HR Factors Affecting Mergers and

Acquisitions on Banking Sector in

Pakistan.

Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University,

Multan.

Abstract
Purpose- The purpose of this study is to explore the significant HR factors which
can effect the M&As in banking sector in Pakistan.

Findings-The result shows that Different variables like involvement of HR

department communication, cultural clashes, job security, procedural hiring, policy
changes, and salary and fringe benefits changes has significant effect on the M&As .

Limitations-This study is conducted on a particular sectors so factors significant

for it may not be significant for the other sector.

Key Words- Mergers and acquisitions, human resource management, cultural

clashes, communication, Pakistan.

Introduction
Although they are often uttered in the same breath and used as though they were
synonymous, the terms merger and acquisition mean slightly different things.
When one company takes over another and clearly established itself as the new owner,
the purchase is called an acquisition. From a legal point of view, the target company
ceases to exist, the buyer "swallows" the business and the buyer's stock continues to be
traded.

In the pure sense of the term, a merger happens when two firms, often of about the same
size, agree to go forward as a single new company rather than remain separately owned
and operated. This kind of action is more precisely referred to as a "merger of equals.
"Both companies' stocks are surrendered and new company stock is issued in its place.
For example, both Daimler-Benz and Chrysler ceased to exist when the two firms
merged, and a new company, DaimlerChrysler, was created.

In practice, however, actual mergers of equals don't happen very often. Usually, one
company will buy another and, as part of the deal's terms, simply allow the acquired firm
to proclaim that the action is a merger of equals, even if it's technically an acquisition.
Being bought out often carries negative connotations, therefore, by describing the deal as
a merger, deal makers and top managers try to make the takeover more palatable.

A purchase deal will also be called a merger when both CEOs agree that joining together
is in the best interest of both of their companies. But when the deal is unfriendly - that is,
when the target company does not want to be purchased - it is always regarded as an
acquisition.

Whether a purchase is considered a merger or an acquisition really depends on whether

the purchase is friendly or hostile and how it is announced. In other words, the real
difference lies in how the purchase is communicated to and received by the target
company's board of directors, employees and shareholders.

The Role of HR
HR may be in a unique position to question assumptions about the nature of assets and
synergies. Investment bankers have a narrower training, and are rewarded for making
deals; human issues tend to get lost or overlooked.
The HR manager, on the other hand, has an opportunity to influence events so that each
company comes out ahead — but, to do that, the HR manager must preserve their own
position! Before, during, and after the merger, HR may be responsible for assuring that
cultural issues do not derail integration; for increasing innovation; for keeping
communication going in all directions (upwards, downwards, across departments, across
organizations); and for lessening the impact on those who are “reduced” and on the
survivors.

Even at the highest level of the company, HR can have a role. The new leadership team
will need to work together on a daily basis, despite cultural and personality differences,
power issues, and other barriers. HR can act as a facilitator, and also as a coach to
individual executives. Personal and team assessments can be helpful in enabling team
members to work together constructively.
Opportunities for HR
Mergers and acquisitions are often planned and executed based on perceived cost savings
or market synergies; rarely are the “people” and cultural issues considered. Yet, it is the
people who decide whether an acquisition or merger works. Do not reproduce without
written permission. The opportunity for HR lies in the fact that customer and employee
reactions determine whether the newly combined company will sink or swim.. If a
convincing argument is made to senior leaders, HR may gain more power to increase the
effectiveness of the organization, and may be able to mold the cultural changes instead of
being pushed along by them.
Hazards for HR
One result of many mergers is the consolidation of staff departments. Eliminating one of
the HR departments is sometimes stated up front as a justification for the merger.

For the “losing” department, layoffs tend to be a fact of life. The “winning” department
may find a substantially higher workload. If both HR departments are kept, there may be
issues of interdependence and autonomy, and hard decisions about which policies and
services should be shared and which should stay separate.

In many cases, the parent company has taken on a great deal of debt to finance an
acquisition. The next logical step is to cut costs — and HR is often the first department
on the block. Thanks to outsourcing agencies, even HR people in formerly indispensable
functions such as benefits administration can now be replaced for short-term gains (and,
sometimes, long-term losses — but since the stock market rewards cuts in head count,
this may not be an overriding issue for leaders). Internal OD consultants may be the first
to be cut, since they are not clearly required to keep products or services rolling out. This
makes it particularly important for HR managers to make a strong value case to the senior
leadership.

