Search results

Information was obtained in interviews with Richard Nagel in Winter/Spring 2022. This information was supplemented by material from secondary sources. The only information that was disguised were the real names for Bob Crater, Tim Landy, Jane Tolley and Mary Nagel.

The case was classroom tested in Summer 2022. The responses from students helped to shape the writing of the case.

Richard Nagel, the owner of the RE/MAX Elite real estate agency in Monmouth Beach, New Jersey, has just learned that one of his agents, Tim Landy, quit and left the industry. Tim was a young real estate agent and Richard had spent considerable time training him. Tim was motivated and he worked hard to prospect for business, but he showed that he was experiencing difficulty closing on his sales. Richard decided to recommend that Tim work with another agent, Bob Crater, as Bob was an experienced salesman but was not doing the up-front prospecting that Tim was doing. Richard suggested two different strategies to the two agents – a pairing up arrangement and peer-to-peer learning. The outcome that Richard envisioned was that both of the struggling salesmen would benefit from either of these strategies, but Bob refused to collaborate.

Tim’s quitting was characteristic of an ongoing problem with employee retention that Richard had been experiencing as a manager in recent years. This problem caused Richard to think about how he recruited his real estate agents, how he developed them through coaching and how he motivated them so that they would stay happy in their job and not leave. He recognized the importance of thoroughly examining his retention strategy within the next 12 months so that he could better manage the problem and strengthen the productivity of his real estate agency.

The case is intended for an undergraduate course in human resources management, as it deals directly with recruiting, coaching and retaining employees.

This case is based on primary and secondary data collection. ABCo’s Founder, Jocelyn Sheppard, sat down with the author for a 75-min recorded interview in July 2022, and she provided follow-up information via email. Interview data was supplemented with secondary data from publicly available sources to fill in portions on the founder, the company’s history and its location; and triangulate the collected interview data (Creswell and Poth, 2018). There are no conflicts of interest that the author needs to disclose related to the founder or company.

The case was piloted at one institution in the Fall 2022, Spring 2023 and Fall 2023 semesters, with 59 undergraduates in an in-person social entrepreneurship course and 165 undergraduates and 33 graduate students in an online asynchronous social entrepreneurship course. All students worked through the case in groups, and as a requirement of their corresponding assignment submission, they provided feedback that was de-identified. In total, 60 groups reported their feedback, which was considered during the subsequent drafts of the case and instructors’ manual IM.

According to the anonymized feedback, the protagonist, product line, desired social impact and experienced challenges of ABCo were all said to be interesting, approachable and relatable for students, and the case piqued the interest of students coming from different majors (e.g. business, environmental issues, human services and criminal justice). Students from rural areas, or those who have family in rural areas, felt the case was particularly interesting; a handful of the students in the asynchronous online class who were unfamiliar with such settings suggested providing students with some additional contextualization of rural environments, either through class discussion with other students who had experience in those environments or additional media or text-based supports. Further adjustments also included removing a reading and a corresponding question and revising elements within the Teaching Approaches section of the IM to support the additions they suggested within the feedback (i.e. spending time to define and walk through the provided model and highlight the differences of rural entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in the rural as a class before engaging in the related write-ups for that question).

Jocelyn Sheppard, Founder of Appalachian Botanical Company (“ABCo”), had built her company not just on a vision of revitalizing reclaimed coal mine land through planting and producing products with lavender, but also to have a social impact on the rural town of Ashford and its greater region of Boone County in West Virginia, USA. While she understood that hiring workers in need of a second chance would present its challenges, she was shocked by the depth of social need her new employees presented, which contributed to many employees’ disruptive behaviors and turnover. To approach the problem at hand, Sheppard needed to reflect on the resources around her, namely, other entities and organizations who might be able to support her efforts to improve how ABCo delivers on its social mission and, thus, helps to improve the local community and its economy. The case draws upon literature and models within rural entrepreneurship and community development to have students advise Sheppard on what she should do next to improve the social outcomes for ABCo and its employees.

