Search results

This case was written using primary data through various channels, including in-depth structured interviews with the CEO and other individuals at the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay (CCTB), as well as exchanging email messages and phone conversations with employees at CCTB. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. In addition, one of the authors took a tour of the main offices of CCTB and took notes on the physical facilities as well as the information provided by the tour guide. Public information from CCTB was used to enhance the information and provide background. All accounts presented in this case are real, and no information was altered or fabricated.

Clara Reynolds had been CEO of CCTB for over eight years. The agency had almost tripled its budget in the time she had been there. Her leadership style had positively impacted the culture of the organization. Employees valued her open and transparent leadership style. Employees saw her commitment to training employees, creating work–life balance and helping employees be exceptional at their jobs. There was an issue, however, with Transcare, the organization’s ambulatory service. The performance of the business was declining, and Clara wanted to update the board within 60 days at the next quarterly board meeting. She was not sure what she could do to increase engagement with Transcare’s staff, which would show the board that the staff was fully willing to do what was necessary.

This case is appropriate for teaching undergraduate or graduate-level courses in leadership, organizational behavior or principles of management. It is designed to be discussed during one class period. It will save time and improve the flow if the students read the case before class and are prepared when they arrive. Any information needed for the case discussion has been presented in the case; no further research by the students is necessary. Students should think about the role of leadership in a nonprofit. They should put themselves in the protagonist’s shoes throughout the reading of the case.

1. Maria Jarlstrom, Essi Saru, and Sinikka Vanhala, “Sustainable Human Resource Management With Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 152, (2008): 703–724. 2. Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell, and Gregory J., “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool,” Journal of Business Ethics, 102, (2011): 357–378. 3. Mick Marchington, Fang Lee Cooke, and Gail Hebson. “Human Resource Management Across Organizational Boundaries,” Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, (2009): 460–477.

This secondary source case is based mainly on three documents: the 20-page report by a labor union, Unite Here, titled “One Job Should Be Enough: Inequality at Starbucks”; and two reports by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Covington & Burlington, LLP.

In February 2020, Unite Here, a labor union, released a damming report about employment practices at the airport Starbucks stores operated by licensee, HMSHost. Among other charges, the report identified several instances of racial and gender discrimination that HMSHost dismissed as a ploy by a union intent on organizing its employees. The adverse publicity, however, put Starbucks Corporation in the spotlight because of the company’s publicly stated commitment to workplace equality. The recently hired Nzinga Shaw, the company’s first-ever Global Chief Inclusion and Diversity Officer, had to address the issue at HMSHost lest it adversely affect Starbucks’ reputation as a progressive employer.

The case is best suited for a graduate or undergraduate course in human resource management or labor relations. As diversity is typically covered in the first third of such courses, the ideal placement of this case would be in the early part of the course. As Starbucks is a well-known name, and it is very likely that students have had their own experience with Starbucks, as either a customer or an employee, the case is likely to draw their interest.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

This case presents the dilemma faced by Danville Airlines’ management when one of its best pilots is found to have the inherited gene for Huntington’s disease. Although he inevitably will develop the physically and mentally debilitating disease, the pilot, who has yet to experience symptoms, does not want to step down from his position. Danville Airlines explores the complicated issues of employee rights versus public safety, employee rights to privacy, and genetic testing and its effects on employees and management.

This teaching case covers aspects of leadership development, strategy, change management, organisational behaviour, and people management. The case explores the following themes:

• Workplace transformation and culture: the challenges and opportunities of remote/hybrid work in large government enterprises and maintaining the culture when moving remote

• Leadership and change: the different perspectives that a leader can take into consideration when leading the business during turbulent and uncertain times and managing the change process in large organisations

• Strategic decision-making: the application of analytical skills by senior management when making strategic decisions in a business

Workplace transformation and culture: the challenges and opportunities of remote/hybrid work in large government enterprises and maintaining the culture when moving remote

Leadership and change: the different perspectives that a leader can take into consideration when leading the business during turbulent and uncertain times and managing the change process in large organisations

Strategic decision-making: the application of analytical skills by senior management when making strategic decisions in a business

The primary audience for this teaching case is management education programmes including: Master of Business Administration (MBA), Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip), specialist Masters in Management, and certain Executive Education programmes.

This case deals with a public-sector entity that collects taxation revenue for the South African government. In 2020, the operations of this public entity are severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The mandatory shift of the workforce from in-office to a remote work-from-home set-up, results in the entity switching to a hybrid work model in order to achieve its goals as an essential service. Protagonist Dr Zanele Twazi, executive head of the public entity's research department, is tasked by the commissioner to conduct a review on the hybrid work model. As the commissioner is also in the process of reviving the organisational culture to regain public trust following multiple corruption scandals, the pandemic adds to this pressure. Dr Twazi must share employee feedback on the remote work option. Meanwhile, the leadership team has to decide if the work model will serve this public entity in achieving its strategy, and from an organisational culture viewpoint, if it is the best fit for the future.

The key learnings from this case include the following:

• Organisational work model: A suitable work model is dependent on the organisational mandate as well as its culture.

