Search results

The data used to present this case was collected from secondary data sources. These sources included media reports associated with Michael Jordan and his trajectory since entering the sport, as well as specific information published about his time at the Chicago Bulls. Another key source of information is the ESPN documentary conducted specifically on Jordan’s relationship with his National Basketball Association (NBA) team.

The case follows the story of Michael Jordan, who took his team, the Chicago Bulls, to fame in a rather controversial manner. To do so, Michael Jordan had to alter his leadership style over the years to be respected as a leader and motivate his team to win one NBA championship after another. On 20th April 2020, ESPN’s “The Last Dance”, a 10-part documentary about Michael Jordan and his time playing for the Chicago Bulls was released to much acclaim. The documentary became highly noted as Jordan himself, both directed and starred in the documentary. Jordan’s great achievements stood out, but so did the conflicts that the basketball star had with The Bulls’ management team and mainly, his teammates. Relationships between teammates were far from harmonious, which led to questions around whether Michael Jordan was as good a leader, as he was a star player. Cultural change within the organisation was primarily linked to the often-contested leadership of Jordan.

The case can be used at UG, MSc and MBA levels. It works for in-person teaching and for online teaching. It is most suitable in leadership, strategy and strategy in practice courses. However, it is critical to note that the case can shed light on the dynamics that leaders and teammates have within their teams. Therefore, this case may be valuable to students studying courses where they themselves must work in groups and oftentimes encounter challenges in managing their team. These challenges can arise at all levels of experience. As such, the case provides particularly useful reflection for decision makers who may be beginning to develop their leadership skill (UG), those who have already experienced working in teams (MSc) or leading teams themselves (MBA, Executive MBA). The case addresses the challenges associated with achieving high team motivation and performance. It also sheds light on the challenges associated with leading a cultural change within a team and the approaches of different actors involved. It may be best to introduce the case in the context of a (1.5–2 h) workshop once students understand the basic frameworks and tools used to analyse leadership styles and their characteristics.

The case examines the liquidity issues that J. C. Penney (JCP) experienced in 2012 and 2013 following a decline in sales and profits over several years. Despite once being a highly profitable and growing company, the increasing pressures of competition led to changes in strategy and in management that were insufficient to return the company to the consistent financial results it had previously enjoyed. While sales and profits waned, the cash balance also suffered, and Wall Street analysts began expressing liquidity concerns as the company wrestled with having enough cash on hand to cover daily operating needs.

Students are asked to calculate a time series of quarterly liquidity and leverage ratios to illustrate the declining financial condition of the company. They are further challenged to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of raising equity versus debt as a solution for the company's lack of liquidity. To assess the amount of external capital required, students are asked to use a sources and uses analysis that provides intuition for the cash flow challenges facing the company. Set against the background of an iconic retailer, the case provides an engaging context in which to discuss the need for a major capital structure decision due to operational challenges.

In 2011, Sherry Hunt was a vice president and chief underwriter at CitiMortgage headquarters in the United States. For years she had been witnessing fraud, as the company bought billions of dollars in mortgage loans from external lenders that did not meet Citi credit policy and sold them to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This resulted in Citi selling to GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools of loans that were considerably defective and thus likely to default. Citi had also approved hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of defective mortgage files for U.S. Federal Housing Administration insurance. After reporting the mortgage defects in regular reports, notifying and working closely with her direct supervisor (who was subsequently asked to leave Citi after alerting the chairman of the board to these issues) to stop the purchase of defective loans, leaving anonymous tips on the FBI's and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's websites, and receiving threats from two of her superiors who demanded that she change the results of her quality control unit's reports, the shy and conflict-avoidant Hunt had to decide who she should tell about the fraud, and how.

The case gives students the opportunity to recommend how Hunt should proceed based on their analysis of the stakeholders involved. To aid instructors, the case includes Kellogg-produced videos of Hunt—the only on-camera interviews she has ever given—explaining what happened after she reported the fraud to Citi HR and, later, the U.S. Department of Justice. Within the case, students are also briefly exposed to legislation and bodies pertinent to whistle-blowing in the United States, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the SEC Office of the Whistleblower.

This case won the 2014 competition for Outstanding Case on Anti-Corruption, supported by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), an initiative of the UN Global Compact.

• Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

• Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

• Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

• Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

• Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

Towers Watson (TW) has always conducted its own research into alternative approaches to market cap investing. A senior investment consultant with TW, impressed by a recent presentation by the CIO of Research Affiliates (RA) about an innovative investing concept called the “Fundamental Index methodology,” thinks it might be an important innovation in applying nonmarket cap approaches. But he has some concerns about the approach and whether or not it would be appropriate for TW's clients who depend on the firm to keep them on the cutting edge of institutional investing.

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.

On the evening of December 29, 1972, Eastern Air 401 (EA401) was on a routine flight from New York to Miami. Despite EA401 flying one of the most advanced aircraft at the time (the Lockheed L-1011), it crashed in the Florida Everglades killing 101 of its 176 passengers. Drawing from various first-hand accounts (cockpit voice recorder) and secondary evidence (news reports and online sources) of the tragedy, this teaching case provides a detailed account of the key events that took place leading up to the accident. The case describes how the pilots on EA401 were confronted with a simple scenario, a landing gear bulb not working in the cockpit, and through the distraction that ensued made a series of errors. Through many of the quotes in the text, readers gain an understanding of the impressions and perceptions of the pilots, including how they felt about many of the critical decisions and incidents during the last minutes of the flight. The case concludes by highlighting the main findings of the NTSB report.

Depending on individual course objectives, this case can take two or one day to debrief. Specifically, if this case is used in an organizational behavior course, most of the case questions could be discussed in one day. However, if this case is used in a capstone HRM or group dynamics type course on teams and team training and performance, a second day could be used to develop documentation outlining training design or performance evaluation designs.

This case examines the decision by the Swiss pharmaceutical Roche Holding AG (Roche) to offer a record $42 billion bond in February 2009. In light of a pending acquisition of U.S. biotechnology leader, Genentech, Roche management planned to sell $32 billion in bonds at various maturities from 1 year to 30 years and in three different currencies (U.S. dollar, euro, and British pound). In a context of substantial uncertainty in both world financial markets and the value of the Genentech deal, students are introduced to the pricing of corporate bonds by being invited to price Roche's bold global offering.

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.