個案總覽

The case describes existing performance management systems at a leading business school in India, the National Institute of Management (Central India campus) (NIM (CI campus)). The institution, which ranked among the top 20 business schools in India, is facing critical issues of attracting and retaining faculty members. The director of NIM (CI campus) has implemented a unit based performance measurement and incentive system that has worked favorably and enabled the institute to recruit top academicians. However, the management committee believes that the system has outlived its utility and desires to replace it with more robust systems that are less vulnerable to misuse. The faculty members, however, support retention of the existing system. The key teaching objective of this case is to understand performance management systems from perspectives of different stakeholders and develop a framework that meets all objectives of performance management. The case enables users to understand all steps in performance management and examine shortcomings at each stage. The role of incentive systems both as a tool to enhance individual performance and as a management control mechanism is also discussed. The case provides users an opportunity to evaluate the strategic significance of performance management. The case is to be used along with Performance Management at the National Institute of Management (Central India Campus) (A) [908C20].

Few companies are thinking about hiring right now, but that's a mistake. If history is any guide, staffing will become a front-burner issue once the economic upheaval eases. Even now, companies are running into staffing problems in emerging markets, and many will have to find talented replacements for baby-boom retirees. Will they be able to meet their needs? Not likely, say Fernandez-Araoz of Egon Zehnder and Harvard Business School professors Groysberg and Nohria. Their research, conducted with scores of CEOs, HR executives, and recruiters, found current hiring practices to be haphazard at best and inept at worst. And no wonder. Ignorant of their staffing needs, most companies treat hiring top-level executives as an emergency. That leaves them little choice. One study found that nearly a quarter of the time, the executive selected was the only candidate considered. Far too few companies conduct reference checks; far too many rely on gut reactions when judging qualifications and cultural fit. Hardly anyone considers whether candidates will be good team players. And, shockingly, only half of the top managers recruited by the companies studied were interviewed by anyone in the C-suite. The result: About a third of promising new hires depart within three years of being recruited. As a remedy, the authors offer their best thinking about state-of-the-art hiring practices for the top levels of the organization. Their recommendations cover the entire hiring cycle in seven steps: anticipating the need for new hires, specifying the job, developing a pool of candidates, assessing the candidates, closing the deal, integrating the newcomer, and reviewing hire-process effectiveness. Whatever the future brings, firms that follow these practices successfully will have a distinct advantage over their shortsighted competitors.

This case asks participants to put themselves in the position of a government official in charge of selecting an evaluation design to assess the impact of a social program. The goal is to illustrate the tradeoffs that are made in the real world when trying to balance the desire for a rigorous and credible evaluation design with the logistic, political, financial and ethical constraints that so frequently arise in evaluating social programs. Participants are asked to assess the strengths and weaknesses of three possible evaluation designs using as criteria the scientific rigor, political feasibility, logistical implications, and financial feasibility of each design. The case includes a 5:30-minute video interview with Jason Wilks, a Senior Policy Analyst with the team in charge of monitoring the PATH Program for the Jamaican government. Wilks describes the political context in Jamaica at the time and the internal and external pressures the government was under as it considered the three evaluation designs. The video contains three short segments that can be played throughout the class and a 3-minute "reveal" where Wilks explains the government's ultimate decision. The four segments can also be played sequentially at the end of the case discussion.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. In their 1998 Sloan Management Review article "Preserving Employee Morale During Downsizing," the authors maintained that strong organizations need to develop resilience so they could take advantage of new opportunities that arise during periods of economic retrenchment. They detailed four stages of downsizing programs: deciding to downsize, planning the program, making the announcement and implementing the program. In this sequel, the authors argue that downsizing programs aren't just about "doing more with less."They also provide opportunities to build a sense of trust and empowerment between managers and employees, which can provide significant benefits going forward. In addition to examining the impacts downsizing has on surviving employees and how survivors can influence whether a program is successful, the article explores three new areas that the authors have come to recognize as important to the success of downsizing efforts: (1) how organizations must become more flexible, (2) how they must become more innovative and creative, and (3) how they must improve their communications with stakeholders who are increasingly skeptical of downsizing efforts.

