In the fiercely competitive realm of corporate acquisitions, where firms often pride themselves on rapid expansion, new research suggests that a slower, more deliberate pace between deals can produce more favourable financial outcomes. Rather than signalling hesitation or weakness, taking extra time between transactions may actually enhance a company’s ability to extract long-term value from each acquisition. This finding challenges the long-standing belief that steady, evenly spaced deal-making represents the most effective route to performance gains.

A recent study co-authored by Jerayr “John” Haleblian, a professor of management at UC Riverside’s School of Business, provides robust evidence for this more reflective approach. Published in the Journal of Business Research, the study focuses on what researchers call “experience schedules”, the intervals between successive acquisitions. Company performance was assessed through changes in stock value following each deal, offering a tangible measure of how well firms were perceived to handle their acquisition activities.

The results were striking. Contrary to earlier research that favoured regular, evenly paced acquisition cycles, Haleblian and his co-authors found that investors rewarded companies extending the time between deals with higher stock valuations. This suggests that investors recognise the strategic benefit of allowing sufficient time for organisational learning and integration. According to Haleblian, gradually lengthening the interval between acquisitions gives firms a better chance to learn from prior deals and ultimately maximise the value created by each transaction.

Integration lies at the heart of these findings. Acquisitions promise advantages such as increased market share, added talent, new technologies, or expanded operational assets. However, integrating these elements into an existing corporate framework is complex and time-consuming. When companies rush into successive acquisitions, they risk what Haleblian describes as “acquisition indigestion”, a state in which leadership and staff become overwhelmed by the demands of merging operations, aligning cultures, and establishing new routines. Slower pacing reduces this strain, allowing executives to refine internal processes, integrate employees more effectively, and stabilise the organisational environment.

The study’s conclusions are supported by a large dataset of more than 5,100 acquisitions undertaken by S&P 1500 companies between 1992 and 2012, providing a long-term view of performance patterns. To deepen their understanding, the research team also interviewed seventeen senior executives involved in acquisitions across the chemical, energy, and technology sectors. One executive noted that fewer deals, spaced further apart, allow firms to “focus on extracting the value” of each transaction while placing less pressure on the broader organisation.

Overall, the message for acquisition managers is clear: slowing the pace between deals can foster stronger performance and support long-term value creation. Rather than pursuing growth through relentless momentum, companies may benefit from adopting a more considered rhythm—one that prioritises integration, organisational stability, and strategic learning.

More information: Christopher B. Bingham et al, Experience schedules: unpacking experience accumulation and its consequences, Journal of Business Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115749

Journal information: Journal of Business Research Provided by University of California – Riverside