Ron Johnson
Running Head: RON JOHNSON CASE
Ron Johnson Case
Ron Johnson Case – Department of Accountant As Chair of the Department of Accounting, Jean has the position source power. According to Lussier and Achua, position power is derived from top management, and it is delegated down the chain of command (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The type of power that she is using falls under legitimate power, which is based on the user’s position power, given by the organization (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In addition, Jean is also using the consultation influencing tactic by consulting her employees for ideas on the new policy. I believe the negotiation tactic is appropriate in this case because the exchange tactic would mean that Jean has no authority over the employees whom she is addressing. In this case, Ron is using the personal power source and during the meeting he uses the legitimate use of rational persuasion power type. This is evident when he shares data about other professionals in his field using graduate assistants for the same reasons. Of the two influencing tactics, Ron is using the rational persuasion influencing tactic. Although, I do not believe that his argument was based on factual evidence but rather hearsay. In sending the memo to the heads of the university, Ron is using the coalition influencing tactic, in hopes of using influential people to achieve his goal. I feel Ron may win his case but in the long run he will lose trust and confidence with Jean, who is the head of his department. If Jean were to talk to the dean about Ron’s appeal decision, I believe she would be using the coalition influencing tactic as well. I personally would not talk to the Dean about Ron’s decision to appeal but instead use the connection power type and coalition influencing tactic to gain support of the policy through members of the other departments and the heads of the university. If I were Ron I would not let my decision be based on the fact
Ron Johnson Case
Ron Johnson Case – Department of Accountant As Chair of the Department of Accounting, Jean has the position source power. According to Lussier and Achua, position power is derived from top management, and it is delegated down the chain of command (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The type of power that she is using falls under legitimate power, which is based on the user’s position power, given by the organization (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In addition, Jean is also using the consultation influencing tactic by consulting her employees for ideas on the new policy. I believe the negotiation tactic is appropriate in this case because the exchange tactic would mean that Jean has no authority over the employees whom she is addressing. In this case, Ron is using the personal power source and during the meeting he uses the legitimate use of rational persuasion power type. This is evident when he shares data about other professionals in his field using graduate assistants for the same reasons. Of the two influencing tactics, Ron is using the rational persuasion influencing tactic. Although, I do not believe that his argument was based on factual evidence but rather hearsay. In sending the memo to the heads of the university, Ron is using the coalition influencing tactic, in hopes of using influential people to achieve his goal. I feel Ron may win his case but in the long run he will lose trust and confidence with Jean, who is the head of his department. If Jean were to talk to the dean about Ron’s appeal decision, I believe she would be using the coalition influencing tactic as well. I personally would not talk to the Dean about Ron’s decision to appeal but instead use the connection power type and coalition influencing tactic to gain support of the policy through members of the other departments and the heads of the university. If I were Ron I would not let my decision be based on the fact