This case is geared for both upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses in entrepreneurship, including in social, environmental and rural entrepreneurship courses and course modules. The case introduces students to a social enterprise struggling to get its footing in a rural context. The case would be suitable for both introductory and advanced courses, especially when placemaking/place-based entrepreneurship or ecosystem building are discussed.

This secondary source case is based mainly on legislative documents (that tracked the initiation and progress of the Parental Rights in Education bill that later became an Act), corporate documents (published by The Walt Disney Company) and news articles from publications such as The New York Times and Bloomberg. All sources are cited in the case narrative and as end notes.

In April 2022, The Walt Disney Company and its CEO, Robert Chapek, were at the center of a controversy over the company’s opposition to the State of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill. The bill, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by its critics, prohibited instruction on sexual identity and gender orientation in the state’s elementary schools. The controversy stemmed from Disney’s initial non-reaction to the bill and its later strident opposition and call for its repeal. Chapek was pressured by negative media publicity and employee disgruntlement on the one hand and adverse economic consequences for opposing the bill by the state’s Governor, Ron DeSantis. Chapek and the Board had to respond to the political threats to Disney’s economic well-being while appeasing its employees and other stakeholders who wanted the company to be a corporate champion in diversity, equity and inclusion.

The case is best suited for advanced undergraduate or graduate leadership, strategic management and marketing courses. From a leadership and strategic management perspective, the case is well-suited for demonstrating the evolving expectations of leaders and corporate social responsibility, as well as the concepts of issue framing and nonmarket management. Instructors may also leverage the case in marketing courses (e.g. brand management), as CEO activism (i.e. messaging and practice) is one characteristic of brand activism (Animation Guild, 2022).

The data for this case were obtained primarily through a series of in-person interviews in Penang between the authors and Pete Browning (a pseudonym) from 2017 to early 2019. The authors also consulted secondary data sources, including publicly available material on BMax and “Company B”.

This case examines a key decision, or set of decisions, in the life of a small- to medium-sized management consultancy group, namely, whether they might expand their operations in Southeast Asia, and if so, where. These key decisions came in the wake of their having already established a very modest scale presence there, with an operating base on the island of Penang just off the north western coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The initial establishment of a Southeast Asian branch had been somewhat spontaneous in nature – a former colleague of one of the two managing partners in the USA was on the ground in Malaysia and available: he became the local partner in the firm. But the firm had now been eyeing expansion within the region, with three markets under particular consideration (Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand) and a further two (Vietnam and China) also seen as possible targets, though at a more peripheral level. The questions facing the decision makers were “was it time they expand beyond Malaysia?” and “if so, where?”

This case could be used effectively in undergraduate courses in international business. The key concepts on which the case focuses are the factors affecting market entry, particularly the choice of market and the assessment of potential attractiveness such markets offer.

Research for the case study was conducted using a combination of semi-structured interviews and secondary data sources.

This case traces the international expansion of Sadowsky Guitars’ bass guitar product line. Roger Sadowsky is one of the most respected instrument makers in the world and gained early acclaim for his outstanding repair and restoration work on guitars and basses. Some of his early clients included Prince, Will Lee (The Tonight Show), Tom Hamilton of Aerosmith, Jason Newsted of Metallica, Eddie Van Halen and Marcus Miller. Roger’s reputation and the demand for his instruments led to some customers having to wait for more than a year to obtain the chance to purchase a Sadowsky instrument, while others were unable to do so due to financial constraints. In 2003, Roger made the decision to form Sadowsky Japan to begin the contract manufacturing of more affordable Sadowsky instruments in Tokyo, Japan. As the company grew in size, Roger realized he was becoming more focused on running a business than building instruments. Furthermore, his Japanese partners were only interested in serving the Japanese market. This required him to handle the sales and distribution in the remaining parts of the world. In December of 2019, he announced a new, exclusive licensing agreement and distribution partnership between Sadowsky Guitars and Warwick GmbH & Co Music Equipment KG. The new agreement allowed Roger to continue running the Sadowsky NYC Custom Shop while Warwick would take over building and distributing the Metro instruments and a less-expensive, Chinese-built version of the MetroExpress instruments.

