DOI: 10.1002/tie.

22156

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Critical success factors determining performance

of cross-border acquisition: Evidence from
the African telecom market

Sanjay Dhir1 | Rishabh Rajan1 | Viput Ongsakul2 | Richard Afriyie Owusu3 |

4
Zafar U. Ahmed

1
Department of Management Studies, Indian
Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India Abstract
2
NIDA Business School, National Institute of This study investigates the factors affecting Bharti Airtel's cross-border
Development Administration, Bangkok,
postacquisition performance in an African market. This study describes the relation-
Thailand
3
Department of Marketing, Faculty of ships among various factors such as technical capability, affiliated firm's absorptive
Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, capacity, and organizational learning capabilities, which determine the successful
Kalmar and Vaxjo, Sweden
4
operations of the Zain acquisition deal in South Africa. This paper adopts a qualitative
School of Business, International University,
Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh approach to identify factors that influence the postacquisition performance. Seven
City, Vietnam
factors are identified based on the literature. Consequently, it has become a necessity
Correspondence to encapsulate these factors in suitable proportions. In this study, we have developed
Sanjay Dhir, Professor of Strategic
a total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) to analyze the postacquisition perfor-
Management, Department of Management
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, mance of Bharti Airtel in South Africa. Our research has highlighted six dynamic fac-
New Delhi, India.
tors (organizational learning capability, knowledge management, technology
Email: sanjaydhir.iitd@gmail.com
capability, technology relatedness, acquirer's absorptive capacity, and national culture
difference) that affect the firm's postacquisition performance. The interpretive struc-
tural model (ISM) and total interpretive structural model for postacquisition perfor-
mance are built-up. The developed TISM will support academics and practitioners to
develop their understanding of acquisition performance of parent companies in the
context of telecom business in the South African market.

KEYWORDS

case study, knowledge, performance, postacquisition, technology, TISM

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are corporate strategy and tactical
business activities between two organizations, which helps companies to
enter new emerging markets (Birkinshaw, Bresman, & Håkanson, 2000),
achieve higher revenue goals, and gain a competitive advantage (Koza &
Lewin, 2000). The organizations also improve the product development
process, innovation (Hitt, Hoskisson, & Ireland, 1990), and competitive-
ness (Dhir, Ongsakul, Ahmed, & Rajan, 2019) through M&A. An acquisi-
tion is the primary takeover of one organization by another to achieve
the scope of economies and improve the organization's capabilities
(Ranft & Lord, 2002). An acquisition can help the acquirer to fill a
technical gap, develop skills, build knowledge (Barkema &
Schijven, 2008; Lei & Hitt, 1995), and gain market access (Harrison,
Hitt, Hoskisson, & Ireland, 1991). In addition, holding companies can
enhance their performance and improve technological synergies in
the changing business environment. The primary purpose of any
M&A is to globalize a firm's business (Norbäck & Persson, 2008),
improve the firm's performance (Dhir et al., 2019), and gain market
access (Harrison et al., 1991). The acquisition process is an important
corporate and business strategy (Elias, 2019) for entering new cross-
border markets, product development (Grimpe, 2007), enhancing

Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev.. 2020;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tie © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1
2 DHIR ET AL.
business performance, and gaining competitive advantage (Cloodt,
Hagedoorn, & Van Kranenburg, 2006; Kongpichayanond, 2009). Knowl-
edge, experience, and learning (Ahammad, Tarba, Liu, & Glaister, 2016)
can help a firm to become more successful in a competitive environment
(Zaheer, Hernandez, & Banerjee, 2010). Some scholars have found that
experience, prior knowledge of acquisition, technical capabilities (Han,
Jo, & Kang, 2018), and relatedness of technology affect the efficiency of
affiliated companies after M&A (Ranft & Lord, 2002; Zaheer et al., 2010).
There has been rare scholarly work in the area of performance after
cross-border acquisition and competitive advantage. Previous works
have focused on the process of M&A (Pichlak, 2016), business strategy
(Bindra, Parameswar, & Dhir, 2019; Melin, 1992), and the M&A perfor-
mance (Graebner, Heimeriks, Huy, & Vaara, 2017) in terms of wealth cre-
ation, innovation, value creation, product development, and learning
(Singh, Chauhan, & Dhir, 2019; Singh & Dhir, 2019). However, in those
studies, less attention was paid to factors affecting the postacquisition
value creation and performance of its affiliated companies (Cartwright &
Schoenberg, 2006; Dhir et al., 2019).
This paper tries to identify the variables that can affect the perfor-
mance of the parent company after an acquisition to gain emerging new
markets and competitive advantage. What are the relationships between
identified factors? The principal goal of this study is to identify and summa-
rize the factors affecting postacquisition performance and to build up total
interpretive structural modeling (TISM). The TISM methodology (Euchi,
Bouzidi, & Bouzid, 2019; Parameswar, Dhir, & Sushil, 2019; Srivastava &
Sushil, 2013; Sushil, 2012; Sushil, 2017) provides a hierarchical model
(Dhir, 2017; Sandeepa & Chand, 2018) of the identified factors and the
mutual dependence between those identified factors (Hasan, Dhir, &
Dhir, 2019; Yeravdekar & Behl, 2018). In this study, we have highlighted
the importance of the TISM method because of its ability to provide a
complete explanation and interpretation (Bamel, Dhir, & Sushil, 2019;
Patri & Suresh, 2017; Singh & Sushil, 2013) of a specific topic. TISM
method provides diagraphs that reflect the relationship between the identi-
fied factors (Khatwani, Singh, Trivedi, & Chauhan, 2015; Singh &
Sushil, 2013). Finally, we developed a hierarchical structure of the identi-
fied factors and validated it using the Zain acquisition case in South Africa.
This study is conducted as follows. First, the authors discussed a
brief background of literature to clarify the definitions and under-
standing of the study. Next, in Section 3, we focused on the various
steps of TISM methodology and Zain acquisition case study. The
results of this research are presented in Section 4. The conclusion and
various implications for academicians and practitioners are presented
in Section 5. Finally, this study is completed by the limitations and
scope of future studies.
2 | R E LA T E D T H E O R E T I C A L
B A CKG R O U N D
2.1 | Cross-border M&A and business performance
M&A can be viewed as a popular organizational business strategy to
reach new markets (Harrison et al., 1991; Oguji & Owusu, 2017;
Weber & Tarba, 2013) through consolidation of assets or organization
(Datta, 1991; Gomes, Angwin, Weber, & Yedidia Tarba, 2013). This
strategic process helps companies to increase market share and com-
petitive advantage without creating another business unit
(Trautwein, 1990). In the globalization age, organizations are using
strategic arrangements such as alliance (Etemad, Wright, &
Dana, 2001; Holtbrügge, 2004), joint ventures (Parameswar &
Dhir, 2019), and acquisitions to sustain in the changing competitive
market (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Holtbrügge & Baron, 2013; Ireland,
Hitt, & Vaidyanath, 2002). The cross-border acquisition process has
been widely used to gain access to new markets (Dhir & Sushil, 2017;
Neary, 2007). Some scholars have suggested that technological acqui-
sitions outperform nontechnical acquisitions in the global market.
Technological acquisitions may lead to greater value creation, organi-
zational innovation (Puranam, Singh, & Zollo, 2006), and successive
performance of its affiliated organizations in cross-border deals
(Ahuja & Katila, 2001). The performance after M&A is often seen as a
symbol of synergy benefits (Collins, Holcomb, Certo, Hitt, &
Lester, 2009; Harrison et al., 1991) that involve technology innova-
tion, value creation, and product development (Agarwal, Jain, Sinha, &
Dhir, 2020; Parameswar, Hasan, Dhir, & Ongsakul, 2019). The main
expectation of any acquisition is to gain a new market, gain a cus-
tomer base (Mandal, Love, & Irani, 2003), develop skills, and innova-
tive performance (Crook, Ketchen Jr, Combs, & Todd, 2008).
According to Hurley and Hult (1998), the absorption capacity of any
organization, management of knowledge, learning, and specialized
abilities of employees can positively affect the cross-border perfor-
mance after an acquisition (Alon & Rottig, 2013; Halawi, Aronson, &
McCarthy, 2005; Irwin, Hoffman, & Lamont, 1998; Meschi &
Metais, 2006). Some scholars have examined that all M&A have
occurred not just to learn and acquire knowledge (Barkema &
Schijven, 2008; Lei & Hitt, 1995), but also to gain a market edge and
expand the existing firm's product range globally (Grimpe, 2007;
Norbäck & Persson, 2008). Postacquisition performance depends on
many factors. Managerial attention, employee commitment, motivation
(Alon & Rottig, 2013; Gomes et al., 2013), and learning ability (Dhir
et al., 2019; Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010) supports the perfor-
mance of the affiliated firm after acquisition (Lavie et al., 2010). The
expansion of technology, skill, and knowledge-base can enhance the
firm's innovative performance during M&A (Ahuja & Katila, 2001;
Colombo & Rabbiosi, 2014). According to Ahuja and Katila (2001), if
affiliated organizations are related in terms of technology and knowl-
edge, M&A has a superior performance. Several scholars have argued
that technical knowledge of the affiliated firm (Ranft & Lord, 2000) can
enhance performance in cross-border deals. Firm performance in the
global market is influenced by corporate governance (Martin &
McConnell, 1991; Parrino & Harris, 1999; Shalender & Yadav, 2019),
prior experience (Han et al., 2018), cultural differences, investment
decisions, and information disclosure (Ahammad et al., 2016;
Inkpen, 2000; (Morosini, Shane, & Singh, 1998). For example, organiza-
tions may face disputes between employees because of inequality in
corporate culture (Gupta & Gupta, 2019) and national culture (Appiah-
Adu & Blankson, 1998; Ojala & Tyrväinen, 2007; Weber, 1996).
DHIR ET AL.
2.2 | Organizational learning capability and cross-
border performance
Organizational learning theory (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) helps in
understanding the questions related to organization management and
its effectiveness. Organizational learning theory suggests that new
knowledge (Hurley & Hult, 1998) and exploitative R&D activities
(Belderbos, 2003) help to generate technological innovations within
firms (Brown & Duguid, 1991). There are two different types of learn-
ing strategies within organizations, first, exploration; and second,
exploitation. Exploration relates to the disclosure of different data,
knowledge, and expertise to enhance firm's novel performance,
whereas exploitation is the modification of available knowledge to
exploit new opportunities (Lavie et al., 2010; March, 1991; Samiei &
Habibi, 2019). Explanatory learning is more profitable in the pre-
acquisition phase, while exploitative learning is beneficial in the
postacquisition performance (Lavie et al., 2010). Organizational learn-
ing supports the firm in building knowledge (Chakrabarty &
Bass, 2016), exploring new techniques and skills, and, therefore, it
leads to better firm performance (Halawi et al., 2005). Organizational
learning capabilities support knowledge transfer, knowledge exploita-
tion and exploration, and skill development (Bonache & Verde, 2011) and improves international acquisition performance
Brewster, 2001; Van Deusen & Mueller, 1999; Vermeulen &
Barkema, 2001). Organizational learning capabilities help in improving
organizational innovation and business performance (Brown &
Duguid, 1991; Van Deusen & Mueller, 1999), as it enables the firm to
deal with various uncertainties in the business (Chrysostome, 2010;
Chrysostome & Lin, 2010; Hu, 2014). According to Barney (1991), the
capacity of organizational learning and knowledge can assist
companies in achieving market access and competitive advantage
(Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Van Deusen & Mueller, 1999).
Knowledge resources can facilitate learning (Cavaleri, 2004), knowl-
edge sharing activities, and exploration of new knowledge within
organizations (Ho, 2008). Learning can occur at many levels in an
organization: the level of the individual, group level, and organizational
level (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2000; Crossan, Lane, &
White, 1999). Similarly, learning outcomes at these levels can facilitate
the smooth flow of information (Argote et al., 2000) within the organi-
zation and enhance performance by sharing and assessing knowledge
(Collinson, 2004). Acquired knowledge, skills, and competence can
enhance organizational innovation (Brown & Duguid, 1991) and busi-
ness performance (Hu, 2014; Singh, 2009) in a competitive market.
Organizational learning can help in gaining knowledge, understanding
the competitive market environment, and ultimately, it allows firms to
distinguish new market opportunities (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle,
2011; Van Deusen & Mueller, 1999). Strategy researchers have exam-
ined that firms with greater potential for learning have higher level
of organizational innovation and synergistic gains (Belderbos, 2003;
Hurley & Hult, 1998). Some scholars also found that organizational
learning has a positive effect on innovation after M&A (Brown &
Duguid, 1991; Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Knowledge crea-
tion and learning are processes that can improve innovations within
organizations (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Cavaleri, 2004). Therefore,
3
organizational innovation depends on high level of skills,
knowledgebase (Tsai, 2001), and resources of the organization
(Lin, 2007). Prior alliance experience and learning support firm to
develop their creativity and knowledge bases, and also adopt new
technologies to compete for the market (Hwang & Kim, 2007). Knowl-
edge integration and learning also depend on the individual's experi-
ence (Argote et al., 2000) and organizational learning culture (Jo &
Joo, 2011). Developed knowledge and experience can support firms
toward improving competition (Argote et al., 2000; Hurley &
Hult, 1998) during M&A. Hence, the sharing of knowledge and learn-
ing processes will greatly affect the postacquisition performance
(Lakshman, 2011).
2.3 | Influence of knowledge and experience on
acquisition performance
Knowledge is an essential resource of any firm that helps to create
value, synergy, and M&A performance in a competitive environment
(Darroch, 2005; Dhir et al., 2019; Lakshman, 2011). Knowledge facili-
tates innovation (Martin-de Castro, Lopez-Saez, & Delgado-
(Gassmann & Keupp, 2007). Knowledge can positively impact organi-
zational performance, market growth, and innovation (Dhir
et al., 2019; López-Nicolás & Meroño-Cerdán, 2011). Knowledge can
also be gained from various collaborative arrangements such as strate-
gic alliances (Amankwah-Amoah & Debrah, 2011; Mowery, Oxley, &
Silverman, 1996), acquisitions (Dhir et al., 2019), partnerships, and
joint ventures (Inkpen & Dinur, 1998). Integration of knowledge refers
to the process by which resources and capabilities (Cui, Jiang, &
Stening, 2011) can be used for product innovation performance
(Darroch, 2005; Griffin & Hauser, 1996). Partner firms can share their
knowledge to develop a firm's innovative capability (Darroch, 2005)
and performance (Dhir et al., 2019). The strategic alliance enables col-
laborating companies to acquire specialized knowledge (Muthusamy &
White, 2005) and technical skills (Hyder & Abraha, 2004) from their
partner firms to enhance their organizational capabilities (Dhir &
Dhir, 2018a; Dhir & Dhir, 2018b; Kale & Singh, 2007). Firms capture
knowledge to strengthen their organizational skills (Hyder &
Abraha, 2004; Inkpen, 2008), learn technology, and access to the mar-
ket (Darroch, 2005). Knowledge exchange between employees of two
companies depends on the capacity and commitment of partner firms
(Martín Cruz, Martín Pérez, & Trevilla Cantero, 2009), and this can
lead to the development of absorption capacity (Tsai, 2001). Knowl-
edge integration also depends on the motivation and willingness of
employees (Martín Cruz et al., 2009) of partner companies. Further-
more, the integration of knowledge not only involves interpersonal
communication but also supports developing each other's innovative
