A female GSB graduate assumed the role of CEO of a SaaS company operating at slightly above breakeven. Three weeks into the role, she had built trust with the VP of operations, but she had not been well received by her two other direct reports who were VPs of Technology and Sales and Marketing. In this vignette, these two managers asked to meet the CEO and demanded salary increases, which they claim had been promised to them by the company's previous owners. They also expressed misgivings about the VP of Operations and refused to comply with a request the CEO had made earlier last week. The vignette ends with the CEO getting ready to plan her conversation with the two managers.

In this vignette, students play the role of a newly appointed CEO joining a successful private company with 100 employees. The CEO will plan to hold two meetings with employees. The first meeting will be with the eight key department managers who have been reporting to the previous CEO who has since resigned. The second meeting will be with all 100 of the company's employees. In this vignette, students will choose to role play one of these meetings and prepare for questions that may be asked.

This case follows the story of Jay Davis and Jason Pananos, classmates from Harvard Business School who started a search fund, Nashton Partners. The case covers their decision to launch a search fund, their investment objectives and goals, and then the search process over a two-year period. The core of the case discusses two specific acquisition opportunities the fund is considering - United Energy Services and Vector Disease Control Inc. There are clear advantages and drawbacks to both opportunities, and the partners must make a decision about what to do before the search fund runs out of money.

The Bomi Mexico case recounts the difficulties faced by Mario Sicilia, a recent CEO of Bomi Mexico, shortly after his acquisition of the company through a search fund. The case specifically highlights a situation where two key employees raise concerns about the COO.

The Eyewitness Surveillance II case tells the story of Rush Arnold and RT McCloy, friends who met while studying at Wharton, who raise a search fund under the name Channelstone Partners. In the fall of 2010, after having spent two-thirds of their search fund capital and reviewed over 200 companies, they came across Eyewitness Surveillance, a company specializing in the use of video technology to protect the assets of car dealerships. Eyewitness' cofounder, Vince Redland, was interested in selling the company to pursue other interests and Arnold and McCloy found the industry, company, and deal all compelling. Over the course of the next two months, they engaged in a due diligence process which further validated their interest in the company, but also raised several red flags. Among the issues highlighted in due diligence included widespread employee disgruntlement, particularly with Vince (who was also the top sales person), a reluctance to share detailed financial information, and an 11th hour disagreement about a contract clause stipulating that the purchase price would go down if monthly revenues declined after the close. Despite having conducted a thorough and in-depth due diligence process, Arnold and McCloy were at the end of their search capital and facing a deal that was on the brink. They were now faced with the question of whether or not they wanted to charge ahead, despite the red flags, or walk away, knowing that this could potentially be the end of the road.

Josie Sung and Greg McNamara founded Denver-based Lighthouse Systems in 2006 shortly after graduating from the Stanford Graduate School of Business in 2005. After exploring several ideas, they landed on a technology solution for helping large corporations better communicate with their customers. However, after running into a few roadblocks in the early days, the company pivoted as it learned more about its customers' needs. Now, almost seven years after its founding, Lighthouse had finally found its sweet spot with the launch of a mobile-based app that would allow companies to deliver valuable content to their employees (similar to a company intranet) via any electronic device. By the spring of 2013, Lighthouse had gained steady momentum, with 30 percent quarter-over-quarter sales growth, and it was on track to reach $150 million in revenue by year end. With the potential to really take off, Josie and Greg decided it was time to bring on a senior sales executive to drive revenue growth to the next level. In November 2013, Tristan Jones joined Lighthouse as the company's vice president of sales and quickly made a significant impact on the organization. After closing one of the company's largest deals in 2014, Tristan delivered outstanding results throughout the first half of 2015, and served as a valued member of Josie's eight-person management team. However, Josie is faced with a challenging situation when Tristan violates the company's gifting policy on more than one occasion. Should she find a way to accommodate her best salesperson so as to not sacrifice company performance, or terminate her top performer and deal with the fallout that will inevitably follow?