Problem Statement
“To determine the significant HR factors affecting M&As in banking sector in Pakistan”.

Methodology
It is a descriptive research. We will conclude the effects of different HR factors on
mergers and acquisitions. We restricted our research to the banking sector. We will tell
how much HR factors have effected on mergers or acquisitions. We used the Primary
data to collect the information. In this we used questionnaire and interview method. We
used personally administrated questionnaire and structured face to face interview
techniques. We conducted our research in Multan. We used purposive sampling for this
research. We visited 5 banks there. Due to the requirement of our research, we took two
sampling units the one was manager of the merged or acquired bank and other was
employee of the merged or acquired banks. The sample size we took was 60. 10 were
managers and 50 were employees. We visited the following banks.

Standard Chartered Bank.

National Bank of Pakistan.

Royal Bank of Scotland.

Habib Metropolitan Bank.

National Investment Bank.
Literature Review
Jane Bryson finds in Managing HRM Risk in a Merger most common problems in the
mergers indicate the crucial importance of HRM factors and include the problems like
difficulty blending cultures and systems, fall-off in service quality, poor motivation, loss
of key personnel, loss of focus on long term objectives. The most common HR factors
affecting the M&As are job security, procedural fairness, communication. Carmen Castro
Casal and Edelmira Neira Fontela finds in Transfer of socially complex knowledge in
mergers and acquisitions that knowledge and communication is a very important factor in
the managing the M&As. There were two basic things which were discussed in it, the
influence on the transfer of knowledge from the acquired firm to the acquirer of the
socially complex nature of the knowledge to be transferred and the influence of
knowledge base possessed by the acquiring firm. The results showed that the social
complexity of the knowledge, the knowledge base existing in the acquiring firm, and the
frequency of rich communication media had a positive influence on knowledge transfer.

Elina M. Antila and Anne Kakkonen finds in factors affecting the role of HR managers in
international M&As that six sets of factors can be found to affect the roles of HR
managers in general: the orientation of top management to people management; the
skills, abilities and competencies of HR managers themselves; the HR function and its
characteristics; the expectations that line managers have of HR; external factors; and
internal factors The results show that top management sees the participation of HR
managers as being very important and agree that it should be a common policy. This
study finds that the most important contributing factors to HR managers’ participation are
HR managers’ own capability and activity throughout the IM&A process.
Vassilis M. Papadakis in the role of broader context and the communication
program in M&As implementation success finds what actually influences a M&As
successful implementation. Results indicate that the existence of a communication
program is among the most influential factors in the successful implementation of an
M&A. Other determining factors are aspects of the external corporate environment, the
formalization of the decision-making process and the consequentiality of the M&A.

Chris Rees and Tony Edwards finds in Management strategy and HR in international
mergers: choice, constraint and pragmatism, that The range of contextual factors that
impact on management strategy and HR in the post-merger period (such as corporate
structures and cultures, pressures from shareholders and regulatory and legal
environments at national and international level) with an examination of the interests and
power of various groups of actors within the firm. Numerous studies and experiences
have suggested that HR and employment relation issues are poorly handled in merger and
acquisitions, the problem is integration of HR strategies and difference of culture among
different management styles.

Peter McGraw in Influences on HRM practices in MNCs: a qualitative study in the

Australian context finds that In local firms where Mergers & Acquisition occurs don’t put
much influence on Human Resource Management practices however big organizations
and Multinational Companies put more influences on HRM practices but these practices
are not properly followed or implemented. The core HR assets such as recruitment,
training and compensation and performance systems which are consistent not only
facilitate integration but also leverage capability both during pre or post M&A period.
HRM practices have included Scientific Management, more strategic and planned
approaches to the recruitment selection and maintenance of workforces, job re-design,
computerization, just in time production techniques, formal grievance handling
procedures and quality initiatives.

