French and Raven's bases, Yukl's influence tactics and Emerson's dependence argument trace one theater production manager's authority to its sources in a finished GM502 Unit 9 influence and power paper. Searches like "gm 502 unit 9 assignment example", "gm502 unit 9 sample" and "gm502 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished GM502 Unit 9 influence and power paper looks like
A coding table sits at the center of five pages set under APA headings. The introduction explains the constraint: a union contract that leaves the manager little reward or coercive power over crews she directs daily. A theory section sets out French and Raven's five bases, Raven's later informational base, and Yukl's research on which influence tactics tend to produce commitment rather than compliance. The table codes [thirty] recorded instances, from a load-in schedule accepted without argument to a rigging change a crew chief resisted, by the base each drew on and the tactic used. Expert and informational power dominate, since she holds the center's rigging certification and knows its fly system better than anyone. The outdoor venue section shows those bases thinning: its truss system was new to her, and the crew had its own head rigger.
How a GM502 Unit 9 example is structured
Constraint comes first, since a leader stripped of formal levers is the cleanest test of where influence originates. The theory section ends with Emerson's point that power rests on another party's dependence, which ties the bases to a relationship the paper can observe. The coding method follows: what counted as an instance, how each was assigned a base, and how ambiguous cases were split. A table carries the results, followed by a short set of illustrative episodes. The outdoor venue section is the paper's test case, showing that expert power does not transfer when the expertise does not, and that legitimate power, weak at the main house, stayed weak there too. A discussion section asks what the manager could build that would travel between venues. The conclusion is blunt: her authority was never in the title, and it depended on a system she happened to know best.
A title the contract hollows out
Hiring, overtime and discipline sit with the union and the house steward. The paper lists what the manager cannot do before examining what she accomplishes anyway, which frames the puzzle.
Thirty instances, coded
Each recorded moment of compliance or resistance is assigned a base and a tactic. Ambiguous cases, where expertise and friendliness both seem to operate, are split and counted as half in each column.
Expertise on the fly system
Most compliance traces to her rigging certification and her knowledge of the main house's counterweight system. Crews accepted schedule changes when she explained the load reasoning, which the paper codes as informational power.
Dependence at the amphitheater
At the outdoor venue, a new truss system and a crew with its own head rigger removed the dependence her authority rested on. Compliance became slower and more negotiated, and the paper documents [four] disputed calls.
Influence that could travel
The discussion considers which bases survive a change of venue. Referent power and a reputation for fair scheduling might, the paper argues, though the evidence for either is thinner than for expertise.
Where marks go in GM502 Unit 9
Power papers lose most by listing French and Raven's bases with a definition and an example each, which tours the typology without explaining anyone's authority. Where one leader's influence originates is the actual question, and answering it takes coded instances rather than illustrations. Also common is the assumption that a title supplies power, when the more interesting finding is often how little it does. Instructors frequently reward papers that separate influence tactics from power bases, since a leader with expert power can still use pressure and get grudging compliance. Treating the typology as complete, with no mention of dependence or of later work, weakens the theory row. Resistance deserves attention too, because refused requests show the limits of a base most clearly.
Get a GM502 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Name a leader whose authority puzzles you, perhaps because the title grants little or because influence shifted with the setting, and describe several moments when people complied or pushed back. Attach the Unit 9 prompt and rubric. A first paper, free and ready inside 24-48h, codes those moments against the power framework named in your reading.
GM502 Unit 9 questions, answered
How many instances does the analysis need?
There is no fixed number, but enough to show a pattern rather than a story. Twenty to thirty recorded moments work well for a paper of this length, and even ten can serve if each is specific. Where memory supplies the instances, choose ones you recall in detail and note the limitation. A handful of vivid episodes cannot establish which base dominates.
Is legitimate power ever the main source in these papers?
Sometimes, especially in organizations where titles carry real control over pay, schedules or careers, and the analysis should report it honestly when the evidence points there. What instructors tend to question is legitimate power assumed rather than shown. If a leader's instructions are followed only when others are watching, the coding may reveal that the title is doing less than it appears.
Can the paper analyze my own power at work?
Many sections allow it, and self-analysis can be revealing, particularly for people who lead without formal authority. The difficulty is coding your own influence honestly, since most people credit their expertise more than their position. Asking a colleague to review your coding, or including moments when your requests were refused, helps keep the analysis balanced.