Reorganization of Companies in the Context of Mergers & Acquisitions with the Focus on Interpersonal and Professional Problems

Table of Contents

Table of Contents..I

List of Abbreviations ..III

List of Figures .. IV

List of Tables..V

1.Introduction ..1

1.1.1. Problem Description ..1

1.2. Objective of Work ..1

1.3. Scope of Work ..2

2.Theoretical Basics ..3

2.1. Individuals in Organizations: Motivation Theory Approaches ..3

2.2. Groups in Organizations: Group Behavior ..8

2.3. Leaders in Organizations: Leadership Theory Approaches ..11

2.4. Organizational Behavior ..17

3.Current Challenges in Global Economics ..22

3.1. Mergers and Acquisitions ..22

3.2. Interpersonal and Professional Challenges ..27

3.3. Demographic Changes ..28

4.Approaches to solve Interpersonal and Professional Problems ..29

4.1. Change and Resistance ..30

4.2. Communication ..35

4.3. Conflict Management ..39

4.4. Leadership Qualities and Soft Skills ..43

4.5. Motivation ..50

4.6. Team Building and Team Development ..52

4.7. Corporate Culture ..54

4.8. Personnel Selection ..66

4.9. Talent Management ..70

4.10. Diversity Management ..75

4.11. Work Life Balance ..77

5.Intercultural Particularities ..80

6. Results .. 96

7. Conclusion and Outlook .. 107

Annex 1: Mission and Vision of CocaCola .. 112

Annex 2: Belbin’s Team Roles .. 113

Bibliography .. 114

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem Description

Mergers and Acquisitions (hereafter collectively referred to as M and A) seems to be an ambivalent issue. On the one hand the worldwide number of M and A deals increased tenfold from 1985 to 2012.¹ On the other hand the failure quote of M and A deals lies between 70 and 90 % according to an article in HBR from 2011 with reference to several studies.² Companies in the modern economic environment get increasingly complex and aligned to international activities. The mix of employees gets more and more diverse, people have different values, imaginations and opinions. This initial position makes it increasingly difficult for people to work together. Many conflicts appear in everyday working life. They are frequently not solved and remain subliminal for a long time. Besides that demographic change continuously influences the working world of today. Those developments come up to a much higher shape in M and A deals. One of the main reasons, why M and A deals fail is negligent human resources management (hereafter collectively referred to as HRM). People in power seem to be not informed and skilled sufficiently to handle M and A situations appropriate, as a huge number of M and A deals fail.³ In numerous cases insufficient attention to HRM with all its problems in this special change situation is responsible for the failure. It is a major challenge for companies and their leaders to solve interpersonal and professional problems within their company that can occur in conjunction with an M and A deal. The challenge for top management and HRM is to be well prepared for all upcoming problems, whether they are interpersonal or professional. In M and A deals huge amounts of money are invested combined with dependencies as jobs, competitiveness and success of a company. Therefore the critical success factor HRM in M and A is worth to be examined closely.

1.2. Objective of Work

This work ascertains, how many problems around HRM influence M and A deals and to what extent they can influence and impact the success or failure of a deal. Problems are manifold and can be interpersonal and professional, being closely connected. The objective of this work is to overcome the difficulty with interpersonal and professional problems appearing in conjunction with an M and A deal. It shall give answers to companies and their leaders, how modern teams and departments can be organized to work successfully and be equipped for the challenges of the future world of economy. In globalized markets with severe competition in multiple markets, excellent human capital can be a decisive factor for a company to stay competitive and outperform the rivals. On the one hand this work will show the challenging problems that occur in an M and A deal and on the other hand, how they can be solved or avoided by early proactive measures and methods. The work will show how integration processes before, during and after an M and A deal can be designed successfully by dealing with the right HRM topics. A deeper understanding for what happens with employees in stressful change situations and how to handle their behavior is created. Reorganizing companies in an M and A context has a lot to do with change and project management. At several points in this paper there will be interfaces to those areas. However the focus will be on the people in the company, the leaders, the employees, what risks are covered in this situation, the pressure that can occur and how all parties involved deal with it best. The work will give a guideline for management and HR departments how to cope successfully with the upcoming HRM problems in M and A deals.

