個案總覽

Fear of failure weighs heavily on many leaders tasked with managing new workplace expectations. Tackling uncertainties begins by seeing these challenges not simply as binary judgments (office or home; full time or part time) but as the impetus to give work a structural overhaul. Leaders are redesigning work by moving through four steps: understanding people, networks, and jobs; reimagining how work gets done; modeling and testing redesign ideas against core principles; and taking action widely.

This case set is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. Dax Enzo is the director of the ethical machine learning and responsible artificial intelligence (AI) team at a large US-based social media company, SOCIALCORP. In their young tenure, Enzo must decide whether to release research that their team conducted on the algorithmic amplification of political content on SOCIALCORP. The research shows that SOCIALCORP's content recommendation algorithm amplifies political content of right-leaning individuals and news outlets more than it amplifies content from the political left, but it does not (yet) explain why. Additionally, the research is difficult for laypeople to understand because it is very technical, complex, and multilayered. The research is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, but the journal takes a long time to conduct the review, in part because it can work only with an aggregated data set: the complete data set cannot be made accessible due to user privacy concerns. Enzo decides it is their responsibility to publish the research as soon as possible, even without peer review and with the risk that the research could be perceived as unsubstantiated or superficial. In this A case, Enzo's challenge is to devise a strategic action plan that facilitates SOCIALCORP's support of releasing the research without peer review. This case set is intended for use at the graduate level in business and science, technology, engineering, and math, (STEM) classrooms, for example in courses on ethics and technology, responsible data and computer science (including machine learning and AI), or technology management. It could also be taught to advanced undergraduates who have developed a foundation in GVV or ethics and technology.

This case set is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. Dax Enzo is the director of the ethical machine learning and responsible artificial intelligence (AI) team at a large US-based social media company, SOCIALCORP. In their young tenure, Enzo must decide whether to release research that their team conducted on the algorithmic amplification of political content on SOCIALCORP. The research shows that SOCIALCORP's content recommendation algorithm amplifies political content of right-leaning individuals and news outlets more than it amplifies content from the political left, but it does not (yet) explain why. Additionally, the research is difficult for laypeople to understand because it is very technical, complex, and multilayered. The research is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, but the journal takes a long time to conduct the review, in part because it can work only with an aggregated data set: the complete data set cannot be made accessible due to user privacy concerns. Enzo decides it is their responsibility to publish the research as soon as possible, even without peer review and with the risk that the research could be perceived as unsubstantiated or superficial. In the A case, Enzo's challenge is to devise a strategic action plan that facilitates SOCIALCORP's support of releasing the research without peer review. In this B case, students learn about Enzo's actual action plan, discuss its implications, and reflect on how these strategic steps can inform their own professional practice vis-à-vis the enactment of their values. This case set is intended for use at the graduate level in business and science, technology, engineering, and math, (STEM) classrooms, for example in courses on ethics and technology, responsible data and computer science (including machine learning and AI), or technology management. It could also be taught

This B case, set in summer 2022, was designed as a companion to "Netflix: A Creative Approach to Culture and Agility," a case set in 2018. The purpose of this brief document is to unlock a discussion around how the Netflix culture can be used to weather new challenges facing the company: rising competition, economic contraction, and declining subscribers.

Lucia Fargolo is a dynamic high potential who joined FoodCo - a global fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) company at the beginning of their digital transformation journey. After a promotion to department head, Lucia is preparing the global Social Media Marketing strategy. The implementation should start be piloted with a few brands. While Lucia is planning for the launch of the pilot with the brand category managers, there is however a hiccup: one seasoned brand manager seems to be totally off-board with Lucia's plan. He doesn't even show up for the strategy workshop she organized. What should Lucia do now? The company, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this case are fictitious. No identification with actual persons, places, companies, and products is intended or should be inferred.

On June 6, 1944, nearly 5,000 ships, 11,000 planes, and 160,000 infantrymen under an Allied joint-command of American, British, and Canadian leaders were sent across the English Channel, with hopes of re-establishing a foothold in Nazi-occupied France. Known as D-Day, June 6 marked a definitive turning point in World War II and was viewed by many as the most significant military campaign in history. It was also one of the riskiest. Code named Operation Overlord, the invasion required years of diligent planning and countless hours of labor from Allied soldiers and citizens. Before they could attempt a successful invasion of continental Europe, British and American leadership recognized large scale preparatory efforts must take place: the establishment of a leadership team and organizational structure, the arrival of Allied troops in England and subsequent training sessions, the containment of German air superiority over Europe as well as its supply lines, and finally, the development and use of innovative information sources in planning the attack.

