Predictors of Pupils’ and Teachers’ Identification With a Merged School

Predictors of Pupils’ and Teachers’ Identification With a Merged School

FILIP BOEN~ Department of Humanities in Kinesiology

K. U. Leuven Leuven, Belgium

NORBERT VANBESELAERE, KAREN HOLLANTS, AND JOS FEYS Department of Psychology

K. U. Leuven Leuven, Belgium

This questionnaire study was designed to assess the relative impact of 8 social psychological predictors of identification with a merged school (i.e., pre-merger identification, in- group representation, satisfaction with in-group representation, in-group continuity, merger success, perceived necessity, satisfaction with information provision, and satisfaction with participation). Respondents were 3 17 pupils and 68 teachers of a Flemish high school that had merged the previous school year. The results revealed that pupils’ identification with the merger school clearly was predicted best by a direct measure of the perceived success of the merger. By contrast, teachers’ identification with the merger school was predicted best by their satisfaction with the representation of their pre-merger school in the new merger school. Overall, the included concepts explained 58% of the variance of pupils’ identification and 68% of the variance of teachers’ identification. These results underline the relevance of a social psychological perspective on school mergers.

In line with the global trend of mergers among business organizations, during the last decade many mergers took place at all levels of the Flemish educational system. For example, between 1992 and 2002, the number of independent Flem- ish colleges (i.e., institutions that provide higher non-university education) reduced from 164 to 24.

This merger boom is mainly a result of the policy of the Flemish Government to encourage schools-elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges, and universities-to work closely together with local “rivals,” or even to merge with them. Several regulations have been initiated to support schools that want to merge voluntarily. For example, merged schools temporarily receive extra

‘Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Filip Boen, Laboratory of Exer- cise & Sport Psychology, and Coaching, Department of Humanities in Kinesiology, K. U. Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]

2577

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005, 35, 12, pp. 2577-2605. Copyright 0 2005 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

2578 BOEN El AL.

credits to engage personnel in order to deal with the initial negative effects of the merger.

According to the Flemish Government, mergers would improve the quality of education, they would stimulate the internationalization of a Flemish education, and they would result in more lasting educational formations. Last but not least, mergers would also imply cost cutting with respect to wages and accommodations (Verhoeven, Devos, Smolders, Cools, & Velghe, 2002).

Despite these optimistic prospects, it has been established that about half of the mergers between business organizations have not met the initial targets (Cartwright & Cooper, 1992) and that the majority of mergers end up in financial failures (Devoge & Shiraki, 2000). Such failures used to be attributed primarily to the strategic and financial (mis)management of the organization, whereas the impact of the employees’ attitudes toward the new merger group has long been underestimated or even ignored (Cartwright & Cooper, 1992). However, recent research has shown clearly that mergers have a detrimental impact on organizational identification.

In experimental studies (e.g., Millet, Boen, Vanbeselaere, & Huybens, 2003; van Leeuwen, van Knippenberg, & Ellemers, 2003), as well as in organizational field studies (e.g., Terry, Carey, & Callan, 2001; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 2002), it has been found that individuals’ identification with the merger group is significantly lower than their identification with their pre-merger group. There is evidence that this impact also holds for teachers of a merged school. In a study among 800 teachers from 11 merged colleges in Flanders, Verhoeven et al. (2002) found that 7 out of 10 teachers were dissatisfied with the merger several years after the merger had taken place. More- over, the teachers also identified less strongly with the newly created merger organization than with their department, which was in most cases their former pre-merger college. In other words, school mergers seem to have a negative effect on the organizational identification of teachers.

It has been observed repeatedly that organizational identification is related positively to behaviors that are beneficial for the organization (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior), both for employees in general (e.g., Haslam, 2001; Ouwerkerk, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 1999), as well as for teachers specifically (Christ, van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003; van Dick & Wagner, 2002; van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004). This means that psychological dis- engagement of teachers from their school after a merger should be taken into account seriously as a potential cause of underperformance of the merger school.

Unfortunately, until now no studies have been conducted to establish the impact of school mergers on pupils. Although pupils do not belong to the work- force of the school, they are nevertheless members of the school as an organization, and their functioning is also likely to be dependent on their post-merger identification. Indeed, several studies have found a relation between pupils’

IDENTIFICATION WITH A MERGED SCHOOL 2579

identification with their school and their academic performance (Ruiz, 2002; Voelkl, 1997; Yazejian, 1999). Consequently, it is important to know which variables predict pupils’ post-merger identification. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to identify the major social psychological predictors of pupils’ identification with a merged school (i.e., their post-merger identification), and to compare the relative impact of these predictors.

In addition, we also want to see to what extent teachers’ post-merger identification is predicted by the same variables, and whether their impact differs from the impact on pupils’ post-merger identification. However, because of the limited sample size of the teachers, the conclusions of this study will focus mainly on pu pi 1 s ’ post-merger i denti fi cati on.

Most of the predictors that we will consider are derived from the social identity approach (SIA; Haslam, 2001). SIA is the most prominent social psychological approach to intragroup and intergroup processes, and it incorporates social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) as well as self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher. & Wetherell, 1987). According to SIA, people strive for a positive self-concept. This self-concept consists of a personal identity and a social identity. Social iderztity has been defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). In order to attain a positive self-concept, people attempt to belong to groups that are positively distinct from other social groups.

Considering that a merger implies that the distinctiveness of the in-group is challenged (i.e., the borders between the two pre-merger groups will cease to exist), it can be predicted on the basis of SIA that group members will experience the merger as a threat and therefore will identify less with the new merger group than with their pre-merger in-group. As outlined previously, this assumption already has been supported by a number of experimental and field studies. On the other hand, merger groups are hardly ever conceived as entirely new groups. The features of the new merger organization typically are a combination of the features of both pre-merger groups, even though the relative input of the pre-merger groups can differ substantially. This implies that the merger group is usually perceived as a partial continuation of the former pre-merger group.

Consequently, based on SIA, it can be expected that the more an individual identifies with the pre-merger group, the more he or she will identify with the merger group. Former research indeed has observed such an overall positive correlation between pre- and post-merger identification (e.g., Terry et al., 200 1; van Knippenberg et al., 2002; van Leeuwen et al., 2003). Therefore, the first predictor of pupils’ and teachers’ post-merger identification that we propose is the level of identification with the pre-merger school (i.e., the pre-merger identification).

2580 BOEN ET AL.

Hypothesis 1. The more pupils and teachers identify with the pre- merger school, the more they will identify with the new merger school.

The experienced threat of the merger for the distinctiveness of the pre-merger in-group is likely to be a hnction of the number of features of the pre-merger in- group that are retained in the new merger group. This perceived similarity between the features of the pre-merger in-group and the new merger group is referred to as in-group representation (van Leeuwen, 200 1). Previous research has shown that people are more likely to identify with a new merger group when their own pre-merger group is represented strongly in this merger group than when their pre-merger in-group is represented weakly (e.g., Millet et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2002; van Leeuwen et al., 2003). These results suggest that in-group representation is an important predictor of post-merger identification.

