No abstract

nature of M&A, no common way of measuring M&A success has been identified so far (Javidan et al., 2004).Superior M&A performance may be explained by prior M&A experience. Since studies analyzing this do not present consistent results (Al-Laham, Schweizer, and Amburgey, 2010;Hayward, 2002), the question arises how firms can manage M&A to increase the probability of M&A success. In the alliance context, Kale and Singh (2007: 981) assume that "[f]irms with greater alliance success are presumed to have alliance capability." We argue that the development of an M&A capability (Laamanen and Keil, 2008) and the existence of a dedicated M&A function as a new phenomenon have a positive impact on M&A performance. So far, there are no studies stating what exactly constitutes an M&A function (or how it is built).This study contributes to M&A research in several ways. First, our paper analyzes the relationship between an M&A function, M&A capability, and

The topic of corporate distress and turnaround has been of interest to organizational change theory for many decades. This article considers existing reviews in discussing the current body of turnaround literature across multiple research fields and structures its work along a holistic framework. The numerous facets of corporate turnaround, resorting to general corporate restructuring research classifications, are clustered in a more detailed manner than those that merely rely on two commonly employed turnaround dimensions: ''retrenchment'' and ''recovery.'' The authors develop an agenda for future research based on this cross-disciplinary literature aggregation by highlighting current gaps and offering potential research questions. The review contributes to the understanding of corporate distress and turnaround by integrating different research streams. Additionally, the work emphasizes the need for further harmonization and operationalization in turnaround success metrics.

Although the term ‘business model’ is widely used in the business world, the academic research on this issue is sparse. This paper tries to close that gap by developing a typology of different business models along three dimensions: value chain constellation, market power of innovators versus owners of complementary assets and total revenue potential. This typology consists of four different types of business model (Integrated, Layer Player, Market Maker and Orchestrator) and is built on the resource based view as a conceptual foundation. Moreover, this paper discusses how business models may change over time, due to a varying competitive landscape.