Perhaps the main drive for BRL Hardy’s post-merger success was the fact that the two merged companies were so distinct from each other. BRL was a company that sold fortified wines and took a bulk and volume approach, and thus had as one of its main assets its grape resources. Hardy’s on the other hand was a recognized, traditional award-winning brand wine that had marketing expertise and brand recognition. This essentially meant that Hardy had the know-how and innovation while BRL had the funds and resources to implement the ideas.
Another reason for the success was the appointment of Steve Millar as CEO of the newly merged companies. Millar’s management placed an emphasis on turning BRL …show more content…
Decentralization vs. Centralization: Power Struggles between Davies and Carson
The main source of tension that existed between Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson was the simple conflict of centralized management vs. foreign branch autonomy. This seemed to be an issue that arose in a post-merger context due to the fact that Carson was initially part of the Hardy Co. before the merger with BRL and was previously used to operating under a decentralized structure whereas after the acquisition, his previous experience and accomplishments would be ignored as a result of new management and he’d lose autonomy over his operations in the UK by being forced to answer to Stephen Davies. Another area of conflict stemmed from