Search results

AfrobitLink Ltd was an information technology (IT) firm with headquarters in Lagos, Nigeria. AfrobitLink started as a very small IT firm with less than two dozen staff. Within a few years of its founding, AfrobitLink established itself as a dependable organization known for delivering high-quality IT services. However, starting in 2004, AfrobitLink experienced rapid growth as it expanded to serve the telecommunications firms taking advantage of the deregulated market. This rapid expansion resulted in many challenges for AfrobitLink. The firm rapidly expanded into all 36 states in Nigeria, hiring a manager to oversee the company’s operations in each of the states. Poor hiring practices, inadequate training, excessive spans of control, low accountability, a subjective reward system, and other cultural issues, such as a relaxed attitude to time, resulted in low motivation, high employee turnover, poor customer service, and financial losses. By 2013, the firm was operating at a loss and its reputation was in shambles. Generally, the culture was toxic: employees did not identify with the firm or care about its goals, there were no performance standards, employees were not held accountable, self-interest and discrimination prevailed. The organization was in a downward spiral. Consultants were hired to help sort out the firm’s problems but these efforts yielded few results. Ken Wilson, the founder’s son, was hired in 2014 as VP of Administration to help get the firm back on track. As a change agent, Ken had to decide how to address the issues facing the firm and how to achieve profitable growth.

Primary sources included interviews with the company CEO, his wife, his son, and a volunteer staff member. Secondary sources included the company website. The names of the people and the firm in the case have been changed to provide anonymity.

This case is intended for use in graduate courses (although it can also be used in upper level undergraduate courses) in change management/organization development, organizational behavior, leadership, or international management. For graduate courses, students may focus on application or integration of several theories or concepts. For upper level undergraduate courses, students may focus on application of a single theory or concept. Below are suggested texts or readings for each type of student by subject.

Change management theories (e.g. Lewin’s force field analysis (Schein, 1996), Kotter’s eight-step change management process (Kotter, 2007), The change kaleidoscope approach (Balogun and Hailey, 2008)), social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), attribution theory (Kelley, 1972), leadership theories (e.g. Hersey and Blanchard, 1969), intercultural/international management theories (e.g. Hofstede, 1980, 1991).

The saga of Market Basket took place over a period of months during which a significant upheaval occurred in the long-successful business. The turmoil drew in a broad range of stakeholders. In a rare chain of events, non-unionized workers and managers engineered a change in senior management of the company. Their willingness to sacrifice their livelihoods in support of one person exemplifies the impact that can be made by a single, authentic, leader. This case draws upon secondary sources which provide insight into broad panoply of business and organizational behavior issues. The primary focus of the case, however, is leadership.

This case was developed using secondary sources and court documents that reported on the events that precipitated the problems at Market Basket as well as the strike and aftermath.

Management principles, organizational behavior. All undergraduate class levels would be appropriate.

This case exemplifies these three major theories in a real-life situation: stakeholder theory, corporate culture theory, organizational commitment.

Judy was a high-performing professional manager who was with her company for 15 years and was a manager for six. She was a confident, positive, and happy person but recently lost her confidence in herself and her abilities. She dreaded going to work because she never knew what she would face from her boss, Dennis. Dennis was a brilliant man who was recently promoted to Senior V.P. He was condescending, and he humiliated people in public. Complaints to the CEO and a harassment claim produced no results. Dennis did the CEO's dirty work and served a role needed in a fast-paced and profit-driven corporate culture. Judy enrolled in an MBA program to build her resume and her self-confidence. She faced a critical juncture in her career. Should she quit, transfer, complain to HR, or confront Dennis?

By early 2009 Starbucks had nearly 17,000 stores worldwide, with about a third of these outside the United States. Despite multibillion-dollar annual revenues, the giant coffee retailer's yearly growth had declined by half, quarterly earnings had dropped as much as 97 percent, same-store sales were negative, and its stock price was languishing. Factors such as a global economic downturn and increasing competition in the specialty coffee market from large players such as McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts had driven this decline, resulting in the closings of hundreds of domestic stores already, with many more planned. Founder Howard Schultz, who had recently returned as CEO, and his executive team were convinced that Starbucks's growth opportunities lay overseas, where the firm already had a strong foothold in markets like Japan and the United Kingdom and was preparing to open hundreds of new stores in a variety of locations. But recent international challenges, including the closing of most Australian stores due to sluggish sales, made clear that Starbucks had more to learn about bringing its value proposition—a combination of premium coffee, superior service, and a “coffeehouse experience”—to foreign soil. The key question was not whether Starbucks could transport its value proposition overseas, but how the value proposition's three elements would play in recently entered and new markets. And the stakes of making the right international moves rose with each U.S. store closure. Schultz and his team also faced a broader question, one that applied to both their U.S. and foreign stores: Could they “grow big and stay small,” remaining a huge retailer that delivered both high-quality products and a consistently intimate and enjoyable experience to consumers worldwide? This case presents this challenge in the context of Starbucks's history, well-established value proposition, and domestic and international growth and vision.

The key objectives of the case focus on the successful growth of local city brand, to a country brand, to a global brand, leaving the questions: 1. How much more can it grow? 2. Can it? 3. What is the impact of new competitors in a given market and/or the impact of the global economy on discretionary spending by a loyal customer base? 4. How important is it to the sustain a brand's core value(s) proposition when innovating for new audiences and customer preferences?