Search results

This case has multiple theoretical linkages at the micro-organizational behavior level (e.g. job enrichment), but it is best analyzed and understood when examined at the organizational level. Students will learn about shared entrepreneurship, high performance work systems, shared leadership and virtuous organizations, and how they can develop a sustainable competitive advantage.

The case was prepared using a qualitative approach. Data were collected via the following ways: literature search; organizational documents and published historical accounts; direct observations by a research team; and on-site audio recorded and transcribed individual and group interviews conducted by a research team (the authors) with organization members at multiple levels of the firm.

John Lewis Company has been in business since 1864. In 1929, it became the John Lewis Partnership (JLP) when the son of the founder sold a portion of the firm to the employees. In 1955, he sold his remaining interest to the employee/partners. JLP has a constitution and has a representative democracy governance structure. As the firm approaches the 100th anniversary of the trust, it is faced with multiple challenges. The partners are faced with the question – How to respond to the environmental turmoil?

This case has environmental issues – How to respond to competition, technological changes and environmental uncertainty and an internal issue – How can high performance work practices provide a sustainable competitive advantage? Both issues can be examined in strategic management courses after the students have studied traditionally managed companies. This case could also be used in human resource management courses.

Ian Henson was about to take the biggest financial risk of his life. He had just agreed to purchase three Booster Juice franchise stores in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. Henson knew that transitioning leadership at companies was a difficult task, and he was aware that he was replacing a popular leader: Natalie Peace. Compounding the challenge ahead of Henson were two major hurdles, the first was demographic in nature: Booster Juice’s employee group was young (on average below 20 years old) and many adored Peace, he was certain that whoever replaced her would have a difficult transition. The second challenge was managing change: Henson needed to cut costs. Peace had several generous policies that Henson needed to consider altering or removing, a potentially unpopular task. Initially, this case puts students in Henson’s shoes: How should he handle the specific aspects of this leadership transition? It allows professors to examine the broader issue of managing a change process.

Data for the case were collected from various sources. Public records, historical documents, and media reports were the main source for general background information and context. Primary data were collected through a series of interviews with the present and past owners of the Booster Juice franchises discussed.

This case was developed for use in an undergraduate management course or where change management and leadership are specific modules, an organization behavior class is a good example of where the case should fit. The objective of the case is to illustrate the challenges that resulted from a change in leadership and examine how to manage the change process. The thought-provoking element in this case is the leaders involved have very different leadership styles. The authors anticipate this case would be one used early in the course, as it is concise and straightforward to read, and clearly illustrates the issues to be examined. It provides an effective tool through which to introduce students to change management and styles of leadership. The added value is that the case is based on a company built by an undergraduate student and thus students tend to be very interested in the business itself.

The main theoretical base for the case is based on change management and exemplary leadership. To facilitate this the authors use Kurt Lewin’s models of change, Kotter’s eight step process, specifically referring to Kotter (1995). The authors then use Kouzes & Psoner five practices of exemplary leadership, referring to Kouzes, and Posner (2003). The authors specifically reference Northouse (2010).

This case offers the students to see the impact business ethics concepts, including corporate social responsibility, ethical obligation, ethical strategy, alienation, corporate activism, sociopolitical activism, symbolism, transparency, integrity, decoupled organization, opportunism, moral muteness or moral exclusion, etc. Through the student’s own ethical sensitivity, they can then make an informed decision grounded in fundamental ethical theories such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Ethics of Care, Virtue Theory, Confucianism, etc.

Data for this case has been gathered entirely from publicly available secondary sources, including online resources, mainstream media reports, biased (opinion-based) media outlets, social media statements from all stakeholder groups (students, business, university) and meeting minutes from campus organizations. None of the named individuals nor entities, in this case, have ever been contacted by the authors.

In Fall 2020, Boise State University contracted a locally owned and operated coffee shop to open a location on-campus. The shop owner was engaged to a police officer who had been permanently injured in an altercation with a dangerous fugitive. For his sacrifice, this police officer was awarded the Medal of Honor from the City of Boise. To support her fiancé, the coffee shop owner displayed a Thin Blue Line flag on the front door of her off-campus location. Students heard of this display and began to voice their objections through administrative and social media channels. The business countered back at claims that they supported racism and ultimately asked to be released from their contract with the university. They closed their on-campus business, having operated the location for less than two months. Media representation of this case created a vocal response both from those who support the business’ use of this imagery and those who support the student’s decision to boycott this business on ethical grounds.

Business ethics: 300–400 level; Business strategy: 300–400 level.

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.