Bou - Wen Lin et. Al.in “Mergers and Acqusitions as a human resource stratagey” finds
that the usefulness of M & A as a strategy tool depends on the local firm’s human
resource capability. HR capability serve as the assign for firm’s to a asimdale effectively
acquired firms. M & A strategy can be effective when the firm has high HR capability
and can manage the post-acquisitions integration effectively. HR strategy should be
considered as an integrated part of corporate strategy. M & A can be an effective growth
strategy for banking firms. M & A contribute to firm productivity share holder value and
profitability. HR capability is more valuable when the firm makes out of stake acquisition
in that the post acquisition integration is more challenging.

Jeffrey A. Krug and W. Harvey Hegarty in “Predicting who stays and who leaves after an
Acqusations: A Study of Top Managers in a Multinational Firm” finds that Executives’
perceptions of the merger announcements interactions with manager in the acquiring
company after the meager and long term effects of the merger each has a significant
effect on determining whether executives stayed or leave. Executives have less
favourable perceptions and were more likely to leave when their company was acquired
by a foreign multinational. The merger announcement lead to a variety of dysfunctional
outcomes such as increased job dissatisfactions and intent to turnover among a target
company’s manufacturing employees company can decrease dysfunctions outcomes
through communication by keeping employees informed of changes before they occur.
Pre-acquisition negotiations do appear to have a significant effect on executive’s
perception and they play a larger part in determining the level of future firm level top
management departures.

Variables
With the help of literature review, we identified the important HR factors which can
affect the process of M&As in banking sector in Pakistan. These are involvement of HR
departments, communication, cultural clashes, job security, procedural hiring, policy
changes, and salary and fringe benefits changes. We will analyze that what the employees
and managers say about the M&As process. For them which factor is more important and
which is less.

Analysis
We had different questionnaires for managers and employees. The variables included
were same but the way of questioning was different. First of all we will analyze the
response of managers.

Managers
Q No 1) What was the core reason for the M&As?
1) Expand into new markets
2) Create economies of scale.
3) Limit competition.
4) To globalize.
5) To meet certain gov regulations
6) Others _________________(specify plz)

Core reason of M&As

Frequenc Valid
y Percent Percent Cumulative Percent
Val Expand into new
3 30.0 30.0 30.0
id market
Create economies
2 20.0 20.0 50.0
of scale
To globalize 1 10.0 10.0 60.0
To meet certain
4 40.0 40.0 100.0
Gov. regulation
Total 10 100.0 100.0
There were different reasons for the M&As but mostly managers were of the view i-e
40% said that M&As was due to meet the gov regulations.30% said to expand the market.

20% of the view to create economies of scale. 10% said they think merger was to
globalize the business.

Q No 2) Does the organization involve HR department in M&As?

1) Yes 2) No

Q No 3) If YES, then tick the level of involvement of HR department.

_______________________________________________________________
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Involvement of HR department

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 10 100.0 100.0 100.0

Level of involvement of HR department

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 1 10.0 10.0 10.0
2 1 10.0 10.0 20.0
3 3 30.0 30.0 50.0
5 4 40.0 40.0 90.0
8 1 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 10 100.0 100.0

100% managers said that the HR department was involved in the process of the M&As.
But the level of involvement was different for them. There were 10 levels. 0 refers to the
no involvement whereas 10 refer to the complete involvement of HR department. 40%
managers were of the view that HR department was involved till the level 5. 10 % said
level 1st and 10 % said level 2nd. 30 % were of the view that involvement level was till
3rd level and only 10% said that level 8th was involved. This result is not accurate as the
S.D is greater than 0.05 and the mean level is 4th. Thus data is scattered, it means some
people may think the involvement was not near to 4th level, it may be 1st or 2nd or may
be 7th or 8th.
Q NO 4) Does the merger announcement was communicated to the employees?

1) Yes 2) Somewhat 3) No

Was merger communicated to employees?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 8 80.0 80.0 80.0
some what 2 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 10 100.0 100.0

80% managers said that they communicated the announcement of M&As to the
employees. Whereas, only 20% said that there was somewhat communication. It means
that employees were not completely informed but they were provided some information
about the M&As.

Q NO 5) What was the reaction of employees to news of M&As?

a) Strongly Positive b) Positive c) Neutral d) Negative e) Strongly Negative.

