Case Study Analysis #2
Even though Mary coordinated corresponding product demonstrations from the different vendors, and she was planning to include the board members in the product evaluations, Jack insisted that the board members were too busy to attend. When the demonstrations were being performed, Jack displayed very little interest in the products. Mary offered to present her findings and recommendations to the members of the board, but Jack insisted that he could handle it himself. After the board meeting was held, Jack announced that the board had decided to select his friend’s company as a reward for their excellent customer services. It was evident that the board decision was directly influenced by Jack. He managed to utilize his power to drive Mary’s investigation and obtain the desirable results. According to Gary Kukl (2006), “Power involves the capacity of one party (the agent) to influence another party (target)”. Based on this description, and analyzing these circumstances, Mary was the target. But at the same time, Jack applied a great deal of authority to Mary. He persuaded her to include a company for evaluation that did not meet the quality and functionality that were being looked for. He also prevented Mary from doing the corresponding product demonstration to help the members of the board to make the right decision for the institution. Instead, the managed the situation to influence the board in favor of his friend, the president of the Standard company. Yukl (2006) explains that “a leader with direct authority over a target person has the right to make a request consistent with this authority, and the target person has the duty to obey”. Based on this case study, Mary was affected by coercive power, since she was manipulated by the agent; and, at the same time, this behavior implied being affected by legitimate power, since the target person complied with the mission because she believed that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document