Question 1: Approaches to control used by Roberto GoizuetaManagement control is primarily a process for motivating and inspiring people to perform activities that would further the organisations goals (Paine and Paine (1994) as cited by Mullins, 2005). As also noted by various authors (Arrow, 1974; Flamholtz, Das, & Tsui, 1985; Ouchi, 1977), management control refers to the process by which an organisation influences its subunits and members to behave in ways that lead to the attainment of objectives. It is about the steps taken to ensure that objectives are achieved (Paine and Paine, 1994 as cited by Mullins, 2005).Child, J. (2005) identifies and gives characteristics of six strategies/approaches to management control. These are briefly mentioned below:1. Personal centralized controls2. Bureaucratic controls3. Output control4. HRM control5. Control through electronic surveillance6. Cultural controlBarnat, R. (2007) also identified and gave three approaches to management control which are market, bureaucratic and clan controls.Having analysed the case study carefully, we identify that Roberto Goizueta adopted four approaches to control concurrently in managing Coke. These control approaches are cultural/clan control, output control, market control and bureaucratic control. These are discussed in turns with supporting evidence from facts of the case.Clan/Cultural ControlA careful study of the case reveals that the main approach to control that Goizueta employed when he took over the headship of Cokes management is cultural or clan control. Specific sections of the passage give evidence to this assertion.The facts of the case are that, The change of approach was desperately needed (for Coke). To have a lasting impact on the numbers and on Cokes corporate culture, Goizueta realized he needed to overhaul the way Coca-cola did business, from the top down. This is a clear indication of a total change of the way things are done around here i.e. organisational culture. In order for Coke to change its approach to doing business would require a change in the attitudes, beliefs and philosophies that individual members had. The introduction of the Spanish Inquisition by Goizueta was to set the stage for cultural/clan control. The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems including Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Judaism. Following the Crusades and the Reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation. Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 B.C. asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to purify the people of Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers. In short, the Spanish Inquisition was meant to align every individual of Spain towards a particular philosophy or religion i.e. Catholicism, thus doing away with polarization of the country into different groups with varied philosophies. It was a period of terror in Spain and many Spaniards who were not ready to adhere to Catholicism were executed or sentenced to life imprisonment. This same idea was adopted by Goizueta in managing Coca-cola. It can be inferred that he adopted this approach because he had realised that the company was polarized with many varying beliefs and philosophies held by different categories of organisational members. He, thus, adopted the Spanish Inquisiton approach to unify Coke in order to create a common corporate culture or philosophy in the way Coke did business. He did this by forcing (jolting) everybody to believe in what he believed in, whether they were pleased with him or not. His philosophy can be summarised thus: you are either with me or against me. This can be supported by the warning he gave at the conference that Those who dont adapt (change) will be left behind or out no matter what level they are. A characteristic of clan control is to ensure that employees of an organization have shared norms and values and that there is a common philosophy or wisdom that guides all and sundry in their pursuit of organisational goals. Cokes employees were expected to exhibit a common philosophy, what Goizueta spoke of as Our Wisdom , a set of guiding principles that Goizueta believed would make Coke a leading company as if it entered the final decade of the 20th Century. As Child (2005) puts it, cultural control approach has been identified with moves away from conventional forms of organisation and is based on maintaining control through internalised compliance (emphasis added) rather than external constraint. This is exactly what Goizueta sought to do when he took over Cokes management.Further evidence for cultural control approach, we believe, can be gleaned from the creation of a mission statement by Goizueta for the company. The mission statement was to clarify for every employee what the company existed for and this was to set the climate and tone for Cokes operations. By creating the mission statement and calling upon Cokes top management from around the world to sign on, face to face, to his programme is a clear evidence that Goizueta sought for a shared norm, a unifying corporate culture, beliefs system and common philosophy. By this also, he sought to give organisational members, who were not ready to change, the choice to exclude themselves from the organisation.Output ControlBased on the facts of the case, we are also of the view that Goizueta employed output control. Output control approach relies upon the ability to identify specific tasks having a measurable output or criterion of overall achievement (Child, J., 2005). Rewards and sanctions can be related to performance levels expressed in output terms. Roberto Goizueta made it clear to his executives that Financial results would count above all, and Managers would be held responsible for whatever happened on their watch. Clearly, the output that was specified (as performance measurement) was financial results. Also, the fact that managers would be held responsible for whatever happened on their watch underpins the use of output control. Output control has among its characteristics the following: jobs and units designed to be responsible for complete outputs meaning managers would be held responsible for only those issues that are within their control.Child (2005), advances that one characteristic of output control is the use of responsibility accounting systems; the assignment of responsibility may be in terms of investment centres, profit centres or cost centres. The fact of the case suggests to us that Coke employed the investment centre responsibility accounting approach in assessing each operating unit. Aninvestment centeris a classification used for business units within an enterprise. The essential element of an investment center is that it is treated as a unit which is measured against its use of capital (investment funds), as opposed to acostorprofitcenter, which are measured against raw costs or profits. The advantage of this form of measurement is that it tends to be more encompassing, since it accounts for all uses of capital (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_center).

