Closing Case: Kimberly-Clark
Estefania Sanchez Matus
Principles of Management
5/27/14

Closing Case: Kimberly-Clark 1. Why would Kimberly-Clark executives restructure the company based on “grow, sustain, fix” categories? What disadvantages might result from such structure? * Kimberly-Clark decided to base the company on “grow, sustain and fix,” because this approach would allow them to pay more attention to the products that would require improvement, over those products that are already guaranteed sellers. Products that are growing the fastest and selling good would be placed in the ‘grow’ category. Products that are generating a solid return would be placed in the ‘sustain’ category, and those products that need improvement and need to be fixed would be placed in the ‘fix’ category. It is essentially a very straight forward approach and very easy to categorize, thus I think that’s one of the main reasons Kimberly-Clark decided to go about and carry out this method. The main disadvantage of this particular approach, is that they don’t focus on customer needs and this is by far one of the most important aspects in any company, because customers is basically the reason why the company is still running.

2. Was the organizational structure presented by Kimberly-Clark executives in 2004 better than the first structure proposed? Why or why not? * The organizational structure presented in 2004, was a much better approach in my opinion. After all, the main reason why they changed the structure one year later was because the first approach was a big failure. The new way in which they organized it: personal care, washroom products and emerging markets; benefits in the way that it will capture new markets and innovations. The first structure paid more attention to the ‘fix’ category, whereas in the 2004 structure a lot of money and energy was spent in