The Rise and Fall of Worldcom

Shaghayegh Davari * Wan-Ting Shao * An anya Chandra * Niteesh Chinta * Shraddha Rane * Swathi Punreddy The Rise and fall of WorldCom This casing study WorldCom is a telecommunications high society which was take by CEO, Bernard Ebbers, and CFO, Scott Sullivan. In 1999, WorldCom was not concourse Wall Streets gross and earnings expectations, and it appeared that the approach year would lay down more bad news. The CFO argued for saddle horse realistic targets. However, the CEO insisted that the company require double digit growth, and pushed for aggressive targets.A majuscule deal of focus was not putting on team conk and creation a strong team instrumentalist, which is said to have been a outline to reduce dissenting opinions, blushtually jumper lead the memorial tablet not to follow a groupthink attitude. There is limited evidence to pop the question appropriate review financial account watchs were being reviewed independently and there was a lack of stringent mo nitoring of the inhering agree system and therefore the graphic symbol of the controls around the posting of journal entries to the ecumenic ledger was determine as a weak control.The Bernie Ebbers and Scott Sullivan where the leader of the company and determine of their leadinghips everyplace their followers which were the subordinates refer to their indi bathroomt and is relied on three bases, coercing occasion, authoritative designer, and tutorion designer. Leadership supplys fag end be put on by themselves or combined so that the leader has maximum influence. The leader forget therefore need to think carefully about which power to use which in this bailiwick was not apply in a way that at utmost resulted in decrease which was companys bankruptcy.Firstly, the main relevant theory in use by these roll in the hayrs for leading company was coercive power, they showed their ability to apply penalty to subordinates and it is originating from the managers posit ion and coercive co-workers behavior by forcing them to do whatever is not coming right to their believe. However, good leaders use coercive power only when in the last sort since coercive power can performance in the laconic term. Coercive power relies on stake and will backfire badly if used as the only base for development influence.In this lawsuit, the employees were publicly berated and intimidated for questioning managers conclusivenesss and push development. Secondly, the legitimate power by the leaders is used to some extent in this effort. It was written in co-workers minds that the leaders have right to instruct them and that they have an obligations to follow whatever instructions the leader are providing them and there is no need for whatever is not being provided to them.Legitimate power comes from the authority of the companys position which can request genuine behaviors of others. Ebbers indicated as personal charisma power which could be named as divine po wer and made the board of directors think that he knows the way and the answers and could nurture or exact them therefore, by producing passive board, rubber-stamped most of his recommendations. Finally, the managers in this case also relies on the information power.Information Management is an emerging field that is relate with information the infrastructure used to collect, salt away and deliver it and the organizational and social contexts in which it exists. But these two managers did not position the information power as a competitive in like mannerl because there was no efficient and effective deployment of the resources of the company. However, while you cant control anyone (except perhaps yourself), you can influence nearly everyone. This is the essence of unfeigned leadership.By this definition, Ebbers and Sullivan were great leaders in. One of the play influenced in this case involves actively applying legitimate and coercive power by even managers or subordinates u sually form a group and tried to influence others by using threats of sanctions to force compliance, threaten, and apply penalty if the subordinates does not comply with the requests. Information control is simultaneously an influence for this case which is joined intimately with influence and power.The managers in this case hold parts of information without coition any of their employees and limited subordinates to have feeler to valuable information and make them keep in dark about work issue. Assertive might be called plainspoken authority which was another influence. Using the managers positions of power and so as to despise and control the employees will cause a lot of problem and damage of respect over the long term.However, the employees from the WorldCom quoted events that they were denounced for asking about any decisions or asking for information. In this case the managers did not use organizational government in terms of behavior of raise groups to use power to i nfluence decision making. They both focused on the selfish and organizationally non sanctioned nature of individual behavior in organization. The most chief(prenominal) manoeuvre was developing strong assort and forming power coalitions, and associating with these two managers in their business.They portion out threat available in organization settings, it seems quite reasonable to expect that tidy sum will find it advantageous to manage the impressions that others form of them, even in stead which subordinates feel that the outcome is failing. In this case almost all the executives and staff identified information as a governmental tool which is depending on the managers and it comes that the purpose of this tactic may be to burry or obscure an important details the governmental actors of the company which were these two managers believe that could victimize them, when the risk of withholding information is too great.