+\

Senior functional officers (marketing, manufacturing, research & development, control, and human resources) clash over
alternative ideas for turning around a business in decline. The general manager is faced not only with choosing between
competing ideas, but also managing conflict and determining whether his consensus-oriented style is appropriate to the needs
of the situation.
Keywords: Management Style; Management Teams; Groups and Teams; Managerial Roles; Conflict
Management;Decisions; Performance

The Chattanooga Ice Cream Division Case

Context and Background of the Case
The Chattanooga Ice Cream was one of the three divisions of Chattanooga Food Corporation. Since 1992 the
sales flattered and profits declined consistently. While US per capita consumption of ice cream diminished, the
competition in its market increased considerably. In order to remediate the divisions performance, Chattanooga
Ice Cream took several actions which included the promotion of Charles Moore to head of the division in 1993,
the hiring of a new vice president of marketing, Barry Walkins, and of Stephanie Krane to upgrade the divisions
information systems and control function, the introduction of a line of frozen yogurt and the closing of its original
manufacturing plant to reduce costs. Despite these actions, the companys profit continued declining. In 1996, the
divisions third largest customer decided to replace Chattanooga with one of its competitors. Charles Moore
decided to call the group together to figure out how to save the division from its downturn. All the senior
managers were present at the meeting: Barry Walkins, he is very creative and had a good intuitive sense of what
consumers wanted but disorganized and often lacks follow through; Billy Fale, who is a very knowledgeable and
disciplined vice president of production but a bit rigid in his thinking and anchored in the past; Kent Donaldson,
vice president of research and development who had conflicts with Walkins; Les Holly, the divisions sales
manager who has a tendency to withhold information and sometimes does not follow through; and Stephanie
Krane, who had a strong record of delivering on her promises. Running the meeting was Charles Moore who,
unlike his predecessor who was the divisions indisputable leader for over 30 years, believes in the value of
group-based decisions and like to bring people together formally to share information, consult in decisions, and
forge consensus. Since Moore took over...

Background

Chattanooga Ice Cream was a division of Chattanooga Food Products and had a reputation for producing mid-priced, basic ice cream sold mainly
in grocery stores. In the four years prior to the Case Study, the Ice Cream Division had experienced some rather drastic changes. Charles Moore,
who was the grandson of the founder, took over as new President and General Manager. As well, three of the seven members of the top
management team had recently departed and, in a drastic change for production personnel, the oldest plant was closed and production was
consolidated into two newer plants.

Roots of the Problem

Each of these changes seems to have placed some stress on the system and climate of the company and, at the time of the Case Study, the
companys previous level of profitability and market performance had not yet returned. Exhibit 3 showed, graphically, that the bottom line
(operating profit) was dropping more steeply than the top line (sales revenue). They appeared to be becoming less efficient as well as less effective.
These recent changes the company had been experiencing, especially the recent management team and leadership turnover, were root causes of
many of the companys problems that were outlined in the case study. The team appeared to have not quite reached a point of comfort, trust and
effective teamwork with each other and, although the recent loss of a large grocery store account was presented as the main problem in the Case

Study, the loss of the account was a symptom and not the cause of the problem, the management teams response, lack of teamwork and
shortsightedness was. The immediate crisis may have been precipitated by the loss of the account, but it was exacerbated by the management
teams reaction, and was merely a symptom of a larger problem. Ups and downs always occur and accounts are gained and lost, that is normal in
the life of a business; the management teams inter-departmental bickering and finger-pointing was not normal and was indicative of an
unhealthy environment. Each of the management team members seemed to be committing the fundamental attribution error in thinking that the
blame for the loss of the account lay in departments other than their own, and needed to be corrected there, rather than taking a good, close look
at their own department and seeing what could be improved there. As well, in the management meeting, negative emotions were involved to the
detriment of professionalism and, consequently, there was a profound lack of looking at the big picture and not much chance for real teamwork.

The new leader, Moore, had a very different leadership style from his predecessor. This may have disrupted long-standing relationships and
affected command and control structures as well as communication channels in the company. Moore came from a process of group decisionmaking at his previous job with National Geographic, whereas his predecessor made self-contained decisions, without consulting others much. As
it turned out, Moores new, consensus style of leadership did not work well, in part, because the departmental managers seemed to be down in
their own functional silos and reluctant to offer much input beyond the borders of their own departments. Contrastingly, however, in private, they
often spoke ill of their colleagues and laid blame for the companys problems on others without much introspection of their own departments.
Further exacerbating things, the high turnover of the managers and the closing of the older plant seemed to have contributed to morale problems
from the top managers down to the general production workforce.

