A 2-party negotiation role play between a search engine startup, YOUReka, and Quantron, a supplier of the subassembly boards used at YOUReka's data centers. At issue is a possible breach of contract. Roles include Role for Quantron (#916035) and Role for YOUReka (#916036).

A 2-party negotiation role play between a search engine startup, YOUReka, and Quantron, a supplier of the subassembly boards used at YOUReka's data centers. At issue is a possible breach of contract. Roles include Role for Quantron (#916035) and Role for YOUReka (#916036).

The "Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" set of cases explores the roles of general and firm-specific human capital in employee performance measurement, feedback, and promotion/compensation decisions. In the cases, a leading law firm must decide whether to match an outside partnership offer to one of its leading litigators, when the litigator is not yet eligible for partnership according to the existing rules by which the firm elects partners. A second non-litigator at the firm has performed just as well as the star litigator, but has no outside partnership offer, because her role and skills are specific to the firm, and not as valuable to the outside market. The case can be taught via a role play, where one student plays the role of the non-litigator, and a second student plays the role of a formally-assigned mentor from the law firm's partnership group. (If using the role play option, instructors should use the general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP," 914-044, and the roles: "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Jordan Ramirez," 914-046, and "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Casey Clark," 914-047.) It can also be taught as a traditional case, without a role play, by using general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" (914-044) and "Chung and Dasgupta: Supplemental Information on Jordan Ramirez and Casey Clark" (914-045). The cases provide a rich backdrop to explore issues around firm-specific human capital, and can also be used to discuss subjective performance evaluation, best practices when giving employee feedback, and careers at professional service firms.

The "Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" set of cases explores the roles of general and firm-specific human capital in employee performance measurement, feedback, and promotion/compensation decisions. In the cases, a leading law firm must decide whether to match an outside partnership offer to one of its leading litigators, when the litigator is not yet eligible for partnership according to the existing rules by which the firm elects partners. A second non-litigator at the firm has performed just as well as the star litigator, but has no outside partnership offer, because her role and skills are specific to the firm, and not as valuable to the outside market. The case can be taught via a role play, where one student plays the role of the non-litigator, and a second student plays the role of a formally-assigned mentor from the law firm's partnership group. (If using the role play option, instructors should use the general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP," 914-044, and the roles: "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Jordan Ramirez," 914-046, and "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Casey Clark," 914-047.) It can also be taught as a traditional case, without a role play, by using general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" (914-044) and "Chung and Dasgupta: Supplemental Information on Jordan Ramirez and Casey Clark" (914-045). The cases provide a rich backdrop to explore issues around firm-specific human capital, and can also be used to discuss subjective performance evaluation, best practices when giving employee feedback, and careers at professional service firms.

The "Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" set of cases explores the roles of general and firm-specific human capital in employee performance measurement, feedback, and promotion/compensation decisions. In the cases, a leading law firm must decide whether to match an outside partnership offer to one of its leading litigators, when the litigator is not yet eligible for partnership according to the existing rules by which the firm elects partners. A second non-litigator at the firm has performed just as well as the star litigator, but has no outside partnership offer, because her role and skills are specific to the firm, and not as valuable to the outside market. The case can be taught via a role play, where one student plays the role of the non-litigator, and a second student plays the role of a formally-assigned mentor from the law firm's partnership group. (If using the role play option, instructors should use the general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP," 914-044, and the roles: "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Jordan Ramirez," 914-046, and "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Casey Clark," 914-047.) It can also be taught as a traditional case, without a role play, by using general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" (914-044) and "Chung and Dasgupta: Supplemental Information on Jordan Ramirez and Casey Clark" (914-045). The cases provide a rich backdrop to explore issues around firm-specific human capital, and can also be used to discuss subjective performance evaluation, best practices when giving employee feedback, and careers at professional service firms.

The "Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" set of cases explores the roles of general and firm-specific human capital in employee performance measurement, feedback, and promotion/compensation decisions. In the cases, a leading law firm must decide whether to match an outside partnership offer to one of its leading litigators, when the litigator is not yet eligible for partnership according to the existing rules by which the firm elects partners. A second non-litigator at the firm has performed just as well as the star litigator, but has no outside partnership offer, because her role and skills are specific to the firm, and not as valuable to the outside market. The case can be taught via a role play, where one student plays the role of the non-litigator, and a second student plays the role of a formally-assigned mentor from the law firm's partnership group. (If using the role play option, instructors should use the general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP," 914-044, and the roles: "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Jordan Ramirez," 914-046, and "Chung and Dasgupta: Information for Casey Clark," 914-047.) It can also be taught as a traditional case, without a role play, by using general information case "The Promotion Process at Chung and Dasgupta, LLP" (914-044) and "Chung and Dasgupta: Supplemental Information on Jordan Ramirez and Casey Clark" (914-045). The cases provide a rich backdrop to explore issues around firm-specific human capital, and can also be used to discuss subjective performance evaluation, best practices when giving employee feedback, and careers at professional service firms.

This case describes the compensation and performance evaluations at an investment management company. The senior management team of Massachusetts Financial Services (MFS) Investment Management was contemplating an introduction of hedge funds at the firm, but many believed that typical hedge fund manager pay (20% of the upside) would harm the MFS culture, which glorified "star performance but not star egos." The case presents the MFS compensation philosophy and plan (including the plan's emphasis on subjective compensation), the types of people it attracted, the resulting culture, and how the senior management team approached the hedge funds question. It includes side discussion on firm-specific human capital. This is an abridged version of an earlier case.