-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
1/12
1
Case Study Analysis
2
Presentation Outline
Company History
The Strategy Process
Issues & Recommendations1. Why Whitbread
2. Structure
3. Culture
4. Leadership
Conclusion
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
2/12
3
Timeline
The Foundation:
Samuel Whitbread Establishes a
Brewery
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
4
Timeline
Diversification Starts:The Company Expands into the
Leisure Business
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
3/12
5
Timeline
Beer Order Legislation:
Restriction on the Number of Pubs that
can be Owned by Vertically Integrated
Breweries
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
6
Timeline
The David Thomas Era Begins
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
4/12
7
Timeline
The Allied Domecq Deal:
The Company Unsuccessfully Tries to
Acquire more Pubs
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
8
Timeline
The Transformation
Future Whitbread
Sale of Brewery Business
Period of Confusion Starts
Who Are We?
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
5/12
9
Timeline
Structural Reorganisation
Initiation of the Strategic Fitness
Program and Development of the 11
Point Plan
1970 2002
19991992
1997
2001
1999- 2000
1742
10
Strategy Process Model
Strategy Identification
Strategy Evaluation
Strategic Option
DevelopmentStrategic Option Evaluation
Strategy Selection
Strategy Communication
Implementation
Brewery? Leisure?
Ref: Saloner, G.; et al. (2001).
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
6/12
11
Issue 1: Why Whitbread
1. Why Whitbread
Problems
Proposed Solutions
Recommendations
2. Structure
3. Culture
4. Leadership
12
Issue 1: Why Whitbread
Strategy and Intent not Communicated
Effectively
Leadership unable to Take Control
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
7/12
13
Issue 1: Why Whitbread
Recommendations:
Take Guidelines from Statement of
Intent (see p.21)
Communicate Effectively
14
Issue 2: Structure
Lack of Control
Silo Structure
Confusion about the Benefits Conglomerate discount
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
8/12
15
Issue 2: Structure
Proposed Solutions:
Point 1: Brand template
Point 2+3: Long-Term Considerations
Point 4: Clarifying the Role of the Center
Point 5: Restructuring Point 6: Empowerment + Accountability
Please refer top.23 in the case study for the 11 Point Plan
16
Issue 2: Structure
Recommendations:
Nothing to Promote Collaboration
Amongst BUs Create Routines
T-Shaped Managers
Ref: Hansen, M.T. and von Oetinger, B. (2001).
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
9/12
17
Issue 3: Culture
Institutionalized Underperformance
OK to be Second Best
Going for Safe Options
Focus on BU Performance
18
Issue 3: Culture
Proposed Solutions:
Point 7: High Performers Become Part of
Leadership Group Point 8: Create Winning Culture
Point 9: Master Class
Point 10: Rewarding High Achievers
Point 11: Equity Stakes
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
10/12
19
Issue 3: Culture
Recommendations:
Will the Firm be Tougher in the Future?
Might Lead to Less Cooperation
T-Shaped Managers Might Improve this
20
Issue 4:Leadership
Leadership not a Good Example CEO never held accountable
Leadership not Pushing for HighPerformance
Incompatible Leadership
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
11/12
21
Issue 4:Leadership
Recommendations
Create a Sense of Urgency
Leaders Need to Create Followers
T-shaped managers might help
Ref: Carnall, C. (2007)
22
Conclusion
Diversification
External Change
Strategic Change
Strategy Miscommunication
Issues
Proposed Solutions
Recommendations
-
8/14/2019 Attachment Handler
12/12
23
Questions?
?
24
References
Carnall, C. (2007), A strategic convergence model for change
management, C & R Carnall and Associates, February 2007
Hansen, M.T. and von Oetinger, B. (2001). Introducing
T-ShapedManagers: Knoweldge Managements Next Generation.
Harvard
Business Review, 79(3): 107-116.
Saloner, G.; Shepard, A. and Podolny, J. (2001).
StrategicManagement. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
