Chattanooga Case Analysis
Jack Welch Management Institute
The Chattanooga Ice Cream Division Case highlights Charles Moore, the head of said division and his responsibility to his company and his team. The following discusses the dynamic and dysfunction of a senior leadership team, and the contribution of both the individuals and their leader to that dysfunction. Also discussed is the management style of Charles Moore as well as recommendations for the future of this team.
This fostered an environment where the members of the management team stopped giving voice and dignity to each other, and the team dynamic became one of cynicism and conflict.
When Charles Moore ascended to the head of the division, he brought with him a history of leading openly, preferring to operate in an environment of group 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 teammates. In addition, the group was also fundamentally dysfunctional because Charles Moore did not employ Candor. Moore should have been very open and straightforward about his expectations of both the individuals and the team as a whole as well as their roles and responsibilities. “Effective leaders must make every interaction an opportunity to apply
Moore’s Leadership Style
I posit that Charles Moore was a High S personality and fit the pattern of “agent”. A typical characteristic of the agent pattern is that the person strives to maintain harmony and expects and fosters an environment of respect; which describes Moore very well. Unfortunately, Moore also avoided conflict to the point that I believe he actually feared 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.” (Sloane 2)
Moore also contributed to the team’s dysfunction through his inability to make a decision on his own. His history of management reinforced his belief that a team should come to an agreement and make decision as a group. Indeed it is 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.” (Sloane 2) Because the team had not historically been given a true voice by their leader, the team had no respect for each other and so this belief by Moore was highly detrimental to the group as it supported an environment of conflict.
Finally, Moore did not employ the principle of candor with his team. It is expressed several times in the case description that he had a negative opinion of the actions of his...