• Culture and organisational goals: An organisational work model additionally impacts the future sustainability of the organisation and its ability to achieve its short- and long-term goals.

• Change management framework: For teams to effectively adapt to a hybrid work model, managers have to be empowered to lead and be able to facilitate the change.

Organisational work model: A suitable work model is dependent on the organisational mandate as well as its culture.

Culture and organisational goals: An organisational work model additionally impacts the future sustainability of the organisation and its ability to achieve its short- and long-term goals.

Change management framework: For teams to effectively adapt to a hybrid work model, managers have to be empowered to lead and be able to facilitate the change.

The reading and discussion on case will enable participants to appreciate importance of reward management in performance management system for both employee and organizational good; to develop insight on the effect of perceived discrimination on the motivation of employees; to internalize the effect of perceived unjust, subjective, non-communicative, non-transparent policies on the behavior and productivity of employees and overall organizational culture and climate; and to comprehend the importance of HR and OB issues with respect to performance management system for the benefit of employee morale, motivation and organizational culture.

The effectiveness of an employee is the key factor for the employer. All the profit that the company or the organization makes depends on the employees’ productiveness. The case needs to be understood in the overall context of performance management system (Ferreiraa and Otley, 2009) with focus on elements of appraisal and compensation via rewards and recognition as per objective standards. Performance management systems (PMSs) is a more general descriptor if the intention is to capture a holistic picture of the management and control of organizational performance. Performance management policies and practices refer to the processes of setting, communicating and monitoring performance targets and rewarding results with the aim of enhancing organizational effectiveness (Fee, McGrath-Champ and Yang, 2011). PMS includes both the formal mechanisms, processes, systems and networks used by organizations, and also the more subtle, yet important, informal controls that are used (Chenhall, 2003; Malmi and Brown, 2008). Otley (1999) proposed a framework which highlights five central issues which need to be considered as part of the process of developing a coherent structure for performance management systems. The five areas addressed by this framework include identification of the key organizational objectives and the processes and methods involved in assessing the level of achievement under each of these objectives, formulating and implementing strategies and plans, as well as the performance measurement and evaluation processes, process of setting performance targets and the levels at which such targets are set, rewards systems used by organizations and the implications of achieving or failing to achieve performance targets and types of information flows required to provide adequate monitoring of performance. While the case touches upon all the aspects of the PMS framework, it revolves round the reward episode and elaborates on the way it affects all stakeholders, those who got the benefit, those who felt discriminated and those were mere observers to the episode. Objective performance appraisals are needed to ensure that every employee produces the best performance and that the work performed is rewarded with reasonable increases in pay scales or special additional allowances or incentives. This system carries crucial importance as it helps managers to decide which rewards should be handed out, by what amount and to whom. Additionally, performance appraisals may increase an employee’s commitment and satisfaction (Wiese and Buckley, 1998) The case readers need to notice that when organizations fail to follow objective appraisal or reward standards, the same rewards become a cause of contention. The reward which was handed over to the employees in this case was in addition to the annual appraisal. Though the role of rewards has been well-recognized in motivating the employees to continue performing at high level and encourage others to strive for better performance, what needs to be recognized that rewards’ per say does not serve purpose. They need to be dealt within the context of performance management system. Using rewards to favor or discriminate a few employees by using subjective standards backfires and does no good as the person who is favored cannot take pride in it and is not motivated to perform better or equally well as he/she also knows that the work has no relation to the reward, it is personal favor, on the other hand, the one who is discriminated feel discouraged and demotivated to perform. Rewards have the potential to both help and harm the organization if dealt in a callous and careless manner. Use of rewards to favor or discriminate certain people due to subjective preference can be suicidal for the organization and irreparably damage the trust of the employees in the management. It has been well stated that fairness and objectivity are the core principles using an assessment of the nature and size of the job each is employed to carry out (Torrington et al., 2005). If any organization decides to include rewards as a motivating mechanism, it needs to cull out unambiguous and transparent criteria for rewarding. If employees perceive procedural or distributive injustice from the management, it is not only detrimental for the employee’ relations and teamwork, it also tarnishes the reputation of the organization and jeopardizes the culture of the organization. Reward management needs to be closely related to performance appraisals, job evaluations and overall performance management systems. The current case elaborates on one such instance where unjustified inequity in reward system not only disturbed the employees concerned but it had bred a negative image of the organization among other employees too, organizational citizenship was replaced with contempt and feeling of apathy.

Post graduate students and working professionals can benefit from this study.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

Human resource management.

Industrial Relations and People Management.

Graduate or Postgraduate level, Executive working in manufacturing sector.

This case highlights the industrial relation issues in a public sector undertaking, a government-owned company in India. The case depicted the issues taken place in the company in the year 2015-2016. The primary data were collected by a working professional, who dealt with and was involved in the scenarios discussed in the case. Other modes such as in-depth interviews were also taken as per requirements. This case also highlights the importance of roles of unions and association in these organizations. Factors which are important to maintain industrial harmony were analyzed and their perspective with respect to production loss were addressed.

