Case Study

I. Objectives

The mergers should meet each other’s satisfaction of who to choose for the position or to make a way for them to come up with a decision without ones regret.

II. Problem Statement

Arlington Inc. has a problem in creating an effective human resource integration strategy. Peter Lundgren and Stanley Ashton, have their own different ways or determinant of who was deserving to the position, and by that it is possible that they will conflict each other’s decision.

III. Analysis of the problem

The merging of the two companies, Arlington Oil and Dunsford Petroleum Co., has difficulty in creating an effective human resource integration strategy, due to the different perspective and approach of Lundgren and Ashton. Lundgren depends more on his gut instinct. He is the kind of boss who test his people through personal interest and interview, then decide if they would fit with the organization. He will probably choose a confident man, who will always feel right, rather than a man who’s good in paper. The only defect on his perception is that sometime he became bias. While Ashton, on the other hand, has a different dominant style. He wants his people to undergo an evaluation and follow a process, this includes personality, IQ, and emotional intelligence testing, and all sorts of other tests.

IV. Alternatives

1. Both sides should be open to each other’s opinion, and the factors of choosing employee are to be done and then make deliberations out of it. The employee needs to undergo a personal interview and all the testing required to qualify. After this they will end up in one decision that will satisfy them without conflicts on each side.

Advantage: There will be no more conflicts between the two mergers, because both perception and approach that they want is to be follow.

Disadvantage: This alternative is time consuming because of a very long process to follow before ending up in a decision.

2. Deliberation coming...