When what we get is not what we want-The role of implemented versus desired merger patterns in support for mergers.

Integrating an intergroup perspective on mergers with discrepancy theories, we
argue that merger partners aim for merger patterns that benefit their group’s standing best. Importantly, we hypothesize and show that the discrepancy between what merger partners want and what they get affects outcomes that are essential to merger success. Specifically, we demonstrate that perceived fit between the implemented and the desired merger pattern predicts support for the merger. We further show that this effect is mediated by perceived fairness (Study 1) and emotional reactions to the merger (Study 2). Our findings generalized across a field study that investigated a real merger between two institutions of higher education (Study 1) and an experiment (Study 2).