T.J., an undergraduate at a business school, was upset to find a group mate's contribution to his group project containing plagiarized and poorly paraphrased content (also without any citation as to source in some instances). T.J. and four others had to work with K.C., the errant group member, on three group projects that together made up 30 per cent of the final mark for the course. In particular, T.J. was upset by the shoddy corrections provided by K.C. when his error was highlighted. T.J. was also appalled at K.C.'s nonchalant attitude towards plagiarism and the group projects, especially after discovering that K.C. had done the same on their first group project. T.J. felt strongly that the matter should be brought up to the course professor but two of his group mates disagreed, fearing that the group harmony would be adversely affected, thus jeopardizing their last group project, which carried significantly higher weight at 20 per cent. The remaining two group mates did not seem to consider the matter a serious one. T.J. wondered what the right thing to do would be. This case was written for use in the introductory class to a business ethics course. However, it has potential for use in lessons on negotiation, conflict resolution and team dynamics. The case is based on an actual occurrence but names have been changed to provide anonymity. The subject of plagiarism and a poorly contributing group member to group assignments is one that resonates deeply with students pursuing any course that emphasizes group work as a necessary component of the course assessment. The case has practical relevance to the working world inasmuch as the incident can occur in that context. Apart from being a useful opener to any course on ethics, the case also serves as a good reminder to students about plagiarism. It provides opportunities for clarification and discussion on what exactly constitutes plagiarism and the professors'/universities' stand on the matter.

Beijing EAPs Consulting Inc. (BEC) is a rapidly growing consulting company whose number of employees has increased from six to 16 in just one year. BEC has adopted a new project management system, using project managers to coordinate several employees from various departments. Due to the heavy workload, most employees must work on multiple projects. Collaboration between projects and department managers is not very smooth. The chief executive officer must decide how he can improve the collaboration efforts across the company's different departments.

Economic incentives become counterproductive when they undermine what Adam Smith called "the moral sentiments," such as the desire to be esteemed by others and to be viewed as ethical and dignified. Organizational and social policy makers, take note.

Past economic crises curbed executive compensation - but only temporarily. Companies continue to shell out hefty sums, even when performance is poor.

Astrigo is in trouble. The home improvement chain has missed its earnings forecast badly and sales are falling. A 10% reduction in staff looks like the only choice. Layoffs, however, would undermine the retailer's longtime commitment to employees and the ability to provide its famed customer service. But tapping cash reserved for strategic acquisitions goes against the firm's values, too. What should the CEO do? Four experts comment on this fictional case study in R0903A and R0903Z. Board advisers Laurence J. Stybel and Maryanne Peabody, of Stybel Peabody Lincolnshire, suggest that the company borrow a page from McDonald's and declare Astrigo's intention to focus on the interests of long-term shareholders. This move would establish a framework that would help management make tactical decisions with more clarity and flexibility. The company could then use its cash to buy a little time to study the options. If Astrigo can't avoid layoffs, a last-in, first-out approach would be the least costly. Former CEO Jurgen Dormann understands the challenge Astrigo faces. When he took over ABB, the company was in deep distress. After shaking up his executive committee, Dormann personally reached out to all 180,000 employees to enlist their help. They came back with ideas that saved $1.6 billion - and rescued the company. Management professor Robert I. Sutton thinks too many executives assume that layoffs are the best way to reduce costs. They don't factor in how long it takes to realize the savings from job cuts, the costs to hire and train people once business picks up, or the damage to morale and productivity. Astrigo's executives should consider alternatives such as pay cuts, reduced benefits, unpaid time off, and incentives for departure. If layoffs are in-evitable, Astrigo should do them quickly, and firing the bottom 10% of employees would be the worst approach.

Rotate up-and-comers through various functions, business units, and locations, conventional wisdom suggests, and you'll give them a chance to round out their skills and prepare for general management. However, mobility as a leadership development strategy can go wrong in many ways. It can disrupt operations and undermine accountability, demoralize managers who don't get to change roles, and cost a lot to implement. Perhaps worst of all, it can become an end in itself, causing other strategic and operational aims to get lost in the shuffle. Mobility can be an excellent development tool when companies use it wisely - as Marriott International, Corning, and UnitedHealth Group have done. The authors cite these successes and several failures, and offer a framework for solving the mobility equation in a way that's right for your organization. Developing an appropriate mobility strategy entails answering three questions: What kind of mobility? Mobility for whom? And how much mobility? Your answers will depend on your company's circumstances and overarching objectives. For instance, to figure out what kind, you'll need to consider that changing a manager's function within a unit may help that person acquire the knowledge and skills to run that unit one day, whereas switching someone to a different unit may help develop broader leadership capabilities. To decide for whom, you can try "sponsored mobility," which means directing investments toward a chosen few individuals; "contest mobility," which means opening up opportunities to many; or a combination of the two. The approach you choose will depend partly on how robust a system you already have for identifying and retaining high potentials. Finally, to determine how much, you'll need a solid fix on which areas of the enterprise require the developmental benefits of mobility. Targeted analysis will show the likely impact on retention, promotions over time, and operational efficiency.