On the other hand, we believe that the concept of in-group representation focuses too narrowly on group members’ cognitions; namely, on their perception of the similarity between their pre-merger in-group and the new merger group. In our view, more attention should be paid to the affective appraisal of this similarity, for two reasons. First, group members’ affective appraisal does not need to correspond with cognitive perception. Consider, for example, a merger between one very large school and one very small school, and suppose that pupils of both pre-merger schools perceive the very large pre-merger school to be only slightly better represented in the new merger school than the very small pre-merger school. We would then expect that the pupils of the very small pre-merger school would be more satisfied with the representation of their pre-merger school than the pupils of the very large pre-merger school, even though the latter perceive their own group to be better represented than the former.

Second, by measuring members’ affective appraisal of the in-group representation, the relative importance of the pre-merger features that are preserved is also taken into account. For example, pupils of a merged school may find it extremely important that the new merger school adopts a limited amount of very specific regulations of their pre-merger school for which they have fought hard in the past (e.g., a free dress code instead of a uniform). By contrast, those pupils may not care at all about the representation of their old school on a large number of other dimensions (e.g., school name, school logo, presence in the board). In other words, when asked to make a cognitive assessment of the representation of their pre-merger school in the merger school, these pupils might perceive the other school to be better represented overall, but they may nevertheless be very satisfied with their representation because some essential features have been retained. Given the aforementioned reasons, we decided to measure not only respondents’ perceptions of in-group representation, but also their satisfaction


with this in-group representation (i.e., their contentment with the way their pre- merger in-group is preserved in the new merger group in various domains).

In addition, we included an even more specific measure referring to the perceived similarity between the pre-merger group and the merger group; namely, perceived in-group continuity. In-group continuity is a concept closely related to both in-group representation and satisfaction with in-group representation, but it refers to the direct experience that the old pre-merger group still lives on in the new merger group. Indeed, one could argue that in order to be satisfied with the in-group representation, members must feel that the pre-merger group is being continued in the new merger group.

van Knippenberg and van Leeuwen (2002) developed a social identity model of post-merger identification in which they stated that “a sense of continuity may in fact be the crucial moderating variable in the process of transferring from pre- merger to post-merger identification, and thus in the relationship between pre- merger and post-merger identification” (p. 254). In a survey study among fans of merging soccer teams, Boen, Vanbeselaere, and Swinnen (2005) found that in- group representation, satisfaction with representation, and in-group continuity emerged as related, but separate concepts. Moreover, a multiple regression on fans’ self-predicted hture support for the new merger team showed that in-group continuity was a significant predictor, whereas in-group representation and satisfaction with representation were not. Based on these results, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 2a. In-group continuity will be related positively to post-merger identification.

H,vpothesis 2b. In-group continuity will be a stronger predictor of post-merger identification than will in-group representation and satisfaction with in-group representation.

According to SIA, people not only want to belong to groups that are different from other groups, but these in-groups also must stand out positively. This relative positivity is assessed by comparing each in-group with relevant out-groups on relevant comparison dimensions. The in-group is attributed a high status if the comparisons turn out in favor of the in-group, and a low status if these comparisons are in favor of the out-group. Belonging to a high-status group will contrib- ute positively to an individual’s social identity, and thus to his or her self-concept, whereas membership in a low-status group will have a negative effect on both one’s social identity and one’s self-concept.

Consequently, a merger threatens not only the distinctiveness of the pre- merger group-as outlined earlier-but it also constitutes a potential threat to the positive distinctiveness. For example, when a pre-merger in-group has a

2582 BOEN ET AL.

relatively high status and is therefore positively distinct from the pre-merger out- group, members of the higher status group might perceive a merger with the lower status out-group as resulting in an overall lower status. Such lowered merger status, as compared with the pre-merger status, might then negatively affect members’ identification with the new merger group. Indeed, it has been found that people are more likely to identify with a high-status in-group than with a low-status in-group (Ellemers, 1993). Moreover, Millet et al. (2003) observed that participants who were assigned to an experimentally created pre- merger group identified more strongly with a newly created merger group when this merger group had a higher status in comparison with an out-group than when it was attributed a lower status.

However, we believe that the most relevant comparison group for members of a newly created merger group is usually not an outside group, but rather the members’ own pre-merger in-group. New merger groups are evaluated initially against the standards set by the members’ former pre-merger group. Therefore, we will use the term merger success (instead of merger status) in order to refer more specifically to the outcome of the comparisons between the new merger group and the pre-merger in-group on a number of relevant comparison dimensions. We hypothesize that perceived merger success will be an important predictor of post-merger identification:

Hypothesis 3. The more pupils and teachers of a merger school perceive the new merger school as a success compared with their pre-merger school, the more they will identify with the merger school.

The next predictor that we consider is the perceived necessity of the merger. This concept is derived from Rentsch and Schneider (1 99 l), who distinguished between two basic motivations to merge: survival and growth. They assumed that employees would have more positive expectations when the perceived reason for the merger was growth rather than survival, and found some evidence for this prediction in a scenario study. By contrast, the fans of two merging soccer teams did not differentiate between these two motivations (Boen et al., 2005). The items referring to survival and growth loaded on one communal principal component, which was labeled perceived necessity of the merger. Perceived necessity was strongly and positively related to fans’ evaluative support for the new merger team. Therefore, in the present study, we expect that the acceptance of both reasons to merge (i.e., growth as well as survival) will be related positively to post- merger identification.

Hypothesis 4. The more pupils and teachers perceive the merger to be necessary, either for the growth or survival of the school, the more they will identify with the merger school.


Two final predictors that we will include refer to pupils’ and teachers’ satisfaction with the merger process; more specifically with the information provided during the merger process and with participation during the merger. They can be considered as two sides of the communication coin: Participation is a bottom-up communication stream from the powerless to the powerful, whereas information provision is a top-down communication stream from the powerful to the powerless. Both information provision and participation have been found to have a positive influence on the merger process (Covin & Kilmann, 1990). Moreover, information provision (Postmes, Tanis, & de Wit, 2001; Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001), as well as participation (Luijters, 2002), have been found to be positively related to organizational identification. Therefore, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 5. The more pupils and teachers are satisfied with information provision during the merger process, the more they will identify with the new merger school.

Hypothesis 6. The more pupils and teachers are satisfied with their participation during the merger process, the more they will identify with the new merger school.

Besides the direct relations formulated previously, we also expect the following:

Hypothesis 7. Pre-merger identification will moderate the relation between post-merger identification and the other predictors.

For example, in two experimental merger studies, Millet et al. (2003) found that the effect of in-group representation on post-merger identification emerged only for participants who identified strongly with the pre-merger group, but not for participants who identified weakly with this pre-merger group. This makes sense from an SIA perspective because individuals who identify strongly with a pre- merger group will experience the merger as more threatening with respect to the distinctiveness of their group (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). As a consequence, these high identifiers will attach more importance to the (satisfaction with) representation or continuity of their pre-merger group in a new merger group than will low identifiers.

It should be noted that other authors (van Knippenberg & van Leeuwen, 2002; van Leeuwen et al., 2003) have formulated this moderating hypothesis the other way around, suggesting that in-group representationhn-group continuity moderates the relation between pre- and post-merger identification. Indeed, it has been found that the positive relation between pre- and post-merger identification

2584 BOEN ET AL.

increases with higher levels of representation/continuity. Regardless of which perspective is the most appropriate, considering the pivotal role of pre-merger identification, we decided to test all possible two-way interaction effects involving this variable.

