個案總覽

For the Deutscher Fussball-Bund e.V. (DFB)—the German Football Association—winning the most prestigious football trophy, the 2014 FIFA World Cup, was the culmination of a long period of suffering, reinventing, and rebuilding. Once the dominating force in world football, the German team had been at rock bottom around the beginning of the millennium. To manage its way out of this crisis and leave competitors behind once again, the DFB had to fundamentally reinvent itself. The turnaround required radical changes that would take a long time to pay off and involved substantial risks. How did the DFB reinvent itself to overcome the crisis and regain competitive strength, culminating in triumph at the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil? How could DFB’s managerial options be applied to the corporate world and provide lessons on successfully managing a crisis? What could DFB’s management do to remain at the top of international football?

Hisense Co., Ltd. (Hisense) was the fourth-largest television maker in the world, but its market share and brand recognition remained low in Europe. Therefore, strengthening its branding and improving its sales there were priorities for the Chinese company. In 2013, Hisense was considering whether to establish a strategic alliance with the German high-end television manufacturer Loewe AG (Loewe). Despite having a good reputation, Loewe was suffering severe financial distress and facing possible bankruptcy. If Hisense co-operated with Loewe, it would gain access to Loewe’s distribution network in Europe and utilize co-brand advertising with Loewe. In turn, Loewe would benefit from Hisense’s long-term technical support and gain access to the promising Asian market. Should they proceed?

In 2017, Volkswagen Group was not satisfied with its performance in India. Tata Motors Limited, on the other hand, had been dealing with increased competition from new automobile players. In March 2017, both players made the announcement of a potential strategic alliance with one another. However, the alliance talks soon stalled over the potential use of a platform and the practicality of the business model. The question facing both companies was whether to work out their differences and move the alliance forward, or to terminate the negotiation talks and operate independently.

By 2017, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) had shaped purchasing power for more than a million U.S. workers. Wal-Mart’s economic muscle was so profound that one could assume that the corporation’s wage policies had had a significant impact on the struggle for a living wage in the United States—but did this assumption have any merit? Wal-Mart had set the benchmark for low-cost retail labour practices. Understanding how Wal-Mart set the agenda with wages invited the investigation of a few pertinent questions: What socio-economic forces were in play and what was the environmental context that shaped Wal-Mart’s approach to managing its labour force? What were Wal-Mart’s wage-related practices, and how did the hourly rate paid to workers by the corporation affect prevailing wage rates? Finally, what were the benefits for Wal-Mart if it pursued a progressive wage rate agenda related to a living wage, and what were the disadvantages if it did not?

In late 2015, the chairman of Sofame Technologies Inc. (Sofame), a Montreal-based manufacturer and marketer of energy-recapture systems, faced a dilemma. The firm, which transformed the waste heat generated by hot water and exhaust gases into usable energy, had struggled for more than a decade as it coped with low gas prices and a failed carbon credits management subsidiary. Sofame had just been delisted from the stock market and was precariously close to bankruptcy. However, the chairman continued to see value in Sofame and was considering a restructuring plan that involved the acquisition of a New York-based boilermaker that could save the firm. In addition to the financial viability of the acquisition and the difficulty of raising funds, he also needed to consider other issues, including the fact that, as the chairman of a Canadian Crown corporation, he could not preside over a firm undergoing the bankruptcy process.

By 2017, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) had shaped purchasing power for more than a million U.S. workers. Wal-Mart's economic muscle was so profound that one could assume that the corporation's wage policies had had a significant impact on the struggle for a living wage in the United States-but did this assumption have any merit? Wal-Mart had set the benchmark for low-cost retail labour practices. Understanding how Wal-Mart set the agenda with wages invited the investigation of a few pertinent questions: What socio-economic forces were in play and what was the environmental context that shaped Wal-Mart's approach to managing its labour force? What were Wal-Mart's wage-related practices, and how did the hourly rate paid to workers by the corporation affect prevailing wage rates? Finally, what were the benefits for Wal-Mart if it pursued a progressive wage rate agenda related to a living wage, and what were the disadvantages if it did not?

In late 2015, the chairman of Sofame Technologies Inc. (Sofame), a Montreal-based manufacturer and marketer of energy-recapture systems, faced a dilemma. The firm, which transformed the waste heat generated by hot water and exhaust gases into usable energy, had struggled for more than a decade as it coped with low gas prices and a failed carbon credits management subsidiary. Sofame had just been delisted from the stock market and was precariously close to bankruptcy. However, the chairman continued to see value in Sofame and was considering a restructuring plan that involved the acquisition of a New York–based boilermaker that could save the firm. In addition to the financial viability of the acquisition and the difficulty of raising funds, he also needed to consider other issues, including the fact that, as the chairman of a Canadian Crown corporation, he could not preside over a firm undergoing the bankruptcy process.