The ConvenientMD case highlights the role of emotion and ambiguity in business interactions. ConvenientMD, led by co-CEOs Gareth Dickens and Max Puyanic, operated urgent care centers (UCCs) in the northeastern United States. UCCs are medical facilities that provide treatment for a variety of injuries and illnesses at a fraction of the cost of hospitals. The case, which examines ConvenientMD in its nascent and high-growth years, is divided into two vignettes. In the first vignette, Dickens and Puyanic had opened a UCC in Hampton, New Hampshire. Although they believed that ConvenientMD could coexist peacefully with the city's largest healthcare provider, Hampton Hospital, it was clear that the CEO of Hampton Hospital felt differently. Wanting to establish a positive affiliation with Hampton Hospital, Dickens and Puyanic scheduled a meeting with the CEO. Hopeful about paving the way for a better relationship, Dickens and Puyanic were stunned when the CEO greeted them with open hostility. In the second vignette, Dickens and Puyanic were trying to find a location for a UCC in Pelham, New Hampshire. After some bad luck, Dickens and Puyanic had a great opportunity. According to a member of the local zoning board, a site that had previously been described as unavailable was now offered to Dickens and Puyanic. According to the board member, the site would be theirs if they "take the right steps." But should they take these steps?

Mary Jones was the CEO of the Richardson County Community Association (RCCA), a nonprofit with assets of $250 million and annual grants totaling $50 million to charitable organizations in Richardson County, Colorado. As CEO of RCCA, Jones engaged personally with over 250 donors per year. She described her job as primarily one of relationship management, and at times, those relationships could prove challenging. In the RCCA Vignettes, Jones's first difficult situation deals with her board member, David Jacobs, who recently assumed the role of board chair. Jacobs had begun to assign the RCCA staff his own small projects and, after making his "rounds," he would sit down in Jones's office, expecting her to drop whatever she was doing in order to interact with him. Jones would need to find a way to diplomatically yet effectively convey her feelings about Jacobs's behavior. In the second vignette, Jones receives a $1 million stock donation from an esteemed donor, Leo Farnand, who asks her to hold the stock until the recently-announced sale of his company is complete. Jones and the board agree to make an exception to the company policy given the size of the donation and hold the stock. However, after delays in the sale, Jones decides she must sell the stock against Farnand's wishes. The vignette ends with Jones preparing for what will undoubtedly be an unpleasant conversation with one of RCCA's largest donors.

Coley Andrews could never have anticipated when he cofounded Pacific Lake Partners, a search fund investment firm, in 2009, that he would spend as much time managing people as he would the firm's investment strategy. Pacific Lake had grown its portfolio to include 30 operating companies plus 30 active search funds in the six years since its launch, and Andrews interacted regularly with many of the CEOs, either as a board member or as an informal advisor. Though several of Pacific Lake's transactions involved complex financial structures, Andrews had learned that few issues were more difficult than some of the interpersonal challenges that confronted him from time to time. In the first vignette, Andrews learns that a searcher with whom Pacific Lake has made a soft commitment to invest has falsified part of his resume. Andrews and his partner, Jim Southern, decide to withdraw their commitment from the searcher and send a letter out notifying the investor group of the news. Andrews must prepare for how to respond to what will inevitably be an onslaught of calls. In the second vignette, Andrews learns that a fellow board member has withheld knowledge about serious indiscretions committed by the CEO, including sexual harassment and relations with a female employee. Andrews must decide how to best confront his board member with this disturbing news.

The Healthy Buildings case profiles Janet Rodriguez, CEO and founder of Healthy Buildings, a green building materials supplier. In her role as CEO, Rodriguez faces two difficult issues involving her employees. The first issue deals with Fred Payton, Healthy Buildings's COO, and Marcia Vannis, the company's vice president of marketing. It soon becomes apparent that Payton and Vannis have a tumultuous relationship, with Payton frequently undermining her in front of other employees within the organization, and complaining that Vannis was Rodriguez's "teacher's pet." Rodriguez invites both employees to lunch to talk out their differences, but the result is underwhelming. She must now decide how to help them repair their relationship so that they can all move on with the business of the company. In the second vignette, Rodriguez reads in the weekend paper's police blotter that her vice president of business development, Leslie Dorrin, had been arrested for a DUI on Friday evening. That same morning, Rodriguez receives a call from Dorrin letting her know what happened, at which point Rodriguez must determine how to proceed with the news that one of her valued employees has been charged with a serious offense.

