Abstract In organizations there are various powers, conflicts and political intrigues at play. Some of these powers may not appear not amount to something much to the untrained eye but those privy to these power struggles know that they go a long way in shaping the destiny and the future of an organizations. When there is a change of leadership in an organization e. g. in cases where the C. E.
O is retiring or moving elsewhere, the successor will want to impose his business philosophy on the organization. He does this by wielding his legitimate authority (that of being C. E. O or the boss). He or she may do this by rewarding those employees who embrace his or her business style and coerce those whom they feel are stubborn to their authority. Coercion will oftentimes involve threats of firing or demotion or promotion stifling against errant employees. Employees who are depended upon for the company to run smoothly (i. . those who own expert power) may survive the onslaught because the executive officer may not want to jeopardize company operations. This however, may be temporary if the executive officer looks for suitable replacements for the errant expert employees and then forces the incumbent out of the company or into positions less glamourous. In this assignment, I have looked into a case involving a blue chip company in East Africa called Safaricom Ltd and the power struggles between the incumbent C. E. O and top level expert employees.
Safaricom says the two resigned but they might have been the first victims of the new C. E. O’s no nonsense approach to business. Before his resignation, Mr. John Barorot had been Safaricom’s Chief Technical Officer. He was one of the longest serving employees having joined the company in 2000. The other person who seems to have received the sack was the Chief Information Officer Mr. Robert Mugo. The power and political intrigues within the company saw the exit of the two with analysts indicating that Mr.
Collymore viewed them as a challenge to his authority in the company. He used his legitimate power to get the two to resign. Mr. Barorot opted to resign rather than go through a new rigorous talent assessment procedure. This indicates the presence of coercive powers in the company. Despite their expertise in their various capacities, Mr. Barorot and Mr. Mugo could not rely only on their expert power to retain their jobs. Hence, they were trounced by the legitimate power wielded by the Chief Executive Officer.