behaviour
aimed
at
resolving
the
threatening
situation.
Since
previous
attempts
at
managing
the
crisis
in
Eastern
European
companies
had
met
with
little
success,
the
situation
before
the
acquisition
or
privatization,
respectively,
was
threatening
for
both
employees
and
managers.
From
their
perspective,
the
chance
that
they
could
overcome
this
crisis
was
remote.
The
situation
was
thus
experienced
as
aversive
and
as
requiring
change.
At
the
same
time,
due
to
the
low
situational
control
it
was
not
perceived
as
changeable.
According
to
Lazarus
(1991),
persons
who
find
themselves
in
such
circumstances
tend
either
to
run
from
the
situation
(i.e.,
leave
the
company)
or
to
internally
adapt
to
it
(e.g.,
by
lowering
their
standards).
In
some
companies,
qualified
employees
did
indeed
resign
at
the
time
of
the
study
(Baga,
2004).
The
situation
thus
became
even
more
threatening
for
the
remaining
work
force.
With
regard
to
crisis
management,
it
is
thus
crucial
to
enhance
situational
control,
so
that
the
situation
is
not
only
perceived
as
requiring
change,
but
also
as
changeable.
The
latter
requires
that
the
company
obtains
additional
resources
(e.g.,
in
the
form
of
capital)
that
were
not
present
before
and
provide
new
action
options.
Moreover,
perceiving
the
situation
as
changeable
presupposes
that
the
employees
are
able
to
evaluate
the
new
action
options.
This
entails
a
cognitive
control
of
the
situation,
so
that
the
most
promising
solutions
can
be
selected
from
the
spectrum
of
options.
A
precondition
for
this
is
that
the
workforce
shares
a
clear
and
mutual
goal
orientation
(Gebert
et
al.
2004).
In
sum,
an
increase
in
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
is
called
for.
This
marks
the
decisive
theory-related
difference
between
the
two
strategies
of
transformational
change
described
above.
We
will
show
that
the
acquisition
strategy
tends
to
enable
this
two-
fold
increase
in
situational
control.
This
is
not
the
case
concerning
the
privatization
strategy
of
employee
buy-out,
however.
Overall,
the
finding
emerges
that
the
two
examined
strategies
of
transformational
change
provide
markedly
different
contexts
for
empowerment.
An
increase
in
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
is
required
in
order
for
empowerment
(e.g.,
in
the
form
of
delegating
decision-making
powers
and
thus
promoting
decision
autonomy)
to
take
effect.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
there
is
no
increase
in
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
over
the
crisis,
empowerment
(e.g.,
in
the
form
of
dialogic
leadership)
will
initially
tend
to
cause
confusion
and
amplify
the
existing
feelings
of
helplessness.
These
assertions
are
explained
in
more
detail
below.
Study
1
(Acquisition)
Theory
and
Hypothesis
We
have
emphasized
the
insufficient
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
over
the
economic
crisis
as
the
crucial
unfavourable
context
condition.
The
takeover
substantially
changes
this
situation.
If
a
foreign
investor
develops
and
communicates
a
new
strategy
and
on
this
basis
invests
in
new
facilities
and
machines
-
which
is
the
case
in
all
of
the
industrial
companies
studied
here
-
the
employees
have
sufficient
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
to
enable
the
company
to
assert
itself
on
the
market
and
to
overcome
the
crisis.
The
process
of
acquisition
implies
a
transformational
change
and
thus
constitutes
a
threat
for
some
employees
(e.g.,
105
via
structural
and
process
changes
in
the
organization).
At
the
same
time,
however,
the
new
strategy
comprising
the
new
facilities
and
machines
increases the
situational
control
over
the
economic
circumstances.
Thus,
hope
is
fostered
(Piske,
2003),
since
the
investments
of
the
foreign
organization
furthermore
indicate
that
the
investor
considers
the
acquired
company
to
be
capable
of
positive
developments.
If
the
managers
and
employees
have
decision
competencies
regarding
important
aspects
of
implementing
the
(new)
strategic
orientation,
they
have
the
right
to
decide
how
the
facilities
and
machines
should
be
used
and
thus
to
define
and
test
individual
paths.
The
delegation
of
decision-making
competencies
makes
sense
because
heightened
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
is
the
prerequisite
for
making
any
important
decision.
In
this
way,
learning
processes
are
set
into
motion
that
expand
the
spectrum
of
available
crisis
management
strategies:
New
action
options
are
discerned
and
the
competencies
for
practically
implementing
these
action
options
are
facilitated.
Over
time,
situational
control
increases
under
these
circumstances.
Since
crisis
management
is
in
the
own
interest
of
the
members
of
the
organization,
an
increase
in
situational
control
leads
to
more
initiatives
concerning
the
solution
of
the
existing
problems.
Empowerment
motivates,
because
the
situation
is
not
only
experienced
as
requiring
change
but
also
as
changeable
(Gebert
et
al.,
2002).
This
provides
the
basis
for
an
improved
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
foreign
investor
and
the
acquired
company.
According
to
our
definition,
the
quality
of
cooperation
is
high
when
managers
and
employees
of
the
acquired
company
regard
the
foreign
investor
as
competent
and
serious,
and
when
they
work
with
the
foreign
investor
in
an
open
and
trustworthy
manner
(Piske,
2003).
