A finished MGT-420 Topic 6 informal influence map example, tracing influence through dependencies and brokerage positions and explaining political behavior by the conditions that rewarded it. Searches like "mgt 420 topic 6 assignment example", "mgt420 topic 6 sample" and "mgt-420 topic 6 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-420 Topic 6 informal influence map looks like
The finished map looks nothing like the organization chart it is placed beside, and the contrast is the first finding. Influence is drawn as lines of dependence: who needs what from whom, and who has no substitute supplier. In the composite manufacturer used here, a production scheduler with no direct reports sits at the center because every department needs line time and she allocates it. Strategic contingencies theory explains why, since those who handle the organization's most pressing uncertainty tend to gain influence over it. Brokers who connect otherwise separate groups are marked, and their leverage is explained by position. The political section then examines lobbying around the capital budget, tracing it to allocation criteria nobody had written down, the kind of ambiguity in which politics reliably grows.
How an MGT-420 Topic 6 example is structured
Two surfaces, the map and its explanation, divide the example, and each has its own sections. The opening section reproduces the formal chart and states the question the map will answer, typically whose agreement a new initiative would actually need. The second section maps dependencies by resource, listing what each department needs, who controls it and whether alternatives exist. The third section identifies central and brokering positions and explains the influence attached to each. The fourth section sets the map against the chart and notes where they diverge most. The fifth section turns to political behavior, describing what people did and linking it to scarcity, unclear decision criteria and performance measures that could be argued over. The closing section predicts how influence would move if one condition changed, for example if budget criteria were published.
The chart placed beside the map
Setting formal authority next to actual dependence makes the gaps visible at once, and those gaps are where influence in the case operates.
Dependence mapped resource by resource
Each department's needs are listed with who controls them and whether a substitute exists, since influence grows where no alternative supplier can be found.
Brokers identified by their position
People who connect groups that otherwise never talk hold leverage because of where they sit, not because of any title or temperament.
Politics traced to ambiguous criteria
Lobbying around the budget is linked to allocation rules nobody wrote down, which made persuasion more rewarding than performance for every department involved.
Influence predicted under a changed condition
The close tests the map by asking what would shift if one condition changed, such as publishing the criteria for capital spending.
Where marks go in MGT-420 Topic 6
Maps copied from the organization chart earn little, since the topic assumes influence and formal position diverge and asks where. Explaining a powerful person by charisma or ambition names a trait and ignores the dependence that gives the trait somewhere to work. Listing the classic bases of power without connecting any to a resource in the case describes a framework rather than an organization. Politics treated as a character flaw, or as something only manipulative people do, misses that ambiguity and scarcity produce political behavior in ordinary employees. Analyses that never mention brokers overlook one of the most reliable structural sources of influence. Maps that cannot predict what would change if a condition moved have described influence without explaining it.
Get an MGT-420 Topic 6 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-420 Topic 6 instructions, your section's rubric and the organization or case you are mapping. We write a custom example to those criteria, with dependencies mapped by resource, brokers identified, the map set against the chart and the political behavior traced to the conditions that rewarded it, back in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
MGT-420 Topic 6 questions, answered
Why do people without titles end up with influence?
Because influence follows dependence. Someone who controls a resource others need, handles a problem nobody else can solve, or links groups that would otherwise not communicate becomes hard to bypass whatever the chart says. Their influence is a product of where they sit in the flow of work, which is why replacing them often transfers the influence to their successor.
Is organizational politics always harmful?
Not always. Political behavior, meaning influence exercised outside formal rules, can surface information and build coalitions that formal processes miss. It becomes costly when it replaces performance as the route to resources. The analytic point is that politics grows where criteria are unclear and resources are scarce, so reducing ambiguity usually reduces politicking more effectively than warning people against it.
What goes into an influence map built from a case?
The resources first: budget, information, equipment time, approvals and expertise. For each, note who controls it, who needs it and whether an alternative exists. Then mark people who link groups that otherwise do not interact. Drawn from the case facts rather than from impressions, the resulting web shows where influence sits and gives the paper evidence it can point to.