FREE ESSAY ON POWER AND POLITICS

POWER AND POLITICS

POWER AND POLITICS
Fran Gibson was placed in an awkward position when Jennifer Chung, a financial analyst in
Ken Hamilton's Department came into her office at 6:45 a.m. to complain about Ken's
'off-color' comments made her when they were alone within a month after Jennifer joined
Thompson. According to Jennifer, the situation worsen. Jennifer told Fran that Ken would
leer her, put his arm over her shoulder when they were reviewing reports, patted her
rear. Jennifer stated that every time one of these occurrences happened, she would ask
him to stop it and not to do it again. However, according to Jennifer, it fell on deaf
ears. 
Fran had to decide how to respond to Jennifer's complaint since sexual harassment is a
form of sex discrimination that is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The EEOC's guidelines define two types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and
hostile environment. 
Being the highest ranking woman at Thompson, Fran understood that unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature constitute quid pro quo sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is
made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
or (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis
for employment decisions affecting such individual. 
Fran also understood that unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute hostile environment sexual
harassment when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with
an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
working environment. 
According to the EEOC, the central inquiry is whether the conduct unreasonably interfered
with an individual's work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
working environment. According to Chandra Calhoun, Director of Human Resources at the
Jackson International Airport, the EEOC look at the following factors to determine
whether an environment is hostile: (1) whether the conduct was verbal or physical or
both; (2) how frequently it was repeated; (3) whether the conduct was hostile or patently
offensive; (4) whether the alleged harasser was a co worker or supervisor; (5) whether
others joined in perpetrating the harassment; and (6) whether the harassment was directed
at more than one individual. No one factor controls. An assessment is made based upon the
totality of the circumstances. 
Ms. Calhoun further stated that sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is
unwelcome. The challenged conduct must be unwelcome in the sense that the employee did
not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the employee regarded the conduct as
undesirable or offensive. 
When confronted with conflicting evidence as to whether conduct was welcome, According to
Ms. Calhoun, the EEOC will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the
circumstances, evaluating each situation on a case-by-case basis. The investigation
should determine whether the victim's conduct was consistent, or inconsistent, with
his/her assertion that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. 
The victim may be a women or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the
offensive conduct. The harasser may be a woman or a man. He or she can be the victim's
supervisor, an agent of the employer, and a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a
non-employee. 
According to Ms. Calhoun, Jennifer Chung did the correct thing by informing Ken that the
conduct is unwelcome and must stop. Ms. Calhoun stated that it is important for the
victim to communicate that the conduct is unwelcome, particularly when the alleged
harasser may have some reason to believe that the advance may be welcomed. However, a
victim of harassment need not always confront his/her harasser directly, so long as
his/her conduct demonstrates that the harasser's behavior is unwelcome. The victim should
also use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available. If these methods
are ineffective, the victim should contact the EEOC as soon as possible. 
Since Jennifer may have ground(s) for legal recourse, Fran needs to carefully analyze the
situation before making a decision. Possible negative consequences could mean that she
could be named as a party in a lawsuit since Jennifer has informed her of the alleged
sexual harassment. Also, if Fran address this issue, she may be alienated from
management, since the case noted that Thompson's management was "old fashioned.' 
Fran also has a political dilemma since she recently was contacted by an executive search
recruiter inquiring about her interest in the position of vice president and regional
manager for a national drugstore. After a series of interviews, the recruiter informed
Fran that she was one of the two finalists for the job. The only person at Thompson who
knew that Fran was looking at this other job was her good friend and colleague, Ken
Hamilton, the director of finance for the grocery chain. Fran considered Ken as a friend
and asked him if she could use him as a reference. Ken was the only person at Thompson
who knew that Fran was considering another job because management at Thompson was
old-fashioned, placing a high value on loyalty. Particularly, Fran's was in a political
dilemma because Jennifer Chung, a financial analyst in his department, is accusing the
person, Ken Hamilton, whom she trusted and confided in, for sexual harassment. 
A) Fran was also faced with an ethical dilemma: does she do what is right and moral and
possible sacrifice long term personal gains or does she turn her back on Thompson and
what Jennifer Chung is telling her. Being that Fran is the highest-ranking woman at
Thompson, she must decide if she has an obligation to address this issue. B) Ethically, I
feel that Fran has a moral obligation to be loyal to Thompson, preventing possible
lawsuit, since she has been there 15 years. To that end, she may want to discuss this
situation with Ken. Also, Fran appears to strong commitment to being a role model and
mentor to other women. If this is the case, then she should do what is right. After all,
the case does not imply that Ken Hamilton is the only person that can give her a good
reference. C) In this case, the ethical thing to do may not necessary be the politically
correct thing to do. 
If I were Fran, I would discuss this situation with Ken first, in order to allow him an
opportunity to address this issue. If he did not want to address it, I would then
encourage Jennifer to seek legal recourse. I would follow this course of action because I
would feel obligated to assist Jennifer since Fran is the highest-ranking woman at
Thompson.
Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A. in Organizational Behavior - The Person-Organization Fit
stated that power is the ability of one person to influence another. There are five
sources of power: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent. The basis for
legitimate, reward, and coercion power is typically the organization; the basis for
expert and referent power is the individual. Reactions to power range from acceptance and
commitment to compliance to resistance. The authors further stated that the more personal
the source of power that is used, the more it is likely to lead to commitment rather than
compliance or resistance.
The authors also stated that organizational sources of power depend on access to and
control of strategic contingencies, which refer to elements that are essential to the
performance and effectiveness of an organization, a department, or a team. According to
the authors, individuals or groups who help others reduce or cope with uncertainty, those
who are central to the resource or information networks, and those who cannot be replaced
easily gain power.