This case set follows Alex Stewart, who has built and runs a green energy development firm in the United States. After finding success finding and using underutilized rooftops to erect solar panels and wind turbines in major US cities where the existing power grid couldn't meet growing demand, Stewart is now looking for similar opportunities in Europe having spent the last two years doing research, forming the necessary networks and partnerships, and beginning the long process of due diligence and negotiations with countless public and private stakeholders. However, a person who had become Stewart's major competitor (someone he had shared the idea with because he assumed this person had no intention to do anything) has begun to show up either before or right after his team's meetings with local officials as a competing bidder. After this happened in three separate countries, Stewart knew he had a big problem on his hands. He hired an internationally renowned security firm, who advised him that while there were likely several sources to the leaks, including phone tapping and office bugging, the most certain one was the nightly trash. Students are asked to read Part A of the case-which describes a (disguised) situation that actually occurred-in class and immediately write down their thoughts about what Stewart should do, starting with whom he should (or should not) approach for advice. Part B presents a difficult conversation between Stewart and his wife about what to do next.
This case set follows Alex Stewart, who has built and runs a green energy development firm in the United States. After finding success finding and using underutilized rooftops to erect solar panels and wind turbines in major US cities where the existing power grid couldn't meet growing demand, Stewart is now looking for similar opportunities in Europe having spent the last two years doing research, forming the necessary networks and partnerships, and beginning the long process of due diligence and negotiations with countless public and private stakeholders. However, a person who had become Stewart's major competitor (someone he had shared the idea with because he assumed this person had no intention to do anything) has begun to show up either before or right after his team's meetings with local officials as a competing bidder. After this happened in three separate countries, Stewart knew he had a big problem on his hands. He hired an internationally renowned security firm, who advised him that while there were likely several sources to the leaks, including phone tapping and office bugging, the most certain one was the nightly trash. Students are asked to read Part A of the case-which describes a (disguised) situation that actually occurred-in class and immediately write down their thoughts about what Stewart should do, starting with whom he should (or should not) approach for advice. Part B presents a difficult conversation between Stewart and his wife about what to do next.
A senior manager of marketing and sales at a large medical devices firm has convened his team to help him choose a new manager that will be capable of attracting new business and promoting overall revenue growth. The decision has been narrowed down to two, equally qualified candidates: an outgoing and outspoken woman, and a well-liked man. The conversation is going in circles until someone mentions that the woman's behavior at the office party was inappropriate "for a mother." Students are asked how to manage difficult decisions where latent bias may be a factor first from the point of view of this senior manager, and then from the point of view of his female boss, whom he consults with in the second part of the case. This case, which disguises the facts of an actual scenario, is designed to surface and explore students' instinctive decision-making tendencies around a high-stakes leadership situation. Thus it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion, in which they are encouraged to further reflect on their initial responses. This case can be used to focus on the decision itself-whom to promote-or on how the decision should be made (i.e., on the decision-making discussion). The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, ethics, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.
Karen Miner is a partner at a management consulting firm, and she is becoming increasingly resentful of another partner who consistently prioritizes their family life, while letting others pick up their slack at their busy office. When Miner vents about it to trusted colleagues, she finds that they agree that it is a big problem, and pervasive throughout the office. With this case, students can role-play the eventual confrontation between these two partners, learn tools and tips for being effective in these types of difficult conversations, and extend the case with an assignment to pitch senior partners possible solutions for workload and work-life balance issues facing partners. The case is designed to surface students' instinctive decision-making and communication tendencies. Thus it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion, in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, especially MBA and executive education. It may work best with older students who may identify with the competing demands of family and work, although younger audiences may appreciate discussing these issues as well.
Marcy and Dan were high school sweethearts who married young and built a life together. Between Marcy's work as a waitress and Dan's as an electrician, they have raised their now-teenage children with a lot of hard work and sacrifice. While at lunch with a group of friends, Marcy hears about her friend Diane's mother, who, due to a lifetime of poor financial planning, has had to move in with Diane, putting a strain on Diane's finances and marriage. While saddened to hear about her friend's misfortunes, Marcy realizes she needs to consider her and Dan's future and their lack of retirement savings. She and Dan meet with a financial planner for help with retirement planning, and they learn about their options for saving and investing.
David Simmons is a waiter at a struggling Italian restaurant located down the block from where he lives. Money is tight for him right now, as his limited income means he lives paycheck to paycheck. However, David knows things will look up for him soon because he was recently offered a job as a bank teller across town-his first desk job. This case helps students learn about building credit. The case addresses what a FICO score is, who computes it, how it is determined, and what it is used for.
