Brl Hardy
A. Exploration of Issues
A. 1. Merge Conditions
Although BRL and Hardy were in the same line of business and had many of the same goals, these two companies were not initially looking to merge with any other company. However, in June of 1992, BLR Hardy was formed. Unfortunately, the merger was the result of Hardy’s financial crisis and BRL’s need for expansion. These factors drove the two companies to make a decision they may not have made if they were not looking for help. Both companies entered the marriage hoping the other could solve the problem. Because high expectations were placed on the employees, workers began to work to keep their jobs rather than work to advance the company.
A. 2. Traditional vs. Modern
Starting with just one man in 1857, Hardy was a company with a long history and a traditional style. Having the “winemaking know-how”, this company prided itself in building relationships and maintaining quality first and foremost. On the other hand, BRL was formed by the union of 130 individual grape growers in 1916 and underwent a major merge in 1982. BRL’s members were quite familiar with change and knew that you must work hard to “earn your stripes”. In addition, its management moved quickly and jumped on opportunities when given the chance.
A. 3. Management
When these two companies became one, only one operational style dominated. From the selection of the upper management to the investment choices, it was clear BRL led the way. This created an “us and them” environment, which led to distrust and new hostile workplace for Hardy employees.
A. 4. Goals
Although the newly formed BRL Hardy Company did lay out strategic benchmarks for its domestic endeavors, it did not seem to know where to start on the international front. Once the Australian market began to turnaround, the upper management put a great deal of confidence in Christopher Carson. However, the management did not allow sufficient time for the UK market to come make the
A. 1. Merge Conditions
Although BRL and Hardy were in the same line of business and had many of the same goals, these two companies were not initially looking to merge with any other company. However, in June of 1992, BLR Hardy was formed. Unfortunately, the merger was the result of Hardy’s financial crisis and BRL’s need for expansion. These factors drove the two companies to make a decision they may not have made if they were not looking for help. Both companies entered the marriage hoping the other could solve the problem. Because high expectations were placed on the employees, workers began to work to keep their jobs rather than work to advance the company.
A. 2. Traditional vs. Modern
Starting with just one man in 1857, Hardy was a company with a long history and a traditional style. Having the “winemaking know-how”, this company prided itself in building relationships and maintaining quality first and foremost. On the other hand, BRL was formed by the union of 130 individual grape growers in 1916 and underwent a major merge in 1982. BRL’s members were quite familiar with change and knew that you must work hard to “earn your stripes”. In addition, its management moved quickly and jumped on opportunities when given the chance.
A. 3. Management
When these two companies became one, only one operational style dominated. From the selection of the upper management to the investment choices, it was clear BRL led the way. This created an “us and them” environment, which led to distrust and new hostile workplace for Hardy employees.
A. 4. Goals
Although the newly formed BRL Hardy Company did lay out strategic benchmarks for its domestic endeavors, it did not seem to know where to start on the international front. Once the Australian market began to turnaround, the upper management put a great deal of confidence in Christopher Carson. However, the management did not allow sufficient time for the UK market to come make the