As a fact, Goizueta warned (his operating managers) at one of the closing budget sessions, the corporation would charge its operating units a set percentage for the capital they used. Performance, he declared, would be judged on economic profit, the units operating profit after a deduction for the cost of capital. The particular investment center performance measure that Goizueta speaks of here is residual income or economic value added (see Garrison & Noreen, 1997).

Market ControlIt involves the use of price competition to evaluate output. Managers compare profits and prices to determine the efficiency of their organisation. In order to use market control, there must be a reasonable level of competition in the goods or service area and it must be possible to specify requirements clearly. Goizueta made it clear to his executives his standards so far as the market was concerned. He iterated that Our challenge will be to enhance and protect the Coca-cola trademark, giving shareholders an above-average return (profitability) and entering businesses only if they can perform at a rate substantially above inflation. This statement by Goizueta implies the nature of market in which Coke operated. It can be inferred that Coke operated in a highly competitive market and possibly a hostile economic environment as indicated by the level of inflation. It would, thus, be committing a business suicide if they did not compare profits (shareholders return) and prices in order to determine how efficient they have been as an organisation in the game of business.As a market control mechanism, Goizueta specified Cokes core product, in this case, concentration on soft drinks. He also specified the marketing approach by reiterating, as he puts it, Our Business- i.e. to emphasize leadership in other segments (obviously with their core products), and most likely expand into industries in which we (Coke) are not today. He further indicated what specific markets would be attractive for Coke the ones with real growth as well as specifying the objective of Cokes marketing strategy i.e. increasing annual earnings per share and effecting increased return on equity These statements are a clear evidence of the use of market control approach.Bureaucratic controlBureaucratic control is the use of rules, policies and hierarchy of authority, written documentation, reward systems, and other formal mechanisms to influence employee behaviour and assess performance (Barnat R., 2007). Formally specified methods, procedures and rules are applied in the conduct of task. We could also argue out that Goizueta employed bureaucratic control for managing Coke alongside the other controls identified. The facts of the case are that he established guiding principles that would carry Coca-Cola through the 1980s, and a blueprint for how to implement these principles. Clearly these, together with the creation of a mission statement embodying a strategic vision for Cokes future, are an indication of bureaucratic control approach. Additionally, the facts of the case indicate that for the next decade for Coke, Goizueta set out specific strategic steps for accomplishing the broad vision. These strategic steps could be viewed as written documentation and rules (elements of bureaucratic control approach) that were instituted to take Coke to the next level. Lastly, the fact that he made all his top management from around the world sign on, face to face, to his programme is also a clear indication of the use of bureaucratic control approach. Thus, by signing on to the programme, all executives bound themselves with a specific way of doing things in Coke and a standard by which their performance would be measured and rewarded accordingly.

Question 2Indeed, we do agree with Goizueta when he realised that Coke needed a complete overhauling in order to have a lasting impact on the numbers and on Cokes corporate culture. As he rightly noted, It will be a long and difficult battle to mold Coke into a world-class company at every level. His statement set the tone for discussing organisational development, culture and change. The following introductory remarks to the topic, Organisational Culture and Change by Mullins (2010), provides us with an appreciable insight into the importance of managing an organisations culture, especially in the event of a complete change as in the case of Coke:

A central feature of the successful organisation is the diagnosis of its culture, health and performance, and the ability of the organisation to adapt to change. It involves the application of organisational behaviour and recognition of the social processes of the organisation. The manager needs to understand the nature and importance of organisational culture and climate, employee commitment, and the successful implementation and management of organisational change.

According to French and Bell (1999), organisational development (OD) is a long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organisations visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing collaborative management of organisations culture with specific emphasis on the culture of intact work teams and other team configurations utilizing the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and technology of applied behavioural science, including action research. Clearly, what Goizueta set to do when he took over the management of Coke is an issue of organisational development. OD involves a change in the way things are done in an organisation (culture) and building an appropriate climate to facilitate the change.

For us to comment intelligently whether we agree with the approach Goizuta took to managing culture change in Coke it is imperative for us to review the theory regarding the effective management of culture change in an organisation.

The management of change is a key aspect of the way in which an organisation responds to change in an appropriate way. Kurt Lewin (1951) identifies three stages involved in managing change. According to him, after identifying the direction of change and how it is to be achieved, you must:

1. Unfreeze the existing way of doing things in the organisation2. Change the organisation in the desired direction, and3. Refreeze the new ways of doing things in the organisation, so that the organisation is now operating in the desired way.