ideas, expertise, and skills (Stevens, 2010). Knowledge management
helps to integrate cross-functional knowledge (Zahra &
George, 2002), improve organizational innovations (Darroch, 2005),
capabilities and specialized skills (Stevens, 2010), and reduce the risks
of technical uncertainty (Hyder & Abraha, 2004). According to Cohen
4 DHIR ET AL.
and Levinthal (1990), companies with high absorption capacity can
better use new knowledge and information to create value and acqui-
sition success. The integration of knowledge allows firms to ensure
the quality of decision making and to deal with highly competitive
market environments effectively. Therefore, the integration of knowl-
edge by strategic alliances and acquisitions provides support to gain
market access (Deng, 2010) and improves performance in cross-
border businesses (Dhir et al., 2019; Kumar & Singh, 2008).
Postacquisition performance of any firm can be determined by captur-
ing new knowledge, accessing further information (Zahra &
George, 2002), and developing new skills (Stevens, 2010). A parent
firm with preacquisition experience in obtaining knowledge and infor-
mation can become successful in a competitive market (Brown &
Duguid, 1991). Thus, knowledge helps firms to operate effectively in
the newly competitive market. Organizations can acquire new knowl-
edge and skills through repetitive acquisition experience (Zollo &
Reuer, 2010) that can help to achieve organizational learning and sub-
sequent acquisition performance improvement (Dhir et al., 2019;
Inkpen, 2008; Martin-de Castro et al., 2011).
2.4 | Measuring technological capability in
establishing firm performance
Technological capability is an organizational ability that helps to create
novel innovations (Zhou & Wu, 2010) and to operate technological
resources effectively (Bharadwaj, 2000; Wu, 2014). Technical capabili-
ties vary from organization to organization with their existing
resources, capabilities (Wu, 2014), technical know-how, and skills
(Lall, 2000). Some scholars argued that an organization could enhance
its performance and organizational innovation by building its techno-
logical capabilities (Zhou & Wu, 2010). The technical capabilities of
any firm are an important source for sustainable competitive advan-
tage (Bhatt & Grover, 2005; Barney, 2001). In M&A, the technical
capabilities of the two companies are combined for value-added crea-
tion and innovation (Hagedoorn & Duysters, 2002). Knowledge, skills,
and experience of an affiliated firm can result in developing the tech-
nical capabilities to improve postacquisition performance (Smith, Col-
lins, & Clark, 2005). Advanced technologies and skills support the flow
of information and knowledge management (Smith et al., 2005) within
the organizations. Technical capability is a continuous process of
developing specialized knowledge and skills within organizations.
Firms combine their resources, technical skills, and engineering tech-
niques through several mechanisms to build their organizational capa-
bilities (Bharadwaj, 2000; Shaik & Rodrigues, 2018). Therefore, a firm
can generate more value than its rivals by using its technical knowl-
edge and capabilities. Existing knowledge, creativity, and technical
resources are essential drivers of the successful performance of any
M&A (Darroch, 2005; Dhir et al., 2019). The technical ability of an
organization supports new product development and innovative busi-
ness performance (Dinesh & Sushil, 2019; Zhou & Wu, 2010). Organi-
zations with less investment in technological infrastructure and
research and development (R&D) are less innovative (Soderquist,
Chanaron, & Motwani, 1997). The partner firms combine their techni-
cal knowledge, technical skills, resources, and engineering techniques
with allied firms to generate innovation in products and processes
(Barkema & Schijven, 2008; Lei & Hitt, 1995). Technical strength and
organizational learning are significant sources of postacquisition
performance in a competitive market (Koza & Lewin, 2000). After
the acquisition, firms share their knowledge and resources to
identify opportunities and gain competition (Ray, Barney, &
Muhanna, 2004; Stevens, 2010; Zahra & George, 2002). According
to Bharadwaj (2000), technological capability helps the organiza-
tion in organizational innovations to achieve sustainable competi-
tive advantage. Technological competences have become the
most critical resources to enable technology companies to
develop their performance in a changing market environment (Ray
et al., 2004).
2.5 | Technology similarity, knowledge
relatedness, and business performance
Technology similarity refers to a similar technical structure in terms of
technical expertise and resources, where partner companies can share
resources to improve their productivity (Howell, He, Yang, &
Fan, 2016) and performance (Pehrsson, 2006). The same technical
knowledge is easily transferable to the domain concerned. The similar-
ity of technology can help an organization to increase the skills and
knowledge base of an employee (Makri, Hitt, & Lane, 2010). A higher
level of similarity in technology can allow a company to acquire
detailed knowledge and skills more quickly. In M&A, technological
similarity has a positive influence on acquisition performance of an
allied company (Cassiman, Colombo, Garrone, & Veugelers, 2005). In
general, firms avoid developing new technology within a limited
period. Thus, the sharing of resources, technical knowledge, and capa-
bilities can help reduce production costs and the firm's high produc-
tion level (Howell et al., 2016). Technology relatedness also enhances
learning opportunities among employees of partner firms
(Tanriverdi, 2005). A high degree of technology relevance supports
parent companies' higher level of value addition and organizational
performance. New knowledge, skill, and information can be easily
acquired if the level of technology relatedness is higher. The technol-
ogy relatedness can facilitate knowledge generation, transfer, and
learning within the organizations (Petruzzelli, 2011). The creation and
integration of knowledge may help an allied organization to innovate
and gain synergistic benefits (Dhir et al., 2019). The similar technology
of partner firms can increase the speed of collaborative innovation
and performance. In M&A, similar technological know-how, skills, and
knowledge are combined to enhance postacquisition innovation per-
formance (Ganzaroli, De Noni, Orsi, & Belussi, 2016). Few scholars
have identified that partner firms with related technologies can
improve their organizational learning and create new knowledge
(Hyder & Abraha, 2004). Previous studies also suggest that technol-
ogy relatedness among firms can help advance existing technologies,
and therefore, enhance the technological capabilities of companies
DHIR ET AL.
(Martín Cruz et al., 2009; Stevens, 2010). Thus, technology related-
ness can support organizations to improve efficiency and productivity.
Technological relatedness is essential for firms to gain market and gain
competition.
2.6 | Acquirer's absorptive capacity, learning, and
cross-border performance
The absorptive capacity enables an associated organization to obtain
and incorporate new knowledge into its organizations to generate
value and improve business operations (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989).
The acquirer's absorptive capacity enhances learning and expertise of
an affiliated firm for better firm performance after acquisition (Dhir
et al., 2019). The absorptive capacity of an acquiring firm helps to
build organizational capabilities (Zahra & George, 2002) and create
new knowledge that improves business performance (Reuer, 2000).
Knowledge creation and sharing require repeated interactions
between internal and external partners over time (Cassiman
et al., 2005; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). The companies with higher
absorptive capacity are more competent to select a suitable acquisi-
tion target and analyze the competitor of the competitive market
(Makadok, 2001; Reuer, 2000). The absorptive capacity can assist an
organization in knowledge creation and transfer. It also relies on the
extent of pre-related knowledge (Beamish, 1987), the relevance of
understanding among the beneficiary and source (Lane & the TISM methodto build a hierarchical structure of identified factors
Lubatkin, 1998), knowledge bases of firm employees (e.g., educational
background and skills), and enthusiasm to gain the knowledge. Hence,
the acquirer's absorptive capacity of a company has a significant
effect on the transfer of knowledge, learning, and performance of
M&A (Kostopoulos, Papalexandris, Papachroni, & Ioannou, 2011).
According to Hwang and Kim (2007), the absorption ability of the par-
ent firm reflects its prior knowledge and experience, thus allowing
parent organization to improve the firm's performance (Barkema &
Schijven, 2008; Lei & Hitt, 1995).
2.7 | National cultural compatibility and cross-
border acquisitions performance
National culture implies joint “psychological training” or “mental and
social buffer,” which guides individuals in various ways to deal with
new knowledge (Hofstede, 1983). Few scholars (Bhagat, Kedia,
Harveston, & Triandis, 2002; Hofstede, 1983) have found a negative
impact of national cultural dissimilarity among partner firms on the
learning, knowledge management, and business efficiency in a foreign
market during M&A (Agarwal, 1994; Weber & Tarba, 2013). The
transfer of knowledge will be simple if the cultural difference is least
(Bhagat et al., 2002). Significant factors such as sharing of knowledge,
increasing costs, and evaluating potential benefits from acquisition
practices are major problems resulting from cultural differences
(Newburry & Zeira, 1997). Some scholars believe that national cultural
differences can cause a major obstacle to achieving postacquisition
5
gains (Liu & Woywode, 2013; Oguji & Owusu, 2017). According to
Angwin (2001), national cultural dissimilarity has a major impact on
corporate performance after M&A. National cultural distance may
affect the M&A process, trade deals, partner selection, and subse-
quent implementation of cross-border business acquisitions. It also
affects negotiations between partner firms and postacquisition perfor-
mance. Few scholars believe that national cultural difference can
become an opportunity for post-M&A performance by combining cul-
tural resources in order to create value (Ahammad et al., 2016;
Holtbrügge & Mohr, 2010).
In this study, we identified the seven factors for developing TISM
in the context of telecom industry using the literature review (see
Table 1).
3 | METHODS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 | Research design
The extant literature review has been used to build a theoretical
model and conceptual framework (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Based on
past studies, we have identified the factors and possible relationships
between the identified factors in the context of the business perfor-
mance after the acquisition of an affiliated firm. For this study, we
have selected seven factors (see Table 1). In this study, we have used
and case study to validate the model. We have investigated the Zain
acquisition case by Bharti Airtel in the field of international telecom
business. This study explored why Bharti Airtel had selected the
acquisition strategy to gain the African market and how it managed
postacquisition performance. It examined how identified factors
affected the performance of Bharti Airtel after the acquisition deal in
South Africa. We have used secondary data sources including
research papers, websites, financial statements, and reports as a main
source of information. Finally, a hierarchical structural model of TISM
has been developed.
3.2 | Total interpretive structural modeling
The TISM (Sushil, 2012), an advanced hierarchical framing, is a new
expansion of interpretive structural model (ISM; Warfield, 1974).
Many researchers have applied this technique in a different domain of
study (Ajmera & Jain, 2019; Dhir & Dhir, 2020; Mohanty, 2018; Singh,
Sinha, Das, & Sharma, 2019; Srivastava & Sushil, 2013). A set of fac-
tors is used to build the TISM in a particular study (Rajesh, 2017;
Singh, Kumar, Gupta, & Madaan, 2018; Vaishnavi, Suresh, &
Dutta, 2019). TISM has articulated poor models into a functional
structure, which can be used for many descriptions. It deals with a
query related to “why,” “what,” and “how” to outline the theoretical
structure. The model shows the hierarchical association between the
necessary measurements of factors and concepts. The TISM includes
an explanation of the links (both transitive and direct).
6 DHIR ET AL.
TABLE 1 Identified factors and their literature references
S. No. Factors Factor codes
1 Organizational learning capability C1
2 Knowledge management C2
3 Technology capability C3
4 Technology relatedness C4
5 The acquirer's absorptive capacity C5
6 National cultural difference C6
7 Postacquisition performance C7
Factor Identification
Determination of contextual relationship
between identified factors
Interpretation (explanation) of contextual relationship
Paired comparison of factors with respect to contextual relationship and respective
interpretive logic to form base of knowledge
Development of reachability matrix
Determination of level of factors from reachability matrix
Develop diagraph with significant transitive links
