However, this power is limited, and it only depends on the foundation's board members. Her power can mostly be exerted on her subordinates. Clark does not have any power over the board members. In fact, her power is established by these board members. However, Clark tries to increase her power by collaborating with female board members. This was not an unconditioned collaboration, since these board members only helped Clark gain more power by asking certain favors from Clark. This case study presents the situation of a nonprofit foundation CEO whose power of action is extremely limited. Even more, Clark does not have the vote of confidence from board members. It seems that certain board members are trying to keep Clark from doing her job. Maybe they are worried that some negative aspects might come out regarding their activity. In these given circumstances, it was quite difficult for Clark to exert any kind of influence on the board members. However, Clark probably did the only thing possible in these conditions. She figured out in the beginning that board members were not in her favor and that it was practically impossible for her to convince all the board members, or the majority, from the beginning. Clark thought that female board members might sympathize more with the causes she is trying to get involved in. She further thought that by influencing female board members, they could themselves influence other board members and things might start to change. Her reasoning was correct. However, the female board members were willing to help Clark only if Clark helped them. For example, Clark had to employ friends of female board members in the foundation staff, and to implement some of their ideas. Of course, this is not a technique that management manuals approve of. At the time, it seemed to be the only approach that Clark...

Clark tried to influence some members of the board, thinking that they would influence other. She also had to compromise in order to do so. Eventually, this approach turned out to be working only in the beginning. Clark managed to put some of her ideas into practice. But this happened only for a short period of time. The foundation's financial difficulties were not overcome and Clark's activity was questioned by several members of the board.
It is quite difficult to state whether the approach followed by Clark was ethical or not. Her methods cannot be considered in perfect agreement with ethical conduct, on the one hand, but they were not exactly unethical either, on the other hand. Clark's methods can be considered somewhere in between the two extremes. Clark's reasons for acting the way she did were undoubtedly positive. She only wanted to help the foundation overcome its financial difficulties and to help members of the community by implementing a series of social campaigns. Clark's only chance at succeeding at this and at proving that she is a good manager was to influence board members to act in her favor. In order to do so, Clark was forced to compromise and to accept some of the terms established by board members. As a consequence, Clark had to put into practice some of the ideas that certain board members proposed. Unless these ideas were illegal or immoral, there is no ethical issue under discussion in implementing such ideas. Also, Clark had to employ friends of certain board members in the foundation's staff. Nepotism is definitely not agreed by ethics. Even so, Clark only acted like this so that important social project could be put into practice. Whatever slightly unethical behavior Clark had, it was for good social purposes…