1.3. Scope of Work

The work at hand is structured as follows: after the introduction in chapter one chapter two explains theoretical basics of the organization of companies. It deals with theories and approaches of individual, group and leadership behavior as well as organizational behavior. Chapter three provides facts and figures about M and A in the current economic environment. Besides current developments in HRM are presented, covering changes in demography and values as well as conflict potential resulting from that. Chapter four represents the main part, the core of this work. It analyzes selected HRM problems that can occur in an M and A deal and gives approaches to solving those problems. In practice there are more problems than presented in this work. The selected fields illustrate the main areas of conflict. As globalization is in continuous change and M and A deals are by nature an internationally relevant subject an own chapter (five) is dedicated to the intercultural particularities that need to be considered in M and A deals. Chapter six summarizes the results of the work. Chapter seven gives the conclusion and an outlook on further developments in the discussed topic.

2. Theoretical Basics

Chapter two contains selected theories, models, concepts and approaches referring to the motivation of individuals, group behavior, leadership and organizational behavior. There are more theories and approaches, but the theories selected for this work are assumed to be the most relevant with regard to the interpersonal and professional problems in M and A deals.

2.1. Individuals in Organizations: Motivation Theory Approaches

The motivation of an employee is closely linked to factors such as engagement, absenteeism, fluctuation or building individual action objectives. Explaining human working behavior is a complex topic. There is not just one theory that can explain the motivation of humans at work, actually there are many theories that set forth different approaches.⁴ In the following selected theories that add valuable input to the explanation of motivation (in the working world) are presented.

The development of motivation theories traces back to the US psychologists Maslow and Herzberg. Knowledge about the individual objectives of a company’s employees is essential for an objectiveoriented behavior control of the staff.⁵ Motivation theory deals with the fundamental question, how human beings in the working world can be motivated. In this context Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs, which serves as explanation of the relations between needs and behavior according to the urgency of the most important needs. Maslow developed a pyramid of needs, which is hierarchically arranged, divided into five main motives. The following table shows an overview of Maslow’s main ideas:

[Figures and tables are omitted from this preview.] Table 1: Basic contents of Maslow’s motivation theory⁶

The main ideas of Maslow were developed already in 1943, but the main tendencies remain the same. What can be derived from Maslow’s findings are those current needs that are not or only partially fulfilled. The motivation of employees is determined by not yet satisfied needs and needs that have not yet been identified.⁷ Maslow’s pyramid delivers a tendency statement, which is: before the basic needs (physiological and partially safety needs) are not fulfilled, needs of a higher level cannot be action directing. The needs of higher levels however cannot be brought in a specific order, in fact they exist in parallel, function simultaneously, are individual and situationdependent.⁸

The main criticism on Maslow’s pyramid model is summarized:⁹

· The used terms and levels of the pyramid cannot be operationalized and the borderline between the different levels is not sharp enough.

· The approach is not based on empirical studies.

· The thesis of the priority is empirically not proven and can be doubted.¹⁰

· Situational and social factors are neglected.

While Maslow’s motivation theory deals with positive events which lead to a higher satisfaction, Herzberg modified this significantly in his duality theory. The so called Pittsburghstudy is based on partially structured interviews about pleasant and unpleasant working situations¹¹ with technicians and accounting clerks. This theory says that for the satisfaction of an employee not only motivators are relevant, but also hygienic factors. These hygienic factors are e.g. corporate policy, organization, management, leadership style, working conditions, personal relations to managers and colleagues, job security and work life balance.¹² The main difference between motivators and hygienic factors is that motivators have longterm effects, while hygienic factors are characterized by shortterm effects. In the long run those leaders and managers will have more success who adjust HRM to the motivators. For all decisions it needs to be considered, that a company and its employees are a complex system and every employee has a different view on motivation and incentive systems. Additionally it needs to be considered, that needs are not always conscious. Employees may not have a view per se but have a subconscious need.¹³ Herzberg’s theory had farreaching organizational consequences, as it led to the introduction of jobenrichment measures and enhanced the effort of humanizing work significantly. Still there is criticism of his theory, which is summarized in the following points:¹⁴

· The overweighing part of the approach is verbalized only vaguely, especially the term work satisfaction is not defined in detail.