The
foreign
investor
as
well
as
the
managers
and
employees
of
the
acquired
companies
will
interpret
intermediate,
small
successes
engendered
by
the
change
initiatives
- which
were
enabled
by
the
increase
in
situational
control
-
as
indications
that
the
right
path
has
been
found
and
that
the
new
strategic
orientation
introduced
by
the
foreign
investor
and
based
on
new
facilities
and
machines
is
beginning
to
take
effect.
This
fosters
a
mutual
appreciation.
In
this
process,
employees
and
managers
not
only
learn
action
alternatives
for
coping
with
critical
situations
on
a
task
level.
They
also
learn
on
an
interactive
level.
The
combination
of
increasing
situational
control
through
new
facilities
and
machines
as
well
as
through
enhancing
decision
autonomy
improves
the
chances
for
successful
and
thus
reinforceable
change
initiatives.
If
the
foreign
investor
or
high-ranking
managers
of
the
acquired
company
reinforce
such
initiatives,
this
also
reinforces the
employees’
willingness
to
propose
further
initiatives
as
well
as
the
managers’
willingness
to
support
these
initiatives.
These
mechanisms
facilitate
the
commitment
and
the
ability
of
all
involved
to
act
in
accord
with
the
new
cooperation
model
of
&dquo;empowerment.&dquo;
Empowerment
thus
reinforces
and
supports
itself
and
spawns
further
preconditions
for
an
ever-increasing
quality
of
cooperation
as
described
above
between
the
acquired
company
and
the
foreign
investor.
Moreover,
empowerment
enhances
trust.
Undoubtedly,
granting
decision
autonomy
implies
risks
for
the
foreign
investor,
who
will
tend
to
interpret
the
transfer
of
responsibilities
to
managers
and
employees
of
the
acquired
company
as
an
advance
in
regard
to
trust.
This,
in
turn,
makes
it
more
likely
that
the
foreign
investor
will
be
trusted
and
appreciated
reciprocally
(Buono/Bowditch
.1989),
thus
engendering
a
dynamic
reciprocal
process
that
is
also
confirmed
outside
the
context
of
acquisitions
(Tyler/Blader.
2000).
Concomitantly,
the
willingness
to
attribute
a
fair
amount
of
integrity
in
the
sense
of
a
procedural
fairness
to
the
foreign
investor
will
increase.
This
is
important
in
the
sample
of
acquisitions
studied
here
because
it
militates
against
the
widespread
fear that
the
foreign
investor
merely
seeks
to
brazenly
maximize
short-term
profits.
As
stated
above,
intermediate
successes
indicate
that
the
right
path
is
being
followed
and
that
the
new
(product
and
market
oriented)
strategic
orientation
is
beginning
to
pay off.
The
concurrent
subjective
explanations
of
this
success
on
the
part
of
the
work
force
increase
the
chances
that
this
new
goal
orientation
that
appears
to
be
suitable
for
steering
the
company
and
all
involved
out
of
the
crisis
becomes
a
commonly
shared
goal
orientation.
This
is
of
crucial
importance,
since
a
shared
goal
orientation
reduces
the
risks
of
decentralized
self-regulation
(Gebert
et
al..
2004).
A
106
common
goal
orientation
is
a
vital
medium
of
coordination.
It
fosters
the
coordination
between
the
company
and
the
foreign
investor
as
well
as
the
coordination
between
the
various
organizational
departments
(especially
production
and
sales)
within
the
acquired
company,
and
thus
obviates
frictions
regarding
cooperation
with
the
foreign
investor.
Moreover,
a
shared
goal
orientation
facilitates
the
development
of
mutual
trust
and
in
this
way
enhances
the
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
acquired
company
and
the
foreign
investor.
The
processes
described
above
back
the
thesis that
an
increase
in
decision
autonomy
fosters
the
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
acquired
company
and
the
investor.
This
is
true,
however,
only
if
there
exists
a
clear
strategy
upon
which
investments
are
based,
which
in
turn
heightens
material
and
cognitive
situational
control.
This
can
change
when
the
degree
of
the
granted
decision
autonomy
is
very
high.
According
to
our
understanding,
high
degrees
of
decision
autonomy
indicate
that
the
employees
and
managers
are
not
only
responsible
for
deciding
on
which
path
might
be
appropriate
for
meeting
previously
supplied
objectives.
Instead,
they
are
also
responsible
for
deciding
on
which
objectives
concerning
production,
quality,
and
marketing
are
to
be
pursued
in
the
first
place.
This
may
overstrain
the
employees
and
managers
regarding
their
skills
and
interactive
competencies,
since
in
the
beginning
of
the
post-acquisition
phase
they
may
not
yet
be
prepared
to
adequately
play
their
part
in
the
context
of
the
empowerment
model.
There
is
another
problem,
however,
that
is
independent
of
the
one
just
mentioned:
If
the
foreign
investor
decentralizes
the
goal-
setting
process
itself
-
i.e.,
if
the
acquired
company
is
responsible
for
determining
product,
quality,
and
sales
goals
-,
a
degree
of
decision
autonomy
will
be
reached
that
may
be
misinterpreted,
especially
in
the
first
years
of
the
post-acquisition
phase.
For
instance,
the
acquired
company
might
ask
itself
if this
could
be
a
manifestation
of
a
&dquo;laissez
faire&dquo;
attitude,
which
might
indicate
that
the
foreign
investor
is
no
longer
certain
about
his
own
objectives,
that
he
might
already
have
set
his
sights
on
other
acquisitions,
or
-
even
worse
-
that
he
might
plan
to
abandon
the
acquired
company
after
having
withdrawn
profits
that
justify
the
initially
invested
capital.
