People and organizations involve in decision making and processes tocome up with feasible solutions to existing problems. More often,several institutions favor solutions that yield optimal results.Unilever, one of the global leaders in the production of FMCG goods,made an important and remarkable decision to acquire Inmarko, aprominent national ice cream manufacturer in Russia. The selectedsolutions are supposed to obtain the highest levels of synergies forsuch an acquisition, but in some cases, firms, like in the case ofUnilever make bad decisions, which eventually results in diminishedprofitability or productivity. In this regards, the discoursediscusses the ineffectiveness of processes involved in theprocurement of Inmarko by Unilever Company as well profferssuggestions on how the firm could have improved the decision process.
The process used to make the decision involved propositioning newmodel organizational targets in details to evaluate Inmarko’sautonomy range and the extent of Unilever control. This decisionentirely revolved around managerial control, decision-making inbusiness processes, revenue, and sales volume. The firm thendeveloped approaches to determine cut costing, talent nurturing andreward management as part of the decision-making procedure. Theorganization grew and changed the management policy. There were plansto revise daily work roles and to reassign certain departmentalfunctions along with activities preparation and incorporation ofperformance indicators. The challenge for this acquisition case wasto find a way of maintaining a unique competitive advantage that wasrelevant to Inmarko and sustaining the environment and productionquality standards pertinent to Unilever. The Human Resource Managerat Unilever employed the traditional approach of brainstorming to askthe employees to submit their views, models, headcounts andstructures of the new organization concept.
The decision-making process was ineffective because it failed toconsider a great lot of the employees who lost their jobs. Based onthe results of the decisions made, during the acquisition periodbetween the year 2000 and 2008, Unilever cut off the globalworkforces from 295,000 to 163,000 people. This figure reflects 41%reduction contrary to Unilever’s internal values, competenciesmodel, purpose and principles that fundamentally call for personalresponsibility. Additionally, the unification of sales team requiredsignificant assets, which compel particular characteristics todistributors. This issue led to the insignificant impact directed tothe decrease in headcount possibilities.
Mergers and acquisitions are difficult to handle. However, the firmcould have improved the decision by expanding the definition of theproblem to reflect more on the impact of the workforce. However, thiswould have been possible if each employee at Inmarko could haveresulted in the consideration of headcount possibilities of the salesdepartment given that it determines the revenues. Identifying thedecision and weighing the criteria could have been determined byconsidering Unilever’s internal values, competencies model, purposeand principles. At this point, the Human Resource Manager could havethen brained stormed to collect all the possible ideas to evaluateoptimal results for both Inmarko and Unilever. In addition, the firmshould have cultivated an intuitive process by involving peopleaffected as well as questioning the available data. As such, thiswould have allowed the firm to structure the decision process in away that would have identified all inadequacies and solutions to theshortcomings.
Both companies are market leaders implying the presence of competentstaff. Generating another course of action on the acquisition couldhave included other means of sustaining as much skilled workforce asUnilever could have managed. For instance, sending the Human ResourceManager to the Inmarko branch along with an expert in the field wouldbe the best decision to take slowly over while maintaining the largeefficient workforce. A large skilled workforce implies optimal salesand revenues that Unilever Company was targeting. More so, it couldhave been easier to compute the optimal outcomes at that level ascompared to chiefly operating from Unilever.