個案總覽

On March 11, 2020, The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic. The pandemic brought production, trade, and businesses to a grinding halt, as governments closed borders and implemented lockdowns and restrictions; it also caused scrutiny of global supply chain strategies. While some US companies had already begun shifting outsourcing away from China during the US-China trade war amid the recent trend of deglobalization, the pandemic deepened concerns about overreliance on importing strategic goods, including pharmaceutical products and personal protective equipment (PPE), from China. This case starts with the pandemic development, explores public health and economic responses to the pandemic in China and the United States, and examines changes in policy and public opinion toward outsourcing in China. It provides a basis for understanding China's social and economic institutions through the lens of pandemic controls and the changing landscape of China's supply chains. The case has been successfully taught in a second-year MBA elective on growth and business in emerging markets in a module examining country-level endowments, trade, and risks, as well as in a course on China in the global economy. It can also be used for EMBA or executive education classes on China in the context of global business, trade, and supply chains. Issues discussed include questions about Chinese institutions and social norms, the effects of the pandemic, fiscal and monetary policies on employment, inflation and GDP growth. The materials provide a framework for making decisions on global outsourcing and the changing relationship between China and the United States.

The case traces the entrepreneurial journey of Indian media baron Subhash Chandra. It starts with his entry into a struggling family business in 1967 and observes his evolution from a young, aspiring entrepreneur to the chairman of Essel Group, one of India's largest business entities with interests in diversified sectors such as media, entertainment, education and infrastructure. Chandra entered his family's agricultural commodities business in 1967 when it was in dire straits. In the 1970s and 80s, he forayed into entirely new sectors such as packaging and amusement parks. In 1991, he set up Zee Telefilms (later Zee Entertainment) and launched Zee TV, India's first non-public service television channel. By creating and broadcasting content in local Indian languages, Zee reached a wide audience of viewers across the country. Due to a first-mover advantage, Zee instantly became a huge success. Over the next three decades, Chandra pursued new business opportunities in the media industry, with considerable success. In 2018, Zee was a thriving enterprise, with a global viewership of 1.3 billion and business segments spanning broadcasting, music, film production, and digital over-the-top (OTT) media. In 2007, to create a long-lasting legacy and diversify his personal wealth, Chandra entered the Indian infrastructure industry and bid for multiple projects in a short span of five years, winning several of them. However, unable to convert the infrastructure projects into profitable ventures due to unprofitable bids and execution mistakes, he started to accumulate significant debt. His personal financial situation deteriorated to such an extent that he resorted to offering the shares of the listed companies he owned (including Zee) as collateral to banks to take additional debt to save his infrastructure business. The case ends with Chandra, and indeed his whole business empire, in a precarious situation due to indebtedness and facing some tough decisions.

Case B of the two-part series "Zee Entertainment and Essel Group: A Quest for Legacy and Beyond" describes the evolution and eventual resolution of the personal crisis that looms in front of Subhash Chandra, Chairman of Zee Entertainment Limited, in Case A. Chandra was very well-known in India as a successful entrepreneur who brought entertainment to the masses in the 1990s through his television channel Zee. Although Zee had performed very well over three decades, Chandra found himself under significant debt stress due to failures associated with his infrastructure business, which he had founded in 2007. By January 2019, Chandra had offered most of the shares of the listed firms he owned as collateral to banks to borrow additional debt to sustain his infrastructure business. Several developments had occurred by this time that deepened Chandra's predicament, including the tightening of credit by financial institutions, a statutory body investigation into a firm that he owned, and an investigative report outlining his personal indebtedness. These factors contributed to a dip in the stock price of many listed Essel Group companies, and banks threatened to sell the shares of companies of Chandra's thriving media business to recover the debt. Chandra had to sell assets of his infrastructure business and most of his stake in Zee to pay off his debt. Corporate governance lapses at Zee also emerged at the time of the stake sale by Chandra, particularly around related party transactions with other companies that he and his brothers owned. Although his son Punit Goenka continued as the CEO of Zee, Chandra had to resign his chairmanship of the company and was left with a measly 5% stake in Zee, with the dominant shareholders now being institutional investors.

Will Cohen, the case protagonist, has recently been promoted to Bank of America's market sales executive for the mid-Atlantic region. In this position, he finds himself struggling with some of the conversations, personal interactions, and general dynamics he has had with his direct reports. Cohen had had a wildly successful decade-plus experience in wealth and investment advising for several large companies, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co.. He had then been recruited to lead the Bank of America private bank team in Charlottesville, Virginia, where, again, he and his team had been enormously successful and effective, leading to his position with the mid-Atlantic region. However, in this position, Cohen had been somewhat disheartened by the workplace ethic, which included lethargy and complacency. He often wondered about his leadership skills, which was a totally new concern for him. After a recent difficult conversation with a team member, Cohen worried about how he was handling the challenges of his new position. His goal was to drive performance while at the same time encouraging the growth of his team members and creating a culture of teamwork, collective ownership, trust, and creativity. He just was not sure he was executing these goals successfully.

