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...
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).
Both Ian and Eric were apparently negative and pessimistic about the potential to resolve the conflict with integrative negotiations, failing to set aside their mutual mistrust and dislike in favor of more peaceful board meetings. Ian would interrupt Eric at meetings as an obvious sign of aggression, and the shier Eric used more passive techniques such as orchestrating the merger with Adolph Coors without reaching a resolution with his cousin first.
It is also possible that Eric used the merger with Adolph Coors to compensate for the problems he experienced regularly with Ian, and may have used the merger to displace some of his anger and aggression. The two cousins threatened one another on personal and professional levels, too. Ian possessed superior business skills that he believed entitled him to make strategic decisions, whereas Eric served more as the heart of the Molson empire and perceived himself as the official carrier of the family line and the board member with the best interests of the company at heart. Eric and Ian ultimately shared the same superordinate goals but their negativism prevented them from reaching common ground to find a win-win situation. The only way Eric could resolve the conflict from his perspective was to use his greater voting power to oust Ian from his decision-making position. Finally, Eric refused to view Ian as anything but an outsider, while Ian continued to undermine Eric's authority and demean his ability to run Molson Inc.
References
Eric Molson Retains Control of Brewery." (2004). Modern Brewery Age. July 5, 2004. Retrieved Mar 31, 2007 at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_27_55/ai_n6133475
Vying for Control of Molson Inc." (nd).