Jack Swain, the newly appointed CEO of Starling Systems, a call center software solutions company, had a problem. Swain had recently hired in a new VP of operations, Felicia Shaw, and while she had instituted a number of much-needed changes within the organization, she had not been well-received by the tight-knit customer service team. Specifically, Starling System's top performing customer service representative, Judith Fenton, was not happy and her productivity had dropped sharply as a result. Jack had a brief discussion with Judith at the coffee bar one morning, where she revealed her discontent with Felicia's "hovering" and "harping," declaring that she could not work with her any more. The vignette ends with Jack getting ready to plan his conversation with Felicia.

This case follows CEO Andy Dunn as he struggles to build a technical team that will enable Bonobos, an ecommerce and menswear company, to scale. The case also outlines the path that leads Dunn to the CEO post. Three vignettes compose the main body of the case. The first vignette deals with Dunn's struggles in getting Bonobos' engineering team to put forth greater effort. With the company falling behind its technical milestones, Dunn finds that he and vice president of technology Greene disagree on how to proceed. The second vignette presents a difficult situation where Dunn has decided to shut down Bonobos' Silicon Valley technology office in order to focus on its New York-based core menswear business. However, board members urge Dunn to give the Silicon Valley office a longer runway and they also warn that closing the West Coast office could result in a breakdown on the online platform. The third vignette begins as Dunn has extended an offer to Anil Kapur to join Bonobos as vice president of technology. Dunn learns that lead architect Jonathan Long, who initially disagreed with Dunn on Kapur's qualifications, has declared to the company's other engineers that he does not support the hiring of Kapur.

This case uses two important examples based at the Stanford Hospital. In the first, Joe Kelly is diagnosed with fast-growing lung cancer and must quickly go through a series of chemotherapy. Joe's path includes discussions with his wife, son, and doctor about his prognosis and treatment. While Joe believes he is cured after the first round of chemotherapy, the doctor must communicate that the chance of relapse is high. In the second example, Tina and Beth, graduate students at Stanford Medical School, compete for their Chief Resident's attention. Beth believes Dr. Rivas favors Tina and a great deal of conflict is created in the fight to win over Dr. Riva. After some time, it is noticed that this conflict greatly affects the two's care of their patients and Dr. Rivas must sit down and discuss solutions.

The MobiChair case describes the story of Lucy Ahn and Josh McKinnon, graduates of Stanford's Graduate School of Business who are also in a relationship, who take on the role of co-CEOs of a power wheelchair company after being offered the position by a mentor who is on the company's board. MobiChair is facing stalled growth and the board hopes to revive the company with new leadership. Though hesitant at first, the couple decides to take on the challenge and soon find themselves faced with a series of interpersonal issues and conflicts that threaten to overwhelm them. From their very first meeting with MobiChair's top three vice presidents, Ahn and McKinnon pick up on red flags that indicate the company operates with a "good enough" culture where 6-hour workdays, a focus on the tactical rather than the strategic, and reluctance to change are all the norm. In the second vignette, McKinnon must deal with an HR manager who defies instituting an employee recognition program McKinnon has requested. On a trip to the company's East Coast office, Ahn and McKinnon are alarmed to find that several top managers are underperforming and need to be replaced, after having assured the West Coast staff that they will not be shutting down any offices of undergoing layoffs. Finally, the co-CEOs are faced with an ultimatum from the controller which forces them to decide whether they can manage without her, or whether they must tolerate her antics until a suitable replacement is found.

The case is a series of four short, fictional vignettes. Each vignette shines a light on the case's macro-theme of ''motivating others in a management context," and discusses the considerations involved in getting subordinates to achieve specific company goals. The first vignette profiles Lydia Geller, a newly-promoted VP, as she publicly addresses her subordinates for the first time, each of whom had previously been part of her peer group. The second vignette profiles Jeremy Sawyer, the CEO of a software company, as he reviews the sales performance of the company and, in particular, its leading salesman, Victor Mason. Given Mason's disproportionate importance to the company, Jeremy debates the actions he can take to ensure Mason's continued satisfaction and motivation. The third vignette profiles Warren Soroka, the director of sales at a logistics service provider, as he is forced to have a conversation with a long-term employee who has just been "passed over" for a promotion in favor of a younger employee. He debates how best to communicate the decision to the "passed over" employee in a way that ensures his continued motivation and performance at the company. The fourth vignette profiles Rachel Murphy, the director of academics at Barrymore University, as she is forced to give a performance review that includes both positive and negative feedback. Given the mixed nature of the performance review, she debates how best to communicate such feedback in a way that ensures the employee's understanding and continued motivation.