Method

Merger Conte.xt

In April 200 1, a cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among the pupils and teachers of a Flemish high school. This high school had come into existence at the beginning of the previous school year (i.e., September 1999) as the result of a merger between two separate high schools located in the same city. They were both private schools belonging to the Catholic network.2 One of the pre-merger schools used to be a school for boys only, whereas the other school used to be a school for girls only. Because the government did not allow gender segregation in schools since the 1994- 1995 school year, both schools counted some pupils of the opposite gender at the time of the merger, but the ovenvhelm- ing majority of the pupils of each school was still of the same gender. Therefore, we refer to the pre-merger schools as the hqvs ’ school and the girls ’ school.

Both schools were about the same size (i.e., about 700 pupils) and enjoyed a reputation of good education (i.e.. after graduation, most of their pupils went to university). However, the girls’ school was generally perceived as having more conservative values (e.g., pupils had to wear uniforms before the merger) and maintaining a tighter discipline, whereas the boys’ school was perceived as putting more emphasis on pupils’ creativity and development toward independence.

Under pressure from the government, which promoted large-scale coopera- tion between high schools as a means to achieve cutbacks, and in order to antici- pate a possible decline in the number of pupils given the lower attendance in primary schools in the region, the board of the two schools decided to merge at the start of the 1999-2000 school year. The name and logo of the new merger school was a combination of the two pre-merger names. The new merger school had two locations: one at the pre-merger girls’ school, and one at the pre-merger boys’ school. It was decided that pupils in Grades 5 and 6 would be located in the buildings of the pre-merger girls’ school, whereas Grades 1,2, 3, and 4 would be located in the buildings of the pre-merger boys’ school. As a result, pupils in

?A large majority of the high school pupils in Flanders (i.e., about 85%) attend a school belonging to the private network. These private schools are state-aided and have no special entrance fees. They are open for all children on the condition that the children and their parents respect the ideolog- ical orientation (mostly Roman Catholic) of the school.


Grades 5 and 6 of the boys’ school had to move to another location after the merger.

Procedure

The director of the new merger school was contacted and asked to distribute a questionnaire among the teachers and pupils of Grades 5 and 6. We selected fifth- and sixth-grade pupils because they had the longest experience with their pre-merger schools. These pupils received an appropriate questionnaire (i.e., formulated from the perspective of their own pre-merger school) in their classrooms and were asked to return a completed questionnaire to their class teacher within 2 weeks. The teachers received an appropriate questionnaire in their mailbox and were asked to return the questionnaire before May 4 to a cardboard box in the teachers’ room. Teachers who had no pre-merger affiliation (e.g., because they had only been engaged after the merger) were not asked to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaires were almost identical for the pupils and the teachers, except for the background characteristics.

On all four questionnaires, it was stated explicitly that although the management of the school had granted permission for this questionnaire, it was developed by the University of Leuven for scientific purposes only. The anonymity of the respondents was ensured, and it was stressed that there were no wrong or right answers. Half a year after the data were collected, the management of the school received a report with the mean descriptive findings as a function of pre- merger school (boys’ school vs. girls’ school) and relation with the school (pupil vs. teacher). This report was made public both to the pupils and the teachers.

Purticipants

Pupils. With respect to the pupils, 3 17 respondents filled in the questionnaire. Of these 3 17 participants, 141 (1 09 male, 32 female) originally belonged to the boys’ school (i.e,, 44%); whereas 176 pupils (9 male, 167 female) originally belonged to the girls’ school (i.e., 56%). There were 174 pupils (55%) in Grade 5 and 143 pupils (45%) in Grade 6. Given that the merger school counted 421 pupils in 5th and 6th grades, the response rate of the pupils was 75%, which is quite high. These pupils were all between the ages of 16 and 19 years.

Teachers. With respect to the teachers, 68 respondents completed the questionnaire: 34 collaborators (21 male, 13 female) originally belonged to the boys’ school, while 34 (4 male, 30 female) originally belonged to the girls’ school (i.e., 50% each). Given that the merger school counted 96 teachers who had also worked for one of the pre-merger schools, the response rate of the teachers was

In order to ensure anonymity, the teachers had to indicate their age and tenure (i.e., number of years they had worked at the pre-merger school) by choosing

71%.

2586 BOEN ET AL.

among four categories: 50+ years old = 43%; 40 to 49 years old = 25%; 30 to 39 years old = 17%; and younger than 30 years = 15%. The majority had a tenure of more than 20 years (i.e., 54%); 11 to 20 years = 16%; 6 to 10 years = 11%; and less than 5 years = 19%. These results thus show that most of the teachers in our sample were relatively aged and had worked for quite some time at their pre- merger school.

Scale Construction for Predictor Variables

Unless stated differently, respondents had to answer all items by indicating their agreement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (agree not at all) to 7 (agree very much). The construction of the scales was based on the combined data set of the pupils ( N = 3 17) and the teachers ( N = 68). The scale reliability for each predictor was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha (a ) reliability estimates. Nunnally’s (1 978) rule of thumb (i.e., minimum a = .70) was used as a condition for the construction of a scale. We then calculated the mean of the (remaining) internally consistent items for each scale.

Pre-merger identzjkation. Identification with the pre-merger school was measured using five items: “When an outsider praised my pre-merger school,3 I considered it as a personal compliment”; “My pre-merger school had a very important place in my life”; “I still feel strongly connected to my pre-merger school”; “When an outsider criticized my pre-merger school, I felt personally attacked”; and “I feel very akin to the pupils/collaborators of my pre-merger school.” An item analysis on these five items reveals an alpha coefficient of 33, indicating that the mean score (per respondent) over these five items could be defined reliably as a measure for pre-merger identification.

In-group representation. Three items assessed different aspects of the representation of the merger school. First, respondents’ general perceptions of the relative representation of both schools in the merger school was measured by the question “In general, how much is left from your pre-merger school and the other pre-merger school in the merger school?” A second question referred to the relative advantage that each school had gained from the merger: “Which school has gained the most advantage from the merger?” These two questions had to be answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (the other pre-merger school much more than mypre-merger school) to 7 (mypre-merger school much more than the otherpre-merger school). A third item referred to respondents’ perceptions of the legitimacy of the representation: “My school was entitled to a greater presence in the merger school than is now the case” (reverse scored).

3“My/your pre-merger school” was always replaced by the specific name of the pre-merger school that the respondent had attended. while “the other pre-merger school” was replaced by the specific name of the other pre-merger school.


For the three items related to in-group representation, the coefficient was too low (a = S4). The first item measuring respondents’ general perceptions of the relative representation of both schools in the merger school did not correlate significantly ( r = .12, N = 387) with the total. Deleting this variable yielded an acceptable coefficient of .74. The mean score of the remaining two items was then labeled the perceived legitimate advantage of the own pre-merger school as a result of the merger. It was decided to view the first item as a separate measure of direct in-group representation because this item measured respondents’ general perceptions of the relative representation of both schools in the merger school.

