Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He doesn't have any power over this woman. She wasn't even hired yet to begin with. Are you kidding? He has power over her future employment. She wants a job there, and he has the power to give her the job or to reject her. Also, if he were to hire her, he'd have power over her during her entire employment.
[deleted]
No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.
>That assumes that transaction is somehow not mutually beneficial.
It is mutually beneficial, but you're probably looking at a 30:1 (or higher) benefit ratio here, in his favor.
> In the end, she's the one that has power over him, as evident from all publicity and his subsequent apology and management changes.
No, she only has power over him insomuch that she can leak any attempts by him to exploit his leverage over her. If he doesn't make any such attempts, she has no power.
This is like a cop beating and arresting someone recording him and, after the tape leaks to the media, defending the cop with "the suspect was the one with power over him because he was filming him, as evident from the aftermath."