In 2015, the Copenhagen School of Entrepreneurship (CSE), the largest business incubator in Denmark, was admitting 100–125 new start-ups each year and attracting external funding of US$33 million from both public and private sources—all with an annual budget of US$435,000, funded exclusively by the Copenhagen Business School. Like most business incubators, CSE worked to provide entrepreneurs with training, mentorship, and investors, and to enhance their visibility in the market. It required all admitted start-ups to participate in a screening/selection tool and a set of incubation activities over three specific stages. The school measured success in terms of the number of incubator participants who had both a business customer and a sustainable business model at the end of a nine-month incubation period. In 2015, CSE's success rate was 53 per cent. At this point, CSE's leaders recognized a need to question how they measured the benefits of the program. How should the 53 per cent success rate be compared to the Copenhagen Business School's investment? What changes could the CSE leadership make to create more value for Danish society?

For 30 years, Mazda Motor Corporation (Mazda) partnered with Ford Motor Company (Ford), helping Ford in small-car engineering and lean manufacturing in exchange for finance and marketing know-how; however, this alliance was terminated due to the global financial crisis in 2008. In 2015, Mazda entered into another long-term partnership to share technologies and cope with cost pressures—this time with Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota). According to its 2016 Structural Reform Plan, Mazda aimed to achieve a global sales volume of 1.65 million units, an operating income ratio of at least 7 per cent, an equity ratio of at least 45 per cent, and a dividend payout ratio of at least 20 per cent by 2019. Given the highly competitive domestic and global automotive markets, to what extent could the partnership with Toyota and the Structural Reform Plan allow Mazda to achieve these goals? Would Mazda need to make any changes to its competitive strategies to keep the company driving forward?

In September 2016, the leadership team at KritiKal Solutions Private Limited, a software product research and development company in Noida, India, was facing several challenges. The company provided product design and development services in computer vision and image processing, embedded systems, and the Internet of things, as well as web, software, and mobile applications. It was highly regarded by its clients and employees for its research orientation and technical competence. However, the leadership team was struggling with options for strategic growth and product mix. How much time and effort should go into services and how much into new product development? What kind of structure and funding would work for the company as it expanded? The chief executive officer needed answers to these questions in order to make the leap to high growth.

Dilli Haat started in 1994 with the objective of providing infrastructure to craftspeople from across India to sell their traditional crafts in an urban marketplace and prevent their exploitation by intermediaries. The marketplace, set up in the heart of Delhi, the capital of India, was a one-stop shop for visitors seeking authentic India handicrafts and handloomed products. Dilli Haat provided a unique shopping experience in a well-laid-out area, where shopping was combined with cultural extravaganzas and food courts offering cuisine from all the states of India. It became a sought-after destination not only for shopping but also as a meeting place, where families and friends could spend time together. After rising to its glory, Dilli Haat witnessed a decrease in visits and was losing its spirit. In January 2016, the manager was faced with the challenge of restoring Dilli Haat to its former glory.

In late 2016, the entrepreneurial founder of Mental and Natural Company, a digital multimedia company in China, wanted to have ready access to China’s best multimedia talent and expertise, but without burdening the company with an excessive number of employees. The entrepreneur and his team were developing a cloud-based multimedia crowdsourcing and collaboration platform, which would allow the company to quickly and easily crowdsource the needed freelance talent from around China. Yet, even before the platform was fully up and running, a new growth opportunity presented three possible options for the company to pursue. The entrepreneur and his team had just three weeks to decide on which option best fit the company’s existing business model, made best use of its resources, and was the best choice to secure the company’s future.

Snap Inc.'s chairman must decide how to address investor concerns about the company's unprecedented plans to issue only non-voting shares in its upcoming IPO. The case is set in early 2017 following the public availability of Snap's IPO filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It describes the company's meteoric rise from its conception by its young founders in 2011 to its multi-billion dollar valuation. When Snap filed for its long-anticipated IPO that could value it at more than $20 billion, it described its plans to go public with three share classes providing public investors shares with no votes on matters customarily put to a shareholder vote and allowing its two co-founders control over such matters. The case details the checkered history of multiple share class structures, highlights arguments for and against them, and explores the potential implications for index funds. Investors managing over $3 trillion sent a letter to Snap Chairman Michael Lynton and Co-Founders Evan Spiegel and Robert Murphy asking them to reconsider the share structure just one day after the company's S-1 was made public. As controversy mounted and with the IPO possibly just a month away, Lynton must decide how to respond to the investors' letter.