Satisfaction with representation. Eight questions assessed respondents’ satisfaction with the representation of their pre-merger school in different aspects of the new merger school. Respondents indicated their satisfaction by means of a 7- point scale ranging from 1 (not satisjed at all> to 7 (very satisfie4 on the following questions: “How satisfied are you with the way in which your pre-merger school is represented in the name of the merger school?”; “How satisfied are you with the way in which your pre-merger school is represented in the logo of the merger school?”; “How satisfied are you with the way in which your pre-merger school is represented in the board of the merger school?”; “How satisfied are you with the way in which your pre-merger school is represented in the new regulations of the merger school?”; “How satisfied are you with the way in which your pre-merger school is represented in the practical arrangements of the merger school, for example concerning excursions?”; “How satisfied are you with the way in which the atmosphere of your pre-merger school lives on in the merger school?”; “How satisfied are you with the way in which the typical values of your pre-merger school are represented in the merger school?”; and “In general, how satisfied are you with the way in which your pre-merger school is represented in the merger school?” These eight items assessing respondents’ satisfaction with the representation of their pre-merger school were internally very consistent (a = .83). Consequently, the mean of these eight items can be considered to constitute a reliable scale for satisfaction with the representation of the pre-merger school.

In-group continuity. The concept of in-group continuity was measured by two items that emerged as a distinct component in Boen et al.’s (2005) merger soccer study: “My pre-merger school still lives on in the new merger school”; and “The merger school is really a new school, and the differences between the two pre- merger schools will gradually disappear.” This last item was reverse scored. Unfortunately, an item analysis reveals that these two items were not significantly correlated ( r = -.02, N = 386) and that they could not be used for a reliable scale (a = -.05). Therefore, in subsequent analyses, these two items were considered separate measures of in-group continuity. The first item was labeled direct in-group continuity because this item asked explicitly whether respondents’

2588 BOEN ET AL.

pre-merger group continued to live on in the new merger school. The second item was labeled continuing intergroup differences because this (reverse-scored) item referred to respondents’ perceptions that the differences between the two pre- merger schools continued to exist after the merger.

Perceived necessity. Respondents’ perceived necessity of the merger was measured using four items referring to two basic reasons to merge; namely, survival and growth (Rentsch & Schneider, 1991): “The merger was necessary to secure the survival of my pre-merger school”; “The merger was necessary for the further growth of my pre-merger school”; “Without the merger, my pre-merger school would have attracted [many fewer] pupils in the future”; and “Even without the merger, my pre-merger school would have been perfectly able to go on without the merger” (reverse scored). The item analysis shows a very high coefficient (a = 39) for these four items, which indicates that they could be taken together to constitute a reliable scale of perceived necessity.

Merger success. The perceived success of the merger was operationalized in two ways. First, one item referred directly to whether or not the respondents evaluated the merger as a success: “All things considered, the merger between my pre-merger school and the other pre-merger school is a. . . .” Respondents had to choose a response on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (a big failure) to 7 (a big success). In subsequent analyses, this item stands as a separate and direct measure of merger success.

Second, specific and indirect measures of merger success were computed on the basis of respondents’ ratings of the pre-merger school and the merger school on 11 characteristics. These characteristics were selected as relevant to assess the overall quality of a school, based on interviews with several school directors and teachers. The 11 characteristics were as follows: transfer of knowledge, space for creativity, stimulation of independence, formation of general personality, prestige of the school, sense of well-being of pupils, sense of well-being of collaborators, satisfaction of the parents, internal organization (e.g., communication of information, participation), accommodations (e.g., classrooms, refectory), and learning tools (e.g., computers, videos, sports materials).

For each of these 11 characteristics, respondents rated their own pre-merger school, the other pre-merger school, and the merger school on an 11 -point scale ranging from 0 (ver?, bad) to 10 (very good). Respondents also rated these characteristics with respect to the perceived importance for a school on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). We then computed 11 specific measures of merger success by subtracting the rating of the own pre- merger school on each characteristic from the rating of the merger school, and multiplying this difference score with the perceived importance of the characteristic. The scores of these 11 specific measures of merger succesdstatus ranged from -70 to +70. The resulting 11 scores could be combined into one reliable, indirect measure of merger success, as revealed by a strong coefficient (a = 3 5 ) .


The mean of this indirect measure of merger success was positively related ( r = .65, N = 385, p < ,0001) with the direct measure. However, these two measures could not be used to form a reliable combined score for merger success. In an item analysis with these two measures of merger success, the coefficient was much too low (a = .35). Therefore, in subsequent analyses, these two measures of merger success (i.e., direct and indirect) were used separately.

Satisfaction with information provision. Two questions referred to respondents’ satisfaction with information provision during the merger process: “I am satisfied with the information that I received during the merger operation concerning my personal situation”; and “I am satisfied with information that the collaborators/pupils of my school received during the merger.” These two items could be combined into one mean score, because the coefficient in the item analysis for these two items was high (a = 35).

Satisfaction with participation. Two questions referred to respondents’ satisfaction with their participation during the merger process: “I am satisfied about the degree of participation that I had during the merger”; and “I am satisfied about the degree of participation that the collaboratorsipupils of my pre-merger school had during the merger.” These items also could be taken together given that the coeficient was very high (a = .90).

Scale Construction for Criterion Variable: Post-Merger Identification

Respondents’ identification with the merger school was measured with 11 items. The first five post-merger identification items were analogous to the five pre-merger identification items: “When an outsider praises the merger school, I consider it as a personal compliment”; “The merger school has a very important place in my life”; “I feel very strongly connected to the merger school”; “When an outsider criticizes the merger school, I feel personally attacked”; and “I feel very akin to the other pupildcollaborators of the merger school.” The next six items also referred to identification with the merger school: “I put in as much effort for the merger school as for my former pre-merger school”; “I am worried about the fate of the merger school”; “I am proud to tell other persons that I am working fodstudying at the merger school”; “The merger school will never mean to me what my pre-merger school meant to me” (reverse scored); “I would have preferred to go on with my pre-merger school as a separate school rather than to merge with the other school” (reverse scored); and “I now put in more effort for extra-class activities than before the merger.” These 11 items were internally consistent and could be combined to form a reliable score of post-merger identification, as indicated by a coefficient of .84 in the item analysis. So, in subsequent analyses, the mean of the 11 items was used as a measure of respondents’ identification with their new merger school.

2590 BOEN ET AL.

Results

Considering that one aim of our study was to compare the relative impact of the proposed predictors on pupils’ and teachers’ post-merger identification, respectively, separate multiple regressions were performed.

Multiple Regression for Pupils

There were 11 predictor scales included in the analyses: (a) pre-merger identification, (b) legitimate advantage, (c) direct in-group representation, (d) satisfaction with representation, (e) direct in-group continuity, (f) continuing intergroup differences, (g) perceived necessity, (h) direct merger success, (i) indirect merger success, Q) satisfaction with information provision, and (k) satisfaction with participation. Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for these 11 predictors, as well as for the criterion variable, but restricted to the sample of the pupils. The alpha reliability estimates displayed on the diagonal are based on the pooled data set of pupils and teachers.

