個案總覽

In 2017, the chief executive officer (CEO) and chair of the board for DSM Industrial (DSM), a family-owned business in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, was considering his retirement. The company had been started by his father in 1964, and the CEO had worked there since he was 20 years old. Now he was planning on retiring within the next few years. However, he needed someone to take over the top-level management of his family’s commercial and residential construction business along with his roles as CEO and board chair. The company had many highly capable senior people with unique skills and vision—some were members of his family and others were long-time senior staff. If he chose an outside successor, would morale at the firm be affected? Would long-time employees leave? His successor needed technical skills to lead the company and maintain the culture. The decision was complicated by changes in the construction industry, the differing visions of senior management for the future of the company, the need to placate the needs of other family members, and the recent interest from outside parties in the possible purchase of DSM’s related companies. How would his family react to a sale, and how would the culture that he had invested so much time and effort in creating fare in the face of new ownership? Did his two positions need to operate separately? How would they interplay with one another? How could he solve his succession dilemma?

Google was once considered a dream place to work at for people in the technology industry. However, the company has faced fierce criticism in recent years for its attempts to suppress the voice of its employees. The past few years have been tumultuous for the company, which has had to grapple with employee protests over the mishandling of sexual harassment claims, retaliation for expression of their disagreement with company policies, and ethic crises related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For a long time, workers at Google have enjoyed what has become known as the legendary standards of a democratic workplace and corporate perks. Recently, however, they have taken to the streets to protest the destructive work culture of the company. Some discontented employees left the company; others were allegedly fired in retaliation for their actions.<br><br>Google had historically been characterized as “least bad” among technology giants in terms of the freedom of expression allowed to employees. Is this changing? Why were Google’s employees discouraged from voicing their challenges? What approach should company adopt to maintain the trust of employees in channels provided for freedom of expression of its employees? Could the termination of vocal employees be treated as unlawful retaliation? Has Google been struggling to handle workplace harassment complaints? Would alleged improper handling of workplace sexual harassment attract a legal action against the company? How Google should handle workplace harassment complaints in future to avoid legal battles?

In 2017, the chief executive officer of Rawayeti Foods, a Pakistani company dedicated to ensuring the purity and quality of its spices and pulses, was considering the future of his family-owned business. The company had experienced great success since its inception in 2011, but Rawayeti Foods was planning to expand its operations into other parts of the company. Formalized management practices, job descriptions, and performance management systems were not in place, but the chief executive officer and his sons knew expansion would be successful only if the company formalized its human resources management policies and practices for consistent country-wide implementation. Had the time come to shift focus from operational matters to management and human resources concerns? Could Rawayeti Foods gain buy-in from its employees and introduce a new performance management system that was seen as fair, equitable, and motivating?

In February 2020, an entrepreneur and his team in China created a mobile application called Tong Cheng Lian Kang (TCLK), which crowdsourced information on publicly known cases of COVID-19, enabling users to find out if they might have been exposed to an infected individual. The application leveraged blockchain technology to record and validate user submissions of COVID-19 cases to ensure that submission and validation data were immutable, transparent, and decentralized. Users could volunteer to submit publicly recorded cases of COVID-19 or to validate the submissions of others in exchange for digital tokens on the blockchain platform, which they could use to redeem small gifts. As the number of new COVID-19 cases decreased, the entrepreneur wondered how to expand the blockchain concept to build a more sustainable business model. He was considering three options: expanding internationally, which would require building trust with users who lacked familiarity with Chinese applications; diversifying within the healthcare industry by expanding to a business-to-business model, possibly by linking prospective patients to hospitals and health care; and applying the blockchain concept to address issues in industries outside of healthcare. How could he best ensure the sustainability of TCLK?

Based in India, Butterfly Edufields Pvt. Ltd. (BFF) designed, developed, assembled, and distributed educational activities and games for Grade 1–10 students to help them understand various science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts. After more than a decade of existence, BFF had grown significantly in terms of production capacity, human resources, product portfolio, and geographical reach. Between 2010 and 2019, its revenues had grown 15 times. In November 2019, the company's chief executive officer faced three challenges: (1) the firm's inability to meet orders for newly introduced products; (2) its limited ability to tap and serve the huge market of 1.5 million schools across India; and (3) its failure to capture the enormous potential of selling educational toys online—a $300 million market. The chief executive officer believed that the traditional cost structure of centralized design, production, and distribution might not support the non-linear growth he envisaged for the company, so he had collected the value-added details for one of BFF's products with the intention of evaluating alternate value chain configurations for the company.

Launched in 2010, CredEx Fintech Co. Ltd. (CredEx) operated until 2017 as a mobile credit platform, connecting lenders and borrowers in the Chinese small- and microcredit market. In 2017, the Chinese government introduced a regulation to address misconducts in the credit market. As a result, CredEx needed to transform by utilizing mobile credit technology to enable and support licensed financial institutions to explore mobile credit markets. In 2018, however, this change posed many challenges, such as how to add a new business model that served enterprise consumers as well as how to manage dual business models.