Develop TISM from diagraph and interpretive
matrix with significant links
The necessary steps of TISM methodology are as follows (see
Figure 1).
We have also defined the necessary steps of methods to develop
the TISM. They are as follows.
Step 1: The initial stage is the identification and definition of fac-
tors with the help of a literature review.
Step 2: In this step, we find the contextual relationships between
the identified factors.
Step 3: We find an interpretation of the association between the
identified factors. This step demonstrates the effect of one factor on
others in a particular area of study. This step helps in gaining in-depth
knowledge about the relationship between the identified factors to
develop the model.
References
Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011);
Lakshman (2011)
Dhir et al. (2019); Lakshman (2011); Muthusamy and
White (2005)
Kale and Singh (2007); Mascarenhas and Koza (2008);
Phatak and Habib (1998); Stevens (2010); Wu (2014)
Dhir et al. (2019); Howell et al. (2016)
Kostopoulos et al. (2011); Zahra and George (2002)
Agarwal (1994); Hofstede (1983); Metcalfe (2006);
Rottig (2016); Weber and Tarba (2013)
Barkema and Schijven (2008); Datta,1991; Dhir
et al. (2019); Gomes et al. (2013); Inkpen (2000)
F I G U R E 1 Steps of TISM
Literature Review methodology
Step 4: In this step, we compare each factor individually with all
other factors and represent their relationships by using “N” for no and
“Y” for yes in the interpretive matrix.
Step 5: We develop the reachability matrix using interpretive
matrix and represent their relationships by using “0” for no and “1” for
yes in the reachability matrix. We also check transitivity from the
reachability matrix, and transitive relationships are represented as 1*
in the reachability matrix. According to transitivity rule, if “P” is con-
nected to “Q” and “Q” is linked to “R,” then “P” will be connected
to “R.”
Step 6: This step involves level partitioning of the factor using the
reachability matrix. This step consists of the determination of the set
of reachability and antecedent to identify the level of the factors. The
DHIR ET AL.
reachability set includes self-factor and other factors that it affects,
whereas the antecedent set contains self-factor and other factors,
which would affect this self-factor. The factors for which both sets
are common will reach the first level in TISM. Therefore, we will
exclude the first-level factor from the matrix and follow the same pro-
cedure until the level of each factor is found.
Step 7: In this phase, we develop a diagraph for the factors. We con-
struct this diagraph according to the level of the factors and show a direct
and transitive link between the factors using the recoverability matrix.
Step 8: Finally, we develop a hierarchy-based TISM model based
on the developed diagraph and interpretive matrix. Only justified
(significant) transitive links can be added to the TISM model. The
developed TISM model provides information about the relationship
between the factors and their hierarchical structure.
3.3 | TISM for postacquisition performance
In this paper, we have employed a method of TISM (Sushil, 2012) to
construct a hierarchical model of the identified factors. In this study,
we have identified seven factors, including “postacquisition perfor-
mance.” Table 2 provides an explanation of the contextual relationship
for the factors.
The analyzed contextual relationship found was “Factor A is posi-
tively/negatively associated with Factor B.” We have constructed
interpretive logic knowledge-base on the basis of past literature,
which is shown in Exhibit 1 (see Appendix). In the second step, we
have built up the final reachability matrix (see Table 3). Reachability
matrix is based on past literature support, and it includes all direct
links (expressed as 1) and significant transitive links (expressed as 1*)
(see Table 3).
Level partition matrix is shown in Exhibit 2. Final levels of identi-
fied factors are shown in Exhibit 3. The diagraph of ISM has been con-
structed based on the final reachability matrix. It includes all direct
and transitive links (see Exhibit 4). Finally, to build the TISM, the infor-
mation has been taken from the interaction matrix and ISM diagraph.
We have added only significant transitive links in final TISM model
that have interpretation in the past literature. Nonsignificant transitive
links have been removed in final TISM model. The TISM hierarchical
structure is shown in Exhibit 5.
TABLE 2 Factors, explanation of contextual relationship, and interpretation
Factor code Factor
C1 Organizational learning capability
C2 Knowledge management
C3 Technology capability
C4 Technology relatedness
C5 The acquirer's absorptive capacity
C6 National cultural difference
C7 Postacquisition performance
7
3.4 | Zain acquisition case in the South African
market by Bharti Airtel
3.4.1 | Telecommunication sector in the
South African market
The telecom industry is increasing at the international level owing to
the growing needs of wireless communication and mobile services.
New telecommunication technologies are expanding very rapidly.
Information technology, digitization, and mobile communication tech-
nology play a significant role in telecom sector growth (Oteri, Kibet, &
Ndung'u, 2015) in many developing countries such as South African,
India, and others. These emerging technologies offer telecom compa-
nies an opportunity to rebuild their business strategy, market posi-
tions, and innovation to fulfill the needs of their customers
(Malerba, 2005; Parameswar et al., 2019). The telecom sector in
South Africa experienced substantial market growth because of high
increasing internet penetration, international business connectivity,
customer demand, better network coverage in rural areas, and high
mobile penetration (Dhir et al., 2019). South Africa's total mobile sub-
scribers increased from 29.76 million (in the year 2005) to 91.7 million
(in the year 2017) (Telecom subscribers in India, 2018). There are a
huge mobile and smartphone consumer expansion particularly for
internet services, low-cost services, and mobile data in the
South African market. Consumers demand good quality services and
high-speed Internet data speeds. South Africa's Competition Commis-
sion and Independent Communications Authority is taking initiatives
to protect consumers and to reduce the cost of mobile communica-
tion. The South Africa Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
(SATRA) and Department of Communications (DoC) have provided
massive support for the development of internet connectivity, access
to basic telecommunications services, 3G/4G/5G coverage, and
improved infrastructure for smartphone adoption for transforming the
South African telecom industry (The State of ICT in South
Africa, 2018). Vodacom, MTN, Airtel Africa, Cell C, and Telkom SA are
some of South Africa's major mobile operators (South African Mobile
Market, 2018). In South Africa, SIM card penetration was about
169%; and 95% of the population had an internet connection by the
beginning of the year 2019. South Africa announced the launch of 5G
services, and Helios Towers promised to build 1,000 towers for 5G in
Contextual relation Interpretation
Factor A is positively/negatively How is Factor A
associated with Factor B associated with Factor B?
8 DHIR ET AL.
the country. The major mobile operators have also provided interna-
tional fiber connectivity, fiber backbone networks, and mobile bank-
ing. The telecom sector in South Africa has focused on operational
efficiency and cost control after the Zain acquisition by Bharti Airtel
in 2010 (Dhir et al., 2019).
3.4.2 | Zain telecom
Zain (formerly MTC) was a mobile telecommunication company
which was started in 1983 in Kuwait. It has mobile networks in
24 countries in the Middle East and African markets, including
Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, and
others (MTC concludes the acquisition, 2007). In 2008, Zain was
the most powerful home-grown brand in the Middle East and Afri-
can telecom markets and became the fourth-largest network oper-
ator globally in the context of geographical spread. Zain has 72.5
million customer bases with a workforce of over 13,000 across the
African market (Zain Wins Best Telecom Operator, 2008). Zain had
announced “Drive 11” under its “Accelerate Growth in Africa (ACE)
agenda to expand its market, enhance operational control, and
maximize economies of scale in the African telecom market
(KMEFIC, 2009).
3.4.3 | Company background of Bharti Airtel
Bharti Airtel Limited is a mobile telecommunications company, which
started in 1995. The business of Bharti Airtel is present in 20 nations
including Western European, Asian and African nations. Bharti Airtel
is operating in more than 23 telecom circles and offers broadband ser-
vices in 95 cities across India. Bharti Airtel, headquartered in New
Delhi, India, is ranked third in the globe for mobile service subscribers
(Bharti Airtel Ltd, 2017). The company has more than 190 million
subscribers in India. The Bharti Group has several world-class busi-
ness portfolios and services built on leading-edge technologies.
These include telecommunication, manufacturing, agribusiness
retail, and banking services. Airtel Group provides mobile, broad-
band and internet, digital TV, data card, USB modem, calling cards,
and others to its customers across the world. During 2005 to
2006, the company introduced the GSM/GPRS network to the
rural Indian market. The company has managed the partnership
with Ericsson, Nokia, IBM, Microsoft, Google, and others to expand
their operations and 3G/4G mobile services for Indian customers.
The company is providing 3G/4G mobile services. The company
has an optic fiber network with high speed over 90,205 km that
covers all the big cities in India. In 2011, Bharti Airtel and State
Bank of India (SBI) entered into a joint venture partnership to
enhance livelihood and quality of life of Indian citizens through
banking and financial services at an affordable cost (Bharti Airtel
Ltd, 2017). In the financial year 2018 (FY2018), the company
reported a profit of INR 2,184 crore and revenue of INR 83,937
crores (Airtel Payment Bank, 2019).
3.4.4 | Airtel acquires Zain's Africa business
In 2010, Bharti Airtel procured $10.7 (in billion) in Zain Telecom's
Africa business processes in 15 African countries (Bharti Completes
Acquisition, 2010). After the acquisition, Bharti Airtel turned into
the fifth-biggest mobile network operator in the worldwide market
in 2015 with a consumer base of 180 million and 18,800 service
sites. Bharti Airtel's primary goal for purchasing Zain telecom was
to expand its market to cross-border markets (Dhir et al., 2019).
Zain Telecom's purchase in South Africa was an Indian company's
second-largest acquisition agreement after the Tatas Corus agree-
ment in 20,017. The mobile phone customers were growing at 40%
in African countries. There was a huge market for telecom opera-
tors. Zain telecom was in financial crisis during the acquisition deal
with Bharti Airtel (Bharti Completes Acquisition, 2010). The acqui-
sition deal also involved heavy debt, cultural difference, and various
regulatory uncertainties with Bharti Airtel in the African market.
Integration of human resources was also a major challenge for
Bharti Airtel during the deal. After the acquisition, Bharti Airtel
invested in their African operations, low-cost business models,
value-added services, and other important assets such as towers.
After Zain acquisition deal, Bharti Airtel used its prior experience,
existing knowledge base, technology relatedness, resources, learn-
ing, and organizational capabilities to gain the consumer base in
African market (Dhir et al., 2019). Bharti Airtel captured 9 out of
15 Zain's African markets. After acquisition, the company extended
its mobile network in more than five countries, which includes
Nigeria and Ghana. The company, Bharti Airtel, also launched live
video services and 3G/4G network with high-speed internet in the
African market. The company also provided low-cost mobile tele-
com services to the remotest geographical location in African coun-
tries (India's Bharti Airtel, 2010).
3.5 | Knowledge, organizational learning,
absorptive capacity, and performance of Airtel Africa
Bharti Airtel was the leading player in the telecom sector with its tre-
mendous resources, skilled employees, experienced staff, and man-
agers. After the acquisition, Bharti Airtel used its knowledge and
business strategies to gain the African market. Airtel Uganda
increased its market share from 25% to 38% in 2013. Bharti Airtel had
great experience in emerging technologies like 3G/4G, which made
the company unique for its service in the telecom market. These expe-
riences come from prior learning, knowledge, and good absorptive
capacities of any organization. Bharti Airtel continued increasing its
3G/4G services across the African market. As a result, the number of
Bharti Airtel's customers increased from 74 million in 2016 to 80 mil-
lion in 2017. The national/international experience of collaborations
and partnerships of Bharti Airtel helped the company to perform bet-
ter in the African market (Airtel Africa makes, 2018). After the acquisi-
tion, the company started high-quality voice services and low-cost
services with high quality to its African customers. Bharti Airtel has
DHIR ET AL. 9