Recommendations

All of the players in the Case Study seemed to be acting as managers, and attempting to do things right (within their own silos) rather than
zooming out to the big picture, being leaders and doing the right thing. Moore seemed to be acting more as a manager and attempting to do things
right (being egalitarian and leading through consensus) but, more than anyone, really needed to take charge, look at the big picture, make some
leadership decisions and do the right thing in moving the company forward. I believe that, in general, action is better than non-action and this
company needed some action. Moore should have abandoned the consensus process of leadership he was used to once he saw that it would not
work in the context he now found himself in. He needed to make some decisions to keep the company moving forward and needed to figure out a
way to get the management team to gel into a real team, whether that meant replacing people or finding ways to foster trust among the present
team.

Contracting, after the loss of the large account, would probably not be the right decision. They may just need to spend some money to make more
money and brace themselves for a period of investment activity and change of direction. They may be wise to retool with some investments in new
markets, perhaps need to look at giving in to what seems to be a trend of paying for shelf space, and may be wise to make the investment
necessary for production of mix-in flavors. Contraction, specifically cutting out chocolate chip, as suggested by the Vice President of Production,
could have negative consequences for the companys image and the perception of the clients. They need to revamp their image and perception in
the marketplace and that means spending. They should brace for some unprofitable years of investment activity for the good of the long-term
picture.

Charlies Leadership Style

In assessing where Charlie Moore goes wrong, its important to look at his leadership style. According to the
DiSC style, Charlie is a Steady (S) Leader. Specifically, this means Charlie operates at a methodical pace and
likes leading in an orderly environment. He may readily view leading in a fast-paced environment as intimidating
or stressful. His leadership style is collaborative in nature and he values group efforts. Charlie is a cautious

leader that seldom leads by authority as he is comfortable working behind the consensus of the group as he
doesnt like making decisions alone. He is demotivated by competitive environments and changing direction
abruptly. He enjoys leading in a harmonic environment devoid of confrontations and conflict. Leaders prepare the
Organizations for change
Charlie does not build trust nor align his people
As a leader Charlie needs to prepare organizations for change and help them cope as they struggle through it
(Week2, Lecture2). The first evidence of Charlies failure as a leader is when he calls the group together to
communicate the news about losing their major customer. The mood is somber as Charlie calls the group
together to mourn (Sloane, The Chattanooga Ice Cream Division, HBR, p.1) and to figure out what needs to be
done about it. As a leader he must exude a sense of positive energy (Jack Welch, Winning, p.84) to prepare his
people to act and energize their best thinking to deal with this challenge. His style of (S) may not like change, but
he needs to set a tone of optimism and decisiveness that says that they will come through this challenge
successfully. Another example of where Charlie goes wrong is that he doesnt develop an environment of trust
where his people dont hold back even though he may not like conflict. As an example of this, Charlie has
several meetings to ask his team what their thoughts are about how to compete. For the first time in four years
his team...

Chattanooga Ice Cream Division Case Analysis

In: Business and Management
Chattanooga Ice Cream Division Case Analysis
Team Project: Chattanooga Ice Cream Division Case Analysis
Nows your chance to apply to a complex business situation everything youve learned from the teamwork model in The Five Dysfunctions of a
Team, as well as what youve learned so far in the lectures, videos, and readings.
Using the team discussion boards, you will complete a written analysis of the Chattanooga Ice Cream Division case study. Each team will submit
one case analysis explaining:
* Where Charlie Moore has gone wrong as a leader, specifically in terms of team management and decision-making;
* What this group of employees themselves could do to better understand the perspectives of each other and their boss; and
* What Moore should do now to help his team work together and resolve conflicts more effectively?
The case analysis should incorporate concepts and examples from the lectures, readings, videos, and other course materials and should be at
least four pages in length. Please cite all sources and references in APA format.
The team discussion boards are structured as follows:
* Team Introduction Thread: Collaborate under the Team Introduction discussion thread to complete the team charter and have the team
leader submit it to the Team Charter folder by day 7 of Module 2.
* Planning Phase Thread: Use the Planning Phase thread to outline your teams case analysis. The team leader needs to post the final
outline to the team discussion board by day 7 of Module 3.
* Development Phase Thread: Develop a rough draft in the Development Phase thread. Each team member needs to prepare a draft of his/her
portion of the team project and post a copy on the team discussion board. Use these individual drafts to complete a single rough draft of the team
project by the end of Module 4. The team leader needs to post the final rough draft to the discussion board by day 7 of Module 4.
* Execution Phase Thread: Finalize your teams case analysis and...

View Full Essay