Reaction of employees

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly positive 1 10.0 11.1 11.1
positive 2 20.0 22.2 33.3
neutral 4 40.0 44.4 77.8
negative 2 20.0 22.2 100.0
Total 9 90.0 100.0
Missing System 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

Mostly managers i.e. 44% said that the employees’ reaction was neutral when they heard
the news of M&As. It means mostly managers think that there was no effect on the
employees with the news of M&As. 33 % managers said that the news brought a positive
effect in the employees means that employees were happy. Only 23 % thought that news
made the employees upset.
Q NO 6) Do the company changed the salary and compensation packages after
M&As?

a) Yes b) No.

Q NO 7) If YES, this change was

a) Positive b) Negative.

Salary and compensation packages

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 6 60.0 60.0 60.0
no 4 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 10 100.0 100.0

Effect of merger/acquisition on salary

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid positive 6 60.0 100.0 100.0
Missing System 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

60% managers said that there was change in salary and fringe benefits due to M&As and
that change was 100% positive i.e. salary packages increased after M&As. While 40 %
managers said that there was no change in the salary and fringe benefits.

Q NO 8) Was there an obvious difference between the cultures of two

organizations?

a) Yes b) No.

Q NO 9) If YES, what was the major step you took;

• Tried to establish only one culture in organization, which you think was
good.
• Tried to mix both the cultures and then establish it

Cultural difference was present

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid yes 9 90.0 90.0 90.0
no 1 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 10 100.0 100.0

What major step you take

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid try to establish one best
culture 4 40.0 44.4 44.4
tried to mix both cultures 5 50.0 55.6 100.0
Total 9 90.0 100.0
Missing System 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

90% managers said that there was an obvious difference between the cultures of two
organizations. While to manage this difference, almost 56% managers tried to mix both
the cultures while 44% managers tried to establish only one good culture which they
thought was best for the organization.

Q NO 10 ) What kind of differences you face during post merger period?

• Corporate structure
• Regulatory or legal environment
• Organization culture.
• Pressure from share holders.
• Others _________________________(Specify)

Differences Faced during post merger period

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid corporate structure 2 20.0 20.0 20.0
regulatory or legal
environment 3 30.0 30.0 50.0

organization culture 5 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 10 100.0 100.0
About 50% managers were of the view that there was an obvious change in the
organization culture. 30 % find the difference in regulatory or legal environment of the
organization while 20 % thinks that there was difference in corporate structure of the
organization.

Q NO 11) What thing makes you to stay in the company?

• Merger announcement itself.

• Positive long term goals.
• Interaction with top management of acquiring company.
• Handsome salary and fringe benefits.
• Any other

What makes you stay in the company

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid M&A announcement itself 1 10.0 10.0 10.0
Positive long term goals 6 60.0 60.0 70.0
handsome salary & fringe
benefits 3 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 10 100.0 100.0

For 60 % managers M&As proved to be the way towards the positive long term goals. M&As
were a good thing for them and thus they don’t want to quit the company. 30 % said that
increased salary packages stopped them from quitting the company. While only 10% managers
said that it was the M&As announcement which remained them to the company.

Employees
Now will analyze the responses of employees when they were asked questions about
M&As.

Q NO 1) Do the top management consulted with the employees during the

negotiation phase of M&As?

a) Yes b) No

Q NO 2) If YES, what was your reaction?

a) Highly positive b) Somewhat positive c) Neutral d) Somewhat negative

 e) Highly negative.

Employee consultation during negotiation

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 16 32.0 32.0 32.0
no 34 68.0 68.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Reaction of employee

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid positive 5 10.0 33.3 33.3
neutral 9 18.0 60.0 93.3
highly negative 1 2.0 6.7 100.0
Total 15 30.0 100.0
Missing System 35 70.0
Total 50 100.0

68% employees said that they were not told about the M&A even they were not asked
about their opinion during this phase. 32 % employees said that they were told by the
management about the M&As. Out of these 60% employees said that there reaction on
listing this news was neutral i.e. there was no effect on them because of this M&A. 33%
employees said that they were happy with the news while only 7% employees said that
they were really upset with the news and for them this was some thing dark for their
future.

