A Case Study of Human Resources The loss of Kristina’s job seems inevitable, for two reasons: (1) She likely has an at-will agreement with the non-profit organization, meaning that she has no legal recourse if the board intends to replace her (unless she can prove that such replacement is a violation of federal anti-discrimination law, which seems highly unlikely); and (2) The board member mentioned has the power to remove Kristina from her post regardless of what Kristina does. One creative response that Kristina can mount is to suggest that the ‘friend’ should come aboard as assistant development director, at a vastly reduced salary. If the board rejects this idea, then Kristina should ask why their only response to her burnout—which was...The end:
.....e her importance to the organization, as the ‘friend’ cannot hit the ground running. In making this move, Kristina would emphasize that she is only responding to the board’s stated concern that she is burned out; she must be careful that her behavior is not seen as an act of retaliation. It seems likely that the board assumes that, good-naturedly enough, Kristina will sacrifice her own self-interest by training her replacement. Kristina must not bow to this plan, at any cost. Her only leverage is her obvious skill at doing her job, and the knowledge that the ‘friend’ is probably an incompetent beneficiary of nepotism. Thus, in its ability to take advantage of both of these components of leverage, the second solution might be the better one.