Overstreet 1

Beth Overstreet Dr. Randy Barker Rhonda Clark Case Analysis October 24, 2012 Rhonda Clark: Taking Charge at the Smith Foundation Rhonda Clark possesses and attempts to use multiple sources of power and contingencies of power in her time leading the Smith Foundation. The one Clark relied on the most heavily was coercive power, which can be used in a positive way but can also be used as a tool of intimidation. This tool can be used either up or down the ladder depending on the circumstance. When using coercive power, it can be employed by threatening punishment, peer pressure, or in Clarks case, in more of a quid pro quo relationship. This type of relationship was introduced by some of the board members initially, but Clark agreed to it. In a purely quid pro quo situation, it is difficult for either party to truly trust the other as both make it clear that they are only in the relationship to satisfy their own needs. In speaking about the relationships she formed with some of the female board members, she noted you scratch my back, and I scratch yours. In addition to the nature of the relationship they established, there is a fairly low degree of structural trust to begin between board members and the CEO of an organization. The boards responsibility is to the organization not its CEO. Thus, when Clark agreed to use coercive power as a strategy to move forward, it broke down any remnant of trust that could have been established with those members of the board or any others. Another consequence of using coercive power is that if in the future Clark loses her ability to scratch a board members back, she loses all power and will likely only face resistance moving forward. Clark also decided to rely on substitutability as a source of contingency power. Substitutability is defined by the ability of an organization to replace someone in a role. She likely felt this was an important way to ensure her reappointment by the board since they only signed a one year agreement with her in the beginning of her tenure and they had a history of quickly replacing other leaders they felt werent performing. Clark then was successful in using social capital from outside sources to increase her power within her own organization. She thought she needed the security in order for her contract to be renewed another year so she formed a coalition to start a public awareness campaign and apply for a federal grant. In doing so, she created capital and goodwill with local community, educational and government leaders who could make advantageous alliances for the Smith Foundation in the future. This helped her increase the perception of non substitutability within the board. When the grant was awarded, Clark was appointed to administer it and would be able to use some of the funds for the Smith Foundation, thus helping to solve some of the budgetary concerns of the organization. This place of power would make it difficult for the board to replace her with someone else as she was controlling the knowledge, information, and relationships she formed within the coalition. Clark attempted to use substitutability to her advantage. At the end of the year, it was not clear if this contingency power was enough to keep her in her role at the Smith Foundation as there was still a budgetary deficit to be addressed.

Overstreet 2

Clark used coalition formation as a type of influence as noted above. In coalition formation, a group pools their resources to provide more influence and authority on a subject or project than an individual would have if trying to control or sway another person or group alone. When Clark was able to form the coalition within the community, the relationships she formed and the grant award allowed Clark to influence the board of the Smith Foundation. While this tactic may help Clark keep her role for longer, it is a short term victory for her when she really needed a plan for long-term success. It did not provide a positive source of influence for Clark to rely on in future negotiations with the board. At that time, Clark began to look back over her year at the Smith Foundation and question what her next move would be. She had already heard rumors that her contract was not going to be renewed and she debated what to do about it. One thought she entertained was in confronting the board members she felt were part of the problem and placing blame on them for the organizations failures. This is a type of assertive influence or a vocal authority as she wanted to point out what she had done for the organization and what the board had failed to do. Using assertiveness as a type of influence is typical in a situation where a leader is relying on coercive power to get their way. This would have been a less successful course of action than her other uses of coercive power and she seemed to realize it as she reflected on what her next step would be. Using persuasion and negotiation would likely be a better route to take in this situation. With persuasion, the person uses facts and emotional appeals to wield influence. Since she is dealing with a board of a nonprofit foundation that has been having difficulty maintaining quorum at meetings, it is clear that the board members are not as committed as perhaps they once were and they need some fresh ideas and motivation. Using negotiation skills, Clark should have been able to find out what the underlying wants and needs of all the board members were and see if they couldnt come to terms with a plan that worked for everyone. This would allow her to have a longer term strategy and vision for the organization while maintaining positive board relations. In summary, Dr. Clark was not very successful in her first year at the Smith Foundation. Coercive power, substitutability, and coalitions are sources of power and influence that are the least effective. They are unreliable and typically dont benefit a leader in the long term. More positive types of power and influence such as inspirational appeals and rational persuasion are typically more beneficial in general, but especially for a new CEO organization.