Search results

The cases describe the demise of Arthur Andersen, a firm that had long set the industry standard for professionalism in accounting and auditing. Once an example of strong corporate culture with a commitment to public service and independent integrity, Andersen saw its culture and standards weaken as it grew explosively and changed its mode of governance. The (A) case describes a crisis precipitated by the admission of Waste Management, a major Andersen client, that it overstated its pretax earnings by $1.43 billion from 1992 to 1996. The resulting Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation ended with Andersen paying a $7 million fine, the largest ever levied against an accounting firm, and agreeing to an injunction that effectively placed the accounting giant on probation. Students analyze the causes of Andersen's problems and advise Andersen leadership. The (B) case covers Arthur Andersen's relationship with Enron, one of the great success stories of the “new economy” boom. When Enron's aggressive use of off-balance sheet partnerships became impossible to hide in autumn 2001, news reports stated that Andersen auditors had engaged in extensive shredding of draft documents and associated communications with Enron. Students are asked to act as crisis management consultants to Andersen CEO Joe Berardino. The (C) case details Andersen's collapse following its indictment and conviction on criminal charges of obstructing justice in the Enron case. Its conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on narrow technical grounds, but by then Andersen had ceased to exist, eighty-nine years after Arthur E. Andersen had taken over a small accounting firm in Chicago. Students can focus on the impact of media on a reputational crisis.

Students will: Identify the teachable moment in a crisis that leaders can leverage as an opportunity to improve a firm's reputation or core identity, to reinforce values, and to drive change, Understand the impact on crisis management of the media landscape and regulatory decision-making, Realize the fragility of corporate cultures and the need to actively maintain them, especially during difficult times,

This case is based on Weatherford International’s settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Both the SEC and the DOJ were critical of Weatherford for its violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and for its “inadequate internal controls.” This case explores the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations and issues related to internal controls.

Case study.

This case is based on Weatherford International’s settlement with the SEC and the Department of Justice. Weatherford provided equipment and services in the oil and gas industry. Because international markets were growing faster than domestic markets, Weatherford made a strategic decision to pursue growth in international markets. The oil and gas industry has high levels of operating risk as did the countries that Weatherford decided to pursue operations in. However, despite the decision to take on additional risk, Weatherford failed to implement adequate systems of internal controls. The title of the case “A Perfect Storm” refers to Weatherford’s trifecta of operating in an industry with high levels of corruption risk, countries with high levels of corruption risk and failing to implement adequate internal controls despite those high operating risks (Department of Justice, 2013). Weatherford was ultimately assessed a $152m penalty for its violations of the FCPA that included bribery, volume discounts, improper payments and kickbacks.

Undergraduate and graduate auditing classes.

The cases describe the demise of Arthur Andersen, a firm that had long set the industry standard for professionalism in accounting and auditing. Once an example of strong corporate culture with a commitment to public service and independent integrity, Andersen saw its culture and standards weaken as it grew explosively and changed its mode of governance. The (A) case describes a crisis precipitated by the admission of Waste Management, a major Andersen client, that it overstated its pretax earnings by $1.43 billion from 1992 to 1996. The resulting Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation ended with Andersen paying a $7 million fine, the largest ever levied against an accounting firm, and agreeing to an injunction that effectively placed the accounting giant on probation. Students analyze the causes of Andersen's problems and advise Andersen leadership. The (B) case covers Arthur Andersen's relationship with Enron, one of the great success stories of the “new economy” boom. When Enron's aggressive use of off-balance sheet partnerships became impossible to hide in autumn 2001, news reports stated that Andersen auditors had engaged in extensive shredding of draft documents and associated communications with Enron. Students are asked to act as crisis management consultants to Andersen CEO Joe Berardino. The (C) case details Andersen's collapse following its indictment and conviction on criminal charges of obstructing justice in the Enron case. Its conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on narrow technical grounds, but by then Andersen had ceased to exist, eighty-nine years after Arthur E. Andersen had taken over a small accounting firm in Chicago. Students can focus on the impact of media on a reputational crisis.

Students will: Identify the teachable moment in a crisis that leaders can leverage as an opportunity to improve a firm's reputation or core identity, to reinforce values, and to drive change, Understand the impact on crisis management of the media landscape and regulatory decision-making, Realize the fragility of corporate cultures and the need to actively maintain them, especially during difficult times,

The contribution of the present case lies in the critical view that every business actor should exercise – be it general manager, middle management, supervisor or executive – when building a strong organizational culture in corrupt political environments.

The purpose of this case study is to explore the dilemma in which Marcelo Odebrecht, once CEO of Odebrecht, found/determined whether to continue with the business model established by the founders of Odebrecht or take a new path for the organization. After exploring the corrupt acts of Odebrecht and the scope of Operation Lava Jato, the reader can reflect on the importance of organizational culture (according to the three levels proposed by Schein) in the face of the emergence of corruption. By generating discussions about organizational culture, business ethics, political culture and corruption, the organizational culture of Odebrecht is problematized in relation to its real behavior.

Students of administration, business and international business undergraduates and graduates, as well as members of senior management in companies in the infrastructure sector. Also, given the plurality of possible readings, it is recommended that the case also be used in courses or specializations in organizational psychology, organizational sociology or organizational anthropology.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 5: International Business.

This case was developed from both secondary and primary sources. The secondary sources include journal and newspaper articles. Primary sources include court proceedings, industry reports and EEOC recommendations regarding disparate impact for major retailers. This case has been classroom tested with undergraduate BBA students in an introductory undergraduate Human Resources course.

