Reference no: EM132297959

Rhonda Clark: Taking Charge at the Santora Foundation

Dr. Rhonda Clark was ecstatic as she hung up the telephone. Rachel McGregor, chairperson of Wilkinson Executive Search firm, had just informed her that she landed the coveted position of chief executive officer (CEO) at the Santora Foundation, a non-profit organization whose mission was to fund public awareness campaigns and research programs about eye care. Clark knew she had just pulled off a major coup. Her appointment to this new, challenging position would be indeed the high point in a long arduous climb to the executive suite. As an organizational outsider – one with no work experience within the hiring organization – she assumed that her appointment as CEO signalled a strong desire by the board to shake up the organizational status quo. However, she heard from a reliable inside source that the very board that hired her and charged her with the responsibility of transforming the foundation was extremely fragmented. The often rambunctious board had forced the last five CEOs to resign after very short tenures. Clark’s feeling of exhilaration was rapidly being replaced by cautious optimism. As a new CEO, she pondered the rather thorny question: how could she take charge of the board of directors to ensure the mission of the organization would be accomplished?

Background

Arthur Santora, an industrialist and philanthropist, founded the Santora Foundation 40 years ago with a multimillion dollar endowment. Despite this generous financial start-up capital and additional income derived from several financial investments and major corporate donations, the foundation’s endowment has been slowly dwindling as a result of rather insignificant funding awards to academics, community organizations and smaller less well-funded foundations. Board members have held some preliminary discussions about developing new innovative strategies to strengthen the balance sheet of the organization. Currently, the foundation operates on an annual budget of slightly less than CDN$2.5 million. In the last five years, some foundation board members have begun to abandon many of their fiduciary responsibilities. Over the past few months, several board meetings have been cancelled because the meetings lacked quorum. In general, this 13-member board seemed to drift aimlessly in one direction or another. The board has been operating at only 70 percent capacity for the past two years with nine active board members –five men and four women.

Challenges

Dr. Rhonda Clark believed she was the one who could lead the Santora Foundation. She had great academic credentials and management experience that would help tackle her new position as the foundation head. In the last 30 years, the 56-year-old Clark, who holds a Ph.D. in political science and policy analysis from a major Canadian university, has gained an enviable amount of managerial experience in the non-profit and public sectors. Past professional experiences included a graduate school professorship; a director of research for a major province-wide political office holder, the director of planning in a large metropolitan hospital and the director of programs at a small foundation. Immediately upon taking office, Clark was astounded to learn that a small, but active and influential faction on the board had withdrawn its initial verbal promise to assist her in working closely with the corporate community. Essentially, she was informed that she was solely responsible for all external corporate relations. Clark thought; “I wonder if they hired me because they thought they would get a “do-nothing” female leader. These folks want me to either sink or swim on my own. Perhaps they set me up for failure by giving me a one-year appointment.” She lamented: I won’t let this happen, I really need to learn about the key decision makers and stakeholders on the board and in the larger community and fast.” At the last board meeting Clark detailed the major elements of her last proposal. Yet, several board members seemed totally unfazed by it. Soon she began to encounter stiff resistance from some male board members, Jose Gonzales, in particular, told Clark: “We are disappointed that you failed to win a city contract to conduct a feasibility study to determine if we can erect a facility in another section of town. We’re certain if you have the right stuff to run this foundation, and we certainly won’t help you to gain financial support for the foundation by using our personal, corporate, or political contacts.” Jackson thought to himself; “We’ve removed CEOs before, we can remove Clark, too.” After hearing Gonzales’s comments Clark decided to take another tack. She began to focus her attention on making external and internal inroads that she believed could result in some modest gains for the foundation. For example, she identified and developed a close relationship with a few well-connected city agency executives, persuaded some supporters to nominate her for membership on two very influential boards, and forged a relationship with two key foundation decision makers and political power brokers. She reconfigured the internal structure of the foundation to increase maximum productivity from the staff, and she tightened budgetary controls by changing some fiscal policies and procedures. Clark also sought the support of Anita Walker, a board member who likely had been instrumental in Clark’s appointment as CEO. Clark said to herself, “If I can develop a strong symbiotic relationship with some female board members, like Anita, to support my plan, then maybe I can get some traction.” To do this, Clark held a number of late evening meetings with Anita and another female board member. They indicated their willingness to help her, but only if she would consider implementing a few of their ideas for the foundation as well as recommending their close friend for a current staff vacancy. Clark knew they were trying to exercise their political influence; yet, she believed that everyone could benefit from this quid quo pro relationship. She said to herself “I guess it’s a matter of you scratch my back, and I scratch yours.” She eagerly agreed to move their agenda along. In a matter of a few weeks, as promised, they began working on a couple of relatively “sympathetic” board members. One day Clark got a very terse, but critical telephone call from Anita. “Several of us support you. Proceed!” Once she heard this, Clark began to move quickly. She informed a 21 member coalition of community, educational and quasi-governmental agencies that would apply for a collaborative federal grant to create a public awareness eye campaign for children. Through the dissemination of various media, coalition members would help to inform the community-atlarge about various eye diseases that afflict young school age children. Shortly afterwards, Clark received notification from a federal agency that this multiagency project would be awarded a two million-dollar grant. Clark would serve as the administrative and fiscal agent of the grant, and as a result, she would be able to earmark a considerable amount of the administrative oversight dollars for the foundation’s budget. For her efforts at coordinating this project, Clark received high marks from coalition and community members alike. Yet, despite this important initial accomplishment, Clark had the unpleasant task of notifying the full board that, due to some unforeseen problems and their lack of support on certain key initiatives, the foundation would still experience a financial deficit. She heard several rumours that her next employment contract would not be renewed by the executive committee of the board. At this point she thought about directly confronting the obstructionists on the board by telling them that they were unreasonable and in fact that they were the cause the foundation had not recovered during the past year … but she hesitated; she had signed on to do a job, and she was unsure if it was the wisest course of action to take at this time. Despite this latest conflict between herself and certain board members, she paused to reflect on what she believed to have been a tumultuous year as CEO.

Answer the following question

Identify and discuss the influence tactics Clark used out of these influence tactics :- (Rational persuasion, Inspirational appeals, Consultation, Ingratiation, Personal appeals, Exchange, Coalition tactics, Pressure, Legitimacy)? If so, list and discuss them?