Such
interpretations
are
easily
comprehensible,
since
a
modicum
of
mistrust
will
presumably
always
remain
in
the
relations
with
the
foreign
investor,
and
since
the
foreign
investor’s
politics
directly
affect
all
members
of
the
acquired
company
on
an
existential
level.
On
the
basis
of
such
attributions,
a
very
high
level
of
decision
autonomy
engenders
a
new
cognitive-
emotional
quality
that
no
longer
defuses
threats,
but
instead
nourishes
new
fears.
Doubts
concerning
the
plans
of
the
foreign
investor
jeopardize
the
attribution
of
competence
and
integrity.
Moreover,
they
spawn
resentments
and
diminish
trust.
The
result
is
less
openness
and
a
decreased
appreciation
of
the
investor.
All
this
has
negative
ramifications
for
the
quality
of
cooperation,
the
enthusiasm
of
the
work
force,
and
thus
the
number
of
promising
individual
initiatives,
etc.,
so
that
a
negative
feedback
loop
concerning
the
quality
of
cooperation
is
set
in
motion.
This
leads
to:
Hypothesis
1:
The
relationship
between
the
degree
of
decision
autonomy
granted
to
the
acquired
company
on
the
one
hand
and
the
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
acquired
company
and
the
foreign
investor
on
the
other
is
not
linear,
but
curvilinear
(inversely
U-
shaped).
This
connection
is
more
pronounced
in
the
first
years
of
the
post-acquisition
phase.
Methods
Sample
In
the
years
2000
and
2001,
N=29
Polish
companies
and
N=16
companies
from
the
Russian
Federation,
whose
acquisition
by
German
investors
occurred
five
years
ago
(on
average),
participated
in
the
study.
All
of
these
companies
were
medium-sized
manufacturing
companies
from
various
industrial
sectors:
energy,
chemistry,
industrial
engineering,
construction,
food.
Most
of
them
had
a
work
force
of
200-1000
employees.
Of
the
N=95
companies
that
were
contacted
-
this
number
probably
approximates
the
total
number
of
German
acquisitions
in
Poland
and
the
Russian
Federation
(Piske,
2003)
-
46%
agreed
to
participate.
In
the
sample
studied
here,
organizations
and
their
subsidiaries
are
from
the
same
industrial
sector
-
a
constellation
that
tends
to
favour
the
success
of
an
acquisition
(Uhlenbruck/DeCastro,
2000).
There
are
no
significant
differences
(t-
Test)
between
participating
and
non-
participating
companies
regarding
industrial
107
sector,
number
of
employees,
or
gross
revenues
(Piske,
2003).
Data
Collection
As
is
well
documented
theoretically
and
empirically
-
e.g.,
by
Lawrence
and
Lorsch
in
1967
-
the
different
subsystems
within
an
organization
differ
with
respect
to
their
leadership
culture.
There
were
some
indications
to
this
effect
in
the
interviews
conducted
as
a
qualitative
pre-study.
Thus,
measurements
regarding
the
degree
of
decision
autonomy
would
only
yield
a
very
restricted
validity
if
they
were
collected
on
an
aggregate
level
of
the
whole
organization.
Additionally,
the
collaboration
between
the
foreign
investor
and
the
various
subsystems
of
the
acquired
company
(production,
sales,
etc.)
could
differ.
There
is
some
indication
that
the
investor
tends
to
view
production
more
globally,
but
to
organize
sales
more
locally
(Bartlett/Ghoshal,
1987),
which
subjects
the
various
subsystems
of
the
acquired
company
to
different
levels
of
pressure
to
conform
to
the
parent
company
(Doz/Prahalad,
1981).
Measuring
the
quality
of
cooperation
between
the
foreign
investor
and
the
acquired
company
-
if
realized
on
the
aggregate
level
of
the
whole
organization
-
would
likewise
yield
no
valid
results.
We
have
therefore
decided
to
assess
the
quality
of
cooperation
as
well
as
the
degree
of
decision
autonomy
on
the
level
of
the
subsystems
(production,
sales,
marketing,
and
finances).
The
relationship
between
decision
autonomy
and
quality
of
cooperation
is
thus
analyzed
in
N=187
organizational
departments.
From
each
organizational
unit,
2-10
managers/employees
were
randomly
selected
from
the
organization
chart
for
the
participation
in
the
study.
Only
those
individuals
who
were
already
working
for
the
organization
at
the
time
of
the
acquisition
were
eligible
for
random
selection.
Usually,
the
companies
provided
lists
of
these
employees,
from
which
the
participants
were
determined
by
lot.
A
total
of
N=804
employees
participated
in
the
study,
with
an
average
of
4,2
employees
per
organizational
unit.
47,5%
of
the
participants
were
women
and
52,5%
were
men;
42,7%
were
managers
and
57,3%
were
employees
with
no
leadership
functions.
All
participants
were
led
to
a
large
room
or
hall
(e.g.,
cafeteria,
auditorium),
where
they
were
introduced
to
the
research
project
and
assured
of
utmost
confidentiality.
The
participants
completed
the
questionnaire
in
the
presence
of
the
second
author
and
an
interpreter.
Questions
were
answered
and
it
was
ensured
that
the
participants
did
not
exchange
views
amongst
each
other
regarding
the
questionnaire.
High
interrater-reliabilities
(James
et
al.,
1984)
emerged
for
the
organizational
departments
as
well
as
for
the
respective
constructs.
