Upload
larisa-saplys
View
1.507
Download
49
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Individual Case Study - Resonus Corporation – Power and Influence
MHR 505 – 031
Professor P. Hunter
Larisa Saplys
Student number: 500526893
1
Power structure and the ways in which leaders influence their employees to reach
organizational goals are of great importance in creating a dynamic and productive workplace.
Power is defined as “the capacity of a person, team, or organization to influence others” (McShane et
al., 2015, pg. 245). It has five features characterizing its scope: power only gives one the potential to
change someone else’s attitude, its influence is based on the target’s perception of whether or not the
power holder has some resource or value to them, it involves a dependence or asymmetric
relationship between two parties, it is accompanied by countervailing power, and it involves a
certain level of trust (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 245-246). If managed properly, I believe power
structure to be a benefit to corporations and organizations alike. It can provide employees with a
clear sense of direction about who to go to with a problem or question, a structure for
responsibilities and duties, and stability in decision-making. However, if power is enforced for
personal advantage or misused to provide detriment to a certain party, it can get in the way of
productive company operations. I have chosen the Resonus Corporation Case Study for my analysis
of power structures within corporations, in which an asymmetric and somewhat ambiguous
structure facilitates an inefficient work unit. Resonus Corporation is a hearing aid manufacturer in
which the executives and separate departments face power struggles that affect their ability to work
together and complete a task (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 266). In analyzing this case, I will address the
sources and contingencies of power present, the influence tactics involved and whether or not they
would be characterized as organizational politics, and provide a personal recommendation on what I
would suggest as a consultant to remedy the power dynamics. My hope is that, with this paper, I am
able to provide some background knowledge on the topic and express my own insights in a
meaningful way that resonates.
As I mentioned, there are five features of power. There are also five sources of power:
legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 246). These are ways in
which power holders assert their authority over others. Those with legitimate power ask for a range
of behaviours from others through a mutual agreement; those with reward power have control over
the allocation of rewards; those with coercive power have the ability to directly or indirectly apply
punishment; those with expert power are valued and respected due to their unique knowledge-base
2
or expertise; those with referent power influence others through their identification and mutual
respect with others (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 247-250). The above sources of power are subject to
four contingencies, which can affect the degree of power one is able to enforce. First, substitutability
refers to the availability of alternatives, strengthening power when one has a monopoly over a
resource (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 251). Centrality refers to the power holder’s interdependence
with others, whereas visibility involves actively working with others and being strategically located
within the organization (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 250-251). Finally, discretion or lack-thereof can
hinder a power holder’s influence; an internal locus of control is viewed as more of a leadership
quality, and the ways in which said person exercises their judgement and discretion will in turn affect
the strength of their followers (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 253).
Bill Hunt is the CEO and primary power holder at Resonus, and therefore has considerable
legitimate, referent, reward and coercive power. His character and past managerial actions portray
his exercise of these different sources of power. Bill dislikes confrontation, and is very concerned
with preserving a family culture at the company; he fired the two previous Engineering Directors,
due to their “lack of collegiality” (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 266). Bill also favours the research group,
and endorses any changes made by Doc Kalandry due to a seemingly unlimited trust in his expertise.
His power is further strengthened by his centrality within the organization, as he overlooks all
departments and has many direct reports. However, his power is weakened by the discretion
contingency. In blindly trusting Doc, Bill puts his company in a poor position and decreases
productivity; this creates cause to question his judgement as the CEO of the company. “Doc”
Kalandry is the Research Director, and is seen as an innovative genius (McShane et al., 2015, pg.
266). He has an informal reporting relationship with Bill Hunt, and special status in organization due
to his influence of expert power and charismatic personality. Although he has made considerable
contributions to the company, Doc has also recently been causing problems in his exercise of power
over the CEO. He is seen by peers to be sometimes overly enthusiastic in that when he gets an idea
for a new product he will assert his authority and have it endorsed, regardless of what it will cost the
company and other departments. His newest design revisions have led to a massive halt in the
production of a new hearing aid product, as “by th[e] time [that the revisions for the design
3
specifications came in], the production director had to give priority to other jobs and move the new
hearing aid product further down the queue” (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 266). The Engineering
Services Department took the heat for this, having to work long hours and extra shifts in attempts to
speed up the process (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 266). Doc’s power is strengthened by the
substitutability, visibility, and centrality contingencies; he is not replaceable, has a central role in
delivery of outcomes for the company, and is well-liked by his colleagues. Two other important
figures hold a certain degree of power in the organization, one of whom is Jacqui Blanc, the
Production Director. Jacqui follows a formal structure and strict guidelines in her work unlike the
flexible and laid-back organizational culture at Resonus, but is valued due to her expert power with
numbers and precision. She recently cleaned up fraudulent activity, earning Bill Hunt’s respect and
loyalty. The second power holder is one recently employed by Bill Hunt to fill the position of
Engineering Director, Frank Choy, whose job is to oversee the Engineering Services and Research
Departments (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 266). Frank, unlike his predecessors, will not stand up to Bill
about Doc Kalandry’s changes slowing down production. Frank holds some legitimate power over
his departments, as the Department Head figure, however his power is substantially hindered by the
discretion contingency. He does not feel as if he has the freedom to exercise judgement and speak up
for the good of Resonus Corp. in knowing that he could be terminated for being seemingly difficult to
work with. All of the power structures, put together, have created an environment that does not
promote efficiency but inter-departmental conflict.