Astrigo is in trouble. The home improvement chain has missed its earnings forecast badly and sales are falling. A 10% reduction in staff looks like the only choice. Layoffs, however, would undermine the retailer's longtime commitment to employees and the ability to provide its famed customer service. But tapping cash reserved for strategic acquisitions goes against the firm's values, too. What should the CEO do? Four experts comment on this fictional case study in R0903A and R0903Z. Board advisers Laurence J. Stybel and Maryanne Peabody, of Stybel Peabody Lincolnshire, suggest that the company borrow a page from McDonald's and declare Astrigo's intention to focus on the interests of long-term shareholders. This move would establish a framework that would help management make tactical decisions with more clarity and flexibility. The company could then use its cash to buy a little time to study the options. If Astrigo can't avoid layoffs, a last-in, first-out approach would be the least costly. Former CEO Jurgen Dormann understands the challenge Astrigo faces. When he took over ABB, the company was in deep distress. After shaking up his executive committee, Dormann personally reached out to all 180,000 employees to enlist their help. They came back with ideas that saved $1.6 billion - and rescued the company. Management professor Robert I. Sutton thinks too many executives assume that layoffs are the best way to reduce costs. They don't factor in how long it takes to realize the savings from job cuts, the costs to hire and train people once business picks up, or the damage to morale and productivity. Astrigo's executives should consider alternatives such as pay cuts, reduced benefits, unpaid time off, and incentives for departure. If layoffs are in-evitable, Astrigo should do them quickly, and firing the bottom 10% of employees would be the worst approach.

Astrigo is in trouble. The home improvement chain has missed its earnings forecast badly and sales are falling. A 10% reduction in staff looks like the only choice. Layoffs, however, would undermine the retailer's longtime commitment to employees and the ability to provide its famed customer service. But tapping cash reserved for strategic acquisitions goes against the firm's values, too. What should the CEO do? Four experts comment on this fictional case study in R0903A and R0903Z. Board advisers Laurence J. Stybel and Maryanne Peabody, of Stybel Peabody Lincolnshire, suggest that the company borrow a page from McDonald's and declare Astrigo's intention to focus on the interests of long-term shareholders. This move would establish a framework that would help management make tactical decisions with more clarity and flexibility. The company could then use its cash to buy a little time to study the options. If Astrigo can't avoid layoffs, a last-in, first-out approach would be the least costly. Former CEO Jurgen Dormann understands the challenge Astrigo faces. When he took over ABB, the company was in deep distress. After shaking up his executive committee, Dormann personally reached out to all 180,000 employees to enlist their help. They came back with ideas that saved $1.6 billion - and rescued the company. Management professor Robert I. Sutton thinks too many executives assume that layoffs are the best way to reduce costs. They don't factor in how long it takes to realize the savings from job cuts, the costs to hire and train people once business picks up, or the damage to morale and productivity. Astrigo's executives should consider alternatives such as pay cuts, reduced benefits, unpaid time off, and incentives for departure. If layoffs are in-evitable, Astrigo should do them quickly, and firing the bottom 10% of employees would be the worst approach.

Josh Lewis, a young staffer at Rising Entertainment, is frustrated because his boss, marketing chief Sarah Bennett, won't listen to his ideas about using new media to promote films. She's trapped in the 1990s, he thinks, when people actually watched network TV! Rushing through his assignment for a team presentation, he works up a plan and pitches it to the CEO in the hallway. The CEO loves it, but Sarah is upset with Josh for going over her head - and submitting subpar work on the presentation. How can these members of two different generations work together effectively? Three experts comment on this fictional case study in R0902B and R0902Z. Clashes between impatient Generation Y and pay-your-dues Generation X are inevitable but certainly manageable, says Ron Alsop, author of The Trophy Kids Grow Up. For starters, Sarah should reprimand Josh for bypassing her; he should respect her authority and work with her, not around her. But Sarah must address Josh's frustrations. Like many Gen Yers, he wants to know that his work is meaningful, and he needs constructive feedback on suggestions. Enterprise Rent-A-Car president Pamela Nicholson says that given the CEO's enthusiasm, Sarah should commend Josh's initiative but remind him to keep her in the loop. Sarah and Josh also might be able to forge a more productive relationship if Rising Entertainment set up training and feedback programs to help integrate Gen Yers into the workforce, as Enterprise has. Jim Miller, an executive VP at General Tool & Supply, thinks Josh put his team in jeopardy by doing his assigned tasks poorly. Sarah needs to coach him on being a team player and set clear expectations about performance and communication. However, she could have done a much better job of validating his good idea - perhaps by asking him to spearhead some experiments for the group.