In order to assess the possible moderator effect of pre-merger identification, the two-way interactions (i.e., products) with the other predictors also had to be included as predictors, As suggested by Aiken and West (1 991) and by Jaccard and Turrisi (2003), we used mean centered scores (i.e., deviations from the mean) because our regression model involved interaction terms. We then applied a multiple regression with all l l predictor variables, plus their interaction with pre- merger identification and the post-merger identification as criterion variable.

In order to diagnose multicollinearity and to tackle this possible obstacle, we inspected the collinearity diagnostics (intercept adjusted, since we used centered scores; as advised by Belsey, Kuh, & Welsh, 1980) and we opted for the R2 selection method to pick a model of the best possible subset of predictors. In addition, as recommended by Freund and Littell (2000), we plotted the number of variables entered against Mallows’ (1973) Cps (i.e., the total square errors indicating the lack of fit, as opposed to the best fit by maximum R 2 ) . Mailows recommended that Cp be plotted against p (i.e., the number of independent variables for a given subset model), and further recommended selecting that subset size where the minimum Cp first approaches (p + I), starting from the full model.

With respect to our data, the models with seven and eight predictors seemed to be the best ones. Given that the Cps and R2s in the subsets of models with seven and eight variables were not very different, we opted for a model with eight predictors that included pre-merger identification.

Table 2 displays the parameter estimates resulting from a multiple regression analysis with these eight predictors as best possible subset. The analysis of the structure of multicollinearity reveals that the relative magnitudes of eigen- values were quite high. The lowest eigenvalue was 0.3 1, with a condition index

Tabl

e 1

Mea

ns a

rid In

terc

orre

latio

ns fo

r Pu

pils

and

Rel

iabi

lity

Estim

ates

for

Tota

l Sam

ple In

terc

orre

latio

ns

Var

iabl

e A4

SD

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

1. P

re-m

erge

r id

entif

icat

ion

4.11

1.

18 (

.83)

-.4

9 -.0

5 -.2

9 -.0

7 .0

7 -.4

1 -.4

7 -.4

9 -.0

7 -.0

8 -.2

9 2.

Leg

itim

ate

adva

ntag

e 3.

49

1.45

(.7

4)

.OO

.47

-.03

-.26

.53

.52

.56

.16

.23

.43

3. D

irect

in-g

roup

repr

esen

tatio

n 3.

21

1.35

-

.ll

.37

-.06

-.05

.11

.I1

.09

.08

.06

4. S

atis

fact

ion

with

repr

esen

tatio

n 4.

20

0.99

(.8

3)

.16

-.30

.31

.63

.47

.35

.29

.57

- 0

m

n

D

5. D

irect

in-g

roup

con

tinui

ty

3.14

1.

33

-

.04

-.01

.I3

.07

.I8

.13

.I4

z

-I

6. C

ontin

uing

inte

rgro

up

0 -

diff

eren

ces

3.19

1.

50

-

-.I2

-.3

8 -.3

6 -.

15

-.I8

-.

38

(39)

.4

1 .5

1 .1

7 .I

8 .4

2 $

8. D

irect

mer

ger s

ucce

ss

4.68

1.

32

-

.65

.29

.25

.68

s ~

11.

Satis

fact

ion

with

par

ticip

atio

n 2.

85

1.26

(.g

o)

.39

R 0

7. P

erce

ived

nec

essi

ty

3.02

1.

46

9. I

ndire

ct m

erge

r suc

cess

-3

.65

7.54

(3

5)

.27

.26

.55

I

10.

Satis

fact

ory

info

rmat

ion

z pr

ovis

ion

3.47

1.

23

(35)

.5

9 .3

3 n

12.

Post

-mer

ger

iden

tific

atio

n 3.

77

0.90

(3

4)

g

the

pool

ed d

ata

set o

f pup

ils p

lus

teac

hers

. For

indi

rect

mer

ger s

ucce

ss, s

core

s var

ied

from

-70

to +

70. F

or th

e ot

her v

aria

bles

, sco

res v

ar-

P s rn

I

Not

e. N

ied

from

1 to

7.

3 12,

whe

n ob

serv

atio

ns w

ith m

issi

ng v

alue

s ar

e de

lete

d lis

twis

e. R

elia

bilit

y es

timat

es a

ppea

r on

the

diag

onal

and

are

bas

ed o

n

h) ul

2592 BOEN ET AL.

Table 2

Regression Estimates for Model With Eight “Best Possible” Predictors of Post-Merger Ident$cation for Pupils

Predictor variable b P t P Pre-merger identification Continuing intergroup differences Satisfaction with representation Direct merger success Perceived necessity Satisfaction with participation Pre-Merger Identification x Legitimate

Pre-Merger Identification x Direct Advantage

Continuity

.05 .06 1.37 -.06 - . lo -2.42 .14 . I 5 3.04 .30 .44 8.02 .I0 .16 3.75 .13 .I8 4.48

.06 .11 2.92

.04 .08 2.05

.I730

.0161*

.0025*

.ooo 1 *

.0002* ,000 1 *

.0038*

.0413*

Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient. p = standardized regression coefficient. R2 = .58. * p < .05.

of only 2.9 I . These values clearly indicate that multicollinearity was not a prob- lem with these variables. This could be expected, given that the all-possible subsets (R2) variable-selection method was used and that the calculations were done on mean centered scores. As the R2 indicates, 58% of the variance in post-merger identification can be explained by these eight predictor variables

Contrary to Hypothesis I , pre-merger identification had no direct significant relationship with post-merger identification. On the other hand, in line with Hypothesis 2a, the perception of continuing intergroup differences was significantly and negatively related to pupils’ post-merger identification: The less pupils perceived that the differences between the two pre-merger schools still existed, the higher their post-merger identification. In Hypothesis 2b, we had predicted that in-group continuity would be a stronger predictor than satisfaction with representation, but this was not the case. Satisfaction with representation also emerged as a significant and positive predictor post-merger identification: The more pupils were satisfied with the representation of their old school in the new merger school, the more they identified with the new merger school. In line with Hypothesis 3, direct merger success was significantly and positively related to post-merger identification: The more pupils perceived the merger as a success, the more they identified with the new merger group. In fact, direct merger

= 57%).


Table 3

Regression Estimates of Post-Merger Identijkation on Direct In-group Continuity and Legitimate Advantage at Various Levels of Pre-Merger Identijkation

Direct in-group continuity Legitimate advantage Level of pre-merger identification b t P b t P

1 S D < M At M l S D > M

-.OI -0.09 .9280 .I0 2.30 .0224 .08 2.15 .0324 .24 6.44 <.0001 .17 3.35 .0009 .37 7.55 <.0001

success was clearly the best predictor of pupils’ post-merger identification. In line with Hypothesis 4, perceived necessity was a significant and positive predictor of post-merger identification: The more pupils perceived the merger as necessary, the more they identified with the merger school. Hypothesis 5 was not supported because satisfaction with information provision was not included in the best possible model. In line with Hypothesis 6, satisfaction with participation emerged as a significant and positive predictor: The more pupils were satisfied with their particiation during the merger process, the more they identified with the merger group. In line with Hypothesis 7, significant interactions emerged between pre-merger identification and direct in-group continuity; and between pre-merger identification and legitimate advantage.