Q NO 3) How often you do discussions with your boss

a) Rarely b) Sometimes c) Often d) Usually e) Always

Q NO 4) How do you feel about communicating with him?

a) Very Nice b) Nice c) Neutral d) Bad e) Very Bad

Communication with boss

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid always 14 28.0 28.0 28.0
usually 11 22.0 22.0 50.0
 often 3 6.0 6.0 56.0
sometimes 12 24.0 24.0 80.0
rarely 10 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Reaction while communicating with boss

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid very nice 14 28.0 28.0 28.0
nice 26 52.0 52.0 80.0
neutral 9 18.0 18.0 98.0
bad 1 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Employees give mixed response. All types of employees in almost equal number were
present. While the 80% employees said that they feel nice while communicating with
their bosses whenever they talk to them.

Q NO 5) How often you do discussions with your colleagues?

a) Rarely b) Sometimes c) Often d) Usually e) Always

Q NO 6) How do you feel about communicating with him?

a) Very Nice b) Nice c) Neutral d) Bad e) Very Bad

Communication with colleagues

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid always 17 34.0 34.0 34.0
usually 15 30.0 30.0 64.0
often 11 22.0 22.0 86.0
sometimes 7 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Reaction while communicating with colleague

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid very nice 18 36.0 36.0 36.0
 nice 20 40.0 40.0 76.0
neutral 10 20.0 20.0 96.0
bad 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Employees give mixed response. All types of employees in almost equal number were
present. It varied from person to person. While the 76% employees said that they feel
nice while communicating with their colleagues whenever they talk to them.

Q NO 7) How often you do discussions with your juniors?

a) Rarely b) Sometimes c) Often d) Usually e) Always

Q NO 8) How do you feel about communicating with him?

a) Very Nice b) Nice c) Neutral d) Bad e) Very Bad

Communication with juniors

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid always 6 12.0 12.0 12.0
usually 27 54.0 54.0 66.0
often 7 14.0 14.0 80.0
sometimes 8 16.0 16.0 96.0
rarely 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Reaction while communicating with juniors

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid very nice 15 30.0 30.0 30.0
nice 25 50.0 50.0 80.0
neutral 10 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Employees give mixed response. All types of employees in almost equal number were
present. It depends on person to person. While the 80% employees said that they feel nice
while communicating with their juniors whenever they talk to them.

Q NO 9) Is there a difference between the previous and existing work environment

of organization?

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly Disagree

Q NO 10) If agreed, this difference is

a) Positive b) Neutral c) Negative

Difference between existing and previous culture

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly agree 7 14.0 14.0 14.0
agree 19 38.0 38.0 52.0
neutral 10 20.0 20.0 72.0
disagree 12 24.0 24.0 96.0
strongly disagree 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Kind of Difference between existing and previous culture

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid positive 13 26.0 48.1 48.1
neutral 9 18.0 33.3 81.5
negative 5 10.0 18.5 100.0
Total 27 54.0 100.0
Missing System 23 46.0
Total 50 100.0

52% employees were agreed that there existed a difference between existing and previous
culture. Out of these, for 48% employees this change was positive which means that they
liked the new culture. 33% employees were not affected by the new culture while only
19% employees found the new culture as bad for them.
Q NO 11) Do you feel that your job is secure?

a) Rarely b) Sometimes c) Often d) Usually e) Always

Job security

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid always 4 8.0 8.0 8.0
usually 7 14.0 14.0 22.0
often 11 22.0 22.0 44.0
sometimes 20 40.0 40.0 84.0
rarely 8 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

About 44% employees feel that their job is secure while 56 % employees are ambiguous
about their job security.

Q NO 12) Are you satisfied with the ways of hiring the employees in the
organizations?

a) Highly satisfied b) Somewhat satisfied c) Neutral d) Somewhat dissatisfied

e) Highly satisfied

Satisfaction with current hiring methods

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid highly satisfied 8 16.0 16.0 16.0
satisfied 20 40.0 40.0 56.0
neutral 13 26.0 26.0 82.0
dissatisfied 8 16.0 16.0 98.0
highly dissatisfied 1 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

56% employees were satisfied with the hiring procedure of the organization. While 26
% employees feel no difference. Only 18 % employees are of the view that they are not
satisfied with the hiring procedure.