TABLE 3 Final reachability matrix with significant transitive links 2009 as compared to 2008. As a result, Bharti Airtel had to invest a

Factors C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 lot in its business operation to gain the market share and to increase
the customer base (Dhir et al., 2019). The company reduced the cost
C1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1*
of services and provided high-quality services to attract African
C2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
customers.
C3 0 1* 1 1 0 0 1*
C4 0 1 0 1 0 0 1*
C5 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
4 | RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
C6 1 1* 0 0 1* 1 1*
C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 In this study, we used the TISM technique and case study analysis,
which involves an in-depth investigation of Zain acquisition in
South Africa by Bharti Airtel. This study has identified seven factors
effectively transformed its learning and experience in postacquisition that affect the performance of an affiliated firm after acquisition in
performance in the African market. the South African telecommunications industry. The identified factors
are organizational learning capability, technological capability, the
absorptive capacity of acquiring the firm, knowledge management,
3.6 | Relatedness of technology, organizational national-cultural difference, technology relatedness of allied firms,
capabilities, and postacquisition performance and postacquisition performance of an affiliated firm. This research
also showed the interrelationship between the recognized factors and
Zain Telecom and Bharti Airtel were leading mobile telecommunica- their impacts on an affiliated company's performance during M&A. In
tion companies. Both the companies had almost similar technologies the TISM model, “technological capabilities” and the “national cultural
and provided services to their customers in the field of telecommuni- difference” occupy the lowest level (i.e., these two factors have a sig-
cation. Bharti Airtel had a big market share and customer base nificant effect on other factors in the model). Thus, findings show that
compared with Zain telecom across the global market. After the acqui- “national cultural difference” and “technological capabilities” have a
sition, Bharti Airtel expanded its technology and capabilities to strong impact on “post-acquisition performance” of affiliated firms.
compete in a competitive environment (Dhir et al., 2019). The These two factors have a very strong driving force and dependence
company launched 3G/4G technologies, high-speed internet, and on other factors. The national cultural difference has significant
high-definition video calling services for its customers in the African impact on learning of an organization, integration of knowledge, and
market. The relatedness in technologies of both the companies helped acquirer's absorptive capacity (Stahl & Voigt, 2008). The model also
Bharti Airtel to penetrate the African market very quickly at low shows that technology capabilities of a parent firm can have signifi-
investment. The technological capabilities of the Bharti Airtel helped cant effect on knowledge integration and management during the
it to enhance competitive positioning in the cross-border market. M&A. Absorptive capacity and knowledge management lie at the sec-
The good services of Bharti Airtel helped to gain the attention of ond level (i.e., these are the dependent factors in the TISM model),
other subscribers in the African market. Bharti Airtel used outsourcing and both factors have significant influence on each other. During
strategy to gain competitive advantage and better performance. M&A, an important role can be played by the absorptive ability of the
Call centers and information and technology services were outsourced acquirer to generate company efficiency across the border. Absorp-
to increase the business performance in African nations. tive capacity can help to improve the organization's knowledge crea-
tion and innovative performance. Also, organizational learning can
facilitate knowledge sharing and help to utilize firm resources and
3.7 | National cultural difference and performance capabilities to achieve postacquisition performance.
of Airtel Africa In the case study, both the companies had a similar technological
infrastructure, and hence the acquirer firm (i.e., Bharti Airtel) took
Many scholars have shown that national cultural dissimilarity can advantage of the acquired firm (i.e., Zain Telecom). The results show
adversely affect the company's cross-border performance efficiency. that technology relatedness and technological capabilities can help in
In most cross-border business deals, cultural difference plays an improving business efficiency and organizational performance of the
important role in business integration (Reus & Lamont, 2009). After associated companies after the acquisition in the international market.
the acquisition deal, Bharti Airtel also faced operational integration In addition, organizational learning capability, absorption capacity,
problem in the African market. The corporate culture of Zain was dif- experience, and knowledge management play a key role in M&A suc-
ferent from that of Bharti Airtel. Employees of Zain were not happy cess. In this study, we have analyzed the Zain acquisition case in
with this deal. The company, Bharti Airtel, faced some problems in South Africa. The findings show that all the considered factors are
knowledge transfer and integration. Also, the purchasing power of connected. The case analysis suggests that Bharti Airtel was able to
customers was less in African nations as compared to India. Hence, gain market share and expand its consumer base in the South African
the average revenue per user among African customers decreased in market after the acquisition deal. Bharti Airtel was able to gain the
10
trust of the customers toward its services and offerings. Several initia-
tives by Bharti Airtel like 3G/4G services, high-definition video qual-
ity, and low-cost services are the best examples of better
technological capabilities and knowledge. This experience and techno-
logical knowledge helped the company to create a brand image in the
African market.
5 | CONCLUDING REMARKS AND
DISCUSSION
Our research is the first to study the factors affecting the perfor-
mance of an affiliate firm after acquisition in the telecommunications
industry by using TISM method and case study analysis. This study
can provide adequate knowledge to the managers and practitioners to
consider identified factors for ensuring successful acquisition perfor-
mance across the international market. Building on recent literature
about the postacquisition performance, we build a model using TISM
methodology, which explains the effect of identified factors on acqui-
sition performance of the telecom industry in the South African mar-
ket. In this study, we have identified seven major factors, which
include organizational learning capability, national cultural difference,
knowledge management, technology capability, technology related-
ness, the acquirer's absorptive capacity, and post-acquisition perfor-
mance. Our model (TISM) shows the various levels of factors and the
influence of these factors on alliance performance. We have also vali-
dated the TISM model using the Zain acquisition case study. The iden-
tified factors are found to be very significant for this study. We have
found that cultural differences in associated businesses can adversely
affect postacquisition outcomes due to lack of employee coordination,
internal conflicts, and increased distrust. Other variables such as par-
ent company's technological capabilities, technology-relatedness,
organizational learning capacity, knowledge, experience, and absorp-
tion capacity play a vital part in an organizational innovation and suc-
cessful operation in the cross-border market.
From theoretical perspectives, we argue that organizational learn-
ing and experiences of parent firm help to create knowledge and orga-
nizational innovation, which can reduce the risk of failure in a
competitive market.
6 | T H E O R E T I C A L CO N T R I B U TI O N S
This research adds to the increasing literature on success in acquisi-
tion performance, knowledge, and organizational capabilities in the
context of the telecommunications industry. We examined various
factors that can affect postacquisition across the international border.
This paper expands resource-based theory based on technical
resources, knowledge integration and capabilities, and its effect on
the acquisition success. This research offers a case study of the influ-
ence of knowledge management and integration on business pro-
cesses, cross-border operations, and mechanism for enhancing the
organizational innovation performance and gaining competitive
DHIR ET AL.
advantage. Hence, the results and findings of this study offer novel
insights into the telecom industry by showing the paths of knowledge,
learning, cultural differences, absorptive capacity, and organizational
capabilities on firm performance after acquisition in an emerging
economy. This paper also enriches the organizational learning theory
based on knowledge, skill, and learning, and its relationship with bet-
ter organizational performance and innovation.
7 | MANAGERIAL RELEVANCE
Our study has focused on the effects of various factors such as cul-
tural difference, technology capabilities, and others on the business
success of an allied firm in the telecom industry during M&A. The
result and findings of the study suggest that a firm can enhance its
competitiveness and operation through international acquisition. Our
study provides several managerial contributions in the telecom indus-
try. This study will help top managers and practitioners to better eval-
uate M&A process and its effect on the cross-border long-run
performance in a competitive environment. Our findings also suggest
that M&A can help an organization to gain a huge customer base in
the international market. The acquisition process in the same industry
can help to achieve organizational innovations and better perfor-
mance. Prior experience of partnerships, better absorptive capacity,
and knowledge in the same domain can enhance the performance of
the firm. Practitioners and top management can concentrate on vari-
ables such as technology relatedness, cultural differences-related
problems, and knowledge transfer that impacts global business M&A
performance. Our research provides an in-depth evaluation of
postacquisition results in the African telecommunications market that
can help managers and executives visualize the entire acquisition pro-
cess and its operational integration.
8 | LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Unlike any other published work, we have identified factors and
examined their effects on postacquisition performance by using TISM
methodology. We developed a TISM model of identified factors by
using literature review and validated through a case study research.
This study lacks the assistance of empirical information to validate the
TISM model. Also, we have selected only one case study to support
the developed TISM model. Also, the developed model in this study
can be limited to the telecommunication sector only. Future research
can identify more factors by using primary research and expert opin-
ion in this domain. Future research can also examine the polarity of
the relationship between the factors in this model. The research could
also develop an understanding of how the parent firm can enhance
the technological resources and capabilities at a very high level of
national cultural difference. The future study could also explore the
factors affecting postacquisition performance after the alliance termi-
nation in the international market (Reuer & Zollo, 2005). Also, the
future investigation could further highlight the impact of governance
DHIR ET AL.
structure and technology transfer and absorption on postacquisition
performance across the international market.
ORCID
Sanjay Dhir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0843-6162
Rishabh Rajan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2252-4764
RE FE R ENC E S
Agarwal, S. (1994). Socio-cultural distance and the choice of joint ven-
tures: A contingency perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 2
(2), 63–80.
Agarwal, Y., Jain, M., Sinha, S., & Dhir, S. (2020). Delivering high-tech, AI-
based health care at Apollo hospitals. Global Business and Organiza-
tional Excellence., 39, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21981
Ahammad, M. F., Tarba, S. Y., Liu, Y., & Glaister, K. W. (2016). Knowledge
transfer and cross-border acquisition performance: The impact of cul-
tural distance and employee retention. International Business Review,
25(1), 66–75.
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innova-
tion performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic
Management Journal, 22(3), 197–220.
Airtel Africa makes Airtel Africa makes its fifth market consolidation move
by acquiring Tigo Rwanda (2018). Retrieved from https://technology.
ihs.com/599379/airtel-africa-makes-its-fifth-market-consolidation-
move-by-acquiring-tigo-rwanda/.
Airtel Payment Bank Airtel Payment Bank loss widens to Rs 339 crore in
FY19, revenue jumps 59% (2019). Retrieved from https://www.
businesstoday.in/current/corporate/airtel-payment-bank-loss-widens-
to-rs-339-crore-in-fy19/story/373765.html/.
Ajmera, P., & Jain, V. (2019). Modeling the factors affecting the quality of
life in diabetic patients in India using total interpretive structural
modeling. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(3), 951–970.
Alon, I., & Rottig, D. (2013). Entrepreneurship in emerging markets: New
insights and directions for future research. Thunderbird International
Business Review, 55(5), 487–492.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., & Debrah, Y. A. (2011). The evolution of alliances in
the global airline industry: A review of the African experience. Thun-
derbird International Business Review, 53(1), 37–50.
Angwin, D. (2001). Mergers and acquisitions across European borders:
National perspectives on preacquisition due diligence and the use of
professional advisers. Journal of World Business, 36(1), 32–57.
Appiah-Adu, K., & Blankson, C. (1998). Business strategy, organizational
culture, and market orientation. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 40(3), 235–256.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge
transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.
Bamel, N., Dhir, S., & Sushil. (2019). Inter-partner dynamics and joint ven-
ture competitiveness: A fuzzy TISM approach. Benchmarking: An Inter-
national Journal, 6(1), 97–116.
Barkema, H. G., & Schijven, M. (2008). How do firms learn to make acquisi-
tions? A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal
of Management, 34(3), 594–634.
Barney, J. (1991). Special theory forum the resource-based model of the firm:
Origins, implications, and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97–98.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A
ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Manage-
ment, 27(6), 643–650.
Beamish, P. W. (1987). Joint ventures in LDCs: Partner selection and per-
formance. Management International Review, 27(1), 23–37.
Belderbos, R. (2003). Entry mode, organizational learning, and R&D in for-
eign affiliates: Evidence from Japanese firms. Strategic Management
Journal, 24(3), 235–259.
11
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002).
Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational
knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management
Review, 27(2), 204–221.
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information
technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investiga-
tion. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 169–196.
Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.capitalmarket.com/
Company-Information/Information/About-Company/Bharti-Airtel-Ltd/
15542/.
Bharti Completes Acquisition of Zain's Africa Business for $10.7 bn
(2010). Retrieved from https://m.economictimes.com/industry/
telecom/bharti-completes-acquisition-of-zains-africa-business-for-10-
7-bn/articleshow/6023805.cms/.
Bhatt, G. D., & Grover, V. (2005). Types of information technology capabil-
ities and their role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. Jour-
