Search results

The case data are from a mix of secondary sources, which included company documents, webpages and blogposts, autobiographies co-written by Schultz, newspaper stories, news media and other publicly available videos, magazine articles, photographs of signed unionization statements, and webinar interview.

In late autumn 2021, the global retail coffee and foodservice company Starbucks dealt with employees at a few USA stores who initiated unionization efforts in an attempt to change their workplace. Their actions triggered a wave of similar attempts at Starbucks stores across the USA over the next few years. Employees amplified their voices on social media, stating both their love for the company and their disenfranchisement. They claimed to have little input about policies and workplace decisions that affected them and that leadership had not heard or adequately responded to concerns with staffing, safety, equipment, and abusive customers. Walkouts were staged and employees at numerous stores pursued unionization. In 2023, Laxman Narasimhan replaced Howard Schultz as CEO. His tenure started with the challenge of reengaging employees who claimed their collective voice was unheard by leadership Readers will consider what employee voice means in the context of baristas working for a large corporation, and how their emotions, commitment to and respect for the organization, and their desire to be heard, related to efforts to unionize and maintain employment.

This case can be used as a unit review to cover several organizational behavior topics or can be used with specific concepts for graduate or undergraduate students. The placement within the semester plan depends on which unit/concepts the instructor will pair with it, such as emotions in the workplace, a module on loyalty, voice and exit, or the introduction of employee voice and engagement. It can also be used in conjunction with cross-level concepts such as trust and leadership. For courses focused on talent management, employee relations, or human resource development, the case could be used to introduce multiple concepts or as a concluding assessment. It would best pair with topics such as employee satisfaction, exit, voice and loyalty, inclusive decision-making or emotions in the workplace. For a course in labor relations, the case could introduce the idea that employees’ experiences, emotions, and perceptions may be related to efforts to unionize.

In 2017, it was a challenge to assess the future of global trade. It was an open question whether the US financial crisis and the recession that it triggered would mark a turning point for the liberal post–World War II world order. If one looked toward Europe, China, Latin America, and Japan, there was a flurry of activity. New trade agreements were being completed and pursued. In Washington, DC, on the other hand, President Donald Trump seemed set on ripping apart and/or renegotiating any trade deal the United States was ever part of.

This case explores Trump's opinions and emerging policy stance on trade, bilateralism, and the global economy, among others. It also gives an overview of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and asks whether the Trump presidency would constitute a major challenge to the WTO and what it stood for in 2017.

This case invites students to assess the impact that Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, might have on a New York–based hedge fund's portfolio and, specifically, its UK assets. The case is designed to prompt students to make market assumptions and investment hypotheses based on a combination of numerical data and qualitative information. It requires no numerical computations; instead, it asks the student to interpret both markets' short-term reactions to the Brexit vote and strategy shifts from UK and European business leaders in order to evaluate longer-term implications for the economies of the United Kingdom, Europe, and the world.

This case requires students to evaluate alternative dual-share-class corporate structures that allow companies and entrepreneurs to pursue profit with purpose. The case explores Impact Makers, an IT consulting company based in Richmond, Virginia. While original founders of the firm hold all voting rights, the cash flow rights belong to two nonprofits setting the stage for a Newman's Own model of management consulting. The case discusses whether and how the alternative corporate structure aids the firm's overall strategy to attract top-quality employees, pay them competitive salaries, and provide superior service to its clients while donating 100% of its lifetime value to charitable causes, largely through partnerships with various nonprofit organizations. More importantly, the case asks students to evaluate how such a dual-share-class and dual-purpose company can raise capital to fund continued growth.

The case opens with CEO Michael Pirron reminding himself of all the questions he had run through to execute a strategy to further grow Impact Makers' consulting business both through expanding a menu of services and through conquering new geographical markets. To do either, or both, the company needed a cash infusion. Internal cash was limited, as up to 40% of it flowed to charitable partners, demonstrating Impact Makers' commitment to its mission. Raising debt for a company without fixed assets was challenging and time consuming. Complicating it all was that being structured as a nonstock corporation rendered equity raising difficult. Could Impact Makers raise money to grow and stay true to community values at the same time?