This case, which follows up on "The Evolution of a Practitioner to Leadership (A)"

How should historic social injustices be addressed? Survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Massacre and their descendants, including Representative Regina Goodwin of Tulsa, believe they should be addressed through reparations and have consequently continued to push the government of Tulsa to pay reparations for the massacre. In 2020, after no direct reparations and largely symbolic governmental efforts, proponents of reparations wondered if that call would finally be answered. The upcoming centennial of the massacre, the resurgent Black Lives Matter movement, and discussions within the U.S. about reparations broadly have made the issue more salient. The case guides students to consider the specific issue of reparations for the Tulsa Massacre, the idea of reparations generally, and the use of reparations to respond to the effects of slavery and racist governmental policies in the U.S. The student also considers the role of business in responding to racial justice issues. We are offering this important product free for all readers

External corporate communications and the rapidly changing ways in which companies engage with their customers received a lot of attention between 2010 and 2020. With social media, online chats, blogs, vlogs, and much more, consumers gained unprecedented access to corporate decision-makers, celebrity spokespeople, endorsement-driven athletes-even the US president. Internal communications, through which companies engage with their employees and inside stakeholders, changed just as quickly for organizations undergoing digital transformations during the same period-without receiving due attention. By mid-2020, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) had made effective internal corporate communications even more essential. The virus shuttered the physical locations of many businesses, requiring huge swaths of corporate staff to work from home. As a result, employees became increasingly reliant on web-based tools-such as virtual meeting applications, email, Facebook, and Twitter-to collaborate, complete projects, stay in the loop on company developments, and simply keep in touch. This note explores the digital media and internal communications tools being used by firms worldwide, presents the importance of these tools, and gives examples from leading companies that are using information and communications technology.

The protagonist in this case, founder of a successful, privately held tabletop board gaming company, has to make some tough decisions about whether to move forward with two of the company's board games. Recent years had seen a renaissance for board games and their audience, and the board game market, driven primarily by millennials, was estimated to be worth roughly $12 billion dollars by 2023. The decision is whether to print a second run of Taming the East or to publish a new game, Sixth Panzer Army. Both games had controversial elements. Taming the East, despite its wild success, had been the focus of some criticism because it involved maintaining a player's empire through often unsettling means: ruling through intermediary and puppet governments, adopting imperialist and colonialist tactics, and putting down rebellions, particularly in Asian countries, through suppressive, often strong-arm tactics. Although a bit more of a traditional game, Sixth Panzer Army nonetheless involved World War II combat and battles and prominently featured German soldiers, including some SS troops, many of whom had, in reality, been convicted of war crimes. It also referenced some horrific events, such as German soldiers massacring American POWs, and included war crimes as a playable event. While the gaming industry was no stranger to controversy, with a number of well-intentioned and even popular games attracting criticism for violent, sometimes atrocity-laden themes, this was still a tough decision. The protagonist, already conflicted about the nature of both games, will have to explain the decision to commission a second print of Taming the East, and likewise no doubt face criticism about going ahead with Sixth Panzer Army. The public and the gaming press would weigh in about the final decision, and not necessarily in a kind or understanding way.

In 2020, Jennifer and Corey Feist started the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes' Fund in memory of Jennifer's sister. As the head of the emergency department at a Manhattan hospital, Lorna Breen had treated patients at hospitals overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, contracted the disease herself, and then tragically taken her own life. The Feists hoped the fund would bring new attention to the desperate need for improved support for health care workers' mental well-being. Now in late summer, it is garnering significant, and increasing, support. The Feists plan to turn the fund into a foundation, but they face decisions about how to accept donations, follow up with donors, and avoid duplicating the efforts of other organizations. Their challenge is to crystallize a long-term mission while maintaining the current fundraising momentum stemming from the media attention surrounding Breen's death. Through this case, students will grapple with difficult issues, including mental health challenges, burnout among health care providers, and suicide. Students also will learn about the challenges of starting a nonprofit and its lifecycle. Finally, they will be able to put practice into action and flesh out the mission for a nonprofit.

Alisha Bhandari, vice president of operations at a successful and well-respected global supplier of paints, coatings, specialty materials, and optical products, had watched during her 10 years at the company a subtle disintegration of workplace culture. Her own observations, coupled with a recent employee survey, had revealed an overall mindset of complacency, lack of motivation, inflexibility, and a general malaise and unwillingness to be flexible to new ideas in the company. Some managers admitted to being fearful of suggesting changes and a distaste for deviating from the normal routine or even considering embracing anything innovative. Bhandari had also noticed greater stress and tension in various departments, and believed that this was already affecting company performance. She worried that the more motivated employees might be lured away by competitors and general malaise would grow larger and more problematic. For the sake of workplace efficiency, employee mental health, and the future success of the company, Bhandari knew that things needed to change, but she was uncertain what steps to take and strategies to put into place.

