In December 2023, the 60-year-old weight management industry stalwart WeightWatchers announced the launch of WeightWatchers Clinic, which incorporated GLP-1s , a new class of prescription weight-loss medications, into the company's portfolio of products and mobile app experience. The company's embrace of prescription medications for weight loss represented a bold strategic evolution. Since its inception, WeightWatchers had promoted peer-to-peer support coupled with science-based behavior modifications for weight loss, rooted in the idea that weight management was fundamentally about establishing healthy diet and exercise habits. While the company's core business would continue to center on behavior modification, WeightWatcher's new CEO Sima Sistani believed an expanded "toolkit" could be a game-changer for people for whom the company's traditional weight-loss program was inadequate and who required other kinds of support. Sistani, a Silicon Valley veteran, had stepped into the CEO role at a critical moment for the company. Revenue had been declining for years due to slowing member subscriptions, a lackluster digital app, and increasing competition from a host of players. Now, a year and a half into her tenure, revenues continued to trend downward. As she looked ahead, Sistani pondered how to strike the right balance between investing in the "core" business and growing the nascent clinical offering. She recognized that, for the iconic company, there was a delicate balance to be struck between ramping up new products and services and winding down legacy offerings such as weekly in-person meetings, while also fortifying the digital app. She wondered if there were synergies that might offer new avenues for growth in a dynamic market.

In early 2020, James Quincey, the 14th chair of the 133-year old The Coca-Cola Company, was in the midst of a years-long transformation of Coca-Cola from being the leading carbonated soft drink (CSD) beverage company into a total beverage company. The company's flagship product, Coca-Cola, had been the world's best-selling beverage for 100 years, yet some consumers were turning away from CSDs due to health concerns over sugar consumption and a proliferation of other beverage options. The company had both acquired and developed many new beverage brands. It was in the process of changing its culture to be faster moving and more willing to take risks, and a culture where the new brands meant as much to the company as did its flagship product, which was still the company's largest selling beverage. Coca-Cola was also working to improve its environmental sustainability and social consciousness activities, and building a company where people were proud to work. The case also provides a historical look at the company's development, its relations with bottlers, competition with rival PepsiCo, and ends with emerging issues in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the C case we learn that former CEO Didier Lombard, Deputy Chief Executive Louis-Pierre Wenes, Human Resources Head Olivier Barberot and France Telecom itself were charged for institutional harassment by French authorities, a first for a CAC 40 company. In December 2019 they were found guilty in a landmark ruling. Each was given a one-year jail sentence, with eight months suspended, and fined €15,000. France Telcom, which had since been rebranded as Orange, was fined €75,000 -the maximum allowed by French legal provisions at the time of the offenses.

In the B case we learn that at least 19 France Telecom employees took their own lives between 2006 and 2009, 12 others attempted suicide, and eight suffered from serious depression for reasons reportedly related to work. Some of these deaths occurred in public places, others on company grounds. Labor inspector Sylvie Catala conducted an investigation and found that the "lack of consideration of psychosocial risks in the restructuring is the result of a policy implemented throughout the country... and that the company's top executives put pressure on middle management, who passed on this pressure to workers." She concluded that the company's actions likely "endangered human life" and constituted "moral harassment."

These cases explore the impacts of industry shocks, resulting corporate actions that had a devastating impact on employees, and the legal conviction of corporate leaders for "institutional harassment. This case series follows the evolution of France Telecom from a national telephone monopoly to a private company facing two severe challenges: (1) The company's competitive advantage as a land-line carrier is being challenged by mobile carriers and the entry of new competition from other countries; and (2) the workforce is much larger than required by the company's new strategy, yet many employees are civil servants, making it very difficult to reduce headcount, despite many attempts to do so. As increasing pressure is mounted internally, the culture shifts from one where employees are proud to work to one described as "tense, even violent" and the physical and mental wellbeing of some employees becomes increasingly "fragile." The further impact of these developments is outlined in the (B) and (C) cases. The (A) case describes the development of the situation, the competitive challenges that prompted it, key decisions made by corporate leaders, and the impact of the same on various stakeholders. The discussion begins by asking students to apportion responsibility -how much is due to labor laws, to industry change; to past management; to current management; to the employees themselves? Have corporate leaders pushed employees too far, creating unacceptable levels of stress and unhappiness? What levers do leaders have to keep a business relevant and to do so in a way that is fair to all stakeholders? At its most fundamental, the case series helps students confront some fundamental tensions between the pressures and benefits of capitalism, the responsibilities of management, and the day-to-day and long-term impacts on employee well-being.