In August 2019, Ms Ramos applied for an entry-level position at Stockworld; however, despite receiving an initial offer, Ms Ramos was notified soon after beginning the position that her job offer was being rescinded as a result of a completed background check. The Fair Chances Act for employment has challenged employers to “Ban the Box” that asks about criminal past acts before conditional employment offers. With increased demand for qualified applicants following and amid current labor shortages, proponents of “Ban the Box” challenge that including background checks before and even following conditional offers lead to disparate impact with Title VII protected classifications of employees. Can employers Ban the Box to prevent Disparate Impact for entry-level positions? What are the implications for eliminating criminal background checks?

This case was written for use in an undergraduate introductory human resource management course or general business law course. The focus of the case supports classroom discussion for online and face-to-face instruction regarding equal employment opportunity and employment decisions. The case also has strong application in course content regarding discrimination and strategic plans for organizational success. Educators who use critical thinking methods to apply hiring strategies or talent pipeline assessment can use this case to explore additional avenues for external recruitment and talent development.

This case offers the students to see the impact business ethics concepts, including corporate social responsibility, ethical obligation, ethical strategy, alienation, corporate activism, sociopolitical activism, symbolism, transparency, integrity, decoupled organization, opportunism, moral muteness or moral exclusion, etc. Through the student’s own ethical sensitivity, they can then make an informed decision grounded in fundamental ethical theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Ethics of Care, Virtue Theory, Confucianism, etc.

Data for this case has been gathered entirely from publicly available secondary sources, including online resources, mainstream media reports, biased (opinion-based) media outlets, social media statements from all stakeholder groups (students, business, university) and meeting minutes from campus organizations. None of the named individuals nor entities, in this case, have ever been contacted by the authors.

In Fall 2020, Boise State University contracted a locally owned and operated coffee shop to open a location on-campus. The shop owner was engaged to a police officer who had been permanently injured in an altercation with a dangerous fugitive. For his sacrifice, this police officer was awarded the Medal of Honor from the City of Boise. To support her fiancé, the coffee shop owner displayed a Thin Blue Line flag on the front door of her off-campus location. Students heard of this display and began to voice their objections through administrative and social media channels. The business countered back at claims that they supported racism and ultimately asked to be released from their contract with the university. They closed their on-campus business, having operated the location for less than two months. Media representation of this case created a vocal response both from those who support the business’ use of this imagery and those who support the student’s decision to boycott this business on ethical grounds.

Business ethics: 300–400 level; Business strategy: 300–400 level.

For 28 years Alaska, like the vast majority of the nation, has struggled with growing prison populations and shrinking budgets. In 1995, the Alaska Department of Corrections, faced with sanctions unless they ameliorated their crowded prison conditions, looked to the popular practice of contracting out its correctional operations by sending 650 prisoners to a private out-of-state prison. But, as the costs of prisoner litigation and transportation mounted, the state began to consider building its own private prison, a decision which many state lawmakers and business entrepreneurs argued would allow the state to stretch scarce dollars by providing cheaper and better quality prisons, return millions of dollars to the state economy, and create permanent jobs. In this decision case, students are required to put themselves in the role of the Alaska Legislature to determine whether they should permit the building and operation of a private prison in one of Alaska's remote communities. The students must analyze and juggle the complex and often competing set of objectives, values, and political tensions intrinsic to all privatization decisions.

Several theories emerge in a reading of this case; however, the primary or overarching focus of the case is the role of communication and how ineffective or non-existent communication during training, coordination and follow-up of a critical incident can impact officers, departments and communities. Furthermore, this case provides valuable insights for civilian businesses on the importance of formal and informal communication.

The case was based upon extensive interviews with a police officer involved in a shooting. In addition to extensive semi-structured interviews, research for the case also included review of psychological evaluations of the officer involved, journalism pieces and blogs written about the shooting under study, and reports from the Attorney General’s investigation of this shooting.

Detective Keith Casey, an undercover Narcotics Officer for 12 years, had trained and served as a member and point person for the Emergency Response Team (i.e. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team) for seven years. On April 25, 2010, Casey was working on an electronic surveillance (i.e. a wiretap) out of the FBI office when he received the call about a barricaded suspect in Hammonton, New Jersey. The barricaded suspect had pulled a gun on an EMT in Deptford New Jersey and threatened to kill himself and others. At approximately, 4:10 a.m. because he was perceived to be a danger to himself and others, the SWAT team was sent into the home where the suspect was barricaded. After ignoring repeated commands to drop his weapon, the barricaded suspect was struck down by cases moments after the SWAT team entered the home. Preparation and training on intervention and team management has become increasingly more important for police departments around the world. In recent years, a great deal of attention has been placed on officer bias; however, little attention has been placed on officers who pull the trigger and the events that follow. This case offers a first-hand account of how communication, between all players, before, during and after an officer involved shooting impacts all phases of the critical incident.

This case is targeted to undergraduate and graduate students in organizational communication, but may include public relations, introduction to management, strategic management and organizational behavior, especially if the course includes a discussion of communication and crisis management.

This case involves an experience in large group visioning, specifically the processes of developing and building consensus around institutional goals and objectives. It takes place at a point roughly halfway through the process. The protagonist, Sally, is the project coordinator. At this point in the process, the participants have collectively invested hundreds of hours in the creation of widely diverse ideas for the future of the university. Her dilemma is the challenge of maintaining the commitment and support of the participants as the vision is reduced to a much shorter and more focused statement.

The case is based on archival data and interviews with 40 of the 300+ participants who were engaged in the process, including Sally, steering committee members, faculty, staff, and outside stakeholders (alumni and members of the board of directors). The Instructor's Manual provides key questions for future large group process consultants, OD professionals and students of organizational behavior and leadership, including references from the OD and visioning literature. An Epilogue provides the actual decision at the time of the challenge and its rationale.