· The division into two dimensions of work satisfaction is not supported in most of the literature.

· Situational conditions to the meaning of the factors are neglected.

· The selection of the interviewees and the missing explanation, why the different motivators and hygienic factors influence the degree of willingness to perform positive or negative.

· The number of interviewees which is only 200 is not significant.

What remains sustainable and accredited of Herzberg’s theory is the message that not only material stimuli motivate and influence work behavior.¹⁵ Work behavior is also influenced by the leaders and generally described the working conditions concerning workplace, colleagues and corporate culture.

The presented theories belong to the most popular motivation theories. Though, critical reflection in literature is not always given. It is important to know that Maslow was a clinical psychologist and cofounder of the humanistic psychology. His approach was not thought to be a contribution to workmotivation, but is a product of his clinical studies.¹⁶ While Maslow and Herzberg dealt mainly with the question, what factors motivate people to act a certain way, other theories use process orientated approaches. These theories discuss, how the motivation act is carried out and with what cognitive procedures this is linked.¹⁷ One popular of those theories, standing in the tradition of expectationvalueapproaches or expectationvalenceapproaches is the valenceinstrumentalityexpectationmodel by Vroom. This approach acts on the assumption that people act rational and objective oriented. The motivation of people depends on the estimated expectation to reach a certain behavior objective and on the subjective realized value.¹⁸ The central terms in Victor H. Vrooms (1964) VIEtheory are:¹⁹

·Valence: the realized value of an action result in terms of a positive ornegative affective attitude. Results, which have a positive valence for aperson, are aimed for, those with negative valence are avoided.

·Instrumentality: this expresses the alliance grade between an action result and an action consequence. It can have a value between +1 and 1.It is distinguished between valence on the first level and the second level. The valence of the first level denotes the value of an action result. Thevalence of the second level denotes the value of certain action consequences as the underlying action objective.

·Expectation: relates to the subjective realized probability that an actionwill lead to the desired action result. The expectation can have valuesbetween 0 and +1.

The underlying basis formula of Vroom’s model is:

Willingness to perform = Valence x Instrumentality x Expectation of success

What is criticized in this formula is that for the three variables a mutual independence is implicated, which cannot be proven by experiences of daily business and empirical investigations. Furthermore the theory assumes that an acting individual can consider all relevant information and handle them absolutely rational, which is not feasible in reality. Also it assumes that every operator knows the three variables, can assign values and interpret a result, which is not realistic.²⁰ One of the core findings of this theory is the emphasis of the meaning of anticipative imaginations of future results, which are in an instrumentpurposerelation. This means, that a desired employee behavior cannot necessarily be influenced by linking it to a desirable reward such as e.g. a salary increase. Performance can even suffer from a salary increase, if the employee gets tired or is rejected by the team immediately. Another theory based on valence and expectations is the Motivationmodel by Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler (1968), which received similar criticism as Vroom’s VIEtheory. The motivationmodel has the advantage, that concrete design proposals for the operational practice can be developed.²¹

The Stimuluscontribution theory (see Barnard, 1938; Simon, 1945; March / Simon, 1958)²² states that an employee who has free choice of its job will hold and improve his membership and performanceoriented behavior, as and so long as his appeal benefit (all material and immaterial rewards an employee receives from a company) exceeds his input use. The input use means costs for input respectively maximal appeal use of the reward the person can expect at another or less intensive activity. Following this employees work as long for a company as the offered appeals are equal or bigger than the input that is necessary. What needs to be regarded is:

1. The use is determined by subjective cognitions.

2. Motives change permanently, depending on different phases in life, material appeals modify and immaterial appeals can become more important: social network, quality of work, prestige.

3. The relation between appeal and input of alternative jobs and employers modifies the effects of positive or negative current working conditions.

As the motivation of each employee differs, there can be no general appeals system. The task for successful HRM is to recognize and satisfy needs of the employees by adequate activities. Systems with the potential to be generalized need to be found.

2.2. Groups in Organizations: Group Behavior

Companies consist of individuals. The individuals themselves are organized in groups. These groups can occur in departments, companyfacilitated sports activities, project teams, hierarchy levels or groups formed during lunch breaks in the company’s canteen. In the context of M and A deals it is of relevance how groups behave and what drives and causes them to act in certain ways. There is no general definition for the term group. Groups have the following typical attributes:²³

· Direct interaction between the members and physical closeness.

