While mergers and acquisitions are commonly thought of as belonging to the business world, they occur in educational contexts as well, and some research has considered the consequences of these mergers (e.g., Kohvakka 2021). Studies point to positive merger outcomes, such as improving teaching efficiency (Agasisti, Egorov, and Maximova 2021), becoming more competitive with other academic institutions, and generating new ideas and concepts (Deiaco, Gren, and Melin 2009). Numerous attempts have been made to merge higher education institutions (e.g., Estermann and Pruvot 2015; Harman and Harman 2003), but most adopt private sector strategies, and these have not been particularly helpful in the educational field (Kezar and Eckel 2002; Ribando and Evans 2015). In addition, little is known about the way merging affects faculty, administrative staff, or students (Ribando and Evans 2014; Slade et al. 2021).

We investigated the merging of academic organizations for two main reasons. First, the research on higher education mergers is limited compared to private sector mergers (Pinheiro, Geschwind, and Aarrevaara 2016), therefore, we sought to shed light on the effects of organizational mergers which are particularly relevant to the academic environment. Second, studies focusing on higher education institutions have consistently ignored the personal and emotional experiences of the staff (both academic and administrative), and students (Wollscheid and Røsdal 2021) and emphasized organizational goals (Johnes and Tsionas 2019). In light of current social and institutional changes, we believe it is critical to understand how merging impacts the people within the institution. 

Given these underlying social factors, we chose to focus less on the organization and more on the human side of the merger process. More specifically, we argued that considering a diverse population (faculty, administrative staff, and students) within the academy would provide a new angle in this research field. Studies suggest the uncertainties and ambiguities involved in mergers evoke strong psychological reactions from employees (Bhal, Uday Bhaskar, and Venkata Ratnam 2009), including rising levels of stress (Cartwright and Cooper 1993), identity dissonance (Legendre and Bowen 2020), and fear (Sethi, Mishra, and Dash 2010). Following this line of research, we focused on threat appraisal, the psychological mechanism underlying adverse reactions to change (Arbona and Jimenez 2014). This mechanism is linked to well-being and psychological health (Kaltiainen et al. 2020), absenteeism, and quit intentions (Fugate, Prussia, and Kinicki 2012).

We have extended previous knowledge by examining personal and contextual factors related to an individual's threat appraisal. On the personal level, we explored the potential antecedent of dispositional resistance to change (RTC) (Oreg 2003) on threat appraisal of organizational mergers in the educational context. The dispositional resistance to change represents a meaningful concept for capturing individual differences in the personality-based inclination to resist change (Oreg and Sverdlik 2011). Studies agree that individuals high in RTC are less likely to accept changes and mostly see negative outcomes of the change (Oreg et al. 2009).

We also focused on a mechanism that represents a level of congruence between the attributes faculty, administrative staff, and students possess and those of their academic environment, commonly called the person-organizational fit (P-O fit) (Kristof 1996). P-O fit theory argues that individuals are attracted to and selected by organizations whose work environments reflect the individuals’ values and cultures (Kristof-Brown and Billsberry 2013). Given the controversial impact of the P-O fit during an organizational change (Caldwell 2013), we argued that it would be interesting to see the extent to which P-O fit interferes with the relationships between resistance to change and threat appraisal of organizational mergers.

The data were collected from two higher education institutions that had recently merged. Following the types of mergers suggested by Harman and Harman (2003), this merger represented two partners (vs. multi-partner merger) and involved institutions from the same sector (single sector vs. different sectors). It was a ‘take-over’ merger, as a smaller college (Campus B) merged with a larger one (Campus A). The merger was imposed: it was initiated by the government, not by the institutions themselves (voluntary). Imposed mergers turn out to be less successful than voluntary ones (Skodvin 1999), giving us an additional reason to select these institutions for our study. Participants and Procedure The sample comprised 429 participants. The data were collected from both institutions' faculty, students, and administrative staff. Descriptive statistics of the categorical variables are presented in Table 1. Participants from Campus A comprised 78.6% of the sample. The average age for students from both institutions was 28.08 years (SD = 7.03). The data were collected via an online survey using Qualtrics software. To recruit participants, we partnered with the administration of both institutions to increase the response rate, secure legitimacy, and select representative sampling. An email invitation was sent to the general population, including faculty, administrative staff, and students. All participants were asked to confirm informed consent to participate in the study. We ensured the complete confidentiality of data and the identity of the participants as part of the requirements of the Ethics Committee. The survey website was open for eight weeks. Three reminder emails were sent in weeks 2, 4, and 6 of the survey. A total of 429 individuals responded to our survey with useable questionnaires. We address this point in the discussion.