On May 2, 2019, So-Young International Inc. (So-Young) became the first Chinese Internet-based company in the cosmetic surgery sector to be listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market. With effective use of the Internet and mobile devices, So-Young provided a one-stop resource that allowed consumers to access information about cosmetic treatments, search for and purchase cosmetic surgery services, and benefit from peer and professional support during recovery. With its service, So-Young had positively transformed a fast-growing Chinese cosmetic surgery market that was lacking transparency and trustworthy information.<br><br>The company had used a process of enterprise business model innovation to build its brand image, expand its audience, and engage the cosmetic surgery industry value chain. While the process had been successful, So-Young faced competitive and internal challenges that it needed to overcome to maintain its leadership position and grow future prospects.

In 2019, after one year in the position, H. Lawrence Culp Jr., the first outsider chief executive officer (CEO) of General Electric Company (GE) was faced with the task of gaining the stock market’s faith in his ability to turn GE around. During the tenure of his two predecessors (from 2001 to 2018), GE’s stock price had declined significantly, and investors were concerned. The new CEO introduced the lean management philosophy and restructured divisions like GE Power to enhance free cash flow (FCF), a key concern of GE investors. By October 2019, analysts believed that strategies taken by him were not enough to improve GE’s stock market performance. Could he, as an outsider, prove to be a better CEO than the insiders had been? How should he manage GE’s business units? How could he increase FCF and the market valuation of GE? Should he continue with lean management?

In June 2019, the cofounders of BharatAgri, an Indian agritech (agricultural technology)-focused entrepreneurial venture, were reviewing their strategy. BharatAgri leveraged information technology to provide crop-management related advisory services to Indian farmers and provided data analytics-driven decision dashboards to organizations that worked with farmers. They had onboarded nearly 6,000 Indian farmer-customers and had raised ₹40 million (INR) of venture capital funding to date. Their target was to onboard 20,000 farmers as paying customers by 2021. Could they also generate revenues by selling farm-management related data to agriculture-related organizations? In the next meeting, they were expected to present a comprehensive and cogent strategy to their financiers.

In January 2020, the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of Salt n Soap, an online retailer of food and groceries in Kolkata, India, was reviewing the company’s strategy and business model. Salt n Soap had been in operation for six years, and now offered nearly 15,000 food and grocery (F&G) products of 1,000 distinct brands through its online retailing website. However, the Indian online F&G retail industry was highly competitive. Salt n Soap had a limited business footprint, mainly concentrated in Kolkata, India and unlike its competitors, it had not raised external equity funding. The CEO had to quickly reassess the current business model and strategy and prepare for the oncoming challenges from an increasingly competitive business environment. The decision had to be made before the end of the month so that any strategic changes could be implemented within the current financial year.

Between 2017 and 2019, The Walt Disney Company (Disney) faced two major scandals that threatened to damage its family-friendly brand image. Disney’s brand value decreased by 5 per cent from 2017 to 2018, although it remained the most valuable media brand worldwide. In November 2017, John Lasseter, Disney’s executive producer, was accused of illegal sexual misconduct at its Pixar Animation Studios (Pixar). Following the allegations, Lasseter left the company in December 2018. Further, during the June and September of 2018, Rian Johnson, the writer and director of The Last Jedi for Disney’s subsidiary, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC (Lucasfilm), posted unprofessional, aggressive, and insulting responses on his personal Twitter account to fans who hated the film. In April 2019, Disney chief executive officer (CEO) Robert Iger announced that no new Star Wars movies written or directed by Johnson would be put into development. Why did Disney not take immediate action to address these two scandals? How should Disney mitigate the losses stemming from the two scandals and prevent them from happening again? What should Disney do to further grow its sustainably?

<p style="color: white; background-color: rgb(3, 70, 56); font-size: 16px; display: inline-block; border: 0px solid rgb(197, 183, 131); padding: 4px 4px;"><a href="https://www.iveypublishing.ca/s/product/native-deodorants-sell-or-swell-digital-learning-experience/01tOF000001qb3mYAA" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"> AVAILABLE AS A DIGITAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE </a></p><br><br>The founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of the direct-to-consumer deodorant startup Native Deodorant (Native) had grown the brand to one million active users in about two years. The company was founded in 2015 in San Francisco and had disrupted the deodorant industry by offering all-natural deodorants direct to consumers through its website. By cutting off retailers from the value chain, the CEO had created a feedback loop that helped him have an agile and iterative approach to his business. In 2017, he received an offer from the Procter and Gamble Company to buy his one-and-a-half-year-old startup for US$100 million. He faced a tough predicament: he could continue to leverage the business model of Native and grow to the next million customers, or he could sell to P&G for a nine-figure payday. What should he do?

