1

Ron had been the new regional manager for only a month when he asked you to help him with an
off-site meeting he planned to have with his staff. Ron was head of one of five regions of a
nationwide financial institution. His region had been losing money for the past four years, and
his mandate was "to turn the region around" and make it profitable again. As a vice-president of
the corporation, Ron was responsible for a regional business with millions of dollars in revenues
and a total employee population of 1,000. The managers who reported to Ron had
responsibilities typical of such a businessmarketing, operations, finance and accounting,
credit, consumer sales, human resources, and planning.
Ron wanted to have a two-day off-site meeting to get his staff to agree to profit goals for the next
two years and to establish a more clear-cut strategy for his region. He wanted to accomplish this,
by involving his staff in the decision-making process. This approach was a change for his staff.
The former regional manager was not autocratic, but neither did he believe in participative
management. He managed one-on-one with his staff, rather than in a group setting. Ron was
more charismatic, however, was more oriented toward a participative approach, and was less
tolerant of the status quo.
Although some of the staff believed that the off-site meeting was somewhat premature, they all
thought that the idea of the meeting was a good one. At the meeting, everyone participated
actively, short- and longer-range profit goals were determined, and the beginnings of a regional
strategy were initiated. Ron was pleased with the meeting and its outcomes. Later, some
organizational changes were made in the managerial structure, the new strategy began to be
implemented, and the region gradually turned around.
Ron had exercised power to change his region's profits from a loss to a gain. He achieved the
change by presenting a model of leadership that demonstrated high commitment and energy and
that involved his staff in policy making. Ron's leadership was strong but not authoritarian; he
exerted influence but could also be influenced. He exercised his power for change in four
primary ways:(1) by holding he off-site meeting early and establishing a clear thrust to his
managerial tenure; (2) by insisting on establishment of short-and long-range profit goals; (3) by
insisting that the region have a clear cut business strategy; and (4) by involving his staff in the
key decisions so that they were highly committed to implementation. Ron's power was thus
exercised through the position he held and by his particular approach to leadership, which was
charismatic, energetic, and participative.