For
decision
autonomy,
rwg
is
0,92,
and
for
quality
of
cooperation,
rwg
is
0,93.
The
answers
given
by
the
(on
average)
4,2
persons
per
subsystem
can
therefore
be
combined
and
expressed
by
the
mean
value.
Measurement
The
items
concerning
decision
autonomy
and
the
items
regarding
the
quality
of
cooperation
were
all
measured
on
a
5-point
Likert
scale,
ranging
from
&dquo;strongly
disagree&dquo;
to
&dquo;strongly
agree.&dquo;
The
items
for
measuring
decision
autonomy
are
shown
in
Table
1.
In
a
principle
component
analysis
of
the
4
items,
a
first
factor
emerged
with
high
loadings
of
all
items
and
a
52%
share
of
explained
total
variance.
This
justifies
adding
the
individual
values
to
a
scale
sum
value.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
is
a=.72.
The
items
for
measuring
quality
of
cooperation
are
also
shown
in
Table
1.
A
principle
component
analysis
yields
a
first
factor,
upon
which
all
items load
and
which
explains
46,1%
of
the
variance.
Cronbach’s
s
Alpha
is
a=.70.
Since
the
evaluations
of
decision
autonomy
and
quality
of
cooperation
are
from
the
same
person,
the
problem
of
percept-
percept
inflation
arises
(Crampton/Wagner
1994).
According
to
current
conventions,
if
a
factor
analysis
confirms
that
a
common
g-
factor
underlying
both
variables
does
not
exist,
and
that
the
two
variables
are
clearly
distinguishable
constructs,
the
problem
of
percept-percept
inflation
is
viewed
as
attenuated
or
as
non-existent.
A
confirmatory
factor
analysis
indeed
corroborates
the
analytical
distinguishability
of
the
two
constructs
(correlated
factors,
uncorrelated
residues;
GFI:
0,915;
AGFI:
0,882;
R1vlSEA:
0,063).
Analysis
and
Results
Table
2
shows
the
correlations
(the
respective
scale
sum
values)
regarding
the
108
J
TABLE
1:
Operationalization
of
the
constructs
(acquisition
study)
TABLE
2
Descriptive
Statistics
and
Correlations
a
109
organizational
units
between
the
degree
of
decision
autonomy
and
quality
of
cooperation.
It
also
provides
the
means
and
standard
deviations.
In
order
to
test
hypothesis
1,
a
regression
analysis
of
quality
of
cooperation
is
conducted
for
decision
autonomy.
We
regard
hypothesis
1
as
empirically
confirmed
when
the
quadratic
function
explains
significantly
more
variance
than
does
the
linear
function.
Thus,
the
gains
in
explained
variance
in
the
quadratic
model
as
compared
to
the
linear
model
are
crucial.
For
the
results,
see
Table
3.
The
results
of
the
regression
analysis
(Table
3)
indicate
that
the
relationship
between
the
degree
of
decision
autonomy
and
the
quality
of
cooperation
is
inversely
U-
shaped.
The
quadratic
term
and
the
gains
in
explained
variance
are
both
significant.
Figure
2
graphically
illustrates
this
inverse
U-shaped
progression.
In
order
to
examine
the
time
dependency
of
the curvilinear
progression
posited
in
the
hypothesis,
we
have
-
based
on
medians
-
compared
the
companies
whose
acquisition
has
occurred
within
the
last
five
years
with
those
companies
whose
acquisition
occurred
more
than
five
years
ago.
The
comparison
of
the
Tables
4
and
5,
and
the
Figures
3
and
4,
respectively,
shows
that
the
additionally
explained
variance
of
the
curvilinear
function
is
indeed
significant
and
substantial
in
that
part
of
the
sample
whose
time
of
acquisition
was
more
recent.
The
inverse
U-shaped
relationship
between
decision
autonomy
and
quality
of
cooperation
with
the
foreign
investor
is
thus
especially
pronounced
and
salient
in
the
first
years
after
the
acquisition.
Study
2
(Privatization)
Theory
and
Hypothesis
In
the
second
study,
empowerment
is
defined
by
dialogic
leadership.
In
contrast
to
a
monologic
leadership,
which
is
marked
by
the
leader’s
insistence
that
he
or
she
is
right
at
all
times,
the
construct
dialogic
leadership
pertains
to
a
social
situation
in
which
problems
are
solved
in
a
collective
spirit.
Dialogic
leadership
grants
subordinates
the
space
to
feel
free
and
voice
their
thoughts
and
doubts
concerning
the
strategies
implemented
by
the
organization.
Insofar
as
the
influence
potential
of
subordinates
rises,
dialogic
leadership
also
comprises
a
variant
of
empowerment,
namely
the
enhancement
of
the
subject-status
of
each
individual.
In
this
study,
the
successful
management
of
intra-organizational
change
is
measured
via
the
innovativeness
of
the
respective
organization.
Here,
the
construct
innovativeness
pertains
to
new
products
and
services,
but
also
to
intra-organizational
processes
(cf.
Table
6).
Privatization
was
accomplished
by
the
state’s
offering
low-
interest
loans
to
the
work
force,
so
that
managers
and
employees
could
buy
stocks
of
their
company
(employee
buy-out).
In
contrast
to
the
organizations
of
the
acquisition
study,
there
were
no
national
or
foreign
investors
who
provided
capital
and
thus
attempted
to
raise
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
over
the
economic
crisis.
This
means
that
the
situation
was
still
critical
after
the
privatization
and
that
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
remained
low.
