analysis of the case

chattanooga using the

Political System metaphor

Karlstad Business School

Handelshgskolan 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

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. 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 divisions behavior on the principles and
approaches of the political system metaphor.

3. THEORY
An organizations 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 selfs. There is a
-1-

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 divisions 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 divisions information systems had. Whereas, Stephanie Krane, the divisions
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
-2-

the neglect of his recommendations. He asked considering mixed-ins in the divisions

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 divisions 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 didnt 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, Hollys 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 Walkins 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 doesnt 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 Fales 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.
-3-

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 divisions 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 OBrien, 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 Moores 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 divisions sales manager, Holly had also the power
of knowledge and networking (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). He could contribute in the solution
-4-

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 pluralisms question. As a result, the political metaphor must
be used carefully (Morgan, 2006).
-5-

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 Conict. Sociological
Quarterly.
Brown, L. D. (1983). "Managing Conict 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 Conict. 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.

-6-