This case is appropriate for undergraduate and graduate-level courses related to marketing and consumer behavior. The case walks students through a real-life scenario when the founder of a well-known musical brand sought to expand internationally as a way to meet growing market demand. Students are asked to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the five key international market entry strategies: exporting, licensing, contract manufacturing, joint ventures and investment (equity/acquisition).

The case works well in the classroom, even if people are unfamiliar with the musical instrument retail industry. Participants are most likely aware of some of the artists and musicians mentioned in the case. Some may also be or know musicians. The instructor should be able to quickly engage participants in a lively discussion about Roger Sadowsky’s vision for his instruments and the opportunities and challenges of expanding product offerings and increasing market share.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

The information used in the case study was obtained from secondary sources, such as internal documents, reports, news, and organization websites. Three of the four authors played a hands-on role in the case.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the global challenge of hiring and retaining health-care workers. To address its own challenges, Mayo Clinic decided to fundamentally transform its 30-year-old tuition assistance program: from a model centered on the premise that tuition assistance was an employee benefit for professional development purposes, to one that was more driven to meet the business needs of the employer by preparing internal talent for important roles throughout the institution. Herein, this case study first describes how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted health-care organizations like Mayo Clinic. Next, this study provides details on the original employee tuition assistance program, and then, focuses on the reasons for its need to be changed. Afterward, this study introduces the new tuition assistance programs. Finally, this study follows with examples of how both Mayo Clinic and its employees navigated through initial challenges, such as resistance to change and lack of engagement. In sum, this case study provides critical insight into designing workforce education programs that provide professional development for meeting the workforce needs of the organization.

This case can be used as teaching material in relevant undergraduate- and MBA-level courses, such as human resource management, human resource development and compensation and benefits. This case allows students to critically analyze workforce education programs (e.g. tuition assistance programs) and to plan how to strategically align those with the workforce needs of the organization.

To complete this case, students will need to access financial statements from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s webpage. The links are provided. Students will also need to review the conceptual framework that is typically covered in Intermediate 1 to respond to question 5.

This case is based on the three financial statement restatements that Weatherford International Ltd. made over an approximately 18-month period. The restatements were due to a fraud committed by manipulating the income tax accrual in the financial statements. The manipulation used was to overstate the amount of income used to calculate the dividend exclusion and then use a relatively high tax rate to calculate the resulting tax benefit. The tax rate used for the fraud was substantially more than Weatherford’s effective tax rate (ETR), which was a prominent part of the company’s strategic growth plan. The tax senior with the external auditors who reviewed the entry made for the dividend exclusion captured the inconsistency with the comment that “This [the entry] deserves a huh?” The case is intended for students in Intermediate 2, where financial statement restatements and their effect on the company’s financial statements are typically covered. During the years covered in this case, Weatherford was also under investigation for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Weatherford’s FCPA violations included multiple instances of bribery, the inappropriate use of volume discounts, improper payments and kickbacks in the United Nation’s Oil for Food program. Weatherford received the eighth-largest fine in the history of FCPA violations (at that time) of $152m. Weatherford’s FCPA investigation expanded, and the company paid another $100m in fines for violations of sanctions law and export control law. This case focuses only on the fraudulent manipulation of the financial statements through the tax accrual and does not delve into the other investigations. However, the linkage between those investigations and the fraud in this case is Weatherford’s nonexistent internal controls.

This case was designed to be used in Intermediate 2 financial accounting classes to highlight financial statement restatements and review the conceptual framework and materiality. The students who used the case did not have difficulty with the tax aspect of the case. However, most of the students had taken one tax class previously or concurrently. If students have not had any exposure to tax, the instructor might want to walk students through the tax aspects of the case.