Chattanooga Case Analysis

Chattanooga Case Analysis

Joe Barfield

Jack Welch Management Institute

Dr. Denis Tocci

JWI 510

February 14, 2016

Executive Summary Case Analysis

     The Chattanooga Ice Cream Division Case studies the rollercoaster of the grandson of the founder by the same name Charles Moore, the head of said division and his responsibility to his company and his team.  I will be discussing and analyzing the dynamic and often dysfunction of his leadership style as well as the team, and the contributions of both and how it has impacted the company.  I will also be dissecting Mr. Moore’s style of management and making alternative recommendations for him and his team.

The Dysfunction of an Ice Cream Icon

     Chattanooga Ice Cream, Inc. was a subsidiary of Chattanooga Food Corporation, founded in 1936. The Ice Cream Division of Chattanooga Foods was one of the largest regional ice cream manufacturers in the United States. (Sloane, 2003) Following the loss of their third biggest customer Stay & Shop a loss of $6.5 million in revenue, the division’s president and general manager, Charlie Moore and his executive management team met several times to discuss the future of the division. Moore was responsible for not only making a very significant decision about the company’s future, but also the high tensions, conflicts, and sometimes out-of-bounds opinions of his team.

Team Chaos

     The ice cream executive team was dysfunctional for many and varying reasons.  What stood out to me at the onset of the reading was the team was not kept informed by its leader, Charles Moore, whose management style that he used quite frequently led him to make decisions publically and in a vacuum.  The team was a product of the decisions being made singularly and with no inclusionary consensus input from them.   This behavior exhibited by the previous leader proved that his management team had not been given voice and dignity, as their input was not needed or requested by the manager. This led to in-fighting, discord, mistrust, and fostered an environment where the members of the management team stopped giving voice and dignity to each other, and the team chemistry became one of toxic conflict.

     When Charles Moore became the top as head of the ice cream division, he brought with him a history of leading openly, preferring to operate in an environment of group based decision making. This proved detrimental, as the management team was incapable of coming to a consensus because they had little or no respect for their colleagues. In addition, the group was also fundamentally dysfunctional because Mr. Moore did not employ what I believe he should have instituted at the beginning which is “Candor”.   In my opinion based on the groups dynamics and unwillingness to work together it would have been best to be more open and straightforward about what he expects of both the individuals and the team as a whole as well as their roles and responsibilities.  To be an effective leader you can’t just stick your head in the sand hope it will work itself out.  You must engage each person and find out what they need to succeed and what style of leadership fits their personality.  In doing research on teams and leadership I found this article by (Bella Mehta Engagement: what’s missing?) where she “examines the difference facilitation can make to people's relationships with their organizations.”  She talks about how individuals work as part of a group or team as interwoven relationship with peers and their leaders as part of a group.  By doing this she says that effective facilitation of groups and teams can have great benefits and create healthy engagement. (Mehta, B. (2013, April 01). Engagement: what’s missing? Training Journal, 56)

Moore’s Leadership Style

     I believe that Mr. Moore’s motivating leadership is an “S” (Steadiness) personality and fit the pattern of “agent.” (DiSC)  This characteristic of the agent pattern is that the person strives to maintain harmony and expects and fosters an environment of respect; which describes Mr. Moore to a tee.  Unfortunately, Mr. Moore also avoided conflict nearly at all cost so much so that I believe he resisted it for feared of conflict and disagreement. In the context of his team’s lack of respect for each other it was said that, “Disdaining such behavior, Moore feigned a deaf ear to it, hoping his subordinates would get the signal and cease complaining about each other.” (Carl, Sloane, 2003)

     Moore also contributed to the team’s dysfunction through his inability to make a decision on his own.  His pattern of management reinforced his belief that a team should come to an agreement and make decision as a group.   It stated that, “Moore believed in the value of group-based decisions and liked to bring people together formally to share information, consult on decisions, and forge consensus.” (Carl, Sloane, 2003)

     Because the team had not historically been given a true voice or dignity by their leader, the team had no respect for each other and so this belief by Mr. Moore was highly detrimental to the group as it supported an environment of conflict.  Finally, Mr. Moore did not apply the Jack’s principle of candor with his team.  When you don’t implore candor it allows people not to “express themselves with frankness. They don’t communicate straightforwardly or put forth ideas looking to stimulate real debate. They just don’t open up. Instead they withhold comments or criticism. They keep their mouths shut in order to make people feel better or to avoid conflict, and they sugarcoat bad news in order to maintain appearances.  They keep things to themselves, hoarding information. Lack of candor blocks and good people contributing all the stuff smart ideas, fast action, they’ve got. It’s a killer.” (Welch, 2005).   In an article I found by authors Perron, C., Blauth, C. (2010, July 01). The Basic Principles: Building Blocks of Trust.  They mention motivation as critical component in engaging employees.  The article says “Motivation is critical,” said a leader in our study. “It has to be constant and consistent.” As a perennial issue in search of a solution, motivation—“employee engagement” in today’s vocabulary—is essential to creating and sustaining the energy required by today’s business challenges.”

      The case mentions that he had a negative opinion of the actions of his teams, specifically open conflict, inability to agree and inability to accept responsibility as senior leaders of the company.   I believe his mistake was not being very open with his staff and if he had an issue with their performance or behavior he should have immediately addressed it.  He also should have set clear and concise expectations and made sure they understood what they were expected to do.

Trouble on the Horizon