Search results

In mid-2013, the Lee family, which owned the Hong Kong based food and health product giant Lee Kum Kee (LKK), struggled with how best to increase involvement of the fifth generation (G5), the children of the company's current fourth-generation (G4) senior executives and governance leaders. Only two of the fourteen G5 members had joined the company, and few had expressed interest in further involvement, including in the multiple learning and development programs the business offered, such as a mentoring program. Many of the G5 cousins had expressed little interest in business careers in general, and none of them currently was serving as an LKK intern. G4 members observed that their children were busy with family obligations, hobbies, and emerging careers outside the business. G5's lack of interest in business and governance roles was part of a growing pattern of low family engagement in general, exhibited by the cancellation of recent family retreats (once an annual tradition) because of apathy and some underlying conflict. A history of splits among past generations of the Lee family regarding business leadership made the engagement issue even more meaningful and critical.

Students will consider the challenge from the point of view of G4 family members David Lee, chairman of the family's Family Office, and his sister, Elizabeth Mok, who ran the Family Learning and Development Center. They and their three siblings saw engaging the next generation as a top priority, one related to key concepts including family-business continuity, generational engagement and empowerment, succession, emotional ownership, and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation.

Plymouth Tube, a family business, was a manufacturer of precision tubing and extruded shapes for aerospace, desalination, medical, mining, energy, and water industries globally. Founded in 1924, as of 2012 it employed 770 people at thirteen plants in seven U.S. states and had sales of about $240 million. The family had twenty members across three generations, including spouses. The board was composed of eight members, three from the family and five who were independent. Stacy, age 30, was the only fifth-generation family member working for the company. Her father, Van, age 64 and a fourth-generation member, had been in the business for forty years and had succeeded his father as president, CEO, and chairman.

In early 2013, management presented a very large expansion project that was riskier than previous recent investments to the board, and requested the board's approval. Independent board members asked Van to obtain feedback from the family about the proposal. Van asked Stacy to direct the process for informing the family, asking for their input, and communicating it back to the board.

How should Stacy conduct the process? What should be done with the information once it has been gathered? Should family members be involved in this type of business decision? Based on the information given in the case, is this a good investment?

A family media enterprise with very strong family culture and values is in the third and fourth generations of ownership and governance. They face a crisis when a large number of family shareholders want to cash out their shares. What led to this situation? How could it have been avoided? How should it be resolved?

Lack of succession and liquidity planning can harm the business through generations when it becomes a crisis.

Focuses on Apple Computer's launch of iTunes and iPod as a way to give Wintel users a relationship with Apple. Deals with issues of brand equity, corporate and brand goal setting, target selection, and matching product and service characteristics with goals and targets. Also allows for a discussion of channel partners, their interests, and their impact on the likely success or failure of a strategy.

There is little published information available in the area of youth programs and social entrepreneurship in underrepresented communities. However, there are many idealistic entrepreneurs in the community; the case describes the experience of one such individual. Case analysis and the Instructor’s Manual are based on standard theories and techniques in organizational environmental and strategy analysis, as well as information and approaches regarding nonprofit functioning.

This case was prepared from primary sources, based on interviews with the founder. The name of the organization was disguised but the location and the founder’s name were not.

Growing up in a rough neighborhood, Darnell found refuge in an after-school program, which he credited for several positive values. As an adult, he felt a strong desire to give back to the community he had grown up, and still lived in. Thus, was launched MoveAhead, a fitness-based after-school program similar to the one he had participated in. However, as was common for many social entrepreneurs, Darnell struggled to overcome severe lack of capital and to deal with operational issues. Now, MoveAhead had reached a critical and existentially important point, when a strategic decision had to be made.

This is a decision case. It discusses the difficulties faced by a social entrepreneur who had a strong drive and conviction but little capital. The case describes a strategic turning point for one such organization. It can be used in business and management courses at the undergraduate level. It would also be relevant to a course on (social) entrepreneurship. The level and analysis required of students and discussion questions used can be adjusted depending on whether the course is introductory or more advanced, such as strategy.

With the establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI), Competition law-class actions, especially with regards to abuse of dominance by monopolists, are slowly becoming unhappy realities with both government-owned as well as private companies. This case used Coal India Limited (CIL), a public monolith which was penalized recently by CCI, as a subject of analysis to delve deeper into various conceptual understandings related to public sector functioning, such as public versus private provisioning, natural versus designed monopoly, dominance versus abuse of dominance, corporate governance versus government mandated governance, and finally natural resource allocation.