write a conclusion for the below

$3\mathrm{.}3$ Would you suggest restructuring of IGIL? Why or Why Not.

Indian General Insurance Ltd has been operating in a highly competitive market, with numerous players vying for a share of the pie. Strategic management involves the formulation and implementation of strategies to achieve organizational goals and objectives $($Johnson$,$ Scholes, & Whittington, $2017).$ In the context of IGIL strategic management entails analysing the market, identifying opportunities and threats, and developing strategies to capitalize on the former and mitigate the latter. The market in which IGIL operates is characterized by intense competition, regulatory changes, and evolving customer needs. To succeed in this environment IGIL should ensure compliance with all regulations to avoid legal issues and potential fines, continuously monitor economic indicators and consumers trends and must focus on innovation as investing in innovation and quality can help differentiate the firm from its competitors. With this in mind, the issue at hand is to determine whether restructuring or not restructuring IGIL can maintain its market share and reach its desired state in areas of efficiency, autonomy of subsidiaries and global competitiveness.

While restructuring may seem like a viable option for IGIL because it may yield the benefits of economies of scale, reduce cost and increase market share it is essential to consider the potential drawbacks and explore alternative strategies. Why restructure? Is IGIL faced with the following?

$1.$ Financial weaknesses, such as declining revenue, low profitability, or high debt levels.

$2.$ Operational weaknesses such as poor service quality

$3.$ Market weaknesses such as declining market share, intense competition, or low customer satisfaction.

$4.$ Weaknesses in organizational structure such as poor communication, ineffective management, or low employee engagement

The current performance of IGIL goes against the aforementioned criteria for why a firm should restructure. Instead of restructuring, IGIL should focus on specific business areas and addressed inherent weaknesses, which according to Michael Porter can position a company for success, achieving their corporate vision by reaching its desired state.

Using the SWOT and GAP analysis, the researcher was able to assess IGIL current position and the potential impact of restructuring. Here are some reasons why IGIL should avoid restructuring:

$1.$ Financial Performance: The financial strength of each subsidiary is another strength that can be leveraged. Financially strong subsidiaries indicate stability, and restructuring could destabilize the financial balance and lead to uncertainties. Cross$-$holding among subsidiaries provides financial security and reduces risk. Disentangling these relationships in a restructuring could lead to financial vulnerabilities. Restructuring may result in financial losses due to integration cost, redundancies or other unforeseen expenses.

$2.$ Disruption of Operations: IGIL's position as the largest state$-$ maintain owned non$-$life firm in India provides it with a significant market presence and credibility. Restructuring can lead to disruptions in operations, which can negatively impact customer service and satisfaction. IGIL's diverse non$-$life insurance portfolio is a significant strength. A diverse portfolio helps in spreading risk and capturing different market segments. Restructuring could lead to a loss of this diversification.

$3.$ Integration Challenges: Integrating different systems, processes and cultures can be time consuming and resource$-$ intensive. Autonomous units ensure discipline and focus on specific business areas.

$4.$ Employee Morale: Restructuring can also lead to a decline in employee morale, which can result in reduced productivity and increased turnover.

$5.$ Regulatory Challenges: The Indian general insurance industry is highly regulated, and any changes to the company's structure may require regulatory approval. This can be a lengthy and complex process.

Notwithstanding, there exist a few inherent weaknesses that the directors may want to take into consideration when deciding on whether or not to restructure. As Vijay Santoor, Director $($Operations$)$ indicated a merger downplays the inherent weaknesses in the system and this is something that cannot be overlooked when making decisions that affects the foreseeable future.

One such challenge is the lack of parity in performance parameters among subsidiaries. This issue can arise due to various factors, including differences in operational processes, market conditions, and resource allocation. While restructuring might seem like an obvious solution, it may not always address the root causes of performance disparity and could lead to operational disruptions $($Hill & Jones, $2012).$ Instead, standardizing performance metrics and implementing a unified performance improvement plan can ensure consistency across subsidiaries $($Bartle