As expected, our findings showed individuals’ attitudes toward organizational change were influenced by their dispositional inclination to resist change. The findings showed a positive relationship between RTC and social cohesion threat was less relevant for individuals with a low level of P-O fit. Thus, the uncertainty associated with an organizational merger mainly threatened those who were strongly connected to their specific institution. They were likely also more worried about their place associated with the merger process. At the same time, those individuals with a weak or low P-O fit were likely less emotionally involved in the organizational change; therefore, the congruence between their and organizational values affected them less. The impact of P-O fit is significant across organizations, including higher education institutions. A high degree of compatibility between the employee and the organization greatly benefits the organization and its composition. However, our research points to the phenomenon's dark side and raises several issues of concern. First, a high fit seems to increase the risk that an employee will fully identify with the organization's values, and this may encourage conformity and compliance (Caldwell et al. 2009). A high fit level strengthens the attachment to the status quo, hindering readiness for new ideas and ways of doing things (Caldwell 2013) and perhaps decreasing critical thinking and objective judgment. It is likely that in some places, conformity and compliance will be welcomed by employers. Second, the degree of employee caring and belonging to the organization during organizational change matters. Employees with high P-O fit are known to be involved in organizational life, including citizenship behavior and commitment (Vilela, González, and Ferrín 2008). However, based on our findings, it seems that a strong fit is more relevant to routine situations and less so in the context of organizational change, especially the merging process.

Caldwell, Steven D. 2011. “Bidirectional Relationships Between Employee Fit and Organizational Change.” Journal of Change Management 11 (4): 401–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.590453. Caldwell, Steven. 2013. “Change and Fit, Fit and Change.” In The Psychology of Organizational Change, edited by Shaul Oreg, Alexandra Michel, and Rune Todnem By, 1st ed., 255–74. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.017. Caldwell, Steven D., David M. Herold, and Donald B. Fedor. 2004. “Toward an Understanding of the Relationships Among Organizational Change, Individual Differences, and Changes in Person-Environment Fit: A Cross-Level Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (5): 868–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.868. Caldwell, Steven D., Cathy Roby-Williams, Kathy Rush, and Theresa Ricke-Kiely. 2009. “Influences of Context, Process and Individual Differences on Nurses’ Readiness for Change to Magnet Status.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 65 (7): 1412–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05012.x. Estermann, Thomas, and Enora Bennetot Pruvot. 2015. “The Rise of University Mergers in Europe.” International Higher Education, no. 82 (September): 12–13. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.82.8867. Evans, Linda. 2017. “The Worst of Times? A Tale of Two Higher Education Institutions in France: Their Merger and Its Impact on Staff Working Lives.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (9): 1699–1717. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1119107. Kohvakka, Mikko. 2021. “Justification Work in a University Merger: The Case of the University of Eastern Finland.” European Journal of Higher Education 11 (2): 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1870517. Kristof, Amy L. 1996. “PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF ITS CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND IMPLICATIONS.” Personnel Psychology 49 (1): 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x. Kristof-Brown, Amy L., and Jon Billsberry, eds. 2013. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions. Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. Johnson. 2005. “CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS’ FIT AT WORK: A META-ANALYSIS OF PERSON-JOB, PERSON-ORGANIZATION, PERSON-GROUP, AND PERSON-SUPERVISOR FIT.” Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x. Raaper, Rille. 2016. “Academic Perceptions of Higher Education Assessment Processes in Neoliberal Academia.” Critical Studies in Education 57 (2): 175–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.1019901. Slade, Catherine P., Saundra Ribando, C. Kevin Fortner, and Kristin V. Walker. 2021. “Mergers in Higher Education: It’s Not Easy. Merger of Two Disparate Institutions and the Impact on Faculty Research Productivity.” Studies in Higher Education 47 (6): 1215–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1870948. Wollscheid, Sabine, and Trude Røsdal. 2021. “The Impact of Mergers in Higher Education on Micro-Level Processes – a Literature Review.” Tertiary Education and Management 27 (3): 257–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-021-09074-4.