In an effort to explain why business acquisitions often fail, scholars have begun to focus on the role of top executives of acquired companies. Acquired companies that retain their top executives tend to have more successful outcomes than those that do not. Furthermore, existing research suggests that retaining the highest-level top executives, such as the CEO (chief executive officer) and COO (chief operating officer), is related more positively to post acquisition success than retaining lower-ranked top executives. However, this explanation, while insightful, suffers from two limitations. First, the focus on positional rank does not recognize the variation in length of service that may exist in top executive posts across companies, nor does it address which particular top executives (with respect to length of service) should be retained to achieve a successful acquisition outcome. Second, the relationship between retained top executives and acquisition outcomes offered by existing research is subject to opposing theoretical explanations related to length of service. The resource-based view (RBV) suggests that keeping acquired company top executives with longer organizational tenure would lead to more successful outcomes, as those executives have idiosyncratic and nontransferable knowledge of the acquired company that would be valuable for the effective implementation of the acquisition. The opposing position, offered by the upper echelons perspective (UEP), suggests that retaining top executives having short organizational tenure would lead to more successful outcomes, as they would have the adaptability to manage most effectively during the uncertainty of the acquisition process.
Responding to these limitations, Bergh conducted a study of executive retention and acquisition outcome that focused on the organizational tenure of retained company top executives in 104 acquisitions, followed over 5 years. Bergh considered the acquisition successful if the acquired company was retained and unsuccessful if it was divested. Bergh's findings support the RBV position. Apparently, the benefits of long organizational tenure lead to more successful outcomes than the benefits of short organizational tenure, While longer tenured top executives may have trouble adapting to change, it appears that their perspectives and knowledge bases offer unique value after the acquisition. Although from the UEP position it seems sensible to retain less tenured executives and allow more tenured ones to leave, such a strategy appears to lower the probability of acquisition success.
According to the passage, the research mentioned in the highlighted text suggests which of the following about lower-ranked top executives and postacquisition success?
Given that these executives are unlikely to contribute to postacquisition success, little effort should be spent trying to retain them.
The shorter their length of service, the less likely it is that these executives will play a significant role in postacquisition success.
These executives are less important to postacquisition success than are more highly ranked top executives.
If they have long tenures, these executives may prove to be as important to postacquisition success as are more highly ranked top executives.
Postacquisition success is unlikely if these executives are retained.
研究结果：保留原高层的公司更成功 & 留级别高一点的比留级别低一点的更成功