Transfer Effects in Large Acquisitions: How Size-specific Experience Matters

1. Transfer Effects in Large Acquisitions: How Size-specific Experience Matters Kimberly M. Ellis, Taco H. Reus, Bruce T. Lamont, Annette L. Ranft Academy of Management Journal In Press

2. AMJ Timeline 2009 • January 29 Initial submission • April 5 Reviews & decision received • October 19 Second submission • December 18 Reviews & decision received 2010 • April 19 Third submission • June 6 Reviews and conditional accept • Oct 6 Fourth submission • Oct 19 Accepted

3. Round 1 Main Issues Revisions Focused the paper around its contribution to transfer theory instead of M& A and transfer—returned to original psychology literature, complete rewrite Deleted hypothesis 1 • Theoretical motivation and contributions are unclear • Hypothesis 1 is too general, obvious (and probably indefensible)

4. Round 1 Main Issues Revisions Focused on size-related experience, controlled others. Changed title. More data. Robustness checks. Clarified target-to-target & bidder-to-target focus, major rewrite of hypotheses, all grounded in transfer theory • Need to differentiate types of experience, not just general experience • Clarify theory and hypotheses development

5. Round 1 Main Issues Revisions Clarified data description Revised performance measure per Reviewer 1. Clarified cultural measure • Data description not clear; data may be inadequate • Cultural and performance measures dubious

6. Round 1It just keeps going… Main Issues Revisions Pre-deal performance of target and acquirer, size, simultaneous deals added. Alternate analyses as robustness checks. Heckman procedure learned and added • Need to include more controls • Endogeneity

7. Round 1Reviewer Wrap-up We focused primarily on Reviewers 1 & 3; they offered very detailed critical comments . This strategy got us through the next round, not without alienating Reviewer 2, however. • Reviewers 1 is demanding better theory • Reviewers 1 & 3 were the most critical • Reviewer 3 had extensive methodological concerns • Reviewer 2 doesn’t believe the results

8. Round 2 Main Issues Revisions Issues we interpreted as minor were nor perceived that way by Reviewer 2 We better understood and were able to address the conceptual concerns, this was the main focus again in this round • Reviewer 2 turned hostile • Hypotheses development still a big issue, went too far in some ways and not far enough in others

9. Round 2 Main Issues Revisions We added more literature to be complete and systematic, which wasn’t what they wanted Slight modification of DV Collected archival culture data to validate culture measure • Literature needs more precision and coverage • Still minor problems with dependent measure • Survey measures need validation, Reviewer 2 is focused on culture

10. Round 2 Main Issues Revisions Added 4 appendices & 23 tables of alternate analyses in responses to the reviewers Reduced length from 56 to 42 pages • Supplemental analyses are needed • Paper is too long, 35 page request

11. Round 3 Remaining issues Revisions Revised moderation arguments for all three hypotheses, but 2a & b were the primary culprits Deleted huge parts of the literature review, removed two “offensive” citations Reduced paper to 35 pages • Reviewer 3 has renewed theoretical concerns • Reviewers 1 & 2 have signed off • Moderation arguments need strengthening • Streamline literature review • Paper too long

12. Observations and advice • It’s not a race, although perseverance is important • Clarifying your theoretical contribution is THE key • The first revision is the toughest and most important • Don’t reject your own paper • Don’t cut length initially • Don’t treat the “minor” comments lightly • Don’t be afraid to collect more data • Do present all of the results of alternate analyses for the reviewers to see, possibly in appendices • Do take advantage of the learning opportunities