Search results

The case describes the dilemma a young leader, First Lieutenant Toomey, faces after arriving at a new organization. Toomey’s subordinate (sergeant first class Rodgers) is more experienced and accomplished and has enjoyed a degree of autonomy under Toomey’s predecessor. Rodger’s demeanor and the physical setup of the joint office space speak to a dysfunctional dynamic in an organization that values a traditional hierarchy and relatively high power distance between supervisor and subordinate. The potential for conflict exists as Toomey contemplates how to address the dysfunctional norms he has observed while maintaining a functional relationship and reputation as an effective leader in his new unit.

The case was created via an interview of the protagonist.

This case is designed for use in undergraduate and graduate level courses on leadership and management. The case is useful for teaching lessons (or electives) on power, influence, conflict management, culture and leading change.

The case was created via an interview of the protagonist in 2018 at the US Military Academy by the authors.

The case describes the dilemma First Lieutenant Williams faces when his platoon sergeant unexpectedly leaves. Organizational norms and accepted practices suggest Lieutenant Williams should choose the most senior squad leader, Staff Sergeant Boyer. The departing Platoon Sergeant even recommended Staff Sergeant Boyer. However, based on recent observations, Lieutenant Williams felt Staff Sergeant Boyer may not be the best fit. Instead, the lieutenant considered choosing the newest squad leader, Staff Sergeant Harrison, who seemed to be highly proficient, but had yet to prove himself. Before the lieutenant could fully weight his options, Staff Sergeant Boyer confronted him about a decision.

This case is designed for use in undergraduate courses on leadership and management. The case was not only designed primarily for teaching a lesson on organizational justice, but can also be used to integrate lessons on communication, power and influence, and decision making. Each of these elements is present in the case. The instructor can choose to incorporate them into the lesson for a more wholly encompassing lesson or choose to focus on only the organizational justice aspects at play in the case.

This video case study exercise uses excerpts from the movie Patton and the HBO series Band of Brothers to juxtapose two military leaders (General George S. Patton and Lieutenant Dick Winters) as they face strikingly similar situations – each interacts with a subordinate experiencing “battle fatigue” (a.k.a. shell shock, PTSD) during the Second World War. Patton appears to lack emotional intelligence (EI) as he apparently loses control and strikes a soldier he believes is demonstrating cowardice. Winters, on the other hand, takes a much different approach when dealing with a subordinate in a similar situation. This case exercise is designed to augment assigned theoretical readings and increase student conceptual and practical insight into the construct of EI.

The analysis of film and biographies is based on historical figures.

The case is best used with undergraduates in management or leadership courses who may lack the contextual background to discuss certain aspects of leadership. Specifically, the case is designed to explore the elements that comprise EI as well as how EI may affect a leader’s effectiveness. The case study can also be used to challenge common conceptions of how EI may manifest and to discuss the potential “dark side” of EI.

This case study exercise centers on the concept of EI, with an emphasis on providing a robust understanding of the concept, including how context may come into play and how EI may have a “dark side.” The exercise could also be used to facilitate discussion of multiple topics normally covered in undergraduate management or leadership courses such as personality, perception and attribution, authentic leadership, toxic leadership, transformational leadership and motivation.

Business Management, Global Marketing Strategy, Strategic Management, International Business, International Management.

The case is suitable for undergraduate and post-graduate business and management students. The case is based on secondary data collection and all the facts are real.

The expected learning outcomes include the selection of a foreign market; the determinants of the foreign mode of entry strategy; the process of integrating an internationalization strategy; how to choose the most appropriate partner; and the monitoring of international markets. The case provides a space to think about practice and help learners, therefore, to connect theory and practice.

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

January 27, 2005, was an extraordinary day for Gillette's James Kilts, the show-stopping turnaround expert known as the “Razor Boss of Boston.” Kilts, along with Proctor & Gamble chairman Alan Lafley, had just orchestrated a $57 billion acquisition of Gillette by P&G. The creation of the world's largest consumer products company would end Kilts's four-year tenure as CEO of Gillette and bring to a close Gillette's 104-year history as an independent corporate titan in the Boston area. The deal also capped a series of courtships between Gillette and other companies that had waxed and waned at various points throughout Kilts's stewardship of Gillette. But almost immediately after the transaction was announced, P&G and Gillette drew criticism from the media and the state of Massachusetts concerning the terms of the sale. Would this merger actually benefit shareholders, or was it principally a wealth creation vehicle for Kilts?

To understand the factors that persuaded shareholders of both P&G and Gillette to merge their companies, the valuation metrics involved in determining the merger consideration, compensation packages for key managers, and the politics (internal, local government, and regulatory) that impact major mergers.

This is an illustrative case analyzing shareholder and accounting outcomes and legal issues resulting from a merger of two major publicly traded companies. In today's business world, the “urge to merge” is tempered by heightened shareholder activism. In response to this activism, boards must proceed with care when negotiating mergers. Challenges to mergers that appear to be in the shareholders' best interest occur often. As is the case here, shareholders and their well funded legal representatives, seek damages for alleged bad decisions. Conoco Oil and Phillips Petroleum announced their intention to merge in November 2001. At that time the cost of gasoline spiraled ever upward and large oil firms put heavy competitive pressure on smaller oil producer/refiners. The merger described as a “merger of equals”, intimated that neither Conoco nor Phillips shareholders would receive a financial advantage (or disadvantage) over other merging shareholders following the completion of the merger. Immediately following the announcement, Michael Iorio, a Conoco shareholder, filed a lawsuit, claiming damages to Conoco shareholders from the merger of the two firms.