Search results

Kiera, a young, enthusiastic sales rep, was recently promoted to manager of a sales team of five. In her first year on the job, she tackled a major revamp of the company's outdated training materials and organized a regional conference for her area, but neither her boss nor corporate seemed to appreciate the work she had been doing. Without support or guidance from her boss, Kiera was confused. What was she supposed to do? Parts A and B of the case present two different perspectives on coaching. Part A contains a narrative from the point of view of the “coachee,” Kiera, who was learning how to work with her boss, ultimately with the assistance of an executive coach. This case focuses on coaching as a tool to enhance self-management and relationship management and to improve personal performance. Part B describes how Kiera started to learn the “coach approach” to managing her team with the continued guidance of her executive coach. She learned to apply the same skills that her coach used with her in Part A to diagnose her team, share feedback, and communicate expectations. She was learning how to listen and ask thoughtful questions, but she also needed to expand her awareness to “other-management” and build her own coaching skills to enhance her team's performance.

This case series describes the startup of Farm to School of Park County, an emerging nonprofit organization in the US state of Montana. Case (A) describes the community, the need, and the origins of Farm to School in Livingston, Montana. The leaders of Farm to School face a budget crisis and need to evaluate four options to decide whether, when, and how it should become an independent organization. As Case (B) begins, Farm to School has decided to enter into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with the local community foundation. The next task for the organization's leaders is recruiting founding board members. They need to decide whom to ask and how to do it. In Case (C), the board develops a strategic plan and establishes committees. However, the board members and leaders start to feel fatigue in the face of the demands of a startup organization, leading to questions about what is truly strategic and how work will get done. The Farm to School organization in Case (D) has just issued its first annual report, filled with meaningful accomplishments. The leaders of the organization begin to plan to build an organization that will outlast them and the founding board members.

This case series describes the startup of Farm to School of Park County, an emerging nonprofit organization in the US state of Montana. Case (A) describes the community, the need, and the origins of Farm to School in Livingston, Montana. The leaders of Farm to School face a budget crisis and need to evaluate four options to decide whether, when, and how it should become an independent organization. As Case (B) begins, Farm to School has decided to enter into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with the local community foundation. The next task for the organization's leaders is recruiting founding board members. They need to decide whom to ask and how to do it. In Case (C), the board develops a strategic plan and establishes committees. However, the board members and leaders start to feel fatigue in the face of the demands of a startup organization, leading to questions about what is truly strategic and how work will get done. The Farm to School organization in Case (D) has just issued its first annual report, filled with meaningful accomplishments. The leaders of the organization begin to plan to build an organization that will outlast them and the founding board members.

Kiera, a young, enthusiastic sales rep, was recently promoted to manager of a sales team of five. In her first year on the job, she tackled a major revamp of the company's outdated training materials and organized a regional conference for her area, but neither her boss nor corporate seemed to appreciate the work she had been doing. Without support or guidance from her boss, Kiera was confused. What was she supposed to do? Parts A and B of the case present two different perspectives on coaching. Part A contains a narrative from the point of view of the “coachee,” Kiera, who was learning how to work with her boss, ultimately with the assistance of an executive coach. This case focuses on coaching as a tool to enhance self-management and relationship management and to improve personal performance. Part B describes how Kiera started to learn the “coach approach” to managing her team with the continued guidance of her executive coach. She learned to apply the same skills that her coach used with her in Part A to diagnose her team, share feedback, and communicate expectations. She was learning how to listen and ask thoughtful questions, but she also needed to expand her awareness to “other-management” and build her own coaching skills to enhance her team's performance.

This case series describes the startup of Farm to School of Park County, an emerging nonprofit organization in the US state of Montana. Case (A) describes the community, the need, and the origins of Farm to School in Livingston, Montana. The leaders of Farm to School face a budget crisis and need to evaluate four options to decide whether, when, and how it should become an independent organization. As Case (B) begins, Farm to School has decided to enter into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with the local community foundation. The next task for the organization's leaders is recruiting founding board members. They need to decide whom to ask and how to do it. In Case (C), the board develops a strategic plan and establishes committees. However, the board members and leaders start to feel fatigue in the face of the demands of a startup organization, leading to questions about what is truly strategic and how work will get done. The Farm to School organization in Case (D) has just issued its first annual report, filled with meaningful accomplishments. The leaders of the organization begin to plan to build an organization that will outlast them and the founding board members.

This case series describes the startup of Farm to School of Park County, an emerging nonprofit organization in the US state of Montana. Case (A) describes the community, the need, and the origins of Farm to School in Livingston, Montana. The leaders of Farm to School face a budget crisis and need to evaluate four options to decide whether, when, and how it should become an independent organization. As Case (B) begins, Farm to School has decided to enter into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with the local community foundation. The next task for the organization's leaders is recruiting founding board members. They need to decide whom to ask and how to do it. In Case (C), the board develops a strategic plan and establishes committees. However, the board members and leaders start to feel fatigue in the face of the demands of a startup organization, leading to questions about what is truly strategic and how work will get done. The Farm to School organization in Case (D) has just issued its first annual report, filled with meaningful accomplishments. The leaders of the organization begin to plan to build an organization that will outlast them and the founding board members.

This case describes a newly promoted middle manager in a global, multi-cultural organization who is challenged by a number of factors in the workplace which are impacting her and her team's ability to perform to the expectations of her regional manager. While it would be easy to blame the new manager, deeper analysis in fact reveals that many forces are at work here in addition to her inexperience including communication of strategy and performance objectives, mismanaged team members, cultural inconsistencies, and a lack of leadership direction and/or skill from the very top to her supervising manager.

After reading and analyzing the case, students should be able to 1) analyze and diagnose unmet expectations for performance at work, 2) apply motivation theories and constructs to common behavioral and attitudinal challenges in a team setting, and 3) learn to avoid the fundamental attribution error described in the social psychological literature on judgment in decision-making.

Discusses the transfer of undertakings in the UK, referring to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations of 1981, the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Acquired Rights Directive 1977. Provides the raison d’etre of the Acquired Rights Directive and outlines how it was implemented in the UK. Talks about the confusing jurisprudence of the European and British courts, mentioning the European Court of Justice’s challenges to the directive, the 1994 proposals, amended 1997 proposals, the Commission’s memorandum of 1997 and the UK government’s consultation papers. Describes how the European Directive is applied and interpreted in relation to the Acquired Rights Directive and transfer of undertakings. Outlines the regulations controlling compulsory competitive tendering. Points out the obligation to inform and consult on the transfer of an undertaking and how the directive is enforced if this fails to occur. Notes the effect a relevant transfer has on existing collective agreements and the legal implications of dismissing employees by reason of the relevant transfer. Looks at the European Commission’s proposal for a directive on safeguarding employees’ rights in the event of transfer and the implications that would have on UK business. Concludes that a new directive is needed, building on the 1977 Directive but ironing out its inconsistencies.

Examines the fifteenth published year of the ITCRR. Runs the whole gamut of textile innovation, research and testing, some of which investigates hitherto untouched aspects. Subjects discussed include cotton fabric processing, asbestos substitutes, textile adjuncts to cardiovascular surgery, wet textile processes, hand evaluation, nanotechnology, thermoplastic composites, robotic ironing, protective clothing (agricultural and industrial), ecological aspects of fibre properties – to name but a few! There would appear to be no limit to the future potential for textile applications.