Matthew Andrews and Elizabeth (Liz) Graham had recently graduated college and planned to get married soon. They had both accepted jobs in Washington, DC, and would be moving to Gainesville, Virginia. Matthew would be working as a software engineer with both medical and life insurance, and Liz was taking a job as an advertising agent with no benefits. Until they started their jobs, neither Matthew nor Liz had health insurance. This was a source of real concern, especially since they recently had found out Liz was pregnant. They decided to sit down, go over the benefits offered by Matthew's employer, and make some decisions about which health insurance plan might be best for them, as well as consider life insurance and disability insurance options.
Cecilia and Luke were recently married and were beginning to build a life together. Although they were complete opposites, they had been able to work through their differences and have a good relationship. Luke was a musician who did not have a day job. Although his music was able to provide him with an income, it was not steady or reliable. Cecilia, on the other hand, had a steady job working as a marketing manager for a baby formula company. While Cecilia had never had a credit card, Luke had in the past, but had abused it through impulsive spending habits and irresponsibility in paying his bill on time. After paying exorbitant late and overdraft fees, he had finally paid off the balance in full and opted the cancel the credit card altogether. Now that Cecilia and Luke had decided it was time to build a life together financially, they began looking into different types of credit cards and bank accounts in order to decide which options would be best for them.
A young, female investment banker has just been unexpectedly promoted to managing director of her group-but she'll be taking her mentor's job while he is pushed out over a 10-month stint as a "senior adviser" in their group. This case offers students two decision points and opportunities to practice difficult conversations: first, what should she do, and how, when she first learns of her promotion? Second, what should she do, and how, six months later when her mentor is sabotaging her leadership? The case is designed to surface students' instinctive decision-making and communication tendencies. Thus it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education. It can be particularly useful for students early enough in their careers to appreciate that this is a situation that they, in one way or another, may face as they ascend the hierarchy and thus become the formal leader of people who were previously their peer, mentor, or even boss.
After finishing a PhD in immunology and working for a few years for a large pharmaceutical company, Eric Lafferty entered an executive MBA program intending to reorient his career toward more meaningful work. Thus he leapt at the chance to work in a significant leadership position at a government agency where he would be in charge of a group that vetted academic proposals to work toward experimental vaccines and drugs. However, he begins to reconsider it all after a series of bad experiences with a direct report whom he cannot fire. The case is designed to surface and explore students' instinctive decision-making and action tendencies around a complicated problem. Thus it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.
The manager of a rapidly expanding tax and accounting services franchise had been impressed by the performance his right-hand man, but also worried about the pressure he put himself under. Possessing an unusual and valuable skillset, this employee was able to anticipate his manager's needs exceptionally well. Unfortunately, his manager found out he had hacked into his email to do so. The case is designed to surface students' instinctive decision-making tendencies. Thus it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, ethics, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, or related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.
The head of an R&D unit in a high-tech firm in India faces a tough decision about whether to recommend firing and replacing or investing even larger amounts of time and resources into training employees who have come up through India's "reservation system." Similar to "affirmative action" policies in the United States and Brazil (where the focus is on race), the reservation system in India is meant to counteract inequalities resulting from the historic oppression of "lower" castes in the country. The question faced by the protagonist in this case is whether and how a middle manager can address problems in her team that result from much larger, systemic problems in her country. The case is designed to surface and explore students' instinctive decision-making tendencies around a complicated problem. Thus, it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, ethics, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.
The only female senior partner at a boutique management consulting firm has found out that she is paid less than half of what male partners were making who were younger, less experienced, and contributing less overall to the business. When she presented her case to the senior partners and explicitly asked if the pay discrepancy is become she was a woman, they would only respond to her through lawyers. The case is designed to bring students' instinctive decision-making tendencies to the surface. Thus, it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, ethics, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.
Note: This case contains language that some people may find offensive. It is left exactly as it was spoken in the real situation portrayed precisely because it is pertinent to how the situation affected those involved. "Overheard at the Office," based on a true story, presents the case of an African-American woman who works as an accountant for the league office of the team owners of one of the four major US professional sports. One day, she is yelled at offensively by a team owner, who mistook her for a players' union employee, perhaps because the players and their union staff are predominantly African-American, in contrast to the majority white team owners and their staff. She has to decide whether and how to respond. The case is designed to surface students' instinctive decision-making tendencies. Thus, it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, ethics, difficult conversations, decision-making, organizational behavior, human resources, implicit bias, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.
The CEO of an investment management firm must decide what to do about inappropriate actions by two different employees. While both employees are strong performers, their actions implicate the values underpinning the firm's culture. The case is designed to surface students' instinctive decision-making tendencies. Thus it is short enough to be read and responded to in class. Students are assigned readings and assignments related to the case after class discussion in which they are encouraged to reflect on their initial responses. The case is quite flexible and would work in any course that deals with leadership, ethics, difficult conversations, decision making, organizational behavior, human resources, crisis management, and related topics. It is appropriate for a range of levels and audiences, including undergraduate, MBA, and executive education.