Vying for control of Molson Inc

Molson

From your perspective, were the consequences of the conflict between Eric Molson and Ian Molson positive or negative?

Although the interpersonal conflict brewing between Eric and Ian Molson created board room strife and likely led to a number of horrendously uncomfortable confrontations, Molson Inc. ultimately came out ahead. Dysfunctional as the conflict between the Molson cousins might have been, it forced all board members and managers to contemplate their roles within the company and their responsibilities to it. Most significantly, the conflict brought to light the division between so-called "brewer" or "real" leadership and the "hired help," ("Vying for Control of Molson Inc.," nd).

The hired help, including board member Ian Molson, bore the family name; nevertheless, Ian Molson and his supporters brought to the table a vastly different idea of business operations and strategies than the one held by Chairman of the Board and core brewing operations manager Eric Molson. Eric emerged victorious from the conflict if not because of his managerial style then because of his command of over half of Molson's shares.

Ian Molson might have been viewed as impatient and aggressive by his opponents in the company but the differences in opinion he brought to the board ultimately benefited the family-run business ("Vying for Control of Molson Inc.," nd). Based on their passionate involvement at board meetings it became clear that both Eric and Ian wanted what was best for Molson Inc. Ironically, Ian opposed the merger with Adolph Coors even though Eric represented more of the family lineage and tradition that preserved the ideal of Molson as a Canadian company. In fact, the conflict between Eric and Ian can be traced back to the disputed sale of the Montreal Canadians ("Eric Molson Retains Control of Brewery," 2004). Ian and Eric's fathers, brothers in the Molson empire, disagreed over ownership rights to the hockey team, leading to an indelible rift in the family that resurfaced when Ian brought his Harvard education with him to the company in the late 1990s. Even though Ian had worked in the brewery as a teenager, he was nevertheless viewed and treated as an outsider whose interests clashed with the side of the family that had maintained continual control over Molson Inc. since the Canadians dispute.

In any case, the conflict between Eric and Ian secured Eric's position as chairman and effectively silenced Ian, who would later resign. The merger with Adolph Coors has proved successful and Molson Coors now enjoys substantial international presence and is one of the world's largest brewers. Consequently, share values have risen since the merger.

2. What structural factors and personal factors were likely causes of the conflict between Eric Molson and Ian Molson?

Both personal and structural factors caused the conflict between Eric and Ian Molson, although the significance of interpersonal conflicts outweighed the importance of any structural issues plaguing the two cousins. The company had a longstanding tradition to keep Molson Inc. A family-run firm. A series of agreements with some of Eric and Ian's forebears ensured that the brewing operations and majority of company shares would remain solidly in the hands of trusted family members. Molson had also established a clear "two-tier share structure, which has kept the Molson heirs in control of the publicly-traded company," "Eric Molson Retains Control of Brewery," 2004). When Ian jumped on board, his position occupied the second tier; he would only control 10% of voting rights in spite of his contributions to the company. As deputy chairman Ian would never be able to make the kinds of executive decisions that Eric commanded, even though Ian was not only family but a Harvard-educated Molson family member. The structural inequality that Eric and his supporters maintained in the company deepened the rift between he and Ian. Just as Ian and Eric's fathers clashed over the Montreal Canadians, Ian and Eric would clash over control of Molson.

From his entry to the company, Ian and his side of the family was summarily ousted and perceived as outsiders. Ian claimed that Eric "refused to work with him" and as a result had "destabilized the company," ("Vying for Control of Molson Inc.," nd). The cousins had clearly outlined roles within the company so their conflict was not necessarily due to intrarole conflict or to jurisdictional ambiguity. However, their personalities did appear to clash. Ian was obviously to more brash and outgoing of the two and Eric has been described as a "shy man who was uncomfortable with public speaking," ("Vying for Control of Molson Inc.," nd). The clash between the cousins led to significant intergroup and intragroup conflicts. Each believed the other incompetent, and each believed that his methods and strategies were more effective than the other's. Eric leveraged his superior position as Chairman of the Board and his majority shares to secure the merger with Coors. Ian wielded his business acumen to make decisions out of the realm of Eric's expertise. Both vied for control of Molson, Inc. But only Eric possessed the voting powers that could secure his position within the company.

3. What conflict management styles do Eric Molson and Ian Molson seem to be using?

Eric and Ian Molson both used a number of dysfunctional conflict management styles that failed ultimately to resolve their interpersonal conflicts and which also led Eric to instead wield his power as majority shareholder. Both Eric and Ian fixated on their sense of righteousness, perpetuating their conflict through aggressive behaviors such as Ian's interrupting Eric at board meetings and Eric's underhanded tactics during merger talks ("Vying for Control of Molson Inc.," nd). Using character assassination too, Eric and Ian fomented the intergroup and intragroup conflicts that plagued Molson Inc. Eric's supporters would claim Ian's tactics were too aggressive; Ian's supporters would claim that Eric lacked the business acumen necessary to run the corporation. Ian resorted to lobbying for other families to pool their votes so he could "blunt Eric's voting control," and Eric used similarly underhanded tactics to maintain his superior position ("Vying for Control of Molson Inc.," nd).