Search results

In late 2011, Jerry Bertram, vice president and general manager of the fire retardant additives business of Huber Engineered Materials (HEM), a division of family-owned J. M. Huber Corporation, was preparing to present the potential acquisition of the precipitated alumina trihydrate (PATH) business to the environment, health, and safety committee of Huber's corporate board. He had convinced HEM's leadership of PATH's strategic value to their business and the urgency of the acquisition based on PATH's parent company's movement into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its plans to close the PATH plant.

Winning board approval posed a major challenge. It was unclear whether the plant would remain operational, because HEM would have to enter a shared-services arrangement with PATH's parent company, which continued to use the site. In addition, acquiring PATH would mean integrating its specialized, unionized labor force into Huber, which had very few union workers. Finally, early due diligence had revealed tens of millions of dollars of potential environmental risk on the site. The last issue was particularly critical, given Huber's generations-long history of respect for the environment, and its executives' and directors' reluctance to take on any business with excessive environmental risk.

This case illustrates in depth the family business values that can promote consideration of an ostensibly unconventional and risky strategic move, and enable executives to push for approval of the same, as backed by comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation plans.

In early 2016, after the success of its first two smartphones, the OnePlus One and OnePlus 2, China-based startup smartphone maker OnePlus was deciding how to build on its early success and grow into a global contender in the highly competitive smartphone market. Technology enthusiasts and geeks had flocked to purchase the first two generations of its smartphones and expectations were high for the company's next product. The company's founders, Pete Lau and Carl Pei, faced the challenge of broadening the appeal of OnePlus to address the mainstream market without alienating its core customer base.

“Crossing the chasm” from the early adopters to the mainstream market involved addressing three interrelated questions: First, what segments should OnePlus target as it sought to grow beyond its loyal fan base? Second, what value proposition and positioning strategy should it adopt to appeal to these target customers? Finally, what distribution and marketing communications strategy should it employ to make best use of its limited financial resources? A key consideration in formulating its strategy was to stay true to the company's culture and mission of “Never Settle” by charting its own course and not emulating the strategies of much larger competitors like Apple, Samsung, LG, and HTC.

An iconic American brand must determine how to maximize net profit by increasing the sales of its highest-margin items in the face of constant retailer pushback including reduced shelf space and promotional support of those same products. This case is suitable for required MBA marketing courses as well as pricing and brand management electives at both the undergraduate and MBA levels. The analytics of the case assume that students can calculate both dollar and percentage margins.

Ned Piper needs to improve the performance of Acme Lumber’s Broken Arrow store. There are two candidates for the store manager’s position, Larry Frazier and Chip Farmer. Larry has worked for Acme for 35 years in a variety of positions and is related to the Johnson family who has owned and managed Acme for three generations. Chip has worked for Acme for 19 years and has successfully helped to turn around another store. Chip is not related to the Johnsons. Ned is feeling pressure from the business and family to make the right decision. Which candidate should he select to become a manager?

The authors used a case study methodology.

Human resources, selection, staffing, and family business management.

Socioemotional wealth perspective, and agency theory.

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.