Snap Inc.'s chairman must decide how to address investor concerns about the company's unprecedented plans to issue only non-voting shares in its upcoming IPO. The case is set in early 2017 following the public availability of Snap's IPO filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It describes the company's meteoric rise from its conception by its young founders in 2011 to its multi-billion dollar valuation. When Snap filed for its long-anticipated IPO that could value it at more than $20 billion, it described its plans to go public with three share classes providing public investors shares with no votes on matters customarily put to a shareholder vote and allowing its two co-founders control over such matters. The case details the checkered history of multiple share class structures, highlights arguments for and against them, and explores the potential implications for index funds. Investors managing over $3 trillion sent a letter to Snap Chairman Michael Lynton and Co-Founders Evan Spiegel and Robert Murphy asking them to reconsider the share structure just one day after the company's S-1 was made public. As controversy mounted and with the IPO possibly just a month away, Lynton must decide how to respond to the investors' letter.

Singapore, Sept 2016. For the Jebsen and Jessen families, Asia had been an adopted land for over 120 years, not counting the years their ancestors, as Danish seafarers, had plied the treacherous Asian waters. In 1895, two of them had set roots in Hong Kong and established a first trading house, one of the original foreign Hongs in the colony. From those modest beginnings emerged a powerful group with over US$4.5 billion in sales and over 7,700 employees, with four principal entities: Jebsen & Co., based in Hong Kong; Jebsen & Jessen (SEA), based in Singapore; Jebsen & Jessen Hamburg, their global trading house; and GMA Garnet, the world leader in mining, processing, distributing and recycling of industrial garnet. The family enterprise survived many near-death experiences because of wars and revolutions, progressively evolving from a pure trading house, first establishing themselves as partners of choice for leading global companies such as Porsche or Demag, then having greater involvement along the value chain through vertical integration and diversifying their geographic footprint into frontier markets such as Indonesia and Myanmar. For the third generation, the future looked promising, but history had taught the family never to rest on its laurels. The governance structure meant that ownership and control were concentrated in a limited number of hands. Would the current leaders be able to identify, groom and incentivize those from the next generation? How could they keep the family at large involved? From the business side, how far should vertical integration and geographical diversification be pushed? How should they react to the recent slowdown in China? Was there a natural limit to CSR activities?

But focusing on results alone is not enough. Demographic, cultural, and technological changes have led to a workforce that demands a set of operating principles characterized by core values such as transparency, trust, inclusion, and real-time collaboration to help guide behaviors and decision-making in companies. Finally, studies have shown that millennials are deeply motivated by corporate social responsibility and a compelling sense of purpose. Together, these forces make the case that companies that fail to aspire to align purpose, performance, and principles will also fail to attract the best talent. Furthermore, to achieve the kind of transformations that today's fast-moving economy often requires of businesses, executives need engaged, committed employees who have opportunities to contribute their knowledge. Purpose and principles can help engage employees in support of high performance. The authors acknowledge that while it is easy for executives to say they aspire to build companies that are simultaneously purpose-driven, performance-focused, and principles-led, it is a difficult accomplishment to achieve. There are often inherent tensions and conflicting goals associated with trying to achieve all three aims. How can executives align purpose, performance, and principles so that they can lead their organizations through major changes? The authors'research and experience suggest the task requires not only a set of leadership skills that they describe but also five mindsets that encompass the embedded tensions that face leaders of large, complex organizations. Executives must learn to reconcile these tensions by mastering a series of five conflicting yet complementary dualities: urgency and patience; collective and individual accountability; coaching and driving performance; student and teacher; and humility and boldness.

Corporate executives need to move beyond only managing their own companies and become active influencers within broader systems.

Much as relationships in social networks have been analyzed to understand and influence how ideas flow among people, researchers wondered whether it might be possible to use the structure of product recommendation networks online to understand or influence how demand flows among products. The short answer is yes, and the implications for marketers are important.

"Megaprojects"-defined as projects with budgets exceeding $1 billion -are important contributors to numerous sectors, including health care, defense, mining, telecommunications, transport, energy and water infrastructure, sporting events, science, and manufacturing. They represent a significant proportion of many nations'economic activity and profoundly affect productivity, social cohesion, and the environment. Yet megaprojects have proved notoriously difficult to deliver on time and on budget; one estimate suggests that 90% of them end up over budget. Based on more than 10 years of research into a number of megaprojects in London, including the infrastructure for the London 2012 Olympics and the construction of two new terminals at Heathrow Airport, the authors conclude that one way to manage the uncertainties inherent in megaprojects is to innovate throughout the course of the project. What's more, they argue that their suggestions are applicable to all large-scale, long-term projects -not just projects with billon-dollar budgets.

To gain competitive advantage from supply chain analytics, companies need to reduce the time it takes to act on the insights those analytics generate.