The process of unfreezing, changing and refreezing operates at three levels.1. It involves changing people and their behaviours.2. It involves changing organisational structures.3. It involves stabilizing the situation, building and rebuilding relationships and consolidating the systems within the organisation.

We have reason to believe that Goizueta took Coca-Cola through these steps of unfreezing, changing and refreezing.

Firstly, by introducing the Spanish Inquisition, Goizueta set the right tone for unfreezing the existing way of doing things in Coke. As we have already noted, the Spanish Inquisition which occurred in Spain during the 1478 1834 period was an era of putting an end to the polarization of religious and political ideologies and instituting one religious/political ideology (i.e. Catholicism) that would unite all the peoples of the country. Those who were not ready to adhere to the new order were to be excluded either by way of execution or banishment into prison. The institution of the Spanish Inquisition era in Coke is strong evidence that there was a culture of disunity and unclear organisational direction. Executives of Coke operated their units based on what they thought to be the best way. In short, there was no common standard for operations across Coca-Cola. Underpinning these cultural elements in Coke was also a culture of risk averseness and complacency, as noted by the following facts of the case:Nothing at coke was so sacred it could not be sacrificed for the greater good of the company and he (Goizueta) laid waste to some of Cokes most cherished myths. People needed to take bold risks to survive.

A very critical and important question to ask is that Exactly how did Goizueta unfreeze the way of doing things in Coke? Firstly, he had to change the people within his organisation and their behaviours. He did this by instituting a mission statement embodying a strategic vision. The mission statement was meant to give a specific direction to all of Cokes executives in their decision making and also to promote the organisational climate that would illicit the desired behavioural responses from employees. The mission statement, thus, served as the converging force for all organisational members. Also, by making his executives sign on unto his programmes, he was unfreezing them of how they had operated before. Finally, by laying waste to some of Cokes most cherished myths, Goizueta set the tone for unfreezing employees of Coke of certain behaviours he deemed inappropriate for creating a successful organisation.

The second thing Goizueta did was to change the organizational structures of Coca-Cola Company. Hitherto, there are clear indication that there was an unclear or ineffective structure of reporting in Coke i.e. who was to report to whom and what was to be reported? The fact that Goizueta introduced the Spanish Inquistion gives evidence to the fact that structures were either unclear or ineffective. When he took over Cokes management, he introduced the concept of responsibility accounting. The concept of responsibility accounting is meant to promote effectiveness of decentralization by making executives responsible for what is within their control investment funds in the case of Coke. Executives of individual units were made to report directly to the chief executive officer, Goizueta in this case. He exposed his plan to his top executives loud and clear and made each one of them sign on to his programme face to face. What were these executives to report on? They were to report on their financial results and to be held responsible for whatever happened on their watch, as noted by Goizueta.

It is worth noting that by establishing guiding principles and a blueprint for how to implement those principles, Goizueta had set the precedent for changing the structure of Coca-Cola Company.

The third and final thing that Goizueta did was to refreeze the new ways of doing things in Coke so that it would operate in the new desired way. What exactly did he do? First, he had to school all of Cokes executives in order that they would be on top of issues with regards to the financial end of the business. This refreezing was critical if executives were to be evaluated on their financial results.

Also to be noted as a means of refreezing Coke into new ways of operating was what Goizueta referred to as Our Wisdom , a set of guiding principles that Goizueta believed would make Coke a leading company. In simple terms, the guiding principles were to illicit new set of behaviours and attitudes from executives as well as employees for them to adhere to the new organisational direction.

Furthermore, Goizueta emphasised what would constitute Our (Cokes) Business. The new thing was to concentrate on its core business of soft drinks, emphasise leadership in other segments and most likely expand into industries in which we are not today. He again emphasised which kinds of market would be attractive for Coke i.e. segments with inherent real growth. These, obviously, are indication of refreezing Coke into doing things in a new way.

Good communication is an important part of the process of changing the organisation. This involves communicating the direction of change, the objectives, how the change will be carried out and who will be involved. Goizueta did not only have good ideas, he also went ahead to communicate his vision and mission to his top executives who were responsible for implementing the new strategy within their various jurisdiction. The Bible says in Habakkuk chapter two versus two that, write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that reads it. This is exactly what Goizueta did. He made the vision and mission plain by documenting them (mission statement) as well as making a blueprint out of the guiding principles in accomplishing the mission. He further went ahead to expose his plan to his executives at a conference, laying the broad outline of the Goizueta era loud and clear (as indicated in the case). Indeed, no executive had good reason to deny not having knowledge as to what was expected. After communicating his plan, he made each executive sign on to it face to face meaning there was agreement.