· Members regard themselves as a group.

· Common objectives, values and norms.

· Role differentiation and allocation of status.

· The individual’s actions and behavior are influenced by others.

· Embedment in a comprehensive institution, which leads to social conditioning by the institution’s structural, technological and cultural particularities.

Main characteristics of groups are their structure, their objectives and the roles allocated to their members. Groups can be otherdirected or selfdetermined. Groups can be divided into different types of groups:²⁴ temporary and permanent groups as well as open and closed groups. Furthermore there are formal and informal groups: formal groups are in composition, objective and work content officially authorized by the institution. They can be permanent (e.g. department) or limited in time (e.g. project groups). Formal groups follow the objectives given by the management as well as internal objectives, which serve the maintenance of the group. Informal groups²⁵ develop from many social relations in a company. It is today beyond dispute, that informal groups supply an important input to a company.²⁶

Starting point for research into groups and group models was the humanrelations approach. At that time the analysis of the individual and its physical working world dominated. Due to increasing competitive pressure in the working world, but already for some decades, management concepts that deal with the idea of group work in different characteristics are discussed. The approach of those concepts²⁷ is the striving to make increased use of problem solving ability and innovation potential of employees by group work.²⁸ The approaches for the description of behavior in groups come from different perspectives of research and can be divided into five main approaches shown in the following figure:

[Figures and tables are omitted from this preview.] Table 2: Overview of approaches to models and theories about the behavior in groups²⁹

The success and performance of a group depend on different influencing factors. These factors are the organizational environment, the group members and the processes within a company. The processes are shaped by norms and standards, roles, cohesiveness and conflicts.³⁰ Within the influencing factors there are some main drivers that influence the factors themselves. They are shown in the following overview:

[Figures and tables are omitted from this preview.]Table 3: Drivers of the influencing factors of group work³¹

Groups will be successful, if they have common objectives. Groups need behavioural guidelines, defined roles and responsibilities and reliability. The group productivity will reach its peak if the achievement of the group objectives also brings fulfilment of the needs of the individuals in the group.³²

2.3. Leaders in Organizations: Leadership Theory Approaches

Individuals work for companies that consist of various groups. These groups have leaders. Therefore it is of relevance in the context of M and A deals how leaders behave and what tools and methods they have available to operate the group they are responsible for. The focus in this chapter is on leadership concepts and models. There are different leadership theories, which can be divided into character theories (trait approach / personality approach), situation theories, attribution theories and substitution theories. Leadership theories are formulated to describe, explain and forecast the conditions, potentials, structures, processes and consequences of leadership. Current state of research is that leadership theories are missing, what can explain, how leaders in certain situations can influence their employees to reach certain objectives. Several leadership theories are outdated as the everchanging environment in which leadership is happening is not regarded sufficiently.³³ Therefore it is assumed to be more relevant to deal with leadership concepts / models in this chapter. In the following selected leadership models are shown. They were developed on the basis of theoretical and empirical groundwork and have the character of ideal typical normative quota concepts. The selected models deal with the leadership of employees, not organizations.³⁴

Managerial grid (Blake/Mouton, 1964, 1968)³⁵

The managerial grid belongs to the behavior theories of leaders and leadership. The managerial grid has two dimensions: concern for people (also: orientation towards people, emphasis on human aspects, satisfaction) and concern for production (also: orientation towards tasks, emphasis on economic aspects, performance). As both dimensions have scales respectively axis points from 19, a maximum of 81 different leadership styles can theoretically result out of the grid. Blake and Mouton investigated five main dimensions, the four in the corner and the one in the middle. The simplified recommendation of the grid is to act 9,9 i.e. with a high emphasis on the people and the task as well.³⁶ Robert R. Blake, together with Anne Adams McCanse e.g. developed the leadership grid with the five main leadership styles which are:³⁷

1,1 Impoverished Management: use of minimum effort to get required work done is appropriate to sustain organization membership. Leadership is neither aligned towards people nor production.