The Trunk Club case begins with a description of the company's business model and the path that led the main protagonist, Brian Spaly, to the CEO post. Four vignettes compose the main body of the case. The first vignette outlines a series of challenges faced by Spaly during his first ninety days running the business, most notably a situation in which Spaly's top salesperson threatens to leave with the company's top five sales reps to start a competing venture if she is not promoted to the vacant COO role. The second vignette presents a delicate situation where the venture capital firm leading Trunk Club's Series A round of financing lobbies for the inclusion of another investor. Spaly receives a strong negative review of the second investor and must decide how to approach the lead investor. The third vignette follows Spaly as he tries to court a highly coveted veteran COO with limited means at his disposal. The fourth vignette details an employee stock grant proposal pitched by Spaly, as well as Spaly's subsequent negotiations with the company's board of directors.

At Kid Spectrum, a provider of in-home services for autistic children, two high-value employees are at war. Ronnie, director of clinical operations, is a class-A clinician who is well respected by his peers and subordinates; Ellen is a highly efficient administrative director who understands the importance of the bottom line. Their work styles couldn't be more different even though each is thoroughly dedicated to the company. Kid Spectrum's owner, Matthew Sparks, must figure out how to make his newly acquired business more profitable while retaining these two key employees whose interaction is starting to become toxic. H. Irving Grousbeck, of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, presents a fictionalized case to explore this common workplace dilemma. Expert commentary comes from Jim Southern, of Pacific Lake Partners, and Peter Kelly, of Stanford Graduate School of Business and formerly of Pacific Pulmonary Services.

At Kid Spectrum, a provider of in-home services for autistic children, two high-value employees are at war. Ronnie, director of clinical operations, is a class-A clinician who is well respected by his peers and subordinates; Ellen is a highly efficient administrative director who understands the importance of the bottom line. Their work styles couldn't be more different even though each is thoroughly dedicated to the company. Kid Spectrum's owner, Matthew Sparks, must figure out how to make his newly acquired business more profitable while retaining these two key employees whose interaction is starting to become toxic. H. Irving Grousbeck, of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, presents a fictionalized case to explore this common workplace dilemma. Expert commentary comes from Jim Southern, of Pacific Lake Partners, and Peter Kelly, of Stanford Graduate School of Business and formerly of Pacific Pulmonary Services.

At Kid Spectrum, a provider of in-home services for autistic children, two high-value employees are at war. Ronnie, director of clinical operations, is a class-A clinician who is well respected by his peers and subordinates; Ellen is a highly efficient administrative director who understands the importance of the bottom line. Their work styles couldn't be more different even though each is thoroughly dedicated to the company. Kid Spectrum's owner, Matthew Sparks, must figure out how to make his newly acquired business more profitable while retaining these two key employees whose interaction is starting to become toxic. H. Irving Grousbeck, of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, presents a fictionalized case to explore this common workplace dilemma. Expert commentary comes from Jim Southern, of Pacific Lake Partners, and Peter Kelly, of Stanford Graduate School of Business and formerly of Pacific Pulmonary Services.

Huntington University was a distinguished not-for-profit academic institution in the United States whose endowment grew from $7 billion to nearly $20 billion over the course of a decade. The funds prompted a variety of development projects. New funds, new buildings, and new programs brought with them new people, and Huntington was in a period of growth and change on all fronts. As administrative headcount grew dramatically from 6,800 to over 10,000, Singletary launched a major initiative to develop the University's most promising managers through effective instruction and feedback. Among the attendees were Rita Torres, Dieter Kopp, and Marilyn Malkin. They were excited to be among the select group of Singletary Management Program participants, and were eager to receive expert teaching and peer guidance on how they could improve as managers.