In order to further investigate these interactions, we used the simple slopes test method4 (Aiken & West, 1991) for predicting post-merger identification from direct in-group continuity or from legitimate advantage at three different values (low, medium, and high) of pre-merger identification. A low value was represented here by a value 1 standard deviation below the mean, a medium value by a value at the mean, and a high value by a value 1 standard deviation above the mean. In Table 3, the simple slopes at the different levels of pre-merger identification are reported.

Direct in-group continuity was not related significantly to post-merger identification at the low pre-merger identification level, but it was related positively to post-merger identification at the medium pre-merger identification level, and even more strongly at the high pre-merger identification level (for a graphical

JWe also applied the best possible model to the pupils of the two schools separately (i.e., boys’ school, N = 138; girls’ school, N = 174). Although some differences emerged between the two schools, the two best predictors for both schools were the same as those for the total sample of pupils; namely, direct merger success and satisfaction with participation.

2594 BOEN ET AL.

Pre-merger identification 0.6 1

- - 0 - - LOW

+ Medium ! 4 High

-0.6 1 Direct in-group continuity

Figure I . Mean scores on post-merger identification as a function of direct continuity at different levels of pre-merger identification (low vs. medium vs. high).

Pre-merger identification

o.6 1

--t- Medium

+ High

-0.6 J Legitimate advantage

Figure 2. Mean scores on post-merger identification as a hnction of legitimate advantage at different levels of pre-merger identification (low vs. medium vs. high).

display of this interaction, see Figure 1). Legitimate advantage was related positively to post-merger identification at each level of pre-merger identification, but this relation became stronger at higher levels of pre-merger identification (Figure 2). It should be noted that these are the exact patterns that we predicted in Hypothesis 7 (i.e., in-group continuity and in-group representation would be better predictors of post-merger identification for high than for low pre-merger identifiers).


Table 4

Regression Estimates of Post-Merger Identification on Pre-Merger Identlfication at Various Levels of Direct In-Group Continuity and of Legitimate Advantage

Pre-merger identification

b t P

Levels of direct in-group continuity 1 S D < M -.29 -5.07 <.0001 At M -.I9 -5.10 <.ooo I I S D > M -.09 - I .68 .0939

1 S D < M -.26 -5.07 <.ooo I At M -.09 -2.28 .0230 1 S D > M .08 I .35 .1774

Levels of legitimate advantage

We also examined these interactions from van Leeuwen et al.’s (2003) perspective, and therefore calculated the simple slopes5 for predicting post-merger identification from pre-merger identification at different levels of direct in-group continuity and of legitimate advantage. As can be seen in Table 4, when direct in- group continuity was low or medium, a significant negative relation emerged between pre- and post-merger identification. However, when direct in-group continuity was high, no significant relation emerged between pre- and post-merger identification. Similarly, as can be seen in Table 4, when perceived legitimate advantage was low or medium, a significant negative relation emerged between pre- and post-merger identification. By contrast, when legitimate advantage was high, no significant relation emerged. These results clearly contradict Hypothesis 1, which stated that pre-merger identification would be related positively to post- merger identification. Our findings indicate that even though pre- and post- merger identification were not significantly related overall (Table 2), they were related negatively when direct in-group continuity or legitimate advantage were low or medium.

Given that various merger studies have found that group members’ post- merger identification is lower than their pre-merger identification, we also checked whether pupils’ post-merger identification differed significantly from their pre- merger identification. In order to be able to make a meaningful comparison, we

‘The calculations for the simple slopes tests were done by inserting the appropriate regression parameters into the online Web page section developed by Preacher, Cunan, and Bauer (2003).

2596 BOEN ET AL.

Table 5

Regression Estimates of Model With Eight “Best Possible” Predictors of Post-Merger Identijication for Teachers

Predictor variable b P t P Pre-merger identification .04 .03 0.32 .7471 Continuing intergroup differences .o 1 .02 0.18 .8595 Satisfaction with representation .48 .54 3.91 .0002* Direct merger success .38 .36 2.20 .0319*

Satisfaction with participation .03 .03 0.36 .7166 Pre-Merger Identification x Legitimate

Pre-Merger Identification x Direct

Perceived necessity -.09 - . I 1 -1.18 .2426

Advantage -.07 -.I0 -1.01 .3182

Continuity .03 .04 0.44 .6586 ~ ~ ~~

Note. b = unstandardized coefficient. = standardized regression coefficient. R2 = .68. *p < .05.

computed a post-merger identification scale with the same five items as those used for the pre-merger identification scale. A paired-sample t test shows that pupils indeed identified significantly less with the new merger school than with their pre- mergerschool(M=3.81 vs.4.11,SD= 1.01 vs. 1.18),t(311)=3.46,p< ,001.

Multiple Regression for Teachers

Considering that the sample size for the teachers ( N = 68) was too limited to yield reliable solutions, we simply explored whether the model that was selected on the basis of the pupils’ data also applied to the teachers’ data. Table 5 displays the coefficients of this model when analyzed for the teachers.

Given the limited sample size, it is not surprising that only two coefficients were significant. First, satisfaction with representation turned out to be the best predictor of teachers’ post-merger identification. The more teachers were satisfied with the representation of their pre-merger school in the new merger school, the more they identified with the new merger school. Second, direct merger success was also a significant predictor. The more teachers perceived the merger as a success, the more they identified with the new merger school. No other predictors were significant; but again, this could mainly be a result of the limited number of respondents. More importantly, 68% of the variance in teachers’ post-merger


identification can be explained by these eight predictor variables, which is even more than for pupils’ post-merger identification.

We also checked whether, in line with previous merger studies (e.g., Verhoeven et al., 2002), teachers’ post-merger identification was significantly lower than their pre-merger identification. Therefore, we again computed a scale of post-merger identification with the same five items as used for the pre-merger identification scale. A paired-sample t test shows that the teachers indeed identified significantly less with the new merger school than with their pre-merger school ( M = 4.48 vs. 5.53, SD = 1.26 vs. 1.03), t(65) = 5 . 3 5 , ~ < ,001. It should be noted that teachers’ pre-merger identification was significantly higher than pupils’ pre-merger identification ( M = 5.53 vs. 4.1 1, SD = 1.03 vs. 1.1 8), F( I . 376) = 81.8 1, p < .001; and that teachers’ post-merger identification was significantly higher than pupils’ post-merger identification ( M = 4.48 vs. 3.8 I , SD =

1.26 vs. 1 .Ol), F( 1, 376) = 21 26, p < .001. These differences could be expected, given the fact that most of the teachers had worked at the pre-merger school for more than 20 years, whereas the pupils could only have been studying at the school for a maximum of 6 years.

Discussion

The present questionnaire study was designed to test the relative impact of eight predictor variables on pupils’ and teachers’ identification with a high school that had merged 2 years before. These eight predictors (i.e., pre-merger identification, in-group representation, satisfaction with in-group representation, in-group continuity, merger success, perceived necessity, satisfaction with information provision, and satisfaction with participation) were derived from a social psychological perspective on organizational mergers.

