April 23: Coca-Cola
This case explores leadership transition.
1. Regarding corporate diplomacy (the “what” of the situation):
a. What is it that Ivester failed to do that contributed to his downfall?
Ivester became CEO and the new Chairman of Coca-Cola right after the death of Goizueta, which has developed Coca-Cola considerably by boosting their sale by 400%, their profits by 700% and the company stock price by 4000%. His task was already difficult because his result would be compare to his predecessor during his entire work as CEO. When he was CEO, he did several mistakes that contributed to his downfall. First, The failure of the Orangina deal due to the French government. The fact that Ivester knew that the revised bid wouldn’t go through and that he still tried and did not withdraw the bid before it was formally rejected was the first bad move of Ivester. Then, the Cadbury Schweppes bid was another mistake in Europe since several countries were opposed to that deal. This other diplomatic issue was another mistake to his downfall since he scaled down his proposed purchase of Cadbury Schweppes. Finally, his biggest mistake was with the contamination in Belgium. The lack of communication at the beginning of the case was a mistake. Ivester did not go in Belgium and should have talked publicly about this incident. This last case in Belgium is the biggest and the worst mistake that contributed in Ivester’s downfall. At last, the anticompetitive allegations against Coca-Cola were the last problem that Ivester confronted and lost again. To sum up, the lack of communication and the fact that he failed to solve some diplomatic issues were the reasons that contributed to his downfall.
b. What was Goizueta skilled at doing that Ivester was not?
Goizueta was skilled in public relations or public speaking compare to Ivester who was not. We can see that in the results of both CEO because Goizueta was described as someone that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document