There are eight distinguishable influence tactics, as every different person has preferences
as to what they choose to alter someone else’s attitudes (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 257). Of those
eight, I recognized six as being pertinent to the Resonus Case Study, and four as having the potential
to be organizational politics. Silent authority is prevalent here due to a higher power distance
present. Workers, specifically Frank Choy, are reluctant to contradict their boss for fear of losing
their jobs; Bill Hunt would therefore assume silent authority. Doc Kalandry could also be considered
to have this authority over Hunt, as he is eager to agree with all of Doc’s ideas and support his
innovation. Due to the fact that the application of this tactic is based on self-serving goals that
increase work-related stress of others, decrease job satisfaction, and pose harm to the organization’s
4
overall success, organizational politics would likely be determined (McShane et al., 2015, pg. 262).
Assertiveness is demonstrated by Jacqui Blanc, in her checking of work and confronting any issues
that may arise within the workforce, however this is purely to support the company and its goals of
maintaining a fair and equitable position in the industry. Doc and Hunt exercise coalition formation
to see their personal efforts through, and have posed another poisonous tactic on the business in
doing so. They pair up to create a team with unrelenting power in decision-making through Bill’s
legitimate authority and Doc’s central position in company operations. Closely linked to this are the
upward appeal and persuasion tactics Doc Kalandry uses to his advantage in his close relationship to
Bill Hunt. Doc calls on Bill for support in his ideas, and no matter their merit he reciprocated with
authoritative reinforcement. He also persuades Bill that his ideas are worthy to the point where he
himself is persuading Frank Choy of Doc’s genius. All of the above characterize organizational
politics. Impression management is used to a certain degree by Doc in his charismatic behaviour in
dealings with others, although this would most likely not be seen as organizational politics, rather an
expression of his inherent being.
In my opinion, the complexity of internal working relationships and lack of enforced time
restraints at the corporation must be addressed in order to remedy the company dynamic. Working
relationships are always encouraged, if they are to create a more positive and open environment. As
at the corporation in question, these relationships can alternatively become a means to different
ends, in that they can provide more of an alliance for egotistical desires. I believe that implementing
a formal reporting structure would be a benefit for the employees at Resonus. I would create a chart
and post it in a public area for all workers to access at their whim that would outline authority
figures’ subordinates. I would also consider creating a system in which two sets of eyes are required
to approve any idea or revision that may come about, to increase trust in management and decrease
prejudice. Frank might, for example, be more inclined to raise his issues if he had someone else to
report them to and all of Doc’s revisions would not be so blindly ratified. Such a system may also
help maintain timelines, as a more organized flow of operations makes for greater ease in execution.
To further ensure that timelines be kept, I would split up the responsibilities of those departments
where production losses are happening and inquire about hiring talent to lessen the workload. For
5
example, in the Research Department where Doc works, it seems as if he is the only person in his
role. For such a crucial and central role in determining the outcomes of the corporation, I would
think it would be wise to have an extra set of hands; one person could make sure to maintain
timeliness for urgent projects, while the other explores innovative ideas less imperative at the time.
In changing the reporting relationships and increasing accountability for punctuality across the
organization, the dynamics of power and influence at Resonus Corporation should lift to become less
exclusive and encourage openness amongst colleagues.
I do not believe that Bill Hunt deliberately facilitated an environment with deep-rooted
power struggles; he seems to have a passion for maintaining integrity and harmonious relations.
Resonus Corp. just goes to show how easily power and influence can be misinterpreted and taken
advantage of by others in a company to the point of changing the entire culture. Pinpointing the
sources and contingencies of power helped me to recognize where the issues were and how they
could be overcome. Restructuring the hierarchy and flow of information would likely decrease the
use of organizational politics, and would provide a more reliable network for producing desirable
outcomes. It is in the best interest of both the company and the employees to elevate their success as
a whole, to adopt a more competitively advantageous position in the market and therefore create
potential for further growth and opportunity at all levels of the organization.
6
References:
McShane, S.L., Steen, S.L. & Tasa, K. (2015). Canadian organizational behaviour: 9th edition. Toronto:
McGraw-Hll Ryerson.
7