Q NO 13) Is there any difference between the rules and regulations of the
organization before and after the merger?

a) Yes b) To some extant. c) No

Q NO 14) If yes then, did you get complete knowledge about the changed policies?

a) Yes b) To some extant c) No

Difference between rules of 2 organizations

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 21 42.0 42.0 42.0
To some extant 19 38.0 38.0 80.0
No 10 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

Knowledge about changes in policy

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 8 16.0 21.6 21.6
To some extant 26 52.0 70.3 91.9
No 3 6.0 8.1 100.0
Total 37 74.0 100.0
Missing System 13 26.0
Total 50 100.0

80% employees said that there was a change in rules &regulations of the two
organization, out of which 91% said that they were told well about changed policies and
they did not faced any problem due to unawareness of the changed policies of new
organization.

Q NO 15) Is there any change in the salary and fringe benefits?

a) Yes b) No

Q NO 16) If YES, this change is,

a) Positive b) Negative

Change in salary and fringe benefits

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 19 38.0 38.0 38.0
no 31 62.0 62.0 100.0
 Total 50 100.0 100.0

Direction of change

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Positive 13 26.0 72.2 72.2
Negative 5 10.0 27.8 100.0
Total 18 36.0 100.0
Missing System 32 64.0
Total 50 100.0

62% employees said that there was no change in their salary or fringe benefits due to
M&As. While out of 38% employees who claimed a change , 72% employees said that
their salary packages were increased only 28% employees said that their salary was
decreased due to M&A.

Conclusion
There exists a difference between the views of managers and employees about M&As.

In banking sector, most of the M&As were due to meet the government regulation to
meet the minimum capital requirement (MCR). Other factors were not that much
significant. The M&As retained the managers in the banks because 60% managers
realized the long term goals ahead while 30% said that the handsome salary packages are
also golden opportunity for them. All managers said that HR department was involved in
M&As. There are some factors which had different responses from employees and
managers. Communication is a very important factor in the M&As. 80% managers said
that they told employees about M&As while only 32% employees agreed about the fact
that they had knowledge about M&A from their managers. This biasness is may be due to
the fact that the way of communication used would be sufficient for the managers but not
for the employees. Regarding the communication of employees with there bosses,
colleagues and juniors, there was a mixed response that how much they communicate
with them .But whenever they communicate, about 80% employees feel nice and
comfortable. Reaction on the news of M&As was also different for both. 23% managers
negatively behaved towards the news while only 7% employees reacted negatively
towards this news. Cultural change was also different for both of them. 90% managers
said that both cultures were change from one another. And 56% managers tried to mix
both the cultures while 44% managers tried to established only one culture which was
best in their own eyes. Only 52% employees felt the change between two cultures. While
among them 48% were happy with the change. As far as salary and fringe benefits are
concerned, 60% managers said that there was an increase in their salary packages. While
only 38% employees said that there was change in their salaries. Out of which 72% said
that salary was increased while only 28% told that their salaries were decreased.

Limitations
• This research is limited only to the banking sector.

• This research may not have the significant findings because the sample size was
very small because of small numbers of M&As in banking sector in Pakistan.

• As the variables are identified from the researches done in different countries so
some variables are not significant in Pakistan’s context.

• HR practices in Pakistan are different from other countries this has also an impact
on the research.

• The result may also be not accurate due to the biasness of the respondents.

References
Jane Bryson (2003), “Managing HRM risk in a merger”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 14-30

Carmen Castro Casal and Edelmira Neira Fontela(2007),“Transfer of socially complex

knowledge in M&As”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 11 No 4, pp 58-71.

Elina M. Antila and Anne Kakkonen (2008) , “Factors affecting the role of HR managers
in international mergers and acquisitions”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 280-299
Vassilis M. Papadakis (2005), “The role of broader context and the communication
program in merger and acquisition implementation on success”, Management Decision,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 236-255

Chris Rees and Tony Edwards (2009), “Management strategy and HR in international
mergers: choice, constraint and pragmatism”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol 19, no 1, pages 24–39.

Peter McGraw (2004), “Influences on HRM practices in MNCs: a qualitative study in the
Australian context”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 535-546

Jeffrey A. Krug and W. Harvey Hegarty (2001), “Predicting who stays and who leaves
after an Acqusations: A Study of Top Managers in a Multinational Firm”, Stratageic
Management Journal, Vol 22, No 2, pp 185-196.

Bou- Wen Lin and Po-Chien Li (2006), “ Mergers and Acquisitions as a Human
Resource Strategy”, International Journal Of Manpower, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp 126-142.