From
a
theoretical
perspective,
a
more
negative
development
as
compared
to
the
acquisition
study
thus
appears
to
be
inevitable.
In
the
absence of
the
crucial
catalyst
-
the
increase
of
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
over
the
economic
crisis
through
investments,
for
example
-
all
offers
of
empowerment
(in
the
form
of
dialogic
leadership)
will
tend
to
fail.
Due
to
the
objective
lack
of
material
and
cognitive
situational
control,
dialogic
leadership
is
not
able
to
generate
functional
action
options.
Thus,
the
chances
for
the
generation
of
partially
successful
and
reinforceable
change
initiatives
are
slim.
Accordingly,
the
positive
development
described
in
conjunction
with
the
acquisition
study
does
not
ensue
here.
Instead,
feelings
of
helplessness
in
the
face
of
a
threatening
constellation
arise,
in
turn
engendering
resignation
and
disorientation
(Lazarus,
1991).
A
second
decisive
and
unfavourable
context
condition
in
the
case
of
the
privatization
study
is
the
absence of
a
clear
and
commonly
shared
goal
orientation,
which
means
that
the
companies
also
lacked
cognitive
situational
control.
Such
a
goal
orientation
may
be
indispensable
in
coping
with
the
economic
crisis.
There
are
two
reasons
for
why
the
privatized
natural
gas
companies
lack
this
shared
goal
orientation.
Firstly,
there
is
no
investor,
who
usually
provides
clear
strategic
objectives
along
with
his
investments.
Secondly,
due
to
the
low
situational
control,
there
are
few,
if
any,
110
FIGURE
2:
RESULTS
OF
REGRESSION
ANALYSIS
OF
QUALITY
OF
COOPERATION
ON
DECISION
AUTONOMY*
*variables
were
z-standardized
TABLE
4
Results
of
Regression
Analysis
of
Quality
of
Cooperation
in
Older
Acquisitions
on
Dialogic
Leadership
TABLE
5
Results
of
Regression
Analysis
of
Quality
of
Cooperation
in
Recent
Acquisitions
on
Dialogic
Leadership
111
FIGURE
3:
Results
of
Regression
Analysis
of
Quality
of
Cooperation
in
Older
Acquisitions
on
Decision
Autonomy*
*variables
were
z-standardized
FIGURE
4:
Results
of
regression
analysis
of
Quality
of
Cooperation
in
Recent
Acquisitions
on
Decision
Autonomy*
*variables
were
z-standardized
intermediate
successes
that
-
as
was
the
case
in
the
acquisition
study
-
foster
the
development
of
a
goal
orientation
that
spawns
hopes
for
ending
the
crisis
and
thus
becomes
a
commonly
shared
goal
orientation.
Consequently,
this
means
that
-
in
a
context
of
low
material
situational
control
and
as
the
result
of
the
lack
of
a
clear
and
commonly
shared
goal
orientation
-
an
empowerment
process
characterized
by
dialogic
leadership
increases
the
level
of
conflicts
and
thus
militates
against
the
prerequisites
for
the
development
of
clear
and
shared
goals.
In
the
absence
of
a
clear
and
112
Table
6:
Operationalization
of
the
constructs
(privatization
study)
Note:
(R)
=
recoded
common
goal
orientation,
the
already
scarce
resources
are
not
focused
on
a
few
(promising)
activities.
Thus,
increases
in
dialogic
leadership
do
not
result in
more,
but
in
fewer
impulses
for
innovation
that
are
implemented
effectively.
Under
favourable
conditions,
this
process
of
a
self-sustaining
downward
spiral
could
end
if
the
shareholders
view
their
capital
as
seriously
threatened
and
realize
that
a
modicum
of
a
clear
and
shared
goal
orientation
is indispensable
for
managing
the
crisis.
Nevertheless,
such
a
realization
should
not
be
taken
for
granted.
In
the
context
of
the
form
of
transformational
change
studied
here
(privatization
through
employee
buy-out),
however,
the
chances
for
such
an
insight
are
relatively
high:
Privatizations
of
this
kind
constitute
a
form
of
a
positive
sum
game.
If
the
company
is
successful,
the
price
of
the
shares
rises
for
all
involved
(result
interdependence,
as
described
by
Wageman
[2001]).
From
the
perspective
of
attribution
theory,
it
is
likely
that
the
work
force
of
the
respective
companies
will
see
a
connection
between
their
own
initiatives
and
the
success
of
the
company
because
these
are
rather
small
medium-sized
companies.
Thus,
the
combination
of
a
monetary
positive
sum
game
and
the
small
size
of
the
companies
entails
a
motivational
potential
that
may
be
activated
in
order
to
generate
a
clear
and
commonly
shared
goal
orientation.
If
the
attempt
succeeds
to
develop
a
clear
and
shared
goal
orientation
on
this
basis,
increases
in
dialogic
leadership
will
enhance
the
discernment
of
the
few
action
options
available
(low
situational
control)
and
the
transformation
of
these
action
options
into
a
sensible
collective
plan
of
action.
This,
in
turn,
may
once
again
engender
a
rising
rate
of
innovations.
(An
example
that
we
became
aware
of
ex
post:
Natural
gas
companies
attempted
to
utilize
the
already
certified
work
processes
for
drilling
gas
fields
for
the
installation
of
drinking
water
wells
[Baga,
2004].
This
enabled
the
development
of
a
new
product
for
which
an
outlet
market
existed.)
