analysis of the case

chattanooga using the

Political System metaphor

Karlstad Business School

Handelshögskolan vid Karlstads Universitet

Course code: FEAD51

Course name: Competence and Leadership

Title: Analysis of the Case Chattanooga Using the Political System Metaphor

Date of Submission: 2013-01-17

Family name Given name

Shurrab Hafez

El Bouassami Mohammed

Name of the teacher: Markus Fellesson and Sofia Molander

Name of the administrator: Frania Johansson

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................- 1 -

2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................- 1 -

3. THEORY ........................................................................................................................- 1 -

4. ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................................- 2 -

4.1. INTERESTS ............................................................................................................- 2 -

4.2. CONFLICTS ...........................................................................................................- 3 -

4.3. POWER ...................................................................................................................- 4 -

5. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................- 5 -

6. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................- 6 -

- 1 -

1. INTRODUCTION

The metaphors of organizations and management have been discussed by Gareth Morgan

in his book “Images of Organizations” (Morgan, 2006). Morgan exposed eight metaphorical

images of organizations including machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, psychic

prison, flux and transformation, and instrument of domination. Each one of these metaphors

creates insight, but also obscures some corners. They have both pros and cons. They enable

seeing, but also not seeing. No one of them is said to be correct and right.

2. BACKGROUND

Chattanooga Ice Cream Division is one of three major incorporated industries to CFC,

Chattanooga Food Corporation. The division lost third-largest customer for no logical

reasons. Charles Moore, the president and general manager of the division conducted a

management meeting to discuss current situations, investigate the root causes, and find out

proper solutions. Many conflicts occurred during the meeting. The actions and reactions can

be projected to reflect how the division functions as one of metaphorical images. In this

report, the case is analyzed using the political system metaphor. In other words, it discusses

what we could see and reflect when projecting the division’s behavior on the principles and

approaches of the political system metaphor.

3. THEORY

An organization’s politics is most clearly manifest in the conflicts and power plays that

sometimes occupy center stage, and in the countless interpersonal intrigues that provide

diversions in the flow of organizational activity. More fundamentally, however, politics

occurs on an ongoing basis, often in a way that is invisible to all but those directly involved

(Bacharach & Lawler, 2000).

There are three relationships to be considered when speaking of organizations the

systems of political activities, which are interests, conflict and power (Morgan, 2006). Politics

accepts the reality of multilateralism. Therefore, the concept of politics is strongly connected

with the diversity of interests. Projecting that on organizations generally, they could be

regarded as arenas for reconciling different interests (Culbert & McDonough, 1980). Different

interests are natural and must be handled. For that purpose, the general interests are analyzed

as individual interests. There are three types of individual interests including task, career, and

extramural interests. Task interests are connected with the work once has to perform, while

career interests are connected to what the person want to achieve with the work. The

extramural interests are connected what we want to achieve as a private self’s. There is a

- 2 -

structural diversity of interests in organizations. That could be bounded by two extremes

along hierarchical scales, where bureaucrats’ tendency represents the upper part, and

professionals’ tendency dominates the lower wide areas (Benson, 1973).

When interests collide, conflicts arise. The political perspective admits the presence of

conflicts. There are three major forms of conflicts including, conflicts between person,

groups/departments, and value systems/structures (Brown, 1983). There are five main

approaches for conflict resolution, including avoiding, competing, accommodating,

compromising and collaborating styles (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

Power is the medium through which conflicts are resolved (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980).

There are two relevant perspectives of power forms including resources and social relation or

dependency. Moreover, there are 14 sources of power. That may involve formal authority;

control of scarce resources; use of organizational structure, rules, and regulations; control of

decision processes; control of knowledge and information; control of boundaries; ability to

cope with uncertainty; control of technology; interpersonal alliances, networks, and control of

informal organization; control of counterorganizations; symbolism the management of

meaning; gender and the management gender relations; structural factors that define the

stages of action; and the power one already has (Morgan, 2006).