Every employee must be dealt with in a dignified manner with rationale. Hierarchy is required to be in place but doesn’t need to be authoritative. Be communicative and transparent while taking action. There should be no compromise on indiscipline at workplace and decision to be taken accordingly. Manage conflict by involving all the concerned authorities from outset. The analysis of the case shows that if the rationale was followed while managing the people it will lead to industrial harmony. Role of trade unions and association will prove beneficial as they will become a part of creating a solution in the matter of discords, ensuring growth for the company and its employees. It is important to mention here that the case was developed on the basis of the first-hand experience of the author.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 6: Human Resource Management.

Organizational Justice Theory serves as a useful frame for discussion of this case, focusing on perceptions of fairness in the workplace. Such perceptions are shaped by outcomes, procedures, information and interpersonal treatment. Perceptions of justice in these four dimensions are associated with job performance, citizenship behaviors and some mental health outcomes. The Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect (EVLN) Model outlines four potential responses (exit, voice, loyalty and neglect) to perceived job dissatisfaction, serving as a useful framework for students to discuss potential employee reactions to Starbucks’ decisions.

This case was developed from secondary sources, including news reports, company annual reports and websites. The case has been classroom tested with undergraduate students in Principles of Management (online and face-to-face) Human Resource Management (online asynchronous) and Labor/Management Relations (online synchronous).

In June 2020, Starbucks became immersed in controversy when its dress code policy conflicted with its public support for national protests over police brutality against Black Americans, including the death of George Floyd while in police custody. While publicly supporting the protests in a series of tweets, an internal memo forbidding employees from wearing Black Lives Matter attire was leaked to the press, generating national outcry, threats of a boycott and forcing Starbucks to reverse course immediately. This case examines the benefits and challenges of a corporate dress/uniform policy, and the implications of corporate involvement in social justice issues.

This case can be used in a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses, but particularly in Principles of Management and Human Resources courses.

This case describes what happened when three Boston area hotels, the Hyatt Regency Boston, the Hyatt Regency Cambridge, and the Hyatt Harborside, decided, during the 2009 recession, to layoff all their housekeepers and replace them with employees from an outsourcing company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The action created a public relations nightmare for the company. In 2009 many other organizations had implemented layoffs with little reaction from the public. Students are asked to think about why the Hyatt Hotels had been singled out. Was the main problem their decision, or the communication and implementation of their decision, and what could they have done differently?

This case investigation used firsthand statements, reports, testimony and regulatory records. While widely publicized in the popular press, this case is based on primary documents. On their website, many documents were obtained from Wells Fargo’s Corporate newsroom, such as the internal audit report shared with shareholders and press releases. Most other sources were from US regulatory websites (.gov) or congressional testimony. In a few places, quotes and comments came from reliable journalistic sites that cite their sources and follow a journalist’s code of ethics and conduct, ensuring that the reported remarks and data were verified.

Since 2016, Wells Fargo Bank has faced multiple customer mistreatment investigations and resultant fines. Public outcry and distrust resulted from Wells Fargo employees creating hidden accounts and enrolling people in bank services without their knowledge to meet desired levels of sustained shareholder growth. Over the past five years, Wells Fargo has been fined and returned to customers and stockholders over $3bn. Wells Fargo executives spent the first year of the scandal citing improper behavior by employees. Leadership did not take responsibility for setting the organizational goals, which led to employee misbehavior. Even after admitting some culpability in creating the extreme sales culture, executives and the Board of Directors tried to distance themselves from blame for the unethical behavior. They cited the organizations’ decentralized structure as a reason the board was not quicker in seeing and correcting the negative behaviors of these ‘bad apple’ employees. Wells Fargo faced multiple concurrent scandals, such as upselling services to retirees, inappropriately repossessing service members’ vehicles, adding insurance and extra fees to mortgages and other accounts and engaging in securities fraud. As time has passed, the early versions of a handful of “bad apples” seem to be only a part of the overall “poison tree.”The dilemma, in this case, is who is responsible for the misbehavior and the inappropriate sales of products and services (often without the customer’s knowledge)? Is strategic growth year-over-year with no allowances for environmental and economic factors a realistic and reasonable goal for corporations? This case is appropriate for undergraduates and graduate students in finance, human resources, management, accounting and investments.

An active case-based learning pedagogical approach is suggested. The materials include a short podcast, video and other materials to allow the faculty to assign pre-class work or to use in the classroom before a case discussion.

Macro-Economics.

Undergraduate and MBA.

The COVID 19 pandemic-related restrictions devastated South Africa’s economy in 2020 and although the restrictions were generally less damaging than in 2020, the government had to budget for vaccinations and rebuild the economy. Public service unions had just announced that they were demanding an increase of 4% above inflation for their members and that they were preparing for a strike. They were bitter about the fact that the South African Government had withdrawn from the last year of a three-year wage agreement in February 2020 and their members had not received an increase for the two years. These demands and Finance Minister Mboweni’s response to them had to consider the structural and cyclical impact on the fiscus and economy.

The learning outcomes are as follows: understand the general objectives of fiscal policy and stakeholders’ interests; understand the tradeoffs in fiscal policy and the implications of taking a position; and make recommendations based on reasoned judgements about those recommendations.

Undergraduate and MBA level courses on Macro Economics.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 10: Public Sector Management.