This
leads
to:
Hypothesis
2:
In
the
privatized
companies
of
the
Romanian
natural
gas
industry,
the
relationship
between
the
degree
of
dialogic
leadership
on
the
one
hand
and
innovativeness
on
the
other
is
not
linear,
but
curvilinear
(U-shaped).
113
Methods
Sample
N=5
privatized
medium-sized
companies
(with
350
employees
on
average)
from
the
Romanian
natural
gas
industry
whose
privatization
occurred
in
the
late
1990s
in
the
way
described
above
participated
in
this
study,
which
was
conducted
in the
year
2003.
The
third
author
is
Romanian,
and
she
was
able
to
contact
N=10
companies
out
of
the
(estimated)
population
of
approximately
N=30
privatized
natural
gas
companies.
N=5
of
these
companies
agreed
to
participate.
Systematic
differences
between
the
participating
companies
and
those
who
declined
are
not
known.
Measurement
For
the
same
reasons
already
described
in
the
section
on
the
acquisition
study,
in
this
study
we
have
also
measured
the
independent
variable
empowerment
(dialogic
leadership)
as
well
as
the
dependent
variable
innovativeness
on
the
level
of
organizational
departments.
We
were
thus
able
to
statistically
examine
the
relationship
of
interest
in
N=24
subsystems.
For
measuring
the
construct
empowerment
(dialogic
leadership),
items
on
a
5-point
Likert
scale
were
presented.
These
items
can
be found
in
Table
6
in
the
appendix.
A
principle
component
analysis
yielded
a
factor
with
an
Eigenvalue
of
1,96,
with
high
loadings
of
all
items.
This
factor
explains
65%
of
the
variance.
Thus,
the calculation
of
a
sum
value
for
each
subsystem
is
justified.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
is
a
= .73.
The
items
for
measuring
the
construct
innovativeness
are
also
contained
in
Table
6.
A
principle
component
analysis
yields
a
factor
with
an
Eigenvalue
of
2,72,
with
high
loadings
of
all
items.
This
factor
explains
45%
of
the
variance.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
is
a
=
.67.
A
sum
value
is
also
calculated
regarding
innovativeness.
In
each
subsystem,
a
manager
selected
at
random
assessed
the
degree
of
empowerment
and
another
manager
evaluated
the
degree
of
innovativeness
of
the
respective
subsystem.
Both
ratings
were
independent
of
one
another.
Thus,
our
data
were
collected
from
N=48
managers
(predominantly
middle-level
managers).
The
problem
of
percept-percept
inflation
(Crampton/Wagner,
1994)
does
not
arise
in
the
privatization
study.
Analysis
and
results
Table
7
shows
the
descriptive
statistics
concerning
the
two
variables
as
well
as
the
correlation.
The
statistical
analysis
was
analogous
to
Study
1.
The
hypothesis
2
is
regarded
as
confirmed
when
the
quadratic
term
explains
significantly
more
variance
than
does
the
linear
term.
The
result
of
this
analysis
is
shown
in
Table
8.
In
assuming
a
linear
relationship
between
empowerment
and
innovativeness,
merely
3%
of
the
innovation
variance
can
be
explained
(non-significant
result).
Contrariwise,
in
assuming
a
U-shaped
relationship
between
empowerment
and
innovativeness,
20%
of
the
innovation
variance
can
be
explained
(significant
result).
The
17%
gain
in
explained
variance
is
likewise
significant.
We
therefore
regard
Hypothesis
2
as
confirmed.
Figure
5
graphically
illustrates
the
examined
connection.
General
Discussion
Limitations
In
a
long-term
research
project,
it
is
not
always
possible
to
determine
precisely
which
assumptions
were
posited
ex
ante
and
which
ones
were
developed
ex
post.
Many
of
the
arguments
reported
above
were
indeed
formulated
ex
ante
and
guided
us
in
our
research.
As
mentioned
above,
however,
some
specific
explanations
of
the
respective
findings
of
the
two
partial
studies
were
developed
after
having
reflected
on
the
different
results
of
the
studies.
Thus,
our
study
is
of
an
explorative
nature;
the
central
hypotheses
require
further
study.
The
empirical
findings,
which
we
believe
to
be
of
high
relevance
theoretically
and
practically,
as
well
as
our
attempts
at
providing
a
thorough
and
comprehensive
explanation
for
these
findings
may
serve
to
inspire
such
further
research.
In
order
to
test
the
appropriateness
of
the
explanations
provided
here,
longitudinal
studies
would
be
most
helpful.
This
can
be
deduced
from
the
findings
presented
in
Tables
4
and
5,
respectively.
Only
through
longitudinal
research
could
the
dynamics
of
positive
and
negative
feedback
processes
be
studied
in
detail.
We
have
only
analyzed
cross-sectional
data.
This
is
another
limitation
of
our
study.
Lastly,
the
results
of
the
privatization
study
are
to
be
viewed
with
caution,
because
114
TABLE
7
Descriptive
Statistics
and
Correlations
a
a N
=
25,
b scale
sum
value
TABLE
8
Results
of
Regression
Analysis
of Innovativeness
on
Dialogic
Leadership
FIGURE
5:
Results
of
Regression
Analysis
of Innovativeness
on
Dialogic
Leadership*
*variables
were
z-standardized
115
the
sample
is
comparably
small.
In
this
study,
only
one
person
assessed
the
independent
variable
and
another
assessed
the
dependent
variable.
