Waseem Sayegh

“That bitch Monica, here she goes again with her relentless approach. She thinks that she’s a hot shot and that everything she says has to be done. Well not on our watch.” This is not a quote that was directly extracted from “The Monica Ashley Case,” but reading the case from Parker’s point of view surely makes us imagine that this is a possible conversation he had with Kane. “The Monica Ashley Case” illustrates the story of an ambitious woman with tunnel vision that sinks in HEAL-INC politically charged waters. Power struggle, influence, politics, sexism and resistance to change all come into play to create this organizational behavior perfect storm. In this paper we will focus on the power struggle between Monica and Parker in the pursuit of influencing the decision making at HEAL-INC.

Monica, a woman in a male dominated business, takes on the assignment of program manager for Project Hippocrates. The assignment was supported by HEAL-INC’s president, Garry Dorr. Monica mistook this assignment as a cart-blanche allowing her to single handedly do anything needed to deliver the project. As a program manager in a highly visible line position, Monica falls into the trap of relying heavily on the same persuasion tactics she successfully used during her tenure in an important staff position. She also adds fuel to the fire by taking Parker on directly, thus defying Garry Dorr request not to do so. Instead of stepping back, Monica continues her pursuit head-on consequently disengaging her coworkers and marginalizing her rather more appealing proposal.

Power Sources
We will use French and Raven theories to analyze both Monica and Parkers’ sources of power. Before delving in the analysis, we have to highlight that Monica has several targets including Gary Dorr, Parker and Kane (we do not distinguish between them in this paper), and her team. Furthermore, Parker has several targets as well – Monica and Parker.

Monica assumes two sources of power: expert power, and legitimate power. Her expert power is characterized by her track record of “many successful years in important staff positions.” Monica took this knowledge and transferred it to Project Hippocrates. Her expert power also came from the research she spearheaded – she knew all the technical details needed to successfully deliver Project Hippocrates.  Monica’s assumption to legitimate power comes from believing that she had a strong mandate from Garry Dorr to deliver the project.

Expert power does not work in a vacuum. French and Raven emphasize that not only should the agent “have specialized knowledge or skill that the target needs”, but that for the power to work three conditions must be fulfilled. Let us see if Monica meets all these three conditions for all three targets. The first condition is: “the target must trust that the expertise given is accurate.” This condition is not met with Parker, Monica’s target, as he did not believe that Monica was the subject matter expert when it came to the choice of signal processors. After all, he is the vice president of signal processor design, and he believe that he is the only person that can specify the type of processor (analog or digital) to be used in the project. Parker goes even further and tries to discredit Monica’s findings by directly attacking her study group labeling it as “not competent”. The second condition is: “the knowledge involved must be relevant and useful to the target.” This condition is not met with Gary Dorr, Monica’s second target, since he values a “peaceful and productive environment” with no “hot competitors” more than the agent’s knowledge. One can infer that Garry Dorr sees teamwork to be more important to HEAL-INC than expert power. After all, Garry Dorr is the Presidents and as we learned from Robert Jackall’s “Moral Mazes”, managers “expect highly successful results without complications.” The only target that passes all three conditions is her team.

Monica used legitimate power successfully with the team that reported to her. For example, she was able to impose the Taguchi methodology on her team. On the other hand, Monica lacked legitimate power with Dorr and Parker. Her attempt to use legitimate power with Dorr and Parker fired back. Dorr was frustrated with her thinking that she had legitimate power and described her as “an Imperial Chinese Emperor.” Parker questioned her legitimate power when he shouted: “Who the hell do you think you are, going to an outside vendor.”

Parker throughout the case used coercive power to intimidate Monica. He taunted her by calling her a “traitor and a renegade.” Parker surely did not stop there and sneered at Monica saying “Ha, ha, you lose!” The power used by Parker to influence Dorr was not discussed in the case since most of their interaction happened behind doors. Though, whatever power used, it surely was more effective than that of Monica. Parker knew how to play the political game, while Monica thought that her numbers and data are going to be enough to get her targets’ buy in.

Power Tactics and Influence   
Monica’s influence tactics relied heavily on rational persuasion. Before the Hippocrates project she used this rational persuasion successfully to influence Dorr. As Monica puts it, she backed up “her views with data when he (Dorr) asked why she disagreed.” Monica’s attempt to use rational persuasion during project Hippocrates did not yield the same positive results. She used rational persuasion when she gave “detailed calculations” in her presentations, and repeatedly waved the independent taskforce’s supportive results.

On the other hand, Parker and Kane knew how to “kick down, and kiss up” at HEAL-INC. While Monica stuck religiously to one tactic, Parker and Kane used a slew of tactics in an attempt to influence their targets. This included: pressure, upward appeals and coalition. Pressure was exerted on Monica, and she ate the bait and appeared to fight back. Monica appearance to fight back worked against her since managers are expected to exert self-control. Through upward appeals and back channels Parker and Kane brought Garry Dorr to their side of the argument and used this coalition to marginalize Monica’s proposal.