nal of Management Information Systems, 22(2), 253–277.
Bindra, S., Parameswar, N., & Dhir, S. (2019). Strategic management: The
evolution of the field. Strategic Change, 28(6), 469–478.
Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Håkanson, L. (2000). Managing the post-
acquisition integration process: How the human integration and task
integration processes interact to foster value creation. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 37(3), 395–425.
Björkman, I., Stahl, G. K., & Varra, E. (2007). Cultural differences and capa-
bility transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The mediating roles of
capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social integration.
Journal of International Business Studies, 8(4), 658–672.
Bonache, J., & Brewster, C. (2001). Knowledge transfer and the manage-
ment of expatriation. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(1),
145–168.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and
communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning,
and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Thirty years of mergers and acqui-
sitions research: Recent advances and future opportunities. British
Journal of Management, 17(1), 1–5.
Cassiman, B., Colombo, M. G., Garrone, P., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The
impact of M&a on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role
of technological-and market-relatedness. Research Policy, 34(2),
195–220.
Cavaleri, S. A. (2004). Leveraging organizational learning for knowledge
and performance. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 159–176.
Chakrabarty, S., & Bass, A. E. (2016). Encouraging entrepreneurship:
Microfinance, knowledge support, and the costs of operating in institu-
tional voids. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(5), 545–562.
Chrysostome, E. (2010). The success factors of necessity immigrant entre-
preneurs: In search of a model. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 52(2), 137–152.
Chrysostome, E., & Lin, X. (2010). Immigrant entrepreneurship: Scrutinizing
a promising type of business venture. Thunderbird International Busi-
ness Review, 52(2), 77–82.
Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2006). Mergers and
acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies
in high-tech industries. Research Policy, 35(5), 642–654.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two
faces of R & D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new per-
spective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
35(1), 128–152.
Collins, J. D., Holcomb, T. R., Certo, S. T., Hitt, M. A., & Lester, R. H.
(2009). Learning by doing: Cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1329–1334.
Collinson, V. (2004). Learning to share, sharing to learn: Fostering organi-
zational learning through teachers' dissemination of knowledge. Jour-
nal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 312–332.
12
Colombo, M. G., & Rabbiosi, L. (2014). Technological similarity, post-
acquisition R&D reorganization, and innovation performance in hori-
zontal acquisitions. Research Policy, 43(6), 1039–1054.
Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic
resources and performance: A meta-analysis. Strategic Management
Journal, 29(11), 1141–1154.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational
learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 24(3), 522–537.
Cui, L., Jiang, F., & Stening, B. (2011). The entry-mode decision of Chinese
outward FDI: Firm resources, industry conditions, and institutional
forces. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53(4), 483–499.
Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101–115.
Datta, D. K. (1991). Organizational fit and acquisition performance: Effects
of post-acquisition integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4),
281–297.
Deng, P. (2010). What determines performance of cross-border M&As by
Chinese companies? An absorptive capacity perspective. Thunderbird
International Business Review, 52(6), 509–524.
Dhir, S. (2017). Total interpretive structural Modelling of inter partner
dynamics factors to intensify joint venture competitiveness. Global
Journal of e-Business and Knowledge Management, 8(1), 9–18.
Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2018a). Organizational capability and performance
improvement: A study of e-commerce firms in Indian context.
International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 13(1),
35–51.
Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2018b). Role of ambidexterity and learning capability in
firm performance: A study of E-commerce industry in India. VINE Jour-
nal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(4), 517–536.
Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2020). Modeling of strategic thinking enablers: A modi-
fied total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) and MICMAC
approach. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management, 11, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-
00937-z
Dhir, S., Ongsakul, V., Ahmed, Z. U., & Rajan, R. (2019). Integration of
knowledge and enhancing competitiveness: A case of acquisition of
Zain by Bharti Airtel. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.056
Dhir, S., & Sushil. (2017). Flexibility in modification and termination of
cross-border joint ventures. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Manage-
ment, 18(2), 139–151.
Dinesh, K. K., & Sushil. (2019). Strategic innovation factors in startups:
Results of a cross-case analysis of Indian startups. Journal for Global
Business Advancement, 12(3), 449–470.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive
approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy
and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
Elias, A. A. (2019). Strategy development through stakeholder involve-
ment: A New Zealand study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Manage-
ment, 20(4), 313–322.
Etemad, H., Wright, R. W., & Dana, L. P. (2001). Symbiotic international
business networks: Collaboration between small and large firms. Thun-
derbird International Business Review, 43(4), 481–499.
Euchi, J., Bouzidi, D., & Bouzid, Z. (2019). Interpretive structural modeling
technique to analyze the interactions between the factors influencing
the performance of the reverse logistics chain. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 20(1), 43–55.
Ganzaroli, A., De Noni, I., Orsi, L., & Belussi, F. (2016). The combined effect
of technological relatedness and knowledge utilization on explorative
and exploitative invention performance post-M & A. European Journal
of Innovation Management, 19(2), 167–188.
DHIR ET AL.
Gassmann, O., & Keupp, M. M. (2007). The competitive advantage of early
and rapidly internationalising SMEs in the biotechnology industry: A
knowledge-based view. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 350–366.
Gomes, E., Angwin, D. N., Weber, Y., & Yedidia Tarba, S. (2013). Critical
success factors through the mergers and acquisitions process: Reveal-
ing pre-and post-M&a connections for improved performance. Thun-
derbird International Business Review, 55(1), 13–35.
Graebner, M. E., Heimeriks, K. H., Huy, Q. N., & Vaara, E. (2017). The pro-
cess of postmerger integration: A review and agenda for future
research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 1–32.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review
and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment: An International Publication of the Product Development & Man-
agement Association, 13(3), 191–215.
Grimpe, C. (2007). Successful product development after firm acquisitions:
The role of research and development. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 24(6), 614–628.
Gupta, A. K., & Gupta, N. (2019). Innovation and culture as a dynamic
capability for firm performance: A study from emerging markets.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(4), 323–336.
Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). The effect of mergers and acquisi-
tions on the technological performance of companies in a high-tech
environment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(1),
67–85.
Halawi, L. A., Aronson, J. E., & McCarthy, R. V. (2005). Resource-based
view of knowledge management for competitive advantage. The Elec-
tronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 75–80.
Han, J., Jo, G. S., & Kang, J. (2018). Is high-quality knowledge always bene-
ficial? Knowledge overlap and innovation performance in technological
mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2),
258–278.
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (1991). Syner-
gies and post-acquisition performance: Differences versus similarities
in resource allocations. Journal of Management, 17(1), 173–190.
Hasan, Z., Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2019). Modified total interpretive structural
modelling (TISM) of asymmetric motives and its drivers in Indian bilat-
eral CBJV. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(2), 614–637.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (1990). Mergers and acquisi-
tions and managerial commitment to innovation in M-form firms. Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 11(1), 29–47.
Ho, L. A. (2008). What affects organizational performance? The linking of
learning and knowledge management. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 108(9), 1234–1254.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and
theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89.
Holtbrügge, D. (2004). Management of international strategic business
cooperation: Situational conditions, performance criteria, and success
factors. Thunderbird International Business Review, 46(3), 255–274.
Holtbrügge, D., & Baron, A. (2013). Market entry strategies in emerging
markets: An institutional study in the BRIC countries. Thunderbird
International Business Review, 55(3), 237–252.
Holtbrügge, D., & Mohr, A. T. (2010). Cultural determinants of learning
style preferences. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4),
622–637.
Howell, A., He, C., Yang, R., & Fan, C. (2016). Technological relatedness
and asymmetrical firm productivity gains under market reforms in
China. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 9(3),
499–515.
Hu, B. (2014). Linking business models with technological innovation per-
formance through organizational learning. European Management Jour-
nal, 32(4), 587–595.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and
organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Jour-
nal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.
DHIR ET AL.
Hwang, Y., & Kim, D. J. (2007). Understanding affective commitment, col-
lectivist culture, and social influence in relation to knowledge sharing
in technology mediated learning. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 50(3), 232–248.
Hyder, A. S., & Abraha, D. (2004). Product and skills development in small-
and medium-sized high-tech firms through international strategic alli-
ances. Singapore Management Review, 26(2), 1–24.
India's Bharti Airtel completes acquisition of Zain Africa. (2010) Retrieved from
https://www.reuters.com/article/urnidgns852573c4006938800025773c
00363c4b/indias-bharti-airtel-completes-acquisition-of-zain-africa-idUS373
509668620100608/.
Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: A framework of
knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7),
1019–1044.
Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Managing knowledge transfer in international alli-
ances. Thunderbird International Business Review, 50(2), 77–90.
Inkpen, A. C., & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes
and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 9(4),
454–468.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Alliance management
as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3),
413–446.
Irwin, J. G., Hoffman, J. J., & Lamont, B. T. (1998). The effect of the acqui-
sition of technological innovations on organizational performance: A
resource-based view. Journal of Engineering and Technology Manage-
ment, 15(1), 25–54.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational
learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4),
408–417.
Jo, S. J., & Joo, B. K. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of learning
organization culture, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18
(3), 353–364.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2007). Building firm capabilities through learning:
The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and
firm-level alliance success. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10),
981–1000.
Khatwani, G., Singh, S. P., Trivedi, A., & Chauhan, A. (2015). Fuzzy-TISM: A
fuzzy extension of TISM for group decision making. Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management, 16(1), 97–112.
KMEFIC Research Equity Analysis Report (2009). Retrieved from https://
www.gulfbase.com/ScheduleReports/ZAIN_29092009.pdf/.
Kongpichayanond, P. (2009). Knowledge management for sustained com-
petitive advantage in mergers and acquisitions. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 11(3), 375–387.
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. (2011).
Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of
Business Research, 64(12), 1335–1343.
Koza, M., & Lewin, A. (2000). Managing partnerships and strategic alli-
ances: Raising the odds of success. European Management Journal, 18
(2), 146–151.
Kumar, V., & Singh, N. (2008). Internationalization and performance of
Indian pharmaceutical firms. Thunderbird International Business Review,
50(5), 321–330.
Lakshman, C. (2011). Postacquisition cultural integration in mergers &
acquisitions: A knowledge-based approach. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 50(5), 605–623.
Lall, S. (2000). The technological structure and performance of developing
country manufactured exports, 1985-98. Oxford Development Studies,
28(3), 337–369.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and inter-
organizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploita-
tion within and across organizations. The Academy of Management
Annals, 4(1), 109–155.
13
Lei, D., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). Strategic restructuring and outsourcing: The
effect of mergers and acquisitions and LBOs on building firm skills and
capabilities. Journal of Management, 21(5), 835–859.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An
empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.
Liu, Y., & Woywode, M. (2013). Light-touch integration of Chinese cross-
border M&A: The influences of culture and absorptive capacity. Thun-
derbird International Business Review, 55(4), 469–483.
López-Nicolás, C., & Meroño-Cerdán, A.  L. (2011). Strategic knowledge
management, innovation and performance. International Journal of
Information Management, 31(6), 502–509.
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and
dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 22(5), 387–401.
Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. (2010). Complementary technologies,
knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology
mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 602–628.
Malerba, F. (2005). Sectoral systems of innovation: A framework for
linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of
sectors. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(1–2), 63–82.
Mandal, P., Love, P. E., & Irani, Z. (2003). Pre-alliance planning: Develop-
ment of an information system infrastructure to support strategic alli-
ance activities. Management Decision, 41(2), 132–140.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Martín Cruz, N., Martín Pérez, V., & Trevilla Cantero, C. (2009). The influ-
ence of employee motivation on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 13(6), 478–490.
Martin, K. J., & McConnell, J. J. (1991). Corporate performance, corporate
takeovers, and management turnover. The Journal of Finance, 46(2),
671–687.
Martin-de Castro, G., Lopez-Saez, P., & Delgado-Verde, M. (2011).
Towards a knowledge-based view of firm innovation. Theory and
empirical research. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 871–874.
Mascarenhas, B., & Koza, M. P. (2008). Develop and nurture an interna-
tional alliance capability. Thunderbird International Business Review, 50
