Search results

Richard Alpert, senior partner at Evergreen Investments, must decide which of his two best employees to promote to the position of managing VP. He had initially preferred Charlie Pace over Daniel Faraday, but that decision had become less clear-cut when Alpert inadvertently overheard an office conversation and learned that Pace was taking Adderall, a stimulant primarily prescribed for people suffering from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Pace did not have ADHD and apparently obtained the medication by deceiving a physician. Alpert is faced with a number of questions, including whether it was fair to Faraday—or any other high-performing employee—to be passed over for promotion in favor of someone who illicitly boosted his performance with a substance he did not medically need.

Several theories emerge in a reading of this case; however, the primary or overarching focus of the case is the role of communication and how ineffective or non-existent communication during training, coordination and follow-up of a critical incident can impact officers, departments and communities. Furthermore, this case provides valuable insights for civilian businesses on the importance of formal and informal communication.

The case was based upon extensive interviews with a police officer involved in a shooting. In addition to extensive semi-structured interviews, research for the case also included review of psychological evaluations of the officer involved, journalism pieces and blogs written about the shooting under study, and reports from the Attorney General’s investigation of this shooting.

Detective Keith Casey, an undercover Narcotics Officer for 12 years, had trained and served as a member and point person for the Emergency Response Team (i.e. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team) for seven years. On April 25, 2010, Casey was working on an electronic surveillance (i.e. a wiretap) out of the FBI office when he received the call about a barricaded suspect in Hammonton, New Jersey. The barricaded suspect had pulled a gun on an EMT in Deptford New Jersey and threatened to kill himself and others. At approximately, 4:10 a.m. because he was perceived to be a danger to himself and others, the SWAT team was sent into the home where the suspect was barricaded. After ignoring repeated commands to drop his weapon, the barricaded suspect was struck down by cases moments after the SWAT team entered the home. Preparation and training on intervention and team management has become increasingly more important for police departments around the world. In recent years, a great deal of attention has been placed on officer bias; however, little attention has been placed on officers who pull the trigger and the events that follow. This case offers a first-hand account of how communication, between all players, before, during and after an officer involved shooting impacts all phases of the critical incident.

This case is targeted to undergraduate and graduate students in organizational communication, but may include public relations, introduction to management, strategic management and organizational behavior, especially if the course includes a discussion of communication and crisis management.

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?