The Heineken company has been intentionally designed with a complex and decentralized structure that differentiates geographically and functionally, relieving local managers of responsibility in a wide variety of areas in spite of the decentralized nature of the company. This is now being brought into question because the structure may not leave local managers with enough autonomy to keep them interested and to get the most out of them. The decentralization of Heineken is thus something of a paradox, for in this decentralization itself there is a centralization of functions and decision-making operations. The problem is to determine the proper balance.
The essence of the problem is seen in the statement of a member of the executive board who begins, "In principle we want to decentralize as much as possible; people in the field should be responsible for their contribution." However, as he notes, this is a one-brand, one-product company, and this fact alone limits the degree of autonomy any local manager can enjoy. The manager states further: "It is important that we balance centralized controls with the need to maintain local identity and initiative" (p. 562).
The reason for the decentralization of the company structure is a valid one, but the way the company operates seems to undercut the purpose. Heineken is a product that is sold in 40 countries, and with the different methods, regulations, labor problems, and other differences seen among these countries, it is believed that local autonomy provides the best way of handling units in each country. In addition, Heineken itself has different stakes in different companies in these countries, and this also requires methods tailored to each country and each company within different countries. The decision was thus made that "operating companies should be as autonomous and self-reliant as possible in order to exploit to the best of their
...