Assignment: Applying French and Raven’s Bases of Social Power: A Powerful Solution
There have been many stories throughout history of leaders who have been corrupted by their power. The very definition of leadership as “a process by which an individual influences the group to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6) implies the power to exert influence. Leaders must exert power in order to lead, but they must also strive to understand the complexities of power. Research by French and Raven (1959) and by others (Burns, 1976; Neck & Manz, 1994) provides insight on the types, or bases, of power available to a leader, the process of choosing among those bases, and the motivations for leaders’ choices (Northouse, 2016, p. 379). Recent researchers (Barbuto & Warneke, 2014; Vevere, 2014) also explore the effectiveness of using individual bases of power in particular situations and the effects certain bases of powers have on leaders and those they lead. Armed with this information, leaders can avoid utilizing certain bases of power when the choice may lead to negative consequences. They can instead choose to wield power in ways that will foster organizational success. Understanding the bases also gives both leaders and followers insight into situations they observe and difficult interpersonal interactions they negotiate.
To prepare for this Assignment, consider Case Study 7.1, “His Team Gets the Best Assignments” on pages 150-151 of Northouse (2016).
By Day 7
Submita 3-4 pg analysis of the case study. In your analysis, do the following:
- Identify two of French and Raven’s bases of power in the case study, and explain how leaders can use these bases of power to exert influence.
- Explain how you might use your knowledge of French and Raven’s theory to resolve one of the problems presented in the case study. Justify your response.
Note:Be sure to use the APA Course Paper Template (6th ed.) to complete Assignment. Also, refer to the Week 4 Assignment Rubric for specific grading elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your work.Please Note: For each page of your paper, you must include a minimum of two APA formatted scholarly citations.
Rubric Detail – Blackboard Learn Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: DDBA_8151_Week_4_Assignment_Rubric Grid View Element 1:
French and
Raven’s Bases
of Power Exit List View
Superior
Criteria Excellent
Criteria Satisfactory
Criteria Marginal
Criteria Unsatisfactory
Criteria Not
Submitted 30 (30%) 28.5 25.5 22.5 15 (15%) 0 (0%) Student
presents a
thorough and
detailed
explanation
that identifies
two of French
and Raven’s
bases of
power in the
case study
and explains
how leaders
can use these
bases of
power to exert
influence.
Several
sources and
examples
support
thinking. (28.5%) (25.5%) (22.5%) Student
presents an
explanation
that identifies
two of French
and Raven’s
bases of
power in the
case study
and explains
with some
details how
leaders can
use these
bases of
power to exert
influence.
Some sources
and examples
support
thinking. Student
presents an
explanation
that identifies
two of French
and Raven’s
bases of
power in the
case study
and explains
with some
details how
leaders can
use these
bases of
power to exert
influence.
Some sources
and examples
support
thinking. Student
presents a
cursory or
incomplete
explanation
that identifies
two of French
and Raven’s
bases of
power in the
case study
and/or
explains with
vague or
missing
details how
leaders can
use these
bases of
power to
exert
influence.
Few sources
or examples
support
thinking. Does not meet
minimal
standards. Did not
submit
element. https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16286201_1&rubric_id=_131945_1 1/4 7/29/2017 Rubric Detail – Blackboard Learn Element 2:
French and
Raven’s
Theory Used to
Resolve One
Of the
Problems In
Case Study Superior
Criteria Excellent
Criteria Satisfactory
Criteria Marginal
Criteria Unsatisfactory
Criteria Not
Submitted 30 (30%) 28.5 25.5 22.5 15 (15%) 0 (0%) Student
presents a
thorough and
detailed
explanation of
how he/she
might use
his/her
knowledge of
French and
Raven’s
theory to
resolve one of
the problems
presented in
the case
study, and
justifies
his/her
response.
Several
sources and
examples
support
thinking. (28.5%) (25.5%) (22.5%) Student
presents a
thorough and
detailed
explanation of
how he/she
might use
his/her
knowledge of
French and
Raven’s
theory to
resolve one of
the problems
presented in
the case
study, and
justifies
his/her
response.
Several
sources and
examples
support
thinking.
There are one
or two minor
errors in
explanation. Student
presents an
explanation of
how he/she
might use
his/her
knowledge of
French and
Raven’s
theory to
resolve one of
the problems
presented in
the case
study, and/or
somewhat
justifies
his/her
response.
Some sources
and examples
support
thinking. Student
presents a
cursory or
incomplete
explanation
of how
he/she might
use his/her
knowledge of
French and
Raven’s
theory to
resolve one
of the
problems
presented in
the case
study, and/or
has a vague
or missing
justification
for his/her
response.