(2), 121–128.
Melin, L. (1992). Internationalization as a strategy process. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 13(S2), 99–118.
Meschi, P. X., & Metais, E. (2006). International acquisition performance
and experience: A resource-based view. Evidence from French acquisi-
tions in the United States (1988–2004). Journal of International Man-
agement, 12(4), 430–448.
Metcalfe, B. D. (2006). Exploring cultural dimensions of gender and man-
agement in the Middle East. Thunderbird International Business Review,
48(1), 93–107.
Mohanty, M. (2018). Assessing sustainable supply chain enablers using
total interpretive structural modeling approach and fuzzy-MICMAC
analysis. Management of Environmental Quality, 29(2), 216–239.
Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National cultural distance and
cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business
Studies, 29(1), 137–158.
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances
and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17
(S2), 77–91.
MTC concludes the acquisition MTC concludes the acquisition of 100% of
Celtel (2007) Retrieved from https://www.zain.com/en/press/mtc-
concludes-the-acquisition-of-100-of-celtel/.
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer
in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26
(3), 415–441.
Neary, J. P. (2007). Cross-border mergers as instruments of comparative
advantage. The Review of Economic Studies, 74(4), 1229–1257.
Newburry, W., & Zeira, Y. (1997). Generic differences between equity
international joint ventures (EIJVs), international acquisitions (IAs) and
14
international greenfield investments (IGIs): Implications for parent
companies. Journal of World Business, 32(2), 87–102.
Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2008). Globalization and profitability of cross-
border mergers and acquisitions. Economic Theory, 35(2), 241–266.
Oguji, N., & Owusu, R. A. (2017). Acquisitions entry strategies in Africa:
The role of institutions, target-specific experience, and host-country
capabilities-the case acquisitions of Finnish multinationals in Africa.
Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(2), 209–225.
Ojala, A., & Tyrväinen, P. (2007). Entry barriers of small and medium-sized
software firms in the Japanese market. Thunderbird International Busi-
ness Review, 49(6), 689–705.
Oteri, O. M., Kibet, L. P., & Ndung'u, E. N. (2015). Mobile subscription,
penetration and coverage trends in Kenya's telecommunication sector.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence, 4
(1), 1–7.
Parameswar, N., & Dhir, S. (2019). Factors affecting the choice of interac-
tion after the international joint venture termination in Africa: Total
interpretive structural modeling. Strategic Change, 28(6), 507–515.
Parameswar, N., Dhir, S., & Sushil. (2019). Interpretive ranking of choice of
interaction of parent firms post-international joint venture termination
using TISM-IRP. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21,
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-019-00227-4
Parameswar, N., Hasan, Z., Dhir, S., & Ongsakul, V. (2019). Factors that
drive development of technological entrepreneurship in South Asia.
Journal for Global Business Advancement, 12(3), 429–448.
Parrino, J. D., & Harris, R. S. (1999). Takeovers, management replacement,
and post-acquisition operating performance: Some evidence from the
1980s. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 11(4), 88–96.
Patri, R., & Suresh, M. (2017). Modelling the enablers of agile performance
in healthcare organization: A TISM approach. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 18(3), 251–272.
Pehrsson, A. (2006). Business relatedness and performance: A study of mana-
gerial perceptions. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 265–282.
Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior
ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations:
A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309–319.
Phatak, A., & Habib, M. (1998). How should managers treat ethics in inter-
national business? Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(2),
101–117.
Pichlak, M. (2016). The innovation adoption process: A multidimensional
approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(4), 476–494.
Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Man-
aging the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 263–280.
Rajesh, R. (2017). Technological capabilities and supply chain resilience of
firms: A relational analysis using total interpretive structural modeling
(TISM). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118(1), 161–169.
Ranft, A. L., & Lord, M. D. (2000). Acquiring new knowledge: The role of
retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms. The Journal
of High Technology Management Research, 11(2), 295–319.
Ranft, A. L., & Lord, M. D. (2002). Acquiring new technologies and capabili-
ties: A grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organization
Science, 13(4), 420–441.
Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business pro-
cesses, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable
in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management
Journal, 25(1), 23–37.
Reuer, J. J. (2000). Parent firm performance across international joint ven-
ture life-cycle stages. Journal of International Business Studies, 31
(1), 1–20.
Reuer, J. J., & Zollo, M. (2005). Termination outcomes of research alliances.
Research Policy, 34(1), 101–115.
Reus, T. H., & Lamont, B. T. (2009). The double-edged sword of cultural
distance in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business
Studies, 40(8), 1298–1316.
DHIR ET AL.
Rottig, D. (2016). A marriage metaphor model for sociocultural integration
in international mergers and acquisitions. Thunderbird International
Business Review, 55(4), 439–451.
Samiei, E., & Habibi, J. (2019). The mutual relation between Enterprise
resource planning and knowledge management: A review. Global Jour-
nal of Flexible Systems Management, 21, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40171-019-00230-9
Sandeepa, S., & Chand, M. (2018). Analysis of flexibility factors in sustain-
able supply chain using total interpretive structural modeling (T-ISM)
technique. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 6(1), 1–12.
Shaik, A. S., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2018). Plant layout optimisation with imple-
mentation of technical cleanliness in an automotive industry: A system
dynamics approach. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Man-
agement, 18(3), 201–221.
Shalender, K., & Yadav, R. K. (2019). Strategic flexibility, manager personal-
ity, and firm performance: The case of Indian automobile industry.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(1), 77–90.
Shrotriya, S., & Dhir, S. (2018). Innovation driven ecosystem for quality
skill development in India. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25
(8), 2997–3020.
Singh, A. K., & Sushil. (2013). Modeling enablers of TQM to improve airline
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 62(3), 250–275.
Singh, M. K., Kumar, H., Gupta, M. P., & Madaan, J. (2018). Analyzing the
determinants affecting the industrial competitiveness of electronics
manufacturing in India by using TISM and AHP. Global Journal of Flexi-
ble Systems Management, 19(3), 191–207.
Singh, S. (2009). How market orientation and outsourcing create capability
and impact business performance. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 51(5), 457–471.
Singh, S., Chauhan, A., & Dhir, S. (2019). Analyzing the startup ecosystem
of India: A twitter analytics perspective. Journal of Advances in Man-
agement Research., 17, 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-08-
2019-0164
Singh, S., & Dhir, S. (2019). Structured review using TCCM and
bibliometric analysis of international cause-related marketing, social
marketing, and innovation of the firm. International Review on Public
and Nonprofit Marketing, 16(2–4), 335–347.
Singh, S., Sinha, S., Das, V. M., & Sharma, A. (2019). A framework for
linking entrepreneurial ecosystem with institutional factors: A modi-
fied total interpretive structural modelling approach. Journal for Global
Business Advancement, 12(3), 382–404.
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowl-
edge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in
high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.
Soderquist, K., Chanaron, J. J., & Motwani, J. (1997). Managing innovation
in French small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical study.
Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 4(4), 259–272.
South African mobile market share: Vodacom vs MTN vs Cell C vs Telkom.
(2018) Retrieved from https://businesstech.co.za/news/mobile/266423/
south-african-mobile-market-share-vodacom-vs-mtn-vs-cell-c-vs-telkom/.
Srivastava, A. K., & Sushil. (2013). Modeling strategic performance factors
for effective strategy execution. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 62(6), 554–582.
Stahl, G. K., & Voigt, A. (2008). Do cultural differences matter in mergers
and acquisitions? A tentative model and examination. Organization Sci-
ence, 19(1), 160–176.
Stevens, R. H. (2010). Managing human capital: How to use knowledge
management to transfer knowledge in today's multi-generational
workforce. International Business Research, 3(3), 77–83.
Sushil. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal
of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.
Sushil, A. (2017). Modified ISM/TISM process with simultaneous transitiv-
ity checks for reduced direct pair comparisons. Global Journal of Flexi-
ble Systems Management, 18(4), 331–351.
DHIR ET AL.
Tanriverdi, H. (2005). Information technology relatedness, knowledge
management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS
Quarterly, 29(2), 311–334.
Telecom subscribers in India Telecom subscribers in India reach 1.19 bil-
lion in December 2017: TRAI (2018). Retrieved from https://www.
livemint.com/Industry/0z0LWFhHNhj6pHP32lQJEJ/Telecom-
subscribers-in-India-reach-119-billion-in-December.html/.
The State of ICT in South Africa (2018) Retrieved from https://
researchictafrica.net/after-access-south-africa-state-of-ict-2017/
south-africa-report_04.pdf/.
Trautwein, F. (1990). Merger motives and merger prescriptions. Strategic
Management Journal, 11(4), 283–295.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects
of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation
and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
Vaishnavi, V., Suresh, M., & Dutta, P. (2019). A study on the influence of
factors associated with organizational readiness for change in
healthcare organizations using TISM. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 26(4), 1290–1313.
Van Deusen, C. A., & Mueller, C. B. (1999). Learning in acquisitions: Under-
standing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and per-
formance. The Learning Organization, 6(4), 186–193.
Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457–476.
Warfield, J. N. (1974). Toward interpretation of complex structural models.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 4(5), 405–417.
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate cultural fit and performance in mergers and
acquisitions. Human Relations, 49(9), 1181–1202.
Weber, Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Sociocultural integration in mergers and
acquisitions-new perspectives. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 55(4), 327–331.
Wu, J. (2014). Cooperation with competitors and product innovation:
Moderating effects of technological capability and alliances with uni-
versities. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 199–209.
Yeravdekar, A., & Behl, A. (2018). The unprecedented commercialisation of
Indian cricket: A study using total interpretive structural modelling. Inter-
national Journal of Services and Operations Management, 31(3), 277–302.
Zaheer, A., Hernandez, E., & Banerjee, S. (2010). Prior alliances with tar-
gets and acquisition performance in knowledge-intensive industries.
Organization Science, 21(5), 1072–1091.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, recon-
ceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2),
185–203.
Zain Wins Best Telecom Operator. Zain Wins Best Telecom Operator in
Africa Award (2008) Retrieved from https://www.zain.com/en/press/
mtc-concludes-the-acquisition-of-100-of-celtel/.
Zhou, K. Z., & Wu, F. (2010). Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and
product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 547–561.
Zollo, M., & Reuer, J. J. (2010). Experience spillovers across corporate
development activities. Organization Science, 21(6), 1195–1212.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Sanjay Dhir (sanjaydhir.iitd@gmail.com) is an Assistant Professor
in Strategic Management Area at the Department of Management
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (India). He is a Fellow
(Ph.D.) from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Lucknow.
He has been involved in several consulting projects, which include
Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS, Bihar); National
Skill Development Corporation (NSDC, New Delhi); Bihar
Prashashnik Sudhaar Mission (BPSM, Bihar); and Directorate
15
General of Supplies & Disposals (DGS&D, GoI, New Delhi). He
has published several research papers in leading international
journals, including case studies at Richard Ivey School of Business,
Western Ontario, jointly distributed by Ivey and Harvard Business
School. His research papers were presented and published as con-
ference proceedings at several prestigious academic conferences.
His areas of interest include strategic management, strategic alli-
ances/joint ventures, international strategy, innovation manage-
ment, technology transfer, creative problem solving, and
management of change and transformation.
Rishabh Rajan (rishabh12345rajan@gmail.com) is a Doctoral
Scholar in Strategic Management Area at the Department of Man-
agement Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (India). His
research papers were presented and published at several prestigious
academic conferences and journals, including the Journal of Business
Research (JBR), Global Conference on Flexible Systems Management,
and so on. His areas of interest include strategic alliances, joint ven-
tures, technology management, and strategic management.
Viput Ongsakul (drviput@yahoo.com) is a Dean at NIDA Business
School, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA),
Thailand. He is currently serving as a Commissioner of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC). Also, he is an Advisor Affiliate at
Center for Competitiveness at the University of Fribourg, Switzer-
land. He has volunteered to serve as a chair and member for both
AACSB and EFMD accreditation peer review teams for many
schools in China, India, Thailand, and Malaysia. Through his teaching,
consulting, and research in the fields of competitiveness, business
policy, sustainability, competitive strategy, and operations, he has
engaged in many consulting works to both public and private
agencies.
Richard A. Owusu (richard.owusu@lnu.se) is a Senior Lecturer at
the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Swe-
den. He was previously an Assistant Professor at Hanken School
of Economics, Finland. He received his Ph.D. in marketing from
Hanken School of Economics. Richard has over 20 publications on
doing business in Africa spanning economic development; busi-
ness policy; entry strategies and internationalization into Africa;
marketing strategies and project marketing.
Zafar U. Ahmed (zafaruahmed@gmail.com) is currently enjoying
his sabbatical since January 1, 2019. Prior to embarking on his
sabbatical, Zafar served American University of Ras Al Khaimah
(United Arab Emirates) as a Professor of Marketing and Interna-
tional Business for 2 years. He earned his Ph.D. from Utah State
University (United States) in 1988. He has well over 10 years of
industry experience earned across Africa as an exporter and global
entrepreneur, and 30 years of academic experience accumulated
at six different American universities. He has published over 200
scholarly papers in Thomas Reuters (ISI) and Scopus indexed
journals. He has organized and presided over 16 global confer-
ences across the world, serves on the editorial boards of more
16 DHIR ET AL.