In 2018, Swedish furniture maker IKEA was undergoing a significant transformation. Challenged by the rise of online shopping and changing consumer behavior, and mourning the death of its founder, the Company's top executives knew they had to step out of their comfort zones and embrace new strategic initiatives to stay relevant. But which initiatives, executed where, when and how, would enable IKEA to achieve its goals in a way that was profitable while creating an IKEA they would want to pass on to the next generation of co-workers and customers?

This note describes the emerging on-demand economy, also referred to as the sharing economy. The note highlights several companies including Uber and Airbnb that exemplify this new mode of competition, a model that threatens to disrupt traditional firms. Uber provides ride services much like a traditional taxi company, but it owns no cars and employs no drivers, and instead matches independent car owners with customers looking for rides. Airbnb provides a lodging service, but owns no hotels, and instead matches home owners with extra rooms with customers looking for a place to stay. The note allows students to explore what impact such companies might have on traditional business models, what impact they might have on labor and how people work, and whether existing regulations aimed at traditional business models are adequate for the new model.

Strategically, Steve Jobs got it brilliantly right some times and terribly wrong other times. This case examines Jobs' development as a leader strategist over the course of his entire career. The successes and failures of Apple, NeXT, and Pixar are used to probe the role of strategy in organizational success and to examine a leader's distinctive responsibility to set (and reset) a viable course for a business. While Jobs' greatness may make him seem inaccessible at times, a closer look shows that some of his most valuable managerial capabilities were honed slowly, painfully, over time, and that there is much others can learn from his experience.

CARD (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development) is a Philippines-based microfinance organization that began as an NGO and has since expanded into eight related entities providing services to the poor. Under Founding Director Dr. Aristotle Alip's leadership, CARD has become one of the top microfinance institutions in the world. More recently, larger commercial and financial institutions are seeking a slice of the microfinance market. The main dilemma Dr. Alip faces is: Should he partner with commercial institutions to reap benefits from their larger sources of capital and technology expertise? Would that mean compromising his original mission of elevating people from the base of the pyramid?

How do you create and sustain a profitable strategy? Many approaches have focused managers' attention inward, urging them to build a unique set of corporate resources and capabilities. In practice, however, identifying and developing core competence too often becomes a feel-good exercise that no one fails. Collis and Montgomery, of Harvard Business School, explain how a company's resources drive its performance in a dynamic competitive environment, and they offer a framework that moves strategic thinking forward in two ways. The resource-based view of the firm comprises a pragmatic and rigorous set of market tests to determine whether a company's resources are truly valuable enough to serve as the basis for strategy and integrates that market view with earlier insights about competition and industry structure. Where a company chooses to play will determine its profitability as much as its resources do. The authors spell out in clear managerial terms why some competitors are more profitable than others, how to put the idea of core competence into practice, and how to develop diversification strategies that make sense. To illustrate the power of resource-based strategies, the authors provide many examples of organizations-including Disney, Cooper, Sharp, and Newell-that have been able to use corporate resources to establish and maintain competitive advantage at the business-unit level and also to benefit from the attractiveness of the markets in which they compete.

In recent decades an infusion of economics has lent the study of strategy much needed theory and empirical evidence. Strategy consultants, armed with frameworks and techniques, have stepped forward to help managers analyze their industries and position their companies for strategic advantage. Strategy has come to be seen as an analytical problem to be solved. But, says Montgomery, the Timken Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, the benefits of this rigorous approach have attendant costs: Strategy has become a competitive game plan, separate from the company's larger sense of purpose. The CEO's unique role as arbiter and steward of strategy has been eclipsed. And an overemphasis on sustainable competitive advantage has obscured the importance of making strategy a dynamic tool for guiding the company's development over time. For any company, intelligent guidance requires a clear sense of purpose, of what makes the organization truly distinctive. Purpose, Montgomery says, serves as both a constraint on activity and a guide to behavior. Creativity and insight are key to forging a compelling organizational purpose; analysis alone will never suffice. As the CEO - properly a company's chief strategist - translates purpose into practice, he or she must remain open to the possibility that the purpose itself may need to change. Lou Gerstner did this in the 1990s, when he decided that IBM would evolve to focus on applying technology rather than on inventing it. So did Steve Jobs, when he rescued Apple from a poorly performing strategy and expanded the company into attractive new businesses. Watching over strategy day in and day out is the CEO's greatest opportunity to shape the firm as well as outwit the competition.

