Case Study: A Good Team Player

M2A1 Case Study: A Good Team Player

M2A1 Case Study: A Good Team Player

The fact that we can see and succumb to power means that power has both positive and negative consequences (Organizational Behavior, nd.). There are potential ethical issues and practical constraints associated with the application of power. Leaders must be aware that there are many options and alternatives available when interacting with followers. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the case study “A Good Team Player” based on supported facts and assumptions. Additionally, the author’s academic research and experience will result in viable recommendations.

                                                        Relevant Facts

Kristin, the new manager of accounts payable, assumed the position because of a proven talent for organizing and improving the efficiency of operations. Kristin has a reputation as a firm leader and is determined to perform her new duties and responsibilities in the same manner that has produced stellar results throughout her career. Steven, an assistant manager in Kristin’s section, has been employed by the company since graduating college. At a recent reception, Steven informed Kristin that he suspected employees were gaining promotions and being given opportunities to work overtime based on their popularity, and not on the quality of their work (Bowen, 1992). Kristin agreed to investigate the matter and requested that Steven provide specific information including the names of involved managers.

                                                    Ethical Issues

The primary ethical issue involves Steven relaying non-factual information based on speculation and his personal perspective. Kristin’s use of coercive power to obtain the names of alleged bad team play might also present an ethical issue. Coercive power involves the target person complying to avoid reprimand or punishment (Orta, 2015). The information could have negative consequences for the primary stakeholders including Steven, Kristin, co-workers, and the shareholders of the company. Furthermore, Kristin’s demand for names is unethical because providing the names might jeopardize Steven’s standing in the company and amongst his peers. Additionally, the use of non-substantiated information might cause ethical issues. On the other hand, If Steven provides the name of suspected bad team players, the information could help improve the company’s organization culture and greatly benefit the primary stakeholders.

                                                      Alternatives

There are several alternatives in the case of “A Good Team Player”. Kristen could take a transformational leadership theory approach while relying on legitimate power to obtain information from Steven. According to this theory, if the leader also has certain charismatic traits, she/he should be particularly adept at convincing followers to work for common goals, while ignoring their own vested interests (Hogg & Knippenberg, 2003). Thus, Kristin could explain the importance of providing the names of bad team players for the good of the team and the company. Alternatively, Kristin could avoid the practical constraint of time pressure by rephrasing her initial demand to exclude a sense of immediacy. These conditions create time pressure on decision makers and often make it difficult, if not impossible, to gather all the information they might like to have making a final choice ("Organizational constraints in decision making," 2006). Kristin could also consider whether or not any organizational and legal limitations are associated with her demands.