This case uses an array of carefully selected and excerpted revenue recognition related information contained in Salesforce.com's January 31, 2019, 10-K. Maria, the fictional protagonist, is seeking to understand those disclosures as part of her preparation for an upcoming job interview with the company. As such, she is relying on those disclosures to provide insights as to the company's main product/service lines, the events that signal when and how much revenue the company has earned (i.e., the essence of its business model), along with the related official generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) criteria pertinent to the valuing and timing of recorded revenues.

This case was developed via primary data collected from personal (one to one) interview with the CEO and founder of Dialogue in the Dark Malaysia (Dialogue Malaysia), Stevens Chan. With Stevens’ contact, the authors also conducted personal interviews with Kaye Chan (co-founder and wife of Stevens Chan), Lynn Foo (project manager since inception until early 2022) and Dr Foo Yin Fah (academic researcher in social entrepreneurship and advisor for Dialogue Malaysia). Secondary data included reports on visually impaired context in Malaysia, Dialogue Malaysia’s annual reports and online articles. Prior to the primary data collection, the authors obtained ethics approval from the University Human Ethics Committee (Project ID: 35461).

This case narrative focuses on Stevens Chan, a blind social entrepreneur who champions the empowerment of the disabled and marginalised community. Through a social franchising model, Stevens founded Dialogue in the Dark Malaysia in 2012. As a social start-up, Stevens showcases the strengths of blind and visually impaired individuals through transformative experiential encounters and reimagining future possibilities. Although there are constant challenges in securing financial and human capital, Stevens never lacks psychological capital, characterised by hope, self-efficacy, optimism and resilience. His vision is to educate society on the power of empathy (and not sympathy) and to create a holistic experience of celebrating diversity and inclusion through an innovative discovery centre, where the elderly and the disabled community (including the deaf, mute and those with mobility issues) share their lives with the public through fun activities. However, the future of this social enterprise is uncertain, and this case invites participants to embark on this journey with Stevens to uncover future pathways for growth and social impact.

The case is tailored for higher level undergraduates and entry-level and mid-level managers of executive education programs.

In early 2014, recent Stanford University graduate Tyler Shultz was in a quandary. He had been working at Theranos, a blood-diagnostic company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford-dropout wunderkind, for almost a year. Shultz had learned enough about the company to realize that its practices and the efficacy of its much-touted finger-prick blood-testing technology were questionable and that the company was going to great lengths to hide this fact from the public and from regulators.

Theranos and Holmes were Silicon Valley darlings, enjoying positive press and lavish attention from potential investors and technology titans alike. Just as companies like PayPal had revolutionized the stagnant payments industry and Uber had upended the for-hire transportation sector, Theranos had been positioned as the latest technology firm to substantially disrupt yet another mature sector: the medical laboratory business. By the start of 2014, the company had raised more than $400 million in funding, and had an estimated market valuation of $9 billion.

Shultz's situation was exacerbated by the fact that his grandfather, the highly respected former US Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board and was one of Elizabeth Holmes's biggest supporters.

But Tyler Shultz worried about the customers he was convinced were receiving highly unreliable and often inaccurate blood-test results. With so much at stake, Shultz wondered how he should proceed. Should he raise his concerns with the firm's investors? Blow the whistle externally? Report to industry regulators? Go away quietly?

This case and its subsequent four brief follow-up cases are based largely on interviews with Tyler Shultz, and outline the dilemma he faced and the various steps he would take both to extricate himself from his unsavory position and let the public know the full extent of the deception at Theranos.

Five optional handouts are available to instructors to further discussion after the case has been debriefed. The handouts serve as additional decision points for the students if your class time permits.