個案總覽

The world famous toymaker, The LEGO Group, assembled an internal management team to create a strategic report on LEGO’s different product lines and business operations. In recent years, numerous threats to LEGO had emerged in the toy industry. The acquisition of Marvel Entertainment by The Walt Disney Company created major implications for valuable toy license agreements. LEGO had also recently lost a long legal battle with major competitor MEGA Brands, makers of MEGA Bloks, with a European Union court decision that removed the LEGO brick trademark. Furthermore, the second-largest toymaker in the world, Hasbro, was preparing to launch a new rival product line called Kre-O. It was critical for the management team to identify where to expand LEGO’s product lines and business operations, in order to develop a competitive strategy to continue the organization’s recent years of financial success and dominance in the building toy market.

The world famous toymaker, The LEGO Group (LEGO), assembles an internal management team to create a strategic report on LEGO's different product lines and business operations. In recent years, numerous threats had emerged against LEGO in toy industry. The acquisition of Marvel Entertainment by The Walt Disney Company created major implications for valuable toy license agreements. LEGO also recently lost a long legal battle with major competitor MEGA Brands, makers of MEGA Bloks, with a European Union court decision that removed the LEGO brick trademark. Furthermore, new competition is preparing to enter the marketplace from Hasbro, the second-largest toymaker in the world, with the company launching a new rival product line called Kre-O. It is critical for the management team to identify where to expand Lego's product lines and business operations, in order to develop a competitive strategy to continue the organization's recent years of financial success and dominance in the building toy market.

The vice president of communications of Domino’s Pizza International faced a significant threat to his company’s reputation due to negative social media exposure. A video had been posted on YouTube two days earlier by a Domino’s employee that showed two Domino’s employees at a North Carolina franchise tampering with customers’ pizza and sandwich orders. The employee stuck cheese up his nose, sneezed on the food prior to boxing it up, and could be overheard in the video admitting that the orders would soon be delivered to unsuspecting customers. The video went viral; it had been reposted to Twitter and Facebook, and received almost a million views and many comments on YouTube. It was also receiving attention from both local and national media channels. The senior executive team of Domino’s was meeting with the vice president in a matter of hours, and Domino’s social media team would need to devise a plan to respond to the video to protect Domino’s strong brand image before it was too late.<p>You might also like: Abercrombie & #Fitchthehomeless, Abercrombie and Fitch, Mountain Dew: The Most Racist Soft-drink Commercial in History?

The vice-president of communications for Domino's Pizza International (Domino's), faced a significant threat to his company's reputation involving negative social media exposure. A video had been posted online two days earlier via YouTube by a Domino's employee, and showed two Domino's employees at a North Carolina franchise tampering with customers' pizza and sandwich orders. The employee stuck cheese up his nose, and sneezed on the food prior to boxing it up and could be overheard in the video gleefully admitting the orders would soon be delivered to unsuspecting customers. The video went viral; it had been reposted to Twitter and Facebook, and received almost a million views and various comments on YouTube. The video was also receiving attention from both local and national media channels. The senior executive team of Domino's was meeting with the vice-president in a matter of hours, and Domino's social media team would need to devise a plan to respond to the viral video to protect Domino's strong brand image before it was too late.

In January 2010, global automotive manufacturer Toyota faced the task of notifying customers of a recall that involved a faulty accelerator pedal on 1.7 million vehicles. Toyota had already come under intense public scrutiny the previous year over a floor mat recall that affected 4.2 million vehicles. In an attempt to reach the masses for the current recall, Toyota created a letter to customers that was featured in major newspapers and on its website. The letter caused outrage as Toyota did not apologize to consumers. Instead, it talked about the company’s 50-year heritage and how Toyota was halting production to focus on fixing the vehicles that were on the road. The president of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. needed to identify the problems with the letter before drafting a new one.

"This is a supplement to Toyota: Accelerator Pedal Recall (A). In January 2010, global automotive manufacturer Toyota faced the task of notifying customers of a recall that involved a faulty accelerator pedal on 1.7 million vehicles, spread across eight different models. In some cases the faulty accelerator pedal was found to stick in depressed position and be slow to return to the idle position, causing unintended vehicle acceleration. With the throttle stuck in the open position a vehicle would continue to accelerate while the driver is trying to brake and slow the vehicle down. Toyota had already come under intense public scrutiny in the previous year over an existing floor mat recall that affected 4.2 million vehicles. Lessons in the automotive industry had been learned the hard way from tire manufacturer Bridgestone. A public backlash occurred in 2003, with class action law suits against Bridgestone for faulty tires that caused some vehicles to roll over. In an attempt to reach the masses, Toyota created a letter to customers that was featured in major newspapers and on its own website. The letter released caused anger and outrage as Toyota stayed clear away from apologizing to consumers. Instead it talks about the companies 50 year heritage and how they are halting production to focus on fixing the vehicles that are on the road. Just days later Toyota drafted and released a second letter to customers. This time they attempt to use better language, but missed the mark on taking full accountability for the problem."

This case is a supplement to Toyota: Accelerator Pedal Recall (A).

