Search results

Determine when to resolve conflict through arbitration and when to resolve conflict through the court system. Reflect upon the types of organizational misconduct and determine what behaviors constitute organizational misconduct. Argue whether the behaviors that constitute organizational misconduct are universal or may vary according to the context. Analyze whether actions that might be considered misconduct might be acceptable in certain situations and contexts. Build additional definitions of organizational misconduct that might pertain to non-Western, developed country contexts. Analyze how media and popular opinion might influence perceptions of organizational misconduct.

Carlos Mattos (he/him/his) was the founder/president/CEO of Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. from 1992 to 2015. He and his company introduced the Hyundai brand to the Colombian market and made it one of the best-selling automobile brands in the nation. When the company began experiencing losses, Hyundai headquarters terminated the contract and awarded the distribution to an Ecuadorian firm.The contract between Hyundai Colombia Automotriz S.A. and Hyundai Motor Company stipulates that arbitration is the appropriate dispute mechanism. However, Mattos contemplates whether arbitration is his best option or if he should take Hyundai Motor Company to court. He also contemplates suing the Ecuadorian firm for unfair competition.As students analyze Mattos’ decision, they will determine whether the actions of the any of the parties might be considered organizational misconduct. This case is not about assigning blame. It is not about deciphering whether anyone is guilty. Instead, the case is designed to promote critical thinking about the concept of organizational misconduct. Most literature and understanding of organizational misconduct are from a Western, developed country point of view. In this case, there are three key actors, all from emerging markets. Each may have participated in some sort of misconduct, depending on how the term is defined.

This case is appropriate for advanced, undergraduate or master's level international business students in classes such as international management, intercultural management, international negotiation or business ethics.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International Business.

The case describes the strategy of a large Indian Public Sector Bank (PSB) to enhance financial inclusion and financial literacy of less privileged people located in poorly accessible parts of India. While pursuing the developmental objective ‘imposed’ by the Central Bank/government, being a listed entity, the PSB had to be mindful of the financial viability of the strategy so as to protect the interest of its minority shareholders. The issues covered are endemic to most developing countries where public enterprises often become instrumentality of the state.

Social Marketing, Entertainment Education Program.

Postgraduate program. Master in Strategic Marketing and Master in Business Administration.

In the midst of the many TV shows that do not provide enlightenment, Kick Andy TV Show appeared to provide answers to the public unrest. In the spirit of “Watch with Heart” Kick Andy serves Entertainment-Education and Social rarely glimpsed by the television station. Success of Kick Andy TV Show made this brand doing brand extension such as Kick Andy Foundation, Kick Andy Magazine, Kick Andy Enterprise and others. Challenge for this program is to maintain the right balance between social, entertainment and education.

This Case Study illustrates that Kick Andy TV Show filled the value gap that viewers experienced from existing TV show. This show is similar to the offer of Oprah Winfrey Show in the USA. Student is expected to understand social marketing primarily related to entertainment-education TV show.

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

Urban Affordable Housing (UAH) Inc. was a real estate asset management syndication firm that sponsored affordable housing to low-income families and seniors across the USA. The case examines the firm’s management of an internal information technology (IT) change initiative. The case follows the firm’s recently hired IT manager, Anthony Bryant, as he works to change a culture while acquiring resources and acceptance for the project he was hired to oversee. Bryant deals with numerous changing priorities, inadequate sponsorship, resistance from various levels, and a dearth of resources as he struggles to get the organization to complete an overdue database conversion.

This case is based upon the firsthand experiences of the lead author over a seven-year period while working at UAH. Measures have been taken to disguise the firm’s identity, including using a pseudonym, fictitious names for firm employees, a fictitious location, and the alteration of key dates. Key elements of the case have been constructed around semi-structured interviews and the review of archival documentation. Most quotes are verbatim in an attempt to preserve their authenticity, and were drawn from the semi-structured interviews and from historical accounts of actual occurrences and conversations.

The UAH case is multi-faceted, as it can be used in a number of environments amid a business school curriculum. A primary use is likely in a course revolving around organizational change and development. It might also be featured as part of the organizational change component in a course on organizational behavior, used to illustrate and analyze organizational culture and change leadership. Furthermore, the case could be used for change-related topics in management information systems or project management courses. The authors suggest the case be assigned at the graduate level, though it could also be suitable for an advanced undergraduate class.

Critical knowledge for successfully analyzing this case includes the following concepts: the change process (Lewin, 1951); leading change (Kotter, 1996); resistance to change (Kegan and Lahey, 2001); and communicating change (Armenakis and Harris, 2002).