4. ANALYSIS

4.1. Interests

When looking through the case of Chattanooga Ice Cream Division, many manifestations

and reflection could be analyzed from the political system metaphor perspective. One of the

realities that politics accept is that all political systems embrace different interests (Culbert &

McDonough, 1980). The meeting Moore conducted reflects this reality as well. As we

noticed, many vice presidents of the division’s departments tried to describe and analyze the

problem the division experienced in a way that made their departments out of contributing

causes. For instance, Billy Fale, the vice president of production, tried to vindicate his

department by explaining their huge effort to get inventories manageable despite the limited

efficiency the division’s information systems had. Whereas, Stephanie Krane, the division’s

controller, blamed the complexity of the information systems that required long time to

develop, test, and install. Moreover, for pushing herself away of the causing factors, Krane

explained her experience to recover previous troubles. The other vice presidents manipulated

the description of the situation so that the possible solutions go in their departments’ favors or

interests so to speak. Barry Walkins, the vice president of marketing, attributed the problem to

- 3 -

the neglect of his recommendations. He asked considering mixed-ins in the division’s

production plan, basing that on his marketing research. He might be seen as a manager who

wanted to record a victory for his way of thinking, researches, or departmental domain.

Another reflection could be built on the reaction of Les Holly, the division’s sales manager.

He tried to drive the opinions judgmentally. Holly started reflect the root causes of the

problem from the sense that the rest of managers didn’t have the wide image he had, since he

used to spend most of the time in the stores. He focused on operational deficiencies, such as

stockouts and back orders, to make it rational to compensate that with the promotional

allowances, regardless any other contributing factors.

Moore has accepted the difference of interests of the managers. This is apparent from the

way he dealt with their opinions. He considered all solutions in spite of his acquaintance to

the background of motives for each manager. The individual interests could be classified into

task interest, career interests, and extramural interests (Culbert & McDonough, 1980). Fale

showed his interests of keeping everything under control by rejecting the change Walkins

proposed. All his reactions during the meeting seemed to be operational and numerical

reflections. That kind of interests could be seen as task interests. The same is to be said for

Krane. Her comments reflect her interest of sticking to certainty and not making faults. On the

other hand, Holly’s interests may be classified as career interests, as he emphasized on the

promotional allowances many times. Perhaps, he wanted to improve his external personal

relationships using such allocations. In the same context, we think that Walkin’s interests

could be classified as extramural interests, since he wanted to prove his talent of marketing

research practically. His proposal was rational and strongly relevant to the problem. He tried

to show his loyalty through his honest attempts to make the division changes positively. This

way of classification doesn’t necessarily mean that this classification is an absolute matter.

All of them may have overlapped interests that belong to each category.

4.2. Conflicts

Another common aspect of the political system is conflicts. Conflict will always be

present as long as the interests collide. That may include conflicts between persons,

departments, and structures (Coser, 1956). In Chattanooga, the conflict arose between Fale

and Walkins were more personal. Walkins criticized Fale’s neglect to his suggestion, and Fale

in turn criticized Walkins’ ideas. Both critiques were directed to the personal behaviour.

Additionally, Holly criticized the policy concerned with cost reduction at the expense of sales

department. The conflict arose between him and Krane could be seen as departmental conflict.

- 4 -

There are five common styles of conflict resolution including avoiding, compromise,

competition, accommodation, and collaboration (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). For Chattanooga,

and before the age of Charlie Moore, his father led the show entirely. He was the first

responsible for almost everything, while Charlie wanted to move the division toward the

collaborative style. During the meeting, he gave way for everybody to show their reflections.

But they were still unfamiliar with this kind of communication. When conflicts arose, Moore

played the role of moderator, which was making sure that everybody would express about

their thoughts and opinions fairly. However, he kept the final decision to himself. We find the

behaviour Moore showed in conflict resolution is more like the accommodation style.

4.3. Power

Power is a very significant actor in the political systems. It is the medium through which

conflicts are resolved. There are 14 sources of power (Morgan, 2006), many of them could be

projected on the case. One of that is control of scarce resources including money, material,

personnel, and technology (Emerson, 1962). Krane, as the division’s controller, had the

control to allocate resources including salaries, expenses, and information systems. She had

additional source of power that represents a structural factor that defines the stage of actors

(Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, 1970). This source of power came from her being monitored, not

only by Moore, but also by Arthur Silver, the chief financial officer. Therefore, she had more

considerable power to accept or reject any idea, which interprets her confident reactions

during the meeting. Fale, as the vice president of production, had also the power of

technology (Child, 1985), boundaries (Millar & Rice, 1967) and resources control (Emerson,

1962). He had also the ability to cope with uncertainties (Hickson et al., 1971). His reflections

were central and referral, since he managed the production processes and could judge any

suggestion wanted to be implemented. Fale had additional power of interpersonal alliances