The owner and founder of The Talking Hands, a socially responsible restaurant, in Nagpur, India, had launched his company to create job opportunities for persons with disabilities. He wanted to find a balance between customer experience and customer service, but he also wanted to open two new outlets in his city and seriously consider his friend’s proposal of opening franchisee outlets of The Talking Hands in two Indian cites—Mumbai and Pune. He wanted to consolidate and expand his business without denting the restaurant’s brand identity. Also, as demand for the restaurant grew, the increasing delays in order taking and delivery needed to be managed. Could he hire some non-disabled staff members to manage rush orders and deliveries and still keep operating expenses under control? Should he go through with his expansion plans with the franchise model at this time? He needed to make a decision while renovations to his restaurant were underway.

The head of the South African subsidiary of the US consulting firm McKinsey & Company (McKinsey), has to address the implications of the firm’s involvement in a corruption scandal. The South African office was implicated in a scandal involving its local partner, Trillian Capital Partners (PTY) Ltd. (Trillian), and Eskom, a South African state-owned enterprise (SOE). McKinsey was required to partner with a local company as a condition of any contract with a South African SOE. McKinsey took on Trillian as its local partner after Trillian was recommended by a former client. Trillian was, however, associated with the Guptas, a family that the South African Public Protector (an ombudsman) had accused of using its influence with the South African president, Jacob Zuma, and his family for corrupt activities. The partnership (first with a company named Regiments Capital (PTY) Ltd. [Regiments] and then, following restructuring, with Trillian) directly benefited the Gupta family. More than three years into the relationship, McKinsey claimed to have discovered that its partner was politically exposed and under investigation by the South African authorities. McKinsey’s new global managing partner attempted to limit the damage to the company’s reputation by issuing an apology. However, the South African public appeared skeptical about the apology, and questions remained regarding McKinsey’s integrity. The questions left unanswered included the following: Was Sneader’s apology enough to enable McKinsey to quell the attack on its reputation? Should McKinsey do more to enhance its standing within the South African business community, or should it accept that its reputation had suffered irreparable harm?

The United States had recently experienced a recession, and a credit analyst with Gift Card Capital Inc. (GCC) needed to financially evaluate two troubled restaurant chains. GCC's unusual business model involved offering capital financing in exchange for gift cards that GCC then offered to individual customers and third-party loyalty programs. The analyst needed to weigh the benefits of increasing the size and diversity of GCC's gift card portfolio against the estimated viability of any gift cards received. It was critical to determine whether the businesses could sustain operations for the gift certificates' redeemable time period—roughly up to five years. The analyst was unsure of what to do. Should he offer a cash advance to one, both, or neither of the firms? If he chose to extend a cash advance, how large should that advance be? What specific terms or conditions should be associated with any cash advance? How were the companies adapting to their financial situation and their past performance? How likely was it that either of the companies would become insolvent and shut down overnight?

In 2017, Advaith Group was an Indian conglomerate with interests in various businesses including chemicals, infrastructure, and engineering. An advisor to the corporate communications group was employed on a contractual basis. Each year at the time of his contract extension, organizational politics were played out around the decision to renew the contract. The advisor was very good at what he did, but his behaviour with colleagues left room for improvement. The head of human resources had his reasons to stall the extension of the advisor’s contract and tried different means to have his way, including sidelining him within the organization. A new recruit in corporate communications came into the company with hope and the ambition to be successful in the corporate world. However, she was unsure if she could achieve this goal under the current circumstances. The managing director was asked by the chairman of the group to decide on the extension of the advisor’s contract, but he had to look at all possible angles before doing so.

The case details the challenges of running a small manufacturing enterprise in India. The current operations at Mini Iron & Alloys Private Limited (MIA), which produced springs for rail wagons, were stable, and business had grown. However, the demand for springs was expected to increase with the Indian government’s announcement, in early 2019, to establish a rail freight corridor. The proprietor of MIA mused on the firm’s readiness to undertake the surge in demand. He also ruminated on the prudence of relying on a single customer in a captive market.

Spreadsheet to accompany product 9B20B007.

In 2018, the chairman and managing director of Teckwah Industrial Corporation Ltd. (Teckwah), sat in his office, looking back on the company's journey. Starting in Singapore as a humble producer of plain packaging boxes, Teckwah had evolved to become a multinational company providing a full suite of supply chain management solutions for international clients. As the second-generation custodian, the chairman and managing director first joined in 1979 and had been steering the company through various stages of development, including diversifying its business offerings, undertaking an initial public offering, and eventually expanding overseas. However, Teckwah still faced growth challenges. The chairman and managing director was considering his retirement and the possibility of taking a lesser role in the company’s daily operations. With Teckwah's 50th anniversary near at hand, he pondered the dual challenges of business transformation and leadership succession.

On January 10, 2020, Samira Ahmed, a British Asian woman, won a landmark gender discrimination case against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Ahmed’s emphatic victory was a major setback for the BBC, which had been facing accusations of inequities since 2017, after it released the salary details of its top earners and a gender pay gap report showing major disparities in the way men and women were paid. Tony Hall, the BBC’s director general, had pledged to close the gender pay gap by 2020 or sooner, assuring that work was already underway. Was Hall heading in the right direction to crack down on gender inequality? What could Hall do to be at the forefront of change on gender equality?