Personal Case Analysis: Political

Christapher Cutting

Arizona State University

Pro-Seminar I
 As a refresher to the situation, our organization was in need of an information technology (IT)

systems refresh, with ageing equipment our mission was exceeding the existing network and technical

capabilities. As a preferred vendor with an existing relationship and facility access, I engaged with Dell

EMC for their services. However, due to poor documentation and personnel departures, I was gifted this

project with very little information on the previous acquisition and processes. The Dell EMC

representative was eager to capitalize on this situation, and sought to garner a lucrative and inflated

government contract. My role was to consolidate and define the organization’s requirements, garner

the best solution for both our organization and the tax-payer, while doing so in a relatively short period

of time.

Dell EMC had established itself as a trusted vendor, years of negotiations and fulfilled contracts

led to an established relationship and between the commercial vendor and the United States

Government. They had established themselves in the ecosystem as a linchpin to functional organizations

and operational success (Bolman & Deal, 2017, pg. 229). Analysis and assessments of the vendors

security controls, supply chain control, as well as established quality controls helped cement the

company’s position as a reliable partner. All of this contributed to level of power, perceived and real of

varying levels, by the company and its representation in the field. Corporate power trickled down to the

employees and their ability to leverage the corporate machine, with the political frame in mind, they

exercised positional power, information and expertise power, reputation, alliances and networks, and

through all of those unique powers they garnered a level of personal power over their customers

(Bolman & Deal, 2017, pg. 192).

 Conversely, the perceived power and leverage in my organization was superficial in comparison.

Our name and title carried with it very little influence, as we were ultimately a small fish in a very large

ocean. Comparably, our almost half a million-dollar technology budget was paltry in comparison with

other agency contractual needs, and was reflected in the lack of effort and attention given to the

process by the Dell representatives. We lacked the technical expertise as I was relearning the technical

side of information technology systems in attempt to overcome an almost a 15-year gap in knowledge

and awareness. Dell’s market control meant that in order to pursue alternative vendors our timeline

would be prolonged greatly, delaying the program further.

The first course of action I would recommend would be to develop and promote competitive

vendor solutions. Dell’s seemingly monopolistic stranglehold of the market is what delayed the

execution of this particular contract or situation. While other vendors were available as an option, the

familiarity and previous relationships steered the focus to Dell over their competitors. Additionally, the

other vendors suffered due to a lack of visibility and presence in the organization, their lack of

connections led to under-advertised solutions, and led to the perspective that they were not accessible.

Ultimately, they were but a small and unnoticed part of the greater organizational ecosystem.

The lack of visibility created a barrier and weakened alternative vendor positions of power in the

negotiation process. Without access to alternative vendors and competition, our power position in the

process was weakened, we had no way to coerce Dell into a mutually beneficial discussion, instead, their

position afforded them the latitude to propose solutions far exceeding our needs and stretching our

budget to its upper limits. Due to this it became increasingly difficult to compel them to provide

alternative quotes and solutions that were aligned with our needs and requirements.
 Based off of the above course of action, I would have engaged with other vendors earlier in the

process to improve my position in the negotiations. Doing so would have provided the leverage needed

to increase our power position through multiple avenues. By gaining more competitive bids through

multiple vendors we would have gained information and expertise power by association across a variety

of vendors and perspectives. In doing so our alliance and network power would be increased, by

developing coalitions across the technology sector our position and influence would have improved. And

lastly, our ability to control rewards, in this case a lucrative contract that could have been quickly

resolved, awarded, and executed with both parties benefiting.

Building coalitions within my organization should have also been a greater priority. A naïve

perspective that the organization as whole had a level of unity and purpose, led to a perpetual series of

barriers and frustrations. Instead of finding unity of effort, I was continually faced with apathy and

commitment reluctance. These coalitions would have needed to be developed through more in-person

interactions, and relationship building. Through those internal coalitions, I would have gained a greater

position within the negotiations with Dell, and been more effective overall.
 References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass