Prior research on acquisition implementation has emphasized the challenge of balancing
integration and autonomy (Graebner 2004). However, recent work has also emphasized the
need to better distinguish integration and autonomy as two distinct dimensions of post acquisition implementation (Zaheer, Castañer et al. 2013). Moreover, there have been repeated calls to better understand what is really going on during the post-acquisition implementation process, contingent on the type of post-acquisition mode (Graebner, Heimeriks et al. 2017). The typology of post-acquisition modes presented by Haspelagh and Jemison (1991) focuses on the managerial actions and the transfer of capabilities between the acquiring parent and the acquired target through mechanisms of resource sharing, functional skills transfer, and general management capability. Alongside this strategic task of transferring capabilities to create value, the degree of organizational autonomy granted to the target reflects a concern for protecting the target’s strategic capabilities which have motivated the acquisition in the first place. Yet, the implicit result from this sequential approach advocated by the existing literature is that full integration will eventually occur and lead to the amalgamation of the target into the parent company. However if the acquisition is in a poor state or there is reason not to fully integrate, then how do the integration and autonomy dynamics interact over time? How can a poor performance target ever regain autonomy and escape amalgamation?