Search results

The data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).

This short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.

This case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years.

This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out.

This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management.

This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”

The spin-off of Iridium, a global telecommunications system, represented a significant business risk for Motorola, as many talented Motorola executives joined the venture in the late 1990s. This bold technology gamble suffered from numerous marketing missteps, which led to Iridium's bankruptcy in August 1999.

Susan works for a small S-Corporation that is experiencing issues with its incentive program. Specifically, employees find that the company's incentive program is rather ambiguous and confusing. Susan is in a position to do something about it but she is not sure what to do. Students are challenged to design an incentive program for the small company. This case exercise is appropriate for undergraduate students in Organizational Behavior or Management courses and should coincide with discussions of motivation and employee incentives. This case is based on the author's personal experiences.

Examines the launch of Xigris, a breakthrough new pharmaceutical product for the treatment of sepsis. The newly appointed head of marketing for Xigris is reviewing the launch plan.

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.

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 was researched using publicly available sources, including Mercury Systems financial filings and press releases, news stories about the seasoned equity offering, financial information from Bloomberg and industry information from IBISWorld Industry Reports and articles related to seasoned/secondary equity offerings, intangible asset valuation and the use of revolving lines of credit. Quotes are taken from Mercury financial reports and press releases and express the (optimistic) opinions of company executives.

Mercury Systems, a technology company in the aerospace and defense industry, announced a six million share seasoned stock offering in June 2019. This resulted in a 6% stock price decrease. A stock price decrease is a typical event when a firm announces the issuance of new common shares, but with Mercury Systems, there were concerns about how much money the firm needed to fund its strategy of growth through acquisitions. If internally generated funds were not sufficient, should the firm issue debt or have another seasoned equity issue? Students will look at the objectives and success of the most recent seasoned equity issue, determine future funds needs and how the firm should finance these needs.

This case is appropriate for undergraduate and graduate students in corporate finance electives. Typically, topics such as seasoned equity offerings are not covered in introductory courses, so this is recommended for finance electives. Even in advanced finance courses, sometimes there is insufficient time to cover seasoned equity offerings.

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, one of the company&s most popular talk show personalities made comments on the air regarding the Rutgers women&s basketball team. According to the transcription from Media Matters for America, Imus said, “ That&s some nappy-headed hos there. I&m gonna tell you that now, man, that&s some … woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like … kinda like … I don&t know.” At first, the comments did not seem out of the ordinary for one of radio&s “shock jocks.” However, as the public reaction grew, the situation changed considerably. Under pressure from the public, Moonves reluctantly suspended Imus. But it was too little too late. By the end of the day on April 11, analysts estimated that $2.5 million in advertising revenue was lost. On April 12, Moonves terminated Don Imus& contract.

After Moonves fired Imus, there was still a lot to consider. He really wanted a way for the company to meet the demands of the company&s stakeholders. In addition, he wanted to avoid any more distractions from the firm&s normal day-to-day operations.

The case is set in the Fall of 2008 as Susan Schor, Chief Culture Officer, at EILEEN FISHER Inc. is meeting with the other two members of the Facilitating Leader Team, Jim Gundell, Vice President of Retail and e-Commerce and Jonci Coukier, Vice President of Design and Merchandising Processes, as well as founder, Eileen Fisher. Faced with significant projected financial loss in 2009, Susan reflected on the evolution of the company as influenced by her perspective with her organizational behavior expertise and collaborative leadership that embraced a values-based culture. Stories, voices and structures are examined in this retrospective view as Dr Schor sets the stage for how this example of best practice leadership will tackle the challenge at hand.

The research for this case was conducted over an 18-month period with over 40 interviews, extensive observation of the various teams at EILEEN FISHER Inc., and review of corporate communications, publications and other secondary sources. This case focuses on stories and voices that explain the unique leadership of EILEEN FISHER. The use of extensive quotes allows for an authentic “hearing” of the experiences and values as well as allowing the students to better understand the nature of qualitative data. Some of the discussion questions are posed as experiential exercises as this method allows the students to better relate to understand and apply values concepts.

Graduate and undergraduate organizational behavior, leadership, retail management and ethics.