1,9 Country Club Management: thoughtful attention to the needs of people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organization atmosphere and pace of work. Performance suffers in this environment.

9,1 AuthorityObedience Management (also: task leader): efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree.

5,5 Organization Man Management (also: middle of the road leader): adequate organization performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get work out while maintaining people’s morale at a satisfactory level. Balanced approach, but combined with mediocre motivation and performance.

9,9 Team Management: work accomplishment is from committed people; interdependence through a common stake in organization purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect. This is the ideal typical style, characterized by high motivation and performance.

The following figure shows the leadership grid, containing different management styles derived from the two axes.

Figure 1: Leadership grid by Blake/McCanse³⁸ [Figures and tables are omitted from this preview.]

The values start with 1 for low, rising to 9 for high. In later publications Blake and Mouton emphasize, that the two dimensions must not be seen as independent but interdependent. What makes the grid a diagnosis instrument is to add a third dimension, the motivation, into the model. The motivation of leaders can be expressed in a motivation continuum whose extreme points are displayed with (+) and (). The managerial grid by Blake and Mouton was the basis for the further development of this grid adapted to other approaches of business economics. Criticism on the model:

· In a high degree simplifying concept.

· Only 5 out of 81 possible leadership styles are viewed.

· It can be doubted that every leader can act 9,9.

· Influences of situational factors are not taken into account.

· 9,9 leadership style is not the best in every environment and company.

However the managerial grid is easy to understand and encourages to a conscious contest with own leadership behavior.³⁹

The next two models, ThreeDConcept and situational leadership model, belong to the situation theories.

ThreeDConcept (Reddin, 1970, 1971)⁴⁰

Reddin takes the four corner points of the managerial grid and describes them as basic styles, which are:

· Input style: strong orientation towards tasks. (9,1 field in the MG)

· Contact style: strong orientation towards employees. (1,9 field)

· Separation style: slight shape of both styles. (1,1 field)

· Integration style: combination of strong orientation towards tasks and employees. (9,9 field)

Reddin adds a third dimension to the MG and calls it situation adequate. Each basic style – task orientation and relationship orientation – can now be applied suitable for a situation (and therefore be efficient) and unsuitable for a situation (and therefore be inefficient). Furthermore Reddin derives three leadership qualifications from his concept, which from his point of view are necessary for efficient leadership:

·Openness for situational factors: the ability to correctly assess the conditions and requirements of a situation with regard to situation adequateleadership style.

·Leadership flexibility: the ability to adapt the leadership style to the situational conditions.

·Ability to design: the ability to change or design a situation or single elements of the situation if necessary.

The concept has a high capability in practice, but important situational factors as group relations, time pressure, growing complexity or permanent change are not regarded.⁴¹

Situational leadership model (Hersey/Blanchard, 1977)⁴²

The basis for this model is the 3Dconcept by Reddin. Hersey and Blanchard complement the 3Dconcept by another situational influencing factor, the maturity of employees. They also distinguish between four leadership styles, but call them participating, selling, delegating and telling. None of these styles is ideal. The choice of an effective leadership style depends on the maturity level of the employees. Hersey and Blanchard distinguish between four levels:

M1: Low maturity (motivation, knowledge and abilities lack)

M2: Low to moderate maturity (motivation, but lack of abilities)

M3: Moderate to high maturity (abilities, but lack of motivation)

M4: High maturity (motivation, knowledge and abilities available)

The four leadership styles are applied according to the maturity levels. While immature employees (M1) need authoritarian leadership to make them effective, increasing maturity makes the orientation towards tasks less and towards people more important. In M4 level employees act largely self responsible. According to Hersey/Blanchard it is recommended to leaders to use concerted compensation and personnel development to increase the maturity level of their employees. The quality of a team is actively influenced by the leader. It has to be criticized, that the situational factors are reduced to only one single factor, the maturity level. Additionally the effectiveness of leadership is not defined with regard to contents but only formally as situation adequate right behavior of the leader. Nevertheless this model is tailored to the current economic environment, which is flexible, dynamic and fast changing. The founders of the situational leadership model Hersey and Blanchard view their model as a behavioral model and the Managerial Grid by Blake and Mouton as an attitudinal model and think both models complement each other.⁴³

Decision Model (Vroom/Yetton, 1973)⁴⁴

This model understands itself as a decisionmaking support. All leadership activities before and after the decision are neglected. The model gives five procedures, which offer different ways to solve a problem of decision making:

· Authoritarian single decision. The leader solves the problem alone on the basis of available information.