Josh Lewis, a young staffer at Rising Entertainment, is frustrated because his boss, marketing chief Sarah Bennett, won't listen to his ideas about using new media to promote films. She's trapped in the 1990s, he thinks, when people actually watched network TV! Rushing through his assignment for a team presentation, he works up a plan and pitches it to the CEO in the hallway. The CEO loves it, but Sarah is upset with Josh for going over her head - and submitting subpar work on the presentation. How can these members of two different generations work together effectively? Three experts comment on this fictional case study in R0902B and R0902Z. Clashes between impatient Generation Y and pay-your-dues Generation X are inevitable but certainly manageable, says Ron Alsop, author of The Trophy Kids Grow Up. For starters, Sarah should reprimand Josh for bypassing her; he should respect her authority and work with her, not around her. But Sarah must address Josh's frustrations. Like many Gen Yers, he wants to know that his work is meaningful, and he needs constructive feedback on suggestions. Enterprise Rent-A-Car president Pamela Nicholson says that given the CEO's enthusiasm, Sarah should commend Josh's initiative but remind him to keep her in the loop. Sarah and Josh also might be able to forge a more productive relationship if Rising Entertainment set up training and feedback programs to help integrate Gen Yers into the workforce, as Enterprise has. Jim Miller, an executive VP at General Tool & Supply, thinks Josh put his team in jeopardy by doing his assigned tasks poorly. Sarah needs to coach him on being a team player and set clear expectations about performance and communication. However, she could have done a much better job of validating his good idea - perhaps by asking him to spearhead some experiments for the group.

Josh Lewis, a young staffer at Rising Entertainment, is frustrated because his boss, marketing chief Sarah Bennett, won't listen to his ideas about using new media to promote films. She's trapped in the 1990s, he thinks, when people actually watched network TV! Rushing through his assignment for a team presentation, he works up a plan and pitches it to the CEO in the hallway. The CEO loves it, but Sarah is upset with Josh for going over her head - and submitting subpar work on the presentation. How can these members of two different generations work together effectively? Three experts comment on this fictional case study in R0902B and R0902Z. Clashes between impatient Generation Y and pay-your-dues Generation X are inevitable but certainly manageable, says Ron Alsop, author of The Trophy Kids Grow Up. For starters, Sarah should reprimand Josh for bypassing her; he should respect her authority and work with her, not around her. But Sarah must address Josh's frustrations. Like many Gen Yers, he wants to know that his work is meaningful, and he needs constructive feedback on suggestions. Enterprise Rent-A-Car president Pamela Nicholson says that given the CEO's enthusiasm, Sarah should commend Josh's initiative but remind him to keep her in the loop. Sarah and Josh also might be able to forge a more productive relationship if Rising Entertainment set up training and feedback programs to help integrate Gen Yers into the workforce, as Enterprise has. Jim Miller, an executive VP at General Tool & Supply, thinks Josh put his team in jeopardy by doing his assigned tasks poorly. Sarah needs to coach him on being a team player and set clear expectations about performance and communication. However, she could have done a much better job of validating his good idea - perhaps by asking him to spearhead some experiments for the group.

A French executive with Michelin is expatriated from Clermont-Ferrand to South Carolina. Initially confident in his leadership skills, the protagonist learns quickly that many aspects of leading a team are quite different in the American environment. Although he ultimately succeeds, Chalon initially struggles to understand the different culture in which he is working and adapt his style accordingly.

A French executive with Michelin is expatriated from Clermont-Ferrand to South Carolina. Initially confident in his leadership skills, the protagonist learns quickly that many aspects of leading a team are quite different in the American environment. Although he ultimately succeeds, Chalon initially struggles to understand the different culture in which he is working and adapt his style accordingly.

A French executive with Michelin is expatriated from Clermont-Ferrand to South Carolina. Initially confident in his leadership skills, the protagonist learns quickly that many aspects of leading a team are quite different in the American environment. Although he ultimately succeeds, Chalon initially struggles to understand the different culture in which he is working and adapt his style accordingly.

This case chronicles a change process to counteract the epidemic of HIV/AIDS on a coal mine in South Africa that impacts the sustainability of the organization. The case describes the business case for dealing with the problem and the sequence of events that were instituted. It illustrates the type of leadership activities needed to deal with a compelling environmental force impacting business. It shows how a wide range of stakeholders needs to be involved and systems and practices instituted for sustainable change to be implemented. It raises the question of the role of business in society. The case also provides insights into doing business in emerging economies. The challenge at the end of the case is how to roll out (replicate) the intervention into other divisions of a large multinational.