than 10 world-class journals, and serves as the Founder, President How to cite this article: Dhir S, Rajan R, Ongsakul V,
and CEO, US-based Academy for Global Business Advancement Owusu RA, Ahmed ZU. Critical success factors determining
(www.agba.us), Founder and Editor-in-Chief Journal for Global performance of cross-border acquisition: Evidence from the
Business Advancement, and Founder and Honorary Chief Editor African telecom market. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2020;1–19.
Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22156
Development.
DHIR ET AL. 17

APPENDIX A

EXHIBIT 1 Interpretive logic—knowledge base

Interpretation (how will one factor

Factor codes Pairwise comparison
C1-C2 Organizational learning capability is
positively associated with knowledge
management
C1-C5 Organizational learning capability is
positively associated with the
acquirer's absorptive capacity
C1-C7 Organizational learning capability
supports postacquisition performance
C2-C5 Knowledge management is positively
associated with the acquirer's
absorptive capacity
C2-C7 Knowledge management supports
postacquisition performance
C3-C2 Technological capability is positively
associated with knowledge
management
C3-C4 Technological capability is positively
associated with technology
relatedness
C4-C2 Technology relatedness is positively
associated with knowledge
management
C4-C7 Technology relatedness supports
postacquisition performance
C5-C2 The acquirer's absorptive capacity
supports knowledge management
C5-C7 The acquirer's absorptive capacity
supports postacquisition performance
C6-C1 National cultural difference is positively
associated with organizational
learning capability
C6-C2 National cultural difference is negatively
associated with knowledge
management
Y/N affect another factor?)
Y Organizational learning capability
facilitates knowledge sharing, learning
environment, and integration and
experimentation
Y Organizational learning inspires novel
ideas and knowledge, also increases
the ability to understand and
improves organizational behavior
Y Organizational learning capability helps
to utilize firms' resources and skills
Y Prior knowledge and experience lead to
smooth knowledge flow and improves
learning within the organizations
Y Knowledge management allows
affiliated companies to exploit the
knowledge, information, and
resources to expand the company's
performance
Y An organization's technological capacity
uses its available knowledge and
information to enhance productivity
and business development
Y Technology capability of a firm
moderate the effect of technological
opportunities and providing
synergistic potential
Y Related technology infrastructures
enable knowledge exchange and
share common goals, values,
language, skills, and expertise
Y Technology relatedness allows firms to
manage their IT resources, which
maximize performance
Y The acquiring company's absorptive
capacity helps to create and develop
new information and knowledge to
enhance company efficiency and
product development
Y The absorptive capacity of the acquirer
firm deploys the acquired resources
and enhances the innovation capacity
of the affiliated firms
Y National cultural difference creates
continuous learning opportunities
within the organizations
Y National culture affects the knowledge
sharing strategy, effectiveness, and
policies within the organizations
Citing literatures
Argote et al., 2000; Bonache &
Brewster, 2001; Chakrabarty &
Bass, 2016
Darroch, 2005; Dhir et al., 2019; Kale
& Singh, 2007;
Ahammad et al., 2016; Brown &
Duguid, 1991; Lakshman, 2011;
Van Deusen & Mueller, 1999
Dhir et al., 2019; Kostopoulos et al.,
2011
Brown & Duguid, 1991; Darroch,
2005; Martin-de Castro et al.,
2011
Lall, 2000; Smith et al., 2005;
Stevens, 2010; Zahra & George,
2002
Bharadwaj, 2000; Darroch, 2005;
Dhir et al., 2019; Shaik &
Rodrigues, 2018
Makri et al., 2010; Tanriverdi, 2005
Ganzaroli et al., 2016; Makri et al.,
2010; Pehrsson, 2006
Dhir et al., 2019; Dhir & Dhir, 2018;
Kostopoulos et al., 2011
Barkema & Schijven, 2008; Lei &
Hitt, 1995; Shrotriya & Dhir, 2018
Bhagat et al., 2002; Björkman, Stahl,
& Varra, 2007; Hofstede, 1983
Bhagat et al., 2002; Dhir et al., 2019

Note: Only justified and transitive links (Y) are revealed to reduce the size of the table.
18 DHIR ET AL.

EXHIBIT 2 Matrix for partitioning the reachability matrix into various levels

Factors Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

(a): Iteration: 1
C1 1,2,5,7 1,6 1
C2 2,5,7 1,2,3,4,5,6 2,5
C3 2,3,4,7 3 3
C4 2,4,7 3,4 4
C5 2,5,7 1,2,5,6 2,5
C6 1,2,5,6,7 6 6
C7 7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 7 I

Note: Iterations 2– 4 follow the same process as Iteration 1. Therefore, the rest iteration process is excluded from this matrix to reduce the size of the
table.

EXHIBIT 3 Levels of identified factors

S. No. Factor codes Factors Level in the TISM

1 C7 Post-acquisition performance I
2 C2 Knowledge management II
3 C5 The acquirer's absorptive capacity II
4 C1 Organizational learning capability III
5 C4 Technology relatedness III
6 C3 Technological capability IV
7 C6 National cultural difference IV

Note: The bold text specifies variables selected at different levels.

Direct Links
Transitive Links
C7

C2 C5

C4
C1

C6 C3

EXHIBIT 4 Diagraph after hierarchical partitioning with the

links (ISM)
DHIR ET AL. 19

EXHIBIT 5 TISM model Direct Links

Transitive Links

Post-Acquisition Manage information technology

Utilize firm resources and technology resources
Performance
and capabilities

Govern Deploy
economic resources and
activities and exploit
improve innovation
efficiency

Enhance prior knowledge

Acquirer’s
Knowledge Absorptive
Management Recognize and deploy new Capacity
knowledge and expertise

Facilitates
knowledge
sharing and
learning
environment
Improves
organizational
behavior and Enable knowledge
inspires new exchange and share
ideas common skills and
resources

Technology
Organizational Relatedness
Learning Capability

Development and
utilization of
Creates continuous knowledge Moderates
learning opportunity technology
and encourages people effects and
provides
synergetic
potential

National Cultural Technology

Difference Capability