Search results

This case presents the leadership challenges that Chief Petty Officer Amanda Smith navigated as the first woman assigned to lead a Flight Line work center at NAS Ionian, an organization that was characterized by a culture of “hegemonic masculinity.” Failure to effectively lead the work center could have catastrophic consequences, including death of service personnel. Flight Line work centers, located in naval air stations throughout the world, serviced the air operations of aircraft carriers of the US Navy and provided allied air support. The assignment was a test of Smith’s leadership because the NAS Ionian Flight Line had experienced a spate of misconduct by personnel and had failed important maintenance inspections. Chief Smith was tasked to improve the morale and performance of the work center’s sailors who had diverse personal and professional backgrounds. She was also directed to ensure that the work center passed important maintenance inspections despite the challenges of dealing with subordinates, rank peers, and senior officers who had never previously worked with a woman in her role.

The case study is based on primary data collected from the protagonist, a.k.a. Amanda Smith. The primary data are supplemented with secondary data from published sources. The names of the air station and the protagonist have been altered to protect the identity of individuals in the case.

The case is applicable to senior undergraduate courses in HRM performance or talent management, training and development as well as in MBA or other Master’s level courses in management, industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior and leadership.

The case deals with leadership style (e.g. Initiating structure – organizing work, giving structure to the work context, defining role responsibility, scheduling work activities; consideration – building camaraderie, respect, trust, and liking between leaders and followers); organizational culture; diversity management; power and influence; and performance management.

The data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).

This short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.

This case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.

This case uses agency theory and decision usefulness approach to justify whether the change in accounting standard from IAS 17 Leases to IFRS 16 Leases favourably or adversely affects AirAsia’s financial reporting.

This case was written based on secondary data contained in industry reports, company annual reports, company websites, news reports and accounting standards. The case has been classroom-tested with undergraduate students taking advanced financial accounting and reporting module.

AirAsia Group Berhad (AirAsia), a Malaysian multinational low-cost carrier, was required to adopt IFRS 16 Leases (equivalent to MFRS 16 Leases), effective from 1 January 2019. The new standard, superseding IAS 17 Leases, was expected to provide investors and creditors with a richer insight into AirAsia’s leasing transactions and financial situations. In view of AirAsia having a substantial fleet of leased aircraft, the adoption of IFRS 16 Leases would change the way AirAsia had to report its borrowings which could subsequently have an impact on its bottom line. Thus, this case requires students to examine the financial implications of adopting IFRS 16 Leases by AirAsia and to determine whether the change in accounting standard favourably or adversely affects AirAsia’s financial reporting.

This case is intended for use in intermediate and advanced financial accounting and reporting modules at the undergraduate level.

A buyer company has an advance payment stuck with the seller company and acts cautiously in not paying further till they get control over the goods. Claiming this to be a breach, the seller terminates the contract and makes claim for the damages. The seller picks all legal points it could in the routine business practices to escape the unfortunate situation. The judgment in the Toba Trade Case gives a comprehensive view of several legal themes including, payment and delivery, variation of contract, termination, anticipatory breach, award of damages and unjust enrichment.

Contracts term of commercial sale of goods have a ‘title retention clause’, preventing the transfer of ownership till the seller is fully paid. The unpaid seller gets the right to repossess the goods from the buyer. Exigencies of businesses have led to introduction of further clauses allowing the buyer to use or sub-sell the goods even before the transfer of ownership. The United Kingdom Court of Appeal judgment in the Caterpillar Case brings out the effects of the contradictions of a title retention clause qualified by the right of the buyer to use or sub-sell.

The authors used Sue’s (2010) microaggression process model and Freeman et al.’s (2010) stakeholder theory as a theoretical basis for this case.

Information for the case was gathered from publicly available sources. No formal data collection efforts were undertaken.

Guess Who’s Coming to Deliver is a case that examines an event that occurred at Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse in late July and early August of 2015. A customer who had purchased some products from Lowe’s requested that only White delivery people were dispatched to her home because she did not allow African–American people in her house. The case is factual and was written from information that was publicly available in the media. The case is designed to help instructors facilitate a meaningful classroom discussion about microaggressions from the different stakeholder perspectives.

The case is relevant for undergraduate and graduate organizational behavior and human resource management courses.

Customers often sign lengthy offer documents, running in several pages, without reading them or understanding their contents. Later, they discover the contract has exclusion clauses or unfavourable terms. Are the terms binding on the person? The case explores the UK High Court judgement in Coys of Kensington Automobiles Limited v Tiziana Pugliese, which is on the theme of the signing of an offer form. The case explores themes frequently encountered in forms, including the following: The font size is small and terms not conspicuous. The form refers to more terms without enclosing them. The applicant is not fully familiar with the language.

By 2006, Wikipedia had achieved the type of success that only a handful of young organizations could ever dream of reaching. It had grown from almost nothing in 2001 to become one of the consistently highest ranked and most visited sites on the Internet. This success brought new problems at a scale that no organization of this type had ever before faced. Exposes students to Wikipedia's brief history, the causes of its success, and the issues it faced going forward. Two topics form the focus: The first concerns the rules and norms for submission and editing, which raise questions about the ambiguity of Wikipedia's authority and the virtual cycle that keeps the site going; The second concerns the need to alter its practices as it gains in popularity, raising questions about what any wiki site, profit-oriented or open source, must do to scale to large numbers of participants and entries. These issues arise as part of a discussion about the site's priorities going forward.

To teach the factors that shape Wikipedia and wikis in general. Students will become familiar with the internal operations of wikis, open-source programs for developing text from many users. Also to facilitate teaching about factors that shape reference sites on the Internet, dividing discussion into three sub-topics: defining what Wikipedia is and what it is not, analyzing how it works, and understanding why it generates controversy in some circles.

Data for the case came from public sources, including legal proceedings, court filings, company press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

In June 2020, former Pinterest employees made public charges of gender and racial discrimination. Despite changes implemented by the company, several Pinterest shareholders filed derivative lawsuits charging the company with breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and violating federal securities laws. The case provides an overview of the company’s management, board and stock structures, as well as information on the shareholders who sued the company and their concerns. The case raises substantial questions about management’s and board member’s responsibilities in corporate governance, illustrates how stock structures can be used to impede governance and suggests ways to evaluate activist shareholders.

This case is appropriate for graduate, advanced undergraduate or executive education courses in strategy, corporate governance or strategic human resources that discuss corporate governance, fiduciary responsibilities, designing workplace culture or management responses to shareholders. Instructors can apply two sets of theories and frameworks to this case: theories of corporate governance and Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice or loyalty framework in the context of shareholder activism.