Search results

The case describes a crisis management situation faced by Mercedes-Benz, a division of Daimler-Benz AG. In 1997 Mercedes introduced a revolutionary new car, the A-class, Mercedes' first entry into the compact car segment. The A-class was positioned as an entry-level vehicle in the Mercedes line and represented Mercedes' attempt to grow beyond its core market. A few days after the car was officially introduced, it rolled-over during a test known as the “moose test” conducted by a Swedish journalist. The A-class's failed moose-test created extensive media coverage in Germany and other European countries, threatening the success of the A-class launch.

(A) Case:

• Understand the strategic and reputational nature of crises

• Recognize the challenges of managing a crisis

• Learn the requirements for building trust in a crisis

• Understand the challenges of managing a crisis that is not the company's fault

• Identify the strategic business problem in a crisis

• Understand the media landscape and its impact on crisis management

Understand the strategic and reputational nature of crises

Recognize the challenges of managing a crisis

Learn the requirements for building trust in a crisis

Understand the challenges of managing a crisis that is not the company's fault

Identify the strategic business problem in a crisis

Understand the media landscape and its impact on crisis management

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years.

This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out.

This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management.

This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”