Summary
We
see
the
central
results
of
our
analysis
in
the
following
two
findings:
Firstly,
the
effects
of
empowerment
depend
upon
the
respective
context.
In
our
study,
the
decisive
context
variable
was
the
type
of
transformational
change.
Takeovers
by
foreign
investors
are
connected
with
a
material
and
cognitive
enhancement
of
situational
control;
in
this
context,
empowerment
is
therefore
primarily
an
opportunity.
In
contrast,
privatizations
in
the
form
of
a
management
buy-out
are
not
systematically
connected
with
the
theoretically
crucial
two-fold
enhancement
of
situational
control.
In
this
context,
empowerment
thus
constitutes
more
of
a
risk.
Secondly,
the
relationship
between
empowerment
and
change
management
is
not
(primarily)
linear,
but
curvilinear.
Therefore,
in
the
context
of
acquisitions
by
foreign
investors
empowerment
also
entails
risks.
Likewise,
in
the
context
of
privatizations
in
the
form
of
management
buy-out
empowerment
also
entails
opportunities.
Both
studies
illustrate
that
the
prevalent
linear
assumptions
(&dquo;the
more,
the
better&dquo;
or
&dquo;the
less,
the
better&dquo;)
are
inappropriate.
The
curvilinear
functions
reveal
that
not
only
is
the
context
in
which
empowerment
occurs
important
with
regard
to
success,
but
also
the
respective
level
of
empowerment.
Managerial
Implications
Material
Situational
Control
Viewing
both
studies
simultaneously
gives
the
impression
that
-
given
a
high
discrepancy
between
the
economical
crisis
on
the
one
hand
and
the
objective
(!)
coping
options
on
the
other
-
empowerment
in
the
sense
of
granting
decision
autonomy
and/or
facilitating
dialogic
leadership
(critical
upward
communication)
may
cause
more
harm
than
good.
Carried
to
the
extreme,
if
objectively
no
action
options
exist,
decentralizing
decision
competencies
and
a
dialogic
leadership
style
may
only
bring
about
internal
adaptation
processes
(i.e.,
a
lowering
of
standards)
and
disorientation.
Success
depends
on
the
combination
of
conveying
objective
action
options
on
the
one
hand
and
facilitating
empowerment
on
the
other.
Stated
bluntly,
empowerment
without
situational
control
is
useless.
Situational
control
without
empowerment
will
only
suboptimally
make
use
of
the
crisis
management
potential
inherent
in
situational
control.
Thus,
one
variable
is
not
(sufficiently)
effective
without
the
other.
Herein
lies
the
described
importance
of
the
investments
in
the
acquisition
sample.
In
these
companies,
empowerment
is
initially
connected
with
the
quality
of
cooperation
for
this
reason.
In
the
context
of
transformational
change,
empowerment
is
only
expedient
as
a
leadership
tool
if
the
management
can
actively
create
action
alternatives
(e.g.,
through
investments,
political
negotiations,
etc.).
Cognitive
Situational
Control
According
to
our
interpretation,
coping
with
an
economic
crisis
via
transformational
change
requires
a
clear
and
commonly
shared
goal
orientation,
without
which
a
concerted
collective
focus
on
a
few
initiatives
is
not
possible
(Gebert
et
al.,
2002).
The
adequate
and
consensual
evaluation
of
action
options
requires
a
clear
and
shared
goal
orientation,
which
is
necessary
for
prioritizing
feasible
and
promising
projects.
It
must
therefore
be
specified
what
empowerment
should
consist
of
(Wageman,
2001)
and,
at
the
same
time,
what
its
restrictions
are
(Gebert/Boemer,
1999).
Strategic
plans
of
German
investors
do
not
contradict the
idea
of
empowerment.
On
the
contrary,
they
are
the
preconditions
for
empowerment.
Thus,
we
view
the
parallel
enhancement
of
material
and
cognitive
situational
control
combined
with
empowerment
as
the
constellation
with
the
greatest
potential
for
overcoming
the
crisis.
Positive
Sum
Game
and
Organization
Development
Establishing
a
positive
sum
game
(result
interdependence)
should
be
helpful
particularly
in
smaller
companies.
In
our
view,
the
facilitation
of
a
positive
sum
game
is
the
great
promise
of
an
employee
buy-out
over
the
course
of
a
few
years.
Based
on
this
positive
sum
game,
the
chances
increase
for
the
development
of
a
clear
and
commonly
shared
goal
orientation,
which
in
turn
makes
it
more
likely
that
task
conflicts
(Jehn,
1995),
which
117
Gebert,
D.,
Boerner,
S.,
&
Lanwehr,
R.
(2002).
Promoting
organizational
innovativeness:
Balancing
chances
and
risks
of
situation
control.
Paper
presented
at
The
Academy
of Management
Meeting,
August
9-14,
Denver
Colorado.
Gebert,
D.,
Boerner,
S.,
&
Lanwehr,
R.
(2004).
The
more
situation
control,
the
more
innovation?
Putting
the
linearity
thesis
to
the
test.
International
Journal
of
Entrepreneurship
and
Innovation
Management, 4
(1),
98-114.
Gersick,
C.
J.
G.
(1991).
Revolutionary
change
theories:
A
multilevel
exploration
of
the
punctuated
equilibrium
paradigm.
Academy
of Management
Review,
16
(1),
10-36.
Greenwood,
R.
&
Hinings,
C.
R.
(1996):
Understanding
radical
organizational
change:
Bringing
together
the
old
and
new
institutionalism.
Academy
of
Management
Review,
21
(4),
1022-1054.