Few sources
or examples
support
thinking. Does not meet
minimal
standards. Did not
submit
element. https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16286201_1&rubric_id=_131945_1 2/4 7/29/2017 Rubric Detail – Blackboard Learn Superior
Criteria Excellent
Criteria Satisfactory
Criteria Marginal
Criteria Unsatisfactory
Criteria Not
Submitted Element 3:
Critical
Thinking 20 (20%) 19 (19%) 17 (17%) 15 (15%) 10 (10%) 0 (0%) Writing
exhibits
excellent
evidence of
thoughtful
critical
analysis and
thinking;
careful
examination is
made of
assumptions
and possible
biases, with
detailed
supporting
rationale.
Writing
synthesizes
the classroom
experiences
and content;
analyze
patterns or
connections
between
theory and
practice; and
draws logical
conclusions
based on wellreasoned,
superb
arguments. Writing
exhibits
excellent
evidence of
thoughtful
critical
analysis and
thinking;
careful
examination is
made of
assumptions
and possible
biases, with
detailed
supporting
rationale.
Writing
synthesizes
the classroom
experiences
and content;
analyze
patterns or
connections
between
theory and
practice; and
draws logical
conclusions
based on wellreasoned,
superb
arguments.
There are one
or two minor
errors in
explanation. Writing
exhibits some
evidence of
thoughtful
critical
analysis and
thinking. A
good
examination is
made of
assumptions
and possible
biases, with
some
supporting
rationale.
Writing
synthesizes
the classroom
experiences
and content;
analyzes
patterns or
connections
between
theory and
practice; and
draws logical
conclusions
based on wellreasoned
arguments
adequately,
but not
superbly. Writing
exhibits little
evidence of
thoughtful
critical
analysis and
thinking.
Examination
is not made
of
assumptions
and possible
biases.
Writing does
not
synthesize
the
classroom
experiences
and content;
nor analyzes
patterns or
connections
between
theory and
practice.
Logical
conclusions
based on
wellreasoned
arguments
are not
exhibited. Does not meet
minimal
standards. Did not
submit
element. Element 4:
Written
Delivery Style
& Grammar 10 (10%) 9.5 (9.5%) 8.5 (8.5%) 7.5 (7.5%) 5 (5%) 0 (0%) Student
consistently
follows APA
writing style
and basic
rules of formal
English
grammar and
written essay
style. Student
communicates
in a cohesive,
logical style.
There are no
spelling or
grammar
errors. Student
consistently
follows APA
writing style
and basic
rules of formal
English
grammar and
written essay
style. Student
communicates
in a cohesive,
logical style.
There are one
or two minor
errors in
spelling or
grammar. Student
mostly follows
APA writing
style and
basic rules of
formal English
grammar and
written essay
style. Student
mostly
communicates
in a cohesive,
logical style.
There are
some errors in
spelling or
grammar. Student does
not follow
APA writing
style and
basic rules of
formal
English
grammar and
written essay
style and
does not
communicate
in a
cohesive,
logical style. Does not meet
minimal
standards. Did not
submit
element. https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16286201_1&rubric_id=_131945_1 3/4 7/29/2017 Rubric Detail – Blackboard Learn Element 5:
Formal and
Appropriate
Documentation
of Evidence,
Attribution of
Ideas (APA
Citations) Superior
Criteria Excellent
Criteria Satisfactory
Criteria Marginal
Criteria Unsatisfactory
Criteria Not
Submitted 10 (10%) 9.5 (9.5%) 8.5 (8.5%) 7.5 (7.5%) 5 (5%) 0 (0%) Student
demonstrates
full adherence
to scholarly
reference
requirements
and adheres
to APA style
with respect to
source
attribution,
references,
heading and
subheading
logic, table of
contents and
lists of charts,
etc. There are
no APA errors. Student
demonstrates
full adherence
to scholarly
reference
requirements
and adheres
to APA style
with respect to
source
attribution,
references,
heading and
subheading
logic, table of
contents and
lists of charts,
etc. There are
one or two
minor errors in
APA style or
format. Student
mostly
adheres to
scholarly
reference
requirements
and/or mostly
adheres to
APA style with
respect to
source
attribution,
references,
heading and
subheading
logic, table of
contents and
lists of charts,
etc. Some
errors in APA
format and
style are
evident. Student
demonstrates
weak or
inconsistent
adherence
scholarly
reference
requirements
and/or weak
or
inconsistent
adherence to
APA style
with respect
to source
attribution,
references,
heading and
subheading
logic, table of
contents and
lists of
charts, etc.
Several
errors in APA
format and
style are
evident. Does not meet
minimal
standards. Did not
submit
element. Name: DDBA_8151_Week_4_Assignment_Rubric Exit https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16286201_1&rubric_id=_131945_1 4/4
