Question: If mergers and acquisitions quite often end up providing a
If mergers and acquisitions quite often end up providing a competitive disadvantage, why do so many of them take place? Given the poor track record of such outings, is the continuing M&A activity a result of principal–agent problems and managerial hubris? What can be done to overcome principal–agent problems? Are there other reasons for poor performance?
Relevant QuestionsAlliances and acquisitions can sometimes lead to less access or higher prices for consumers. Comcast bought NBC Universal (from GE). When one content provider and the Internet access provider are the same, will this lead to ...Multinational enterprises (MNEs) have an impact far beyond their firm boundaries. Assume you are working for a small firm that supplies a product or service to an MNE. How might your relationship change as the MNE moves from ...The chapter describes the role of culture in the successful implementation of strategy. Consider an employment experience of your own or of someone you have observed closely (e.g., a family member). Describe to the best of ...How can a top management team lower the chances that key managers will pursue their own self-interests at the expense of stockholders? At the expense of the employees? At the expense of other key stakeholders?1. Why is Facebook the number-one social media company, and not Myspace which enjoyed a first-mover advantage?2. Given that hallmarks of good and bad strategy (discussed in Chapter 1), do you think Facebook has a good ...
Post your question