個案總覽

Supplement to case W20831

Supplement to case W20831

The Maple Leaf Foods (MLF): Changing the System case explores how a major food processor pivoted its vision and operations in an attempt to become the world's most sustainable protein company. Instead of focusing solely on financial goals, the organization's new purpose clearly recognized MLF's potential impact on both society and the natural environment. In the anchor case, senior leaders considered the background and progress of this initiative. The supplemental cases (A to E) offer the perspectives of five stakeholders, each of whom is critical to the MLF initiative. Since an organization is part of an open system, these views allow a consideration of how the different parts of the system may experience, and impact, any change attempt.

Supplement to case W20831

Supplement to case W20831

Supplement to 9B20M174.

Supplement to 9B20M174.

Supplement to 9B20M174.

Supplement to 9B20M174.

The Maple Leaf Foods (MLF): Changing the System case explores how a major food processor pivoted its vision and operations in an attempt to become the world’s most sustainable protein company. Instead of focusing solely on financial goals, the organization's new purpose clearly recognized MLF’s potential impact on both society and the natural environment. In the anchor case, senior leaders considered the background and progress of this initiative. The supplemental cases (A to E) offer the perspectives of five stakeholders, each of whom is critical to the MLF initiative. Since an organization is part of an open system, these views allow a consideration of how the different parts of the system may experience, and impact, any change attempt.

Supplemental case for product 9B20C043.

Students need to practice talking about taboo topics. The ‘A’ case offers background on recent calls to end discrimination (e.g., #MeToo, Black Lives Matter protests) and highlights the struggles business schools, in particular, have faced in dealing with intolerance. It offers an opportunity for students to consider and role play eight mini-cases based on real events. Topics covered include gender, race, diversity/inclusion, socio-economic inequities, harassment, LGBTQ+ issues, white privilege, and ableism. The ‘B’ case asks students to consider similar past interactions in their own lives so they can personalize the process and make plans for how they will deal with such events in the future.

Supplement to 9B20M174.

We all occasionally hear comments potentially driven by intolerance or bias. They often come without warning, sometimes from someone you really like. This article is about how to react. Research suggests that managers and employees alike are often loath to tackle uncomfortable topics. However, when formal company programs discourage bias, but everyday interactions allow or even encourage it, bias lives on. The good news is that the small everyday moments of potential intolerance are wonderful opportunities to tackle the problem of bias and discrimination in the workplace. What we are calling for is engagement, which doesn’t involve shaming or blaming. The goal is one of perspective-taking, which can make a difference without creating conflict. Engaging can have a positive impact in terms of cultivating empathy, increasing understanding, fostering speaker insight, and setting an example for bystanders. While formal training programs that address equity, diversity, and inclusion issues are helpful, they rarely have the reach required to fight intolerance where it breeds—at the micro level. Workplaces that are effective at micro-level engagement may get fewer complaints about bias. In addition, when employees feel psychologically safe and valued, they are more likely to share their thoughts and idea, which can lead to higher levels of productivity, innovation, and adaptability.

In 2018, the leaders of Cisca Engineering Ltd. (CEL), a small engineering firm in Waterloo, Ontario, faced a decision about whether to go beyond their normal pay scale in order to hire a mechanical engineering candidate they desperately wanted. The company was struggling to attract top talent since its normal base salary capabilities were thought to be lower than those of larger firms. Considering the trade-offs, the company president weighed the potentially negative effect on overall employee morale with the advantages of having a needed new employee. Should he offer the candidate the pipe stress analyst position at a lower salary and risk being turned down? Should he offer the salary the candidate wanted and risk upsetting his other employees if they found out? Should he revamp his compensation system and increase salary levels for all of the company’s engineers?

In 2018, the leaders of Cisca Engineering Ltd. (CEL), a small engineering firm in Waterloo, Ontario, faced a decision about whether to go beyond their normal pay scale in order to hire a mechanical engineering candidate they desperately wanted. The company was struggling to attract top talent since its normal base salary capabilities were thought to be lower than those of larger firms. Considering the trade-offs, the company president weighed the potentially negative effect on overall employee morale with the advantages of having a needed new employee. Should he offer the candidate the pipe stress analyst position at a lower salary and risk being turned down? Should he offer the salary the candidate wanted and risk upsetting his other employees if they found out? Should he revamp his compensation system and increase salary levels for all of the company's engineers?

A common assumption is that if we just put good people together, they will automatically develop into a strong team. Conversely, we assume that if we put a lot of low-performing people together, they will perform poorly. However, research tells us that it is not that simple. Teams are different from the sum of their parts, and they develop as they go. Scholars have been able to develop a well-accepted model that can help managers and employees build team effectiveness in the workplace: the input-mediator-outcome (IMO) team effectiveness framework. This note provides an overview of the well-supported IMO model of team effectiveness.

Several psychological theories can help explain organizational behaviour, but many students are not exposed to the benefits that these types of concepts can provide. This note discusses a brief overview of some of the most relevant theories, which may help employees and leaders to better understand organizational behaviour.

A common assumption is that if we just put good people together, they will automatically develop into a strong team. Conversely, we assume that if we put a lot of low-performing people together, they will perform poorly. However, research tells us that it is not that simple. Teams are different from the sum of their parts, and they develop as they go. Scholars have been able to develop a well-accepted model that can help managers and employees build team effectiveness in the workplace: the input-mediator-outcome (IMO) team effectiveness framework. This note provides an overview of the well-supported IMO model of team effectiveness.

Several psychological theories can help explain organizational behaviour, but many students are not exposed to the benefits that these types of concepts can provide. This note discusses a brief overview of some of the most relevant theories, which may help employees and leaders to better understand organizational behaviour.