Preliminary item analyses based on the total sample of respondents revealed that the concepts of in-group representation, in-group continuity, and merger success each had to be split into two measures. The items used for each of these concepts formed an internally consistent scale in the context of a merger between two soccer teams (Boen et al., 2005). In the present school context, however, this was no longer the case. This suggests that the operationalization of critical constructs is context-specific. In-group representation had to be split into direct in-group representation and legitimate advantage; in-group continuity into direct in-group continuity and continuing intergroup differences; and merger success into direct merger success and indirect merger success. The resulting 11 measures, as well as all possible two-way interactions involving pre-merger identification, were then entered as predictors in multiple regression analyses to predict pupils’ post-merger identification.

It turned out that a model with eight predictors constituted the best subset to predict pupils’ post-merger identification. This model accounted for 58% of the

2598 BOEN ET AL.

variance in pupils’ post-merger identification, and 68% of the variance in teachers’ post-merger identification. These findings clearly indicate that our social psychological perspective is very useful to predict pupils’ identification with their merged school.

In addition, a number of hypothesized relations clearly emerged. First, perceived success of the merger-at least its direct measure-was related positively to pupils’ post-merger identification. The more pupils perceived the merger as a success, the more they identified with the new merger school. In fact, this direct measure of perceived success constituted the best predictor of pupils’ post- merger identification. Moreover, despite the restricted sample size, the direct measure of perceived success proved to be a significant predictor of post-merger identification among the teachers as well. The more the teachers perceived the merger as a success, the more they identified with the new merger school.

Also in line with our expectations, satisfaction with participation and perceived necessity .of the merger were both significantly and positively related to pupils’ post-merger identification. The more pupils were satisfied with their participation during the merger process, and the more they perceived the merger as necessary, the more they identified with the new merger school. It should be noted also that in keeping with previous studies on mergers, we found that pupils’ and teachers’ identification with the new merger school was significantly lower than their reported identification with the pre-merger school.

On the other hand, some of our hypotheses were not confirmed. First, contrary to our first prediction, which was based on results obtained in various previous merger studies (e.g., Terry et al., 2001; van Knippenberg et al., 2002; van Leeuwen et al., 2003), we observed no positive relation between pre- and post- merger identification. In fact, the significant interactions between pre-merger identification and direct in-group continuity and between pre-merger identification and legitimate advantage revealed that pre- and post-merger identification were related negatively when direct in-group continuity or legitimate advantage was low or medium. These unexpected findings can perhaps be understood by taking into account that the pupils in this specific merger context overall felt that their own pre-merger group was not really continued in the new merger group (see the mean of direct in-group continuity in Table 2, which is well below the midpoint of the scale). Moreover, the pupils perceived their own pre-merger in- group to be less represented in the merger group than the other pre-merger group, and they also perceived no legitimate advantage for their own pre-merger in- group (see the means of direct in-group representation and of legitimate advantage in Table 2, which are both below the midpoint of the scale). In other words, it could well be that in the present merger context, the pupils experienced the new merger school as too different from their own pre-merger school in order to war- rant a positive transfer from their identification with the pre-merger school to their identification with the new merger school.


In this respect, it is noteworthy that Millet et al. (2003) in two experimental merger studies observed substantial negative correlations between pre- and post-merger identification under conditions where the pre-merger in-group was represented only minimally in the merger group. In sum, we believe that a positive relation between pre- and post-merger identification will only emerge when the pre-merger group is perceived as being suficiently represented in the merger group and when the merger group is perceived as an adequate continuation of the pre-merger group.

A second finding that was not in line with our expectations, nor with the results obtained by Boen et al. (2005) in a soccer context, was that in-group continuity was not a stronger predictor of post-merger identification than in-group representation or satisfaction with in-group representation. In fact, satisfaction with representation was a better predictor of pupils’ post-merger identification than direct in-group continuity and direct in-group representation. Moreover, among the teachers, satisfaction with representation was clearly the best predictor of post-merger identification.

On the other hand, the significant interaction between direct in-group continuity and pre-merger identification revealed that the impact of in-group continuity seems to depend on the level of pre-merger identification. More specifically, for pupils who identified on average or relatively strongly with their pre-merger group, direct in-group continuity was positively and significantly related to post- merger identification. The more these pupils considered the merger school as a continuation of their own pre-merger school, the more they identified with the merger school. By contrast, for pupils who identified relatively weakly with their pre-merger group, direct in-group continuity had no significant effect. Similarly, the significant interaction between perceived legitimate advantage and pre-merger identification indicates that legitimate advantage was positively related to post- merger identification for pupils who identified on average or relatively strongly with their pre-merger school, but not for pupils who identified relatively weakly.

Legitimate advantage should be considered as a concept closely related to in- group representation, but referring more explicitly to the relative status within the new merger group. These results thus confirm the explorative expectations that we had formulated concerning the moderating influence of pre-merger identification. Moreover, the fact that different measures of in-group continuity, in-group representation, and satisfaction with representation had independent and sometimes discrepant effects on post-merger identification suggests that the concep- tual distinction we made between these three related concepts is indeed important and should be taken into account in future merger studies. For example, the perception of continuing intergroup differences was related negatively to pupils’ post-merger identification, indicating that members like to see the new merger group as one group. However, the positive effects of satisfaction with in-group representation and of direct in-group continuity and legitimate advantage (at least

2600 BOEN ET AL.

for average or high pre-merger identifiers) show at the same time that members prefer this one group to be as much as possible like their own old group.

Finally, contrary to our expectations, satisfaction with information provision was not included in the best subset of predictors. It seems that for pupils, effec- tively participating during the merger process is more crucial for their emergent identification with the merger school than mere information provision.

Study Limitations

We realize that the study presented in this paper has its weaknesses. First, given that only 96 people from the former pre-merger schools worked at the new merger school, it could not be avoided that the total number of respondents in the teachers’ sample was rather limited to perform multiple regressions (i.e., 68), even though the response rates of both the pupils and the teachers were quite high (i.e., 75% and 7 1 %). As a result, the power of our study to obtain significant effects among the teachers was quite low, which could explain why only two significant predictors were found for the teachers’ post-merger identification, even though the model explained 68% of the variance in teachers’ post-merger identification.

Second, the two pre-merger schools had a rather specific profile. Both were prestigious high schools preparing their pupils for a college or university degree. Such schools usually attract pupils and teachers from the higher socioeconomic classes. It remains to be seen whether the conclusions drawn from this study can be generalized to schools with a less privileged population.

Finally, some of the predictor concepts were measured with only a few items (e.g., in-group continuity). Moreover, after the construction of the predictor scales, some of the included predictors referred to only one item: direct in-group representation, direct in-group continuity, continuing intergroup differences, and direct merger success. Consequently, in future studies, the reliability of these predictors should be reassessed with more elaborated measures.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the high proportion of explained variance in post-merger identification demonstrates the importance of looking at school mergers from a social psychological perspective. It thus seems worth- while to replicate these findings in different school contexts, using larger samples of teachers and more extended measures of the predictor variables. Another suggestion pertains to the fact that the data of the present study were gathered cross-sectionally; namely, at the end of the second school year after the merger had taken place.