Chen Feng and three others started Hainan Airlines in China during a historic transformation and privatization of the civil aviation industry. From a small loan from the local province in 1992, Chairman Chen built the company into a conglomerate that, by 2003, owned airlines, hotels, airports, travel agencies, an insurance company, and a department store. Despite its many successes, including being the first airline in China to attract foreign capital, the company faces many challenges at both the business and corporate levels. Was the company's increasing breadth a distraction to the airline business or a route to competitive advantage? Going forward, what should be Chen's priorities?

Describes the transformation of a company's corporate-level strategy. Begins by laying out the strategy that brought the Newell Co. stunning success for nearly three decades. The highly integrated, internally consistent strategy was tailored for manufacturing and selling a particular genre of products to a particular kind of customer. In the mid-1990s, Newell encountered some shifts in its competitive environment and a subtle erosion in profits. In 1999, the $3.5 billion company paid a 49% premium to acquire the $2.5 billion Rubbermaid Co., in part for its product development process and strong consumer brands. After the acquisition, the profits of the combined enterprise deteriorated at an accelerated rate and the CEO was replaced. In less than a year, a fundamentally new strategy was announced, profits improved, and both Wall Street and major retailers were encouraged. Some setbacks followed, leading to reduced earnings and revised expectations. Exposes students to the pains and struggles of changing a deeply ingrained and long-lived strategy. Also forces them to confront the question of whether the new strategy is the right one and the markers one should seek to prove the case.

The causes of many corporate governance problems lie well below the surface--specifically, in critical relationships that are not structured to support the players involved. In other words, the very foundation of the system is flawed. And unless we correct the structural problems, surface changes are unlikely to have a lasting impact. When shareholders, management, and the board of directors work together as a system, they provide a powerful set of checks and balances. But the relationship between shareholders and directors is fraught with weaknesses, undermining the entire system's equilibrium. As the authors explain, the exchange of information between these two players is poor. The authors suggest several ways to improve the relationship between shareholders and directors: Increase board accountability by recording individual directors' votes on key corporate resolutions, separate the positions of chairman and CEO, reinvigorate shareholders, and give boards funding to pay for outside experts who can provide perspective on crucial issues.

Supplements the (A) case.

In 1998, Newell Co., a manufacturer of low-tech, high-volume consumer goods, acquired Calphalon Corp., a high-end cookware company, and Rubbermaid, a $2 billion manufacturer of consumer and commercial plastic products. The case focuses on Newell's strategy and its elaboration throughout the organization, as well as the importance of selecting appropriate acquisitions to grow the company. Do Calphalon and Rubbermaid fit with the company's long-term strategy of growth through acquisition and superior service to volume customers? A rewritten version of an earlier case.

Spreadsheet supplement for case 799-139.

Examines corporate strategy for a diversified firm in the French business context. Issues include corporate governance, vision, and the management of unrelated diversification. After the company's first loss ever, the Vivendi board elected a new chairman who completed a financial restructuring and articulated a new corporate strategy. His actions were in part determined by the French business environment, which does not easily permit staff reductions, and by the increasing importance of foreign investors in France.

This article presents a comprehensive framework for value creation in the multibusiness company. It addresses the most fundamental questions of corporate strategy: What businesses should a company be in? How should it coordinate activities across businesses? What role should the corporate office play? How should the corporation measure and control performance? Through detailed case studies of Tyco International, Sharp, the Newell Company, and Saatchi and Saatchi, co-authors David Collis (Yale School of Management) and Cynthia Montgomery (Harvard Business School) demonstrate that the answers to all those questions are driven largely by the nature of a company's special resources--its assets, skills, and capabilities. These range along a continuum from the highly specialized at one end to the very general at the other. A corporation's location on the continuum constrains the set of businesses it should compete in and limits its choices about the design of its organization. Applying the framework, the authors point out the common mistakes that result from misaligned corporate strategies. The company examples demonstrate that one size does not fit all. One can find great corporate strategies all along the continuum.