Case study topic 3 (Week 9): Power (Robbins et al, 2017: Chapter 12) Please note that in addition to the prescribed textbook, groups are expected to draw on at least three peer-reviewed academic research articles published since 2010 to support their presentation analysis; presentations should not simply duplicate lecture slides. Executives of WorldCom Inc., a telecommunications firm, were deemed responsible for committing accountancy fraud worth billions of dollars. Evidence suggests that WorldCom Inc executives wielded considerable power and influence in the company, which discouraged other employees from voicing their concerns about the fraud. For instance, the executives maintained tight control over the flow of financial information: accounting groups were discouraged from sharing information, distribution of company-level financial reports was restricted, and accountants did not have access to computer files where the largest fraudulent entries were made. As a result, employees were heavily reliant on executives for access to information. Employees also cited instances in which they were publicly berated for questioning executives’ decisions and intimidated or threatened with dismissal if they asked for more information. Furthermore, one of the key executives was known as being a “whiz kid” with impeccable integrity; when this executive asked staff to make questionable entries, they assumed the executive had found an innovative and legal accounting loophole and complied with their request. (Case study adapted from McShane & Travaglione). Drawing on your knowledge of organisational power, discuss the bases of power and power tactics the executives employed to gain influence in the organisation. Discuss the role of dependency and the way in which contingency variables (e.g., organisation’s culture) determine the effectiveness of power tactics, and provide strategies for minimising the misuse of power in organisations. Questions for evaluation: a) What bases of power in the case study were explained clearly and correctly by the group? What differences were not covered by the group? (20%) _____________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b) What power tactics in the case study were explained most clearly and correctly by the group? What important elements, if any, were not explained clearly or correctly by the group? (20%) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c) In what way did the example/s presented by the group demonstrate most clearly the role of dependency and contingency in the application of power in an organisation? (60%) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________________________