Many pupils and teachers wrote on their questionnaire sheet that the first year of the merger had been very difficult for everyone involved, but that the second year had been much better. In other words, integration after a merger is a gradual process, and the specific time point of measurement can have a profound impact on the evaluation of the merger and may even influence the weight of the


predictor variables. Therefore, future studies should try to collect longitudinal data in order to have a more accurate view of the trend in post-merger identification. As one female teacher of the girls’ school expressed,

The situation was rather lamentable at the start of the first merger year: everything went wrong. Now it becomes clear that everything is falling back in its place, sometimes in a different place, but that does not have to be worse!

Implications for Practice

On the basis of the data of the present study, we also can formulate some practical suggestions for managers to facilitate pupils’ and teachers’ identification with the merger school. First, given that satisfaction with representation was a significant predictor of both pupils’ and (especially) teachers’ post-merger identification, managers should constantly probe both groups’ satisfaction with the way their pre-merger school is represented in this new merger school. As one pupil of the boys’ school wrote,

I think that the boys’ school has only lost in the merger, while the “blue nuns” (i.e., the girls’ school) have only won. With respect to the school regulation, there has only been conceded toward the blue nuns, which means that things have become more strict for the boys’ school, and more flexible for the blue nuns. As a result, finding yourself a way toward independence, which was typical for the boys’ school, has completely gone lost, as well as the atmosphere!

One possible way to enhance pupils’ and teachers’ satisfaction with representation is to point out repeatedly those features of the pre-merger school that have been preserved in the merger school or to downplay the importance of the features that have not been retained. It should be noted that the observed interactions of pre-merger identification with both direct in-group continuity and legitimate advantage may imply that the suggested interventions are especially relevant for pupils (and teachers) that were relatively strongly identified with their former pre-merger school.

Second, given that the direct measure of perceived merger success was a significant predictor of both pupils’ and teachers’ post-merger identification, managers should try to ensure that both pupils and teachers perceive the merger as much as possible as an improvement--or as little as possible as a deterioration- compared with their pre-merger school. On the basis of our results, it is not really clear to which aspects of the merger direct merger success refers. Therefore, managers should emphasize both the advantages of the merger concerning

2602 BOEN ET AL.

status-related issues (e.g., receiving more money to refurnish the classrooms, obtaining more prestige because of an increased number of pupils), as well as possibilities entailed by the merger to improve the internal quality of the school (e.g., opportunity to have more gender-balanced classes). As one pupil of the girls’ school remarked, “The pupils of the girls’ school may now perhaps develop some character and are not educated anymore to become docile sheep.”

Third, considering that perceived necessity was related positively to pupils’ post-merger identification, managers of merging schools should thoroughly explain the reasons behind the merger to pupils. Even if the reasons for the school merger refer to complex economic, administrative, or political strategies, in the long run it is worth the effort of trying to elucidate these underlying processes to pupils.

Finally, during the merger process, managers should ensure that pupils can participate in the merger process. One often sees that the management of merging organizations is wary of involving employees in decisions concerning the merger. However, the results of our study show clearly that the more pupils are satisfied with their participation during the merger process, the more they will identify with this merger school, which will positively influence their efforts in favor of the merger school. Consequently, we would advise that pupils be allowed, as much as possible, to have a say in matters that do not require much technical background knowledge, but that affect them (e.g., name of the merger school, new school regulations). Despite the short-term practical and psychological inconveniences, such managerial openness is likely to have a positive effect for the school in the long run. One teacher of the boys’ school remarked on his questionnaire sheet:

A survey like this, as well as reporting and discussing the results, would have contributed to a better atmosphere and to a better understanding. Now there have only been some formal gatherings that have solved nothing. On this domain, the management has also been wrong because they were too passive.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1 99 1 ) . Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, UK: Sage.

Belsey, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsh, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identi& ing influential data and soiirces of collinearity. New York, N Y John Wiley & Sons.

Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., & Swinnen, H. (2005). Predicting fans’ support for a merged soccer team: A social-psychological perspective. International Jour- nal of Sport Psychologv, 36, 65-85.


Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat, In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 59-83). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Mergers and acquisitions: The humati factor. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of organizational identification as determinants of different forms of organizational citizenship behavior among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329-341.

Covin, T. J. , & Kilmann, R. H. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative influences on large-scale change. Group and Organization Studies,

Devoge, S., & Shiraki, J. (2000). People factors: The missing link in merger success. Compensation and BeneJits Management, 6,26-32.

Ellemers, N. (1 993). The influences of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of socialpsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 27-57). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Freund, R. J., & Littell, R. C. (2000). SASBsystem for regression (3rd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organization: The social identity approach. London, UK: Sage.

Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Luijters, K. (2002). Continui'teit en erkenning als determinanten van de reaktie op een fusie [Continuity and recognition as determinants of the reaction to a merger]. Unpublished master's thesis, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen, The Netherlands.

15,233-248.

Mallows, C. (1973). Some comments on Cp. Technometrics, 15,661-675. Millet, K., Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., & Huybens, W. (2003). The relation

between pre- and post-merger identification as a function of in-group representation and merger status. In F. Van Overwalle, F. Boen, M. Pandelaere, & S. Lambert (Eds.), Second workshop on social psychology in Belgium (pp. 23-29). Brussels, Belgium: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.

Ouwerkerk, J. W., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (1999). Group commitment and individual effort in experimental and organisational contexts. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 184-204). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

2604 BOEN ET AL.

Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & de Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes and Intergroup Re lations, 4, 227-246.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2003, September). Probing interactions in multiple linear regression (MLR): Interactive calculation tools for establishing simple slopes and regions of significance [Computer software]. Available from http://www.unc.edu/-preacher/lcamlm/

Rentsch, J. R., & Schneider, B. (1991). Expectations for postcombination organizational life: A study of responses to merger and acquisition scenarios. Jour- nal of Applied Social Psychology, 21,233-252.

Ruiz, Y. (2002). Predictors of academic resiliency for Latino middle school stu- dents. Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, Boston, MA.

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 105 1- 1062.

Tajfel, H. (1978). DifSerentiation between social groups. London, UK: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1 979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Terry, D. J., Carey, C. J . , & Callan, V. J. (2001). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 27, 267-280.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organiza- tional Psycholop, 11, 129-149.

van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J . , & Christ, 0. (in press). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 77, 171-191.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41,233-252.

van Knippenberg, D., & van Leeuwen, E. (2002). Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of continuity as the key to post-merger identification. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 249-264). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

van Leeuwen, E. (200 1 ). Preserving identity when groups combine. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands.


van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Continuing and changing group identities: The effects o f merging on social identification and in-group bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,679-690.

Verhoeven, J . C., Devos, G., Smolders, C., Cools, W., & Velghe, J. (2002). Hoge- scholen enkele jaren nu de fiisie [Colleges some years after the merger]. Leuven, Belgium: Garant.

Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education,

Yazejian, N. M. ( I 999). The relationship between school identzjkation and drop- ping out of school. Doctoral dissertation, University o f North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

105(3), 294-3 18.

Documents

Predictors of Pupils’ and Teachers’ Identification With a Merged School