Tracy Chan, managing director of the Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) at St. Charles University in Calgary, Alberta, was faced with a difficult situation. Her newest employee, Michael Hinske, had just e-mailed her a list of faculty members he had contacted to educate on the SLWS writing program offered to graduate students. Chan quickly noticed that the faculty names were of individuals who had already been contacted. There was no indication that Hinske had made any attempt to discuss the program with other faculties on campus. Since joining the team six months earlier, Hinske’s mandate for the academic year had been to create a series of writing workshops and liaise with different faculties on campus. Chan needed a plan of action before confronting Hinske about his inability to fulfill his job requirements, including his failure to create new contacts between the graduate writing program and faculties on campus.

Over the past four years the chief administrative officer (CAO) had worked hard to bring change to the city of Havenstock, Canada. Prior to his arrival at Havenstock in 2004, City Hall was awash in media scandal, secrecy, and suspicion. Moreover, the work environment at City Hall was plagued with closed-channel communication and a lack of trust between employees and management. Staff morale was low and the relationship with the press was tense. The CAO had had a clear vision of what he wanted to bring to the city. At the centre of his vision was an embracing of collective accountability. He had worked hard to instill a sense of purpose, priorities, and direction. Slowly, the CAO had begun to rebuild the corporate culture into a supportive workplace. <br><br><br><br>Despite his best intentions, the improvements made over the past few years were threatened, following a Council Oversight Committee meeting. During the meeting, city employee absenteeism numbers had been questioned. Unsatisfied with the explanation of what management was doing to address the problem, a city councillor leaked the absenteeism numbers to the media. After working so hard to improve both internal and external perceptions of City Hall, the CAO now found himself and his team on the headlines of the local newspapers. In order to save his reputation, the CAO needed to prepare a presentation to go before city council and address the employee absenteeism issue head on. He knew that what he said and how he said it would be a defining moment in his career.

November 29, 2010, was “Cyber Monday,” one of the busiest online shopping days of the year, with the potential to approach $1 billion in online sales in North America. The chief designer of fashion company Donna Karan New York (DKNY) was facing a difficult situation. On this particular Cyber Monday, activists for the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) had posted simultaneous messages on DKNY’s Facebook page. Anyone viewing the page could not fail to discern the “DK Bunny Butcher” message. This action by PETA was the culmination of several years, beginning in 2005, of attempting to convince DKNY to stop using fur in its collections. This November 29 message was a sharp reminder to both DKNY and its Cyber Monday customers that, up to this point, the company had refused to stop using fur. It was available to be viewed by DKNY’s over 200,000 Facebook fans as well as millions of online Cyber Monday shoppers. The chief designer was unsure how to respond: on one hand was the desire to clearly explain the use of fur, but on the other was the desire to avoid escalating the publicity surrounding the matter. She needed an immediate strategy that would retain her brand’s image and protect future sales.

In January 2010, global automotive manufacturer Toyota faced the task of notifying customers of a recall that involved a faulty accelerator pedal on 1.7 million vehicles, spread across eight different models. In some cases the faulty accelerator pedal was found to stick in depressed position and be slow to return to the idle position, causing unintended vehicle acceleration. With the throttle stuck in the open position a vehicle would continue to accelerate while the driver is trying to brake and slow the vehicle down. Toyota had already come under intense public scrutiny in the previous year over an existing floor mat recall that affected 4.2 million vehicles. Lessons in the automotive industry had been learned the hard way from tire manufacturer Bridgestone. A public backlash occurred in 2003, with class action law suits against Bridgestone for faulty tires that caused some vehicles to roll over. In an attempt to reach the masses, Toyota created a letter to customers that was featured in major newspapers and on its own website. The letter released caused anger and outrage as Toyota stayed clear away from apologizing to consumers. Instead it talks about the companies 50 year heritage and how they are halting production to focus on fixing the vehicles that are on the road. Just days later Toyota drafted and released a second letter to customers. This time they attempt to use better language, but missed the mark on taking full accountability for the problem.

Tracy Chan, managing director of the Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) at St. Charles University in Calgary Alberta was faced with a difficult situation. Her newest employee Michael Hinske, had just emailed her a list of faculty members he had contacted to educate on the SLWS graduate writing initiatives. Chan quickly noticed that the faculty names were contacts that had already been initiated. There was no indication that Hinske had made any attempt to discuss the program with other faculties on campus. Since joining the team six months earlier Hinske's mandate for the academic year was to create a series of workshops and liaison with different faculties on campus. Due to restructuring the funding request for the position originally made by Chan was resubmitted under Nicole Duncan, the associate director of the Faculty Educational Development Office (FEDO). The result was the approval of a position that would see the SLSW receive a staff member four days per week and one day per week in the FEDO. Duncan wanted to have a direct role in the recruiting since she was to be responsible for the overseeing of the budget for the initiative. She called Chan to inform her that a resume from Michael Hinske had been sent directly to her and that it should be included in the pile if potential candidates. After the interview process Duncan stated that the best candidate for the position was Hinske. Chan stated her hesitation with the candidate given that he lacked any formal training in writing theory and the disciplines of writing at the university level. However, Duncan stated that she wanted the job filled before she went on vacation and Hinske should be given the job. Problems started when Hinske asked for other team member's presentations and curriculum material. Over the next two months Chan and other staff members noticed that Hinske seemed distant.