Hambrick,
D.
C.
&
Canella,
A.
A.
(1993).
Relative
standing:
A
framework
for
understanding
departures
of
acquired
executives.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
36
(4),
733-762.
Hardy,
C.
&
Leiba-O‘Sullivan,
S.
(1998).
The
power
behind
empowerment:
Implications
for
research
and
practice.
Human
Relations,
51
(4), 451-483.
Herrenkohl,
R.
C.,
Judson,
G.
T.,
&
Heffner,
J.
A.
(1999).
Defining
and
measuring
employee
empowerment.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavioral
Science,
35
(3),
373-
389.
James,
L.
R.,
Demaree,
R.
G.,
&
Wolf,
G.
(1984).
Estimating
the
within-group
interrater
reliability
with
and
without
response
bias.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
69
(1),
85-98.
Jehn,
K. A.
(1995).
A
multimethod
examination
of
the
benefit
and
detriments
of
intragroup
conflict.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
40
(2),
256-282.
Kane,
A.,
Argote,
L.,
&
Levine,
J.
M.
(2002).
Social
identity
and
knowledge
transfer
between
groups.
Paper
presented
at
the
The
Academy
of
Management
Meeting,
Denver
2002.
Kelly,
M.
J.,
Schaan,
J.-L.,
&
Joncas,
H.
(2002).
Managing
alliance
relationships:
Key
challenges
in
the
early
stages
of
collaboration.
R&D
Management,
32
(1),
11-22.
Larsson,
R.
&
Lubatkin,
M.
(2001).
Achieving
acculturation
in
mergers
and
acquisitions:
An
international
case
survey.
Human
Relations, 54
(12),
1573-1605.
Lawrence,
P.
J.
&
Lorsch,
J.
(1967).
Organization
and
environment.
Boston:
Harvard
Graduate
School
of
Business
Administration.
Lazarus,
R.
S.
(1991).
Emotion
and
adaptation.
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Leach,
D.
J.,
Wall,
T.
D.,
Rogelberg,
S.
G.,
&
Jackson,
P.
R.
(2005).
Team
autonomy,
performance,
and
member
job
strain:
Uncovering
the
teamwork
KSA
link.
Applied
Psychology:
An
international
review,
54
(1),
1-24.
Luthans,
F.
&
Kreitner.
R.
(1985).
Organizational
behavior
modification
and
beyond:
An
operand
and
social
learning
approach
(2nd
ed.).
Glenview,
IL:
Scott,
Foresman.
Marks,
M.
L.
&
Mirvis,
P.
H.
(2001).
Making
mergers
and
acquisitions
work:
Strategic
and
psychological
preparation.
Academy
of Management
Executive,
15
(2),
80-94.
Pearce,
C.
L.
&
Sims
Jr.,
H.
P.
(2002).
Vertical
versus
Shared
Leadership
as
Predictors
of
the
Effectiveness
of
Change
Management
Teams:
An
Examination
of
Aversive,
Directive,
Transactional,
Transformational,
and
Empowering
Leader
Behaviors.
Group
Dynamics:
Theory,
Research,
and
Practice,
6
(2),
172-197.
Piske,
R.
(2003).
Integration
management
as
a
moderator
of
the
impact
of
cultural
diversity
on
conflict
and
cooperation
after
German
Acquisitions
in
Eastern
Europe.
Paper
presented
at
the
llth
European
Congress
of
Work
and
Organizational
Psychology,
May
14-17,
Lisbon,
Portugal.
Romanelli,
E.
&
Tushman,
M.
L.
(1994).
Organizational
transformation
as
punctuated
equilibrium:
An
empirical
test.
Academy
of Management Journal,
37
(6), 1141-1166.
Shamir,
B.,
House,
R.
J.,
&
Arthur,
M.
B.
(1993).
The
motivational
effects
of
charismatic
leadership:
A
self-concept
based
theory.
Organization
Science,
4
(4),
577-594.
118
Sheremata,
W.
A.
(2000).
Centrifugal
and
centripetal
forces
in
radical
new
product
development
under
time
pressure.
Academy
of Management
Review,
25
(2),
389-408.
Staniszkis,
J.
(1991).
Dilemmata
der
Demokratie
in
Osteuropa.
In:
R.
Deppe,
H.
Dubiel,
&
U.
Rödel
(Hrsg.)
Demokratischer
Umbruch
in
Osteuropa.
(S.
326-347).
Frankfurt
am
Main:
Suhrkamp.
Tushman,
M.
L.
&
Romanelli,
E.
(1985).
Organization
evolution:
A
metamorphosis
model
of
convergence
and
reorientation.
In:
L. L.
Cummings
&
B.
M.
Staw
(Eds.),
Research
in
organizational
behavior
(Volume
7).
(pp.
171-222).
Greenwich.
Tyler,
T.
R.
&
Blader,
S.
L.
(2000).
Cooperation
in
groups.
Procedural
justice,
social
identity,
and
behavioral
engagement.
Ann
Arbor:
Braun-
Brumfield.
Uhlenbruck,
K.
&
De
Castro,
J.
(2000).
Foreign
acquisitions
in
central
and
eastern
Europe:
Outcomes
of
privatization
in
transitional
economies.
Academy
of
Management Journal, 43
(3),
381-402.
Wageman,
R.
(2001).
How
leaders
foster
self-
managing
team
effectiveness:
Design
choices
versus
hands-on
coaching.
Organization
Science,
12
(5),
559-577.