Search results

The case is based on data collected from in-depth interviews, and from company, third-party and regulatory–agency documents. In addition to prior conversations over several years between the company founders and the lead case writer, there were several rounds of interviews in 2023 with the surviving founder and in-depth interviews with eight of the company’s key managers. Company documents reviewed included bylaws, organization charts, profit and loss statements and staffing statistics, all from founding to sale. Also reviewed were documents and evaluations of company operations and performance produced by the merger & acquisition firm that handled the company’s eventual sale. The company owner insisted on complete disguise of the company and all its members and prohibited disclosure of detailed proprietary financial data.

At the strategic level, this case is about how the unique, complex and changing healthcare environment created opportunities and threats to which a women-owned and run start-up company, Aloe Health (AH), had to respond to become and remain successful. At the personal level, the case illustrates what it takes for an entrepreneur and leader having clinical but no real business acumen to start, expand and turn around a company and ultimately position it for a successful acquisition, continually learning and adapting along the way.

The case describes how two women who were friends for many years started up a home healthcare company later in their lives and grew it into the largest women-owned business of its kind in the USA. Based in the Southwest USA, an area with many factors conducive to success, they navigated the many complexities of US Medicare regulations to create a fully-integrated home healthcare company providing unskilled personal care, medically skilled homecare and end-of-life hospice services to thousands of clients. The case provides background on the founders and the home healthcare industry context, and details the steps taken to start up and build the company into a fairly successful enterprise; one of the largest of its kind in the region. The (A) case ends with one of the founders facing a crisis brought on by the death of her co-founder and the revelation of some significant organization dysfunctions, leaving her unable to profitably exit the company and unsure of whether she would be able to turn things around. The students are tasked with making recommendations for what she should do next.

The (B) case brings events up to fall 2023, describing the steps the surviving founder took to transform her leadership style and the company’s systems and culture, and to navigate the due diligence process associated with preparing for an (ultimately very successful) acquisition. It also shares the owner’s “lessons learned,” and briefly notes the current state of the acquired company and the many AH employees that it continues to employ.

The case provides ample information for students to appreciate the company’s strategy and the challenges of operating in the highly regulated health care industry. However, it is probably even better suited to illustrating the “soft” issues of new-venture management, such as the tendencies of founders to overload themselves by micro-managing their growing venture and not adapting to expansion, and for those with clinical backgrounds to focus on caring for patients and employees while overlooking business essentials and organization systems. It also illustrates how business partnerships among strong-willed individuals can produce dynamics in the founding team similar to a “marriage,” with affection and complementary talents, yet also tensions. It further illustrates the process of a successful turnaround strategy, and the “due-diligence” challenges of preparing for an acquisition.

This case has a range of course applications at multiple education levels. Although it is probably best suited for graduate and executive-level programs, it can also be selectively used in undergraduate classes, particularly if populated by upperclassman. It is ideally suited to courses on entrepreneurship and on healthcare management. For an entrepreneurship course, it could be positioned mid-way through the semester, after covering topics relating to the entrepreneurial mindset, founding teams and business models. It can be used to get the class focusing on competitive issues and the challenges of starting up a company in a highly regulated environment, on entrepreneurial founding-team characteristics and management tendencies (e.g. micro-management control tendencies), on transition issues from start up to growth stages and on exit strategies.

We believe this case is also well suited as a teaching exercise for students pursuing healthcare management studies in baccalaureate and graduate programs (MBA, MHA, MHS) in which instructors wish to broaden student exposure to a real-world scenario that focuses on entrepreneurial behavior in a healthcare setting (a topic of increasing interest to healthcare practitioners and managers given the current trend toward provider formation and ownership of health facilities). Here, the case may be used to focus on the complexities of the healthcare industry, the key differences between various healthcare service business models and on the challenges that technically (clinically) trained professionals often face when trying to manage a healthcare business. Ideal placement of the case would be in a capstone course, after students have been introduced to their functional coursework in topics such as introduction to management, organizational behavior and leadership, financial management and strategic thinking. The case also challenges students to apply knowledge obtained in specialized coursework in healthcare systems and policy, industry regulation, as well as healthcare reimbursement methods.

The case also may be used in organization behavior courses to focus on team, cultural and leadership issues and in strategic management courses to focus on strategy implementation. In addition, there are enough family business themes in the case (even though Aloe is not actually a family business) to use it in a course on managing family businesses.

This compact case study was developed from secondary sources readily available in the public domain. These secondary sources included websites, videos and articles.

Throughout 2023, social media companies faced a wide range of criticism on several fronts. Critics claimed that the companies were not doing enough to manage content and the algorithms were influencing American public opinion in the Israel-–Hamas war. Others argued that social media was negatively impacting the mental health of American youth. In response, the platforms reiterated their neutrality and emphasized the features, functions and policies that were designed to address the issues and encourage a positive user experience. As generative artificial intelligence (AI) grew in popularity, the impact on social media was inevitable. Was the convergence of social media and AI inspiring progress or exacerbating problems? How would society balance the opposing forces in a rapidly evolving environment?

This case should be used in marketing and management classes at the undergraduate level. Applicable concepts include AI, social media, content and information.

After completion of the case study, students will be able to understand key stakeholders’ current and future role in a family business using techniques like Gersick 3 Axes Model, understand the power dynamics in a family business, understand the power struggles seen in the family business and understand the challenges in the implementation of a deed of family settlement (DFS) with multiple stakeholders.

Kirloskar group was established in 1888 by Laxmanrao Kirloskar. He started with farm manufacturing equipment and later diversified into various kinds of engine manufacturing units. Kirloskar Group today is an Indian conglomerate multinational company with its headquarters in Pune, Maharashtra; India exports to more than 70 countries, most of which are from Africa, Southeast Asia and Europe. The group was managed as a cohesive unit until Chandrakant Kirloskar was at the helm as the chairman. Each brother’s family was managing a business and companies in the fold in which they started. The Kirloskar Group had first split in 2000 when Bengaluru-based Vijay Kirloskar (Ravindra Kirloskar’s son, fourth son of Laxmanrao Kirloskar) moved out of the group with Kirloskar Electrical while the Pune-based Kirloskar brothers moved out with Kirloskar Oil Engine Engines, Kirloskar Brothers, Kirloskar Pneumatics and related subsidiaries. In 2009, a DFS was signed among the family members, including a noncompete clause against each other regarding the usage of the Kirloskar brand name and the tagline “Kirloskar Enriching Lives.” The current dispute started in 2020 when first Vijay filed a suit against his nephews regarding illegal usage of the Kirloskar brand name for the companies not eligible to use it and second when Sanjay Kirloskar also filed a similar lawsuit against his brothers for illegally using the brand name and violating the noncompete clause. The high court, in its judgment, sent the case for arbitration, but Sanjay approached the Supreme Court of India regarding the stipulated arbitration process. With both sides taking a hard stance, there did not seem to be a quick resolution to this dispute.

This case study is suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate level in entrepreneurship course and family business course.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship

Teaching notes are available for educators only.