· Authoritarian decision after the supply of information by his employees.

· Decision after previous consulting with selected employees.

· Decision after previous consulting with employees in a team meeting.

· Problem solving and decision making by the employees as a team.

The decision, which style is chosen to solve a problem depends on the problem situation, which can be determined by a situation diagnosis. The decision conditions can be found out with the following questions: is quality important? Is enough information available? Is the problem structured? Is acceptance important? Is a sole decision accepted? Are the company objectives accepted? Are conflicts probable? Out of 128 problem constellations Vroom and Yetton consider 13 types as being relevant for decision making. Which type is relevant can be decided by using a decision tree. This will help to find the most suitable out of the five procedures. In the procedure of decision making quality and acceptance are regarded as efficiency criteria. Another criterion is the time factor. The main criticism of this model is:⁴⁵

·Model conception is too simple: the situation attributes only relate to thedecision to make. Other attributes of real leadership situations such ase.g. the organizational structure and socialpsychological efficiency criteria are not taken into account.

·As the validity of the model is questioned i.e. there are doubts about thesuccess rate. Empirical studies about success based on this model lie at60 %. In practice leaders overestimate their participative abilities.

·The practice relevance of the complex model is difficult and costly interms of time. In the current dynamic economic environment many decisions need to be made quick. Using this model is difficult to imagine.

Summarized there is no one best leadership style as leadership is basically situational or accidental. Effective managers must be able to always know and make use of the most appropriate leadership style appropriate to the underlying situation. They must have a high concern for results and for people as well.

[...]

---

1 See IMAA (2013a).

2 See Christensen et al. (2011), P. 49.

3 See Högemann (2011), P. 551; Picot (2012), P. 586.

4 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 43 f.

5 See Wehrlin (2012a), P. 292 ff.

6 Own design in dependence on: Nerdinger (2008), P. 110 ff.; Wehrlin (2012a), P. 294 ff.

7 See Wehrlin (2012a), P. 297.

8 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 52.

9 See ibid.

10 See Robbins/Judge (2012), P. 98.

11 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 53.

12 See Wehrlin (2012a), P. 301 f.

13 See Wehrlin (2012a), P. 303.

14 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 56; Nerdinger (2008), P. 115 f.

15 See Robbins/Judge (2012), P. 99.

16 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 50.

17 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 56.

18 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 56 f.

19 See Bartscher et al. (2012), P. 87 ff.

20 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 57 ff.

21 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 60 ff.

22 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 43 ff.

23 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 111; Nerdinger (2008), P. 168.

24 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 112 f.

25 Joining informal groups can help an employee to satisfy his individual needs for safety, social contacts and respect. For a long time informal groups were viewed as disruptive factors, that can cause damage to the company by thwarting company’s objectives and spreading rumours. Informal groups support understanding and communication of members between themselves and strengthen the social cohesion.

26 See Picot (2012), P. 607.

27 Such as e.g. Lean Production, KAIZEN, Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering.

28 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 105.

29 Own design in dependence on: Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 106 ff.

30 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 123.

31 Own design in dependence on: Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 123 ff.

32 See Hersey et al. (2012), P. 234 f.

33 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 174 ff.

34 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 193 ff.

35 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 193 ff; Blake et al. (1964).

36 See Hersey et al. (2012), P. 317.

37 Taken from Hersey et al. (2012), P. 80 ff.; See also Bartscher et al. (2012), P. 95 ff.

38 Source: taken from: Emerald Insight (2013).

39 See Steyrer (2009), P. 59.

40 See Bartscher et al. (2012), P. 98 f.; Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 197 f.

41 See Bartscher et al. (2012), P. 99.

42 See Bartscher et al. (2012), P. 99 ff.; Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 203 f.; Hersey et al. (2012), P. 113 ff.

43 See Hersey et al. (2012), P. 317.

44 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P.199 ff.

45 See Berthel/Becker (2010), P. 202 f.