Finance

After reading and analyzing the case (in Bartlett, Ghoshal & Beamish, 2006, p. 665-682), it is quite apparent that the primary issue is the company's lack of unified goal and command. Their current set-up is the kind courting internal disagreements. Devolution of functions is, on the most part, productive for a company, especially for an international one like BRL Hardy. However, what complicates their situation is the company's underlying history. Since BRL Hardy is a merged company, it is but expected that there would arise a sort of factionalism immediately after the merger. This is a very probable scenario, and, in my opinion, top executives of both the merged companies were ill-prepared in handling this situation.

Factionalism that arose right after the merger was not successfully contained, thus, the lack of unity in command that stretches up to the present. It is mentioned in the case that some company supervisors, for instance Christopher Carson, Managing Director for Europe, would at times incur the disapproval of the Managing Director, Steve Millar, for differences in priorities. Millar himself said that “confrontation can be healthy as long as it is constructive”(as cited in p. 672) but it is in my opinion that disagreement is bad for the company if it continually happens as in this case at hand. This is also evident in the company's disagreement on the issue of  Kelly's Revenge and Banrock Station labels. The case cited that Paul Browne, the appointed Operations Manager by Carson, promoted Kelly's Revenge, Carson's brainchild, while the Australian headquarters wanted Banrock Station. This particular situation is clearly indicative that the devolution of corporate functions have gone way out of hand and the central office is slowly losing control of its branches. It also speaks greatly of the company's missing focus and goals. Following devolution, the decision to pursue market growth, recognition and profitability was handed over to the branch managers and I must concede, it is rightly so.

However, the problem that arises is the fact that overall company goals are often times set aside in pursuit of the branch's specific goal. It is true that those on nearest the market know its characteristics and trends but it still remains that decision and command should come from above, or at least from one final and irrefutable decision-maker. This is what the company is missing – a strong central decision base.

2. What recommendation would you make? And why?
Given the aforementioned analysis, it is highly recommendable that the company's top executive re-analyzes their decision to decentralize. The company must set the limits on the decisions that could be made by managers. However, it should likewise provide greater implementing strength on those decisions made from above. While it remains that devolution of powers, functions and responsibility is the best way of administering a large international company, there must exist a ready set of guidelines when it comes to the decision-making. This is in pursuit of greater company cohesion, unity in goals and better administration. It is also necessary to keep an open line of communication. Better communication channels all the way up to the top executives and vice versa would be beneficial to the company as a whole. This would likewise assist the company in achieving a unified stance which the company still haven't attained as proved by the constant bickering and disagreements running along factional lines – boundaries that understandably arose from the fact that the company is a merged company but should nonetheless be eliminated. All in all, it is in my opinion that once the company was able to establish a unified goal and command, much of the scenarios that currently infest it would be resolved and the chances of it happening again would be reduced.