(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), which is represented by his friendship with Frank O’Brien, the

vice president of personnel. They used to hang out with each other for fishing. When Frank

changed his position during the meeting, Fale became more flexible to adapt with Walkins’

proposal. That reflects a serious impact of interpersonal alliances within the organization

(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Krane and Fale had the power of Moore’s trust in meeting their

promises (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, 1970). In the same context, Walkins had also the power

of information and knowledge (Crozier, 1964), which is represented by his acquaintance to

the market trends and competitive advantages. Moore admitted his talent and that was also

additional credits for Walkins. Being the division’s sales manager, Holly had also the power

of knowledge and networking (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). He could contribute in the solution

- 5 -

by finding new customers. His direct exposure to the market added more power to him. In

general and as a management team, all managers had the power of the use of organizational

structure, rules, and regulations (Crozier, 1964). But Moore might have the biggest part of

power, not only due to him being a general manager, but also as a descendant of the family

fully owned the division (Kanter, 1977). He controlled the decision making process

completely (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, 1970). He started that by analyzing the problem. Then,

he motivated the managers to share their thoughts. Finally, he ended up with selecting the

most efficient solution that might suit the customer orientation and budget.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Even though the organizational politics may be recognizable by everybody within any

organization, it is very rare to discuss it openly (Morgan, 2006). The case of Chattanooga

shows clear examples of topics discussed privately, as we found when the heads of

departments questioned the competence and trustworthiness of each other.

As discussed earlier, we can recognize that it is inevitably that politics is essential feature

of organizational life. The political metaphor emphasizes that the use of power is central of

organizational analysis. The metaphor helps to better understand organizations’ rationality, as

it enforces the idea that actions within organizations are more political than rational (Morgan,

2006). In Chattanooga, each manager suggested solutions so that to increase the benefits for

his/her department rather than the benefit for the division as a whole. Moreover, the political

metaphor helps to find solutions to the idea that organizations are integrated structures, which

is not always the case (Morgan, 2006). Moore failed to simply apply the collaborative values

of team work in Chattanooga, while that worked successfully when he worked at National

Geographic. The political metaphor focuses on interests, conflicts and sources of power in

order to understand and manages them (Morgan, 2006). That also helped Moore to understand

the force drivers within the division. Finally, the metaphor has great influence to motivate

individuals to act politically.

The main drawback of using the political metaphor is fears of converting every activity

within organizations into political acts. This may sometimes create atmosphere of uncertainty

and mistrust (Morgan, 2006). That appears in the Chattanooga case when most of mangers

reflected negative impressions about each other. Another limitation is that the generation of

insights through different interests maybe misused to achieve personal goals. Last, but not

least, it is complex to deal with pluralism’s question. As a result, the political metaphor must

be used carefully (Morgan, 2006).

- 6 -

6. REFERENCES

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962). ”Two Faces of Power." American Political Science

Review.

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and Poverty. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Bacharach, S. B. and Lawler, E. I. (1980). Power and Politics in Organizations. San

Francisco: Iossey-Bass.

Bacharach, S. B. and Lawler, E. I. (2000). Organizational Politics. Stamford, CT: IAI Press.

Benson, I. K. (1973). "The Analysis of Bureaucratic-Professional Conflict.” Sociological

Quarterly.

Brown, L. D. (1983). "Managing Conflict Among Groups,” pp. 225-237 in D. A. Kolb, I. M.

Rubin, and Mclntyre, I. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice Hall.

Buroway, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.

London: Heinernann Educational Books.

Child, I. (1935). "Management Strategies, New Technology and the Labour Process,” in D.

Knights, H. Willmott, and Collinson, D. Job Redesign. Aldershot, UK: Cnnlpr.

Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Tavistock.

Culbert, S. and McDonough, I. (1980). The Invisible War: Pursuing Self-Interest at Work.

Toronto: Iohn Wiley.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). "Power-Dependence Relations.” American Sociological Review.

Hickson, D. 1., Hinings, c. R., Lee, c. A., Schneck, R. E., and Pennings, J. M. (1971). "A

Strategic Contingencies Theory of lntra-organizational Power.” Administrative Science

Quarterly.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Miller, E. I. and Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of Organization. London: Tavistock.

Morgan. G. (2006). Image of organization. Schulich School of business, Toronto.

Pfeffer, J. (1978). Organization Design. Arlington Heights, IL: Al-1M.