In early 2014, recent Stanford University graduate Tyler Shultz was in a quandary. He had been working at Theranos, a blood-diagnostic company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford-dropout wunderkind, for almost a year. Shultz had learned enough about the company to realize that its practices and the efficacy of its much-touted finger-prick blood-testing technology were questionable and that the company was going to great lengths to hide this fact from the public and from regulators. Theranos and Holmes were Silicon Valley darlings, enjoying positive press and lavish attention from potential investors and technology titans alike. Just as companies like PayPal had revolutionized the stagnant payments industry and Uber had upended the for-hire transportation sector, Theranos had been positioned as the latest technology firm to substantially disrupt yet another mature sector: the medical laboratory business. By the start of 2014, the company had raised more than $400 million in funding, and had an estimated market valuation of $9 billion. Shultz's situation was exacerbated by the fact that his grandfather, the highly respected former US Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board and was one of Elizabeth Holmes's biggest supporters. But Tyler Shultz worried about the customers he was convinced were receiving highly unreliable and often inaccurate blood-test results. With so much at stake, Shultz wondered how he should proceed. Should he raise his concerns with the firm's investors? Blow the whistle externally? Report to industry regulators? Go away quietly? This case and its subsequent four brief follow-up cases are based largely on interviews with Tyler Shultz, and outline the dilemma he faced and the various steps he would take both to extricate himself from his unsavory position and let the public know the full extent of the deception at Theranos. Five optional handouts are available to instructors to further discussion after the case has

Case Supplement for Case UV8435

Case Supplement for Case UV8435

Case Supplement for Case UV8435

Case Supplement for Case UV8435

Handout for Case UV8435

This case describes the history of Uber, its business model-including the ways it differed from that of the traditional taxi industry-and its competition with Lyft. The case is set in 2017, a year in which Uber was plagued by even more scandals than usual, though its behavior had frequently sparked controversy ever since its launch in 2010. By June 2017, Uber had a valuation of $70 billion, making it the most valuable venture-funded tech startup in the world, but a shadow hung over its reputation, due in part to recent revelations about its toxic and sexist corporate culture, and to its tendency to ignore local regulations when expanding into new markets. In June 2017, Uber's co-founder and CEO Travis Kalanick resigned, and in August 2017, Dara Khosrowshahi, formerly the CEO of Expedia, was hired in his place. Meanwhile, Lyft, which presented itself as the "nice guy" alternative to Uber's bad-boy image, seemed to be gaining ground. The case asks what Khosrowshahi might do to fix Uber's broken culture and improve its public image, and how he could best ensure Uber's dominance in the years to come.

Money laundering schemes disguise the criminal origins of an estimated 2% to 5% of the world's gross domestic product. Money laundering not only enables criminals to escape detection, but may also be used to finance further criminal operations including terrorism. This case introduces readers to money laundering and anti-money laundering (AML) techniques.

Rather than try to follow a set of simple rules ("Don't lie." "Don't cheat."), leaders and managers seeking to be more ethical should focus on creating the most value for society. This utilitarian view, Bazerman argues, blends philosophical thought with business school pragmatism and can inform a wide variety of managerial decisions in areas including hiring, negotiations, and even time management. Creating value requires that managers confront and overcome the cognitive barriers that prevent them from being as ethical as they would like to be. Just as we rely on System 1 (intuitive) and System 2 (deliberative) thinking, he says, we have parallel systems for ethical decision-making. He proposes strategies for engaging the deliberative one in order to make more-ethical choices. Managers who care about the value they create can influence others throughout the organization by means of the norms and decision-making environment they create.

Annapurna Studios was founded by legendary Indian actor Akkineni Nageswara Rao (ANR) in Hyderabad in 1975. Over the years, Annapurna had grown to become a modern-day powerhouse in the field of entertainment and filmmaking. In 2019, it was well known for its state-of-the-art production facilities, creative content production, and film and media institute. ANR's older son, Venkat joined the studio a few years after its inception but struggled to keep it afloat. Nagarjuna, ANR's younger son, began helping out at the studio after finishing college, but the studio's fortunes only changed in the mid-80s when Nagarjuna decided to become an actor In 1999, Venkat handed over management control of the studio to Nagarjuna. Their niece Supriya joined the business as a management executive. The studio had two divisions: operations and content creation. The operations division, which included post-production, editing and dubbing facilities, ran smoothly under the COO with minimal intervention from the family. In the content creation side of the business, the family's presence was greater. Nagarjuna and Supriya made all the critical decisions related to content, guided by their business sense and passion. With the second generation of the family still at the helm of Annapurna Studios, the next generation's involvement was relatively low. Chaitanya (Nagarjuna's son) had started showing some interest, but the other members of the third generation were either not yet involved in the studio or were busy with their own acting careers. Nagarjuna was worried that the next generation might not have the same level of passion for the studio as the previous generations. He wanted to ensure that the studio's legacy sustained into the future. What strategy should the studio to adopt to ensure its long-term survival in the risky and ever-changing film and entertainment business?