Based on the discussion above, we can agree with the approach Goizueta took to managing culture change in Coke. On the contrary, we may fail to agree with certain aspects of his approach to managing the culture change in Coke. Managing culture change in an organisation must be a collaborative effort soliciting for the loyalty of all employees at every level of the organisation. Goizueta used force as indicated by the Spanish Inquisition, impatience and abuse to manipulate the loyalty of Cokes executives and employees. Clearly, Cokes employees only endured Goizuetas leadership. We believed that Goizueta failed to appreciate the human face associated with organisational change and development. He simply trashed what people felt about the need for change. We are of the view that Goizueta could have achieved similar results if he had paid much attention to the human side of the change that was eminent at Coke.Obviously, anyone would be surprised at the extent of Goizuetas success. However, there are still some intriguing elements so far as his approach to managing coke was concerned. For instance, the Spanish Inquisition culture he introduced into Coke, even though produced the expected results for Coke, it wasnt the best approach so far as managing people in an organisation is concerned. What is intriguing about it is the fact that none of his executives as we evidence from the case opted out after all the terror and abusiveness of Goizueta. They were still loyal despite his hostile and unconventional approach.

Also intriguing is the fact that Goizueta did not seek the consent of any of his executives in developing a new strategy and culture to take Coke to the next level. What he did was to just to bombard his executives with his ideas. There is nowhere in the passage that indicate that any of the executives were made to share their ideas and contribute to the strategy. Goizueta did not use an all inclusive collaborative approach in managing Coke and yet there were no indication of boycott or organisational conflicts arising from his leadership. One would expect that where organisational members, especially top executives have not been a part of the change initiative they would have stood against and ultimately boycott the plans. This, however, was not the situation in Coke.

Another intriguing issue is the fact that Goizueta kept a very good relationship with his predecessor even though he radically diverted from his style. He did not paint his predecessor black before the rest of the employees. He did not blame his predecessor for the woes of Coca-Cola Company. One would have expected that his unconventional approach could have resulted in some form of bad blood between him and his predecessor.

Lastly, it is quite intriguing to realise that Goizueta emphasise more on negative reward systems rather than positive and yet he was able to achieve a tremendous success. From the case, much is spoken of Goizueta in terms of his threats rather than encouragement from him to his top executives. But we must applaud him for the fact that he visited, one by one, with every one of his top managers. This probably might have been the greatest sign of his soft side to his employees.

Our conclusion on whether we agree or not with the approach Goizueta used is that generally, we do agree with his approach based on the elements of managing change discussed above i.e. unfreezing, changing and refreezing as postulated by Kurt Lewin (1951). We however disagree with some specific approach he used on Cokes employees such as the Spanish Inquisition. On the whole, we could say that the fact that people did not kick against his plan and his approach could probably be an indication that it was the best approach needed in the particular instance to managing Coke.

Question 3As discussed in question one above, we realised how Goizueta used varying approaches to control in managing Coke, which to a large extent produced tremendous results. However, we are of the view that Goizueta could have employed an HRM Control (Human Resource Management Control).HRM procedures can be used both to develop people at work and to control their behaviour and performance. They enhance the contribution to the achievement of organisational goals and objectives. Systematic selection techniques are designed to ensure new recruits fit the profile and technical competencies required by management. Performance evaluation and appraisal provide feedback to both management and employees. Appraisal should provide the basis for reward and for an assessment of the need for further training or development if training and development programmes are attuned to the needs of employees and the requirements of their jobs this should contribute to better performance.Apart from the meetings he had with the top executives to inform them about his new vision and mission statements, Goizueta did not arrange any programme to train and develop the rest of Cokes employees. Goizueta could have instituted HRM procedures to develop Cokes employees as well to control their behaviour and performance. Probably, the reason many of them were apprehensive and uncertain about the future was the fact that there was not enough HRM procedures to ensure adequate preparation of the employees to face the coming challenge. HRM control would have also led to an assessment of procedures and reward systems to encourage conformity. ReferencesEncyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (1994). The new encyclopedia Britannica.Garrison, R. H., & Noreen, E. W. (1997). Managerial Accounting (8th ed.).Irwin/McGraw-Hill.Mircea, E. (1990).The encyclopedia of religion. MacMillan Publishing Co.Mullen, L. J. (2010). Management and behaviour (9th ed.). UnitedKingdom, UK: Financial Times Prentice Hall (Pearson). Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Solsten, Eric D.(1990). Area handbook for Spain. Federal Research Division.The World Book Encyclopedia (1994). World Book-Childcraft International, Inc.Websiteshttp://www.thenagain.info/webchron/westeurope/spaninqui.htmlhttp://www.change-management-coach.com/kurt_lewin.htmlBarnat R. (2007). www.strategic-control.24xls.com/en111)

17 | Page