Furthermore, we believe that Kane was purposely sent in by Parker to minimize the importance of Monica and the whole process. This move goes along with Michael Korda’s look at symbols of power in organizations. Parker as a VP did not have the time to discuss matters with Monica, a manager. Instead, Kane, who has the same manager title as Monica, was sent in. This power play is nothing new, and is widely used in international politics. The importance of a visiting delegate can be minimized by sending a low ranking official and not the president to great them at the airport.

What should Monica have done to be more effective?
Monica needs to avoid heavily relying on the merit of her work and viewing politics with distaste. This view is further supported by Robert Jackall who argues that hitting numbers is important, yet not enough for effective managers. Effective managers need to also have self-control and show a perception of being team players. Monica needs to nourish her relationship with her pears and superiors at HEAL-INC. This includes reaching out to the President Garry Dorr, her boss Dan Stella and last but not least Parker and Kane. In addition to that Monica needs to adapt her influence style. She needs to accompany her style of rational persuasion with a mix of upward appeals, coalition and consultation.

Monica took her coworkers views of Parker as facts and did not bother to talk to him directly. This in it of itself is a grave mistake. Monica needs to talk to Parker out of the context of presentations and possibly even work and learn more about him. The goal of meeting with Parker is to enable her to build trust and rapport with him. Monica should not stop there, instead she should work actively on finding ways to include Parker in the decision making process. We learned from our reading that “Often, people engage in political behavior when they feel excluded from decision-making process in the organization. By including them, you will encourage positive input and eliminate behind-the-scenes maneuvering.”

Monica’s VP, Dan Stella, was out of the picture for the most part of the case. Monica needs to bring him in as a strong supporter of her ideas. Dan Stella with his title of VP can bring legitimate power to Monica’s case. By playing an active role he can also defuse any tension demonstrated between Parker and Monica.

Monica should also manage her relationship with the president Garry Dorr. Monica needs to understand Dorr and his context then assess her needs and finally work on developing and maintaining a relationship with him. Monica should also allow for Dorr’s active input in the process. She needs to make Dorr feel that he is the person with the final decision.

There is a famous English idiom that goes “Hindsight 20/20″. Urbandictionary.com explains this idiom by saying: “an individual has a realization about the event that should have been obvious all along, yet they didn’t catch on because they were acting in the heat of the moment.” The Honda A and B cases were written in hindsight of Honda Motors’ success in the United States. The Honda A case describes that success by citing a report written by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). On the other hand, Honda B case describes the same success from interviews conducted by Dr. Richard T. Pascale with the founders of Honda Motors. In other words the Honda A case is from a consultant’s perspective and Honda B case is “straight from the horse’s mouth”.
One would think that BCG and Pascal would underline the same success factors. Though, it turns out BCG and Pascal did not agree on the success factors. Instead, they were too far apart. After reading the cases one can only conclude that Hindsight is not always 20/20, especially in the Honda A case. This paper will compare and contrast BCG’s perspective and Pascale’s perspective as to why Honda succeeded in the USA.
BCG’s case was written a thousand feet away from the action. The case was written as though Honda had a grand plan all along and that it was immaculately executing it. BCG supports its theory by providing numbers and diagram. They go into details about the Japanese selling and distribution systems and cost and price performance. Finally BCG concludes with “competitive strategy implications” as if to suggest that they have revealed a guaranteed recipe for success.
Pascal on the other hand details the story behind the story. Yes, Honda had great selling and distribution systems and cost and price performance. Though we need to stress that Honda did not start off with this or that. Instead, Honda started off with a failure, and a tweak to correct that failure. The tweak was followed by another failure, that failure was followed by a tweak, and so on and so forth. Each time Honda failed it grew stronger as it learned from its mistakes thus strengthening its knowledge as an organization. Honda also took advantage of external happenstances as though it had a “just in time” strategy.
We learn from Pascal’s case that Honda’s strategy in the United States was simply a goal. The goal was aiming for a “10% share of the US imports”. Its founders were so committed to their strategy that they were on the ground reacting to every road block that might hinder achieving that goal. We also learn from Pascal’s case that Honda’s selling and distribution systems were a result of Honda’s bad experience with its first exclusive distributor back in 1949. As for its obsession with market share, we can infer that it was the result of its 1940’s exclusive dealer limiting its sales to 80 units per month. Furthermore its cost and price performance was a result of knowing the business since a “50cc engine is 50% cheaper to make than a 100cc engine.”
To sum it up, from the first case we learn that consultants looked at the motorcycle industry’s raw data and saw certain patterns. Without a core understanding of the motorcycle industry the consultants falsely concluded that these patterns where the reason behind the success of Honda in the United States. From the second case we learn that these patterns were the result of Honda’s success in the United States and not the reason behind Honda’s success. We also learn that the real reasons behind Honda’s success were: First, Honda’s founders got their hands dirty by being there in the middle of the action reacting to changes in the environment and tweaking their strategy. Second, Honda knew the business inside out: from knowing how to build a motor to knowing the reseller that delivered the motorcycle to their customer. Third, as a learning organization Honda fed its failure back into its organization to help it with its future decision making.