This case set is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. Tom Patton is the head of internal communication at a cybersecurity company, RothBabbitt Cyber (RothBabbitt), which was the victim of a significant cyberattack. After informing Patton about the situation, his supervisor, Chief Communication Officer Lucille Givens, tells him to develop a plan to communicate the bad news to employees. Because the cyberattack is being announced to the public in two days, Patton will have only 24 hours to complete his plan. Fearing additional legal exposure, Givens and the company's general counsel instruct Patton not to share this news with anyone not already informed and to minimize the details that leadership will communicate to employees. Patton disagrees with this approach because he believes it is dishonest and unwise. He also thinks the company should be more transparent with the public. In his view, the right path is to provide full disclosure to employees who will already feel blindsided by the news. This case set is intended for use at the MBA level in courses on Strategic Communication, Organizational Behavior, Leadership, Tech Ethics, and Ethics. While it was written for an MBA curriculum, it can also be used by graduate and advanced undergraduate students in Communication, Journalism, or Computer Science who have experience employing the ideas in Mary Gentile's Giving Voice to Values (GVV) book and curriculum.

This case set is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. Tom Patton is the head of internal communication at a cybersecurity company, RothBabbitt Cyber (RothBabbitt), which was the victim of a significant cyberattack. After informing Patton about the situation, his supervisor, Chief Communication Officer Lucille Givens, tells him to develop a plan to communicate the bad news to employees. Because the cyberattack is being announced to the public in two days, Patton will have only 24 hours to complete his plan. Fearing additional legal exposure, Givens and the company's general counsel instruct Patton not to share this news with anyone not already informed and to minimize the details that leadership will communicate to employees. Patton disagrees with this approach because he believes it is dishonest and unwise. He also thinks the company should be more transparent with the public. In his view, the right path is to provide full disclosure to employees who will already feel blindsided by the news. This case set is intended for use at the MBA level in courses on Strategic Communication, Organizational Behavior, Leadership, Tech Ethics, and Ethics. While it was written for an MBA curriculum, it can also be used by graduate and advanced undergraduate students in Communication, Journalism, or Computer Science who have experience employing the ideas in Mary Gentile's Giving Voice to Values (GVV) book and curriculum.

Jeff Henry, owner of and creative visionary behind Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resorts, created one of the most sought-after water park companies in the United States. He was confident in his ability to create the best attractions and dominate the industry with his unique inventions. Then, at his facility in Kansas City, Kansas, a fatal accident took place after the construction and design of the Verrückt, a waterslide Henry hoped would set new world records. How should Henry have responded to the tragedy?

Aravind Eye Care System (AECS) exploited economies of scale to offer affordable eye care for masses, with a mission to eliminate needless blindness. Over the years, AECS had built a strong organisational culture based on compassion and service. The organisation had made its first foray into large metro cities by establishing a presence in Chennai in 2017 and was gradually scaling up when the Covid-19 pandemic erupted globally in March 2020. The precipitous decline in patient volume triggered questions on the survival of the business model, which was dependent on high volumes. The case details various challenges faced by AECS and the responses of the leadership team during the March-July 2020 period. The pandemic jeopardised the delivery of eye care to patients in need; challenged organisational sustainability owing to dwindling volumes; and affected the morale of employees, who were afraid of contracting Covid-19. As eye camps were not being organised due to lockdown restrictions, vulnerable patients-economically disadvantaged people and older adults-were at risk of blindness; this risk was exacerbated by the postponement of surgery and fears of contracting Covid-19. Fear turned into panic among doctors, nurses and staff when two nurses at Aravind Eye Hospital Chennai tested positive for Covid-19. To tide over the crisis, Dr S. Aravind, Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Aravind-Chennai, had to return to the roots of the organisation and reinforce its culture. The Covid-19 pandemic had exposed hidden fault lines in society and shortcomings of the efficiency-oriented business model of AECS. Dr Aravind had to determine ways to reduce the fragility and build resilience in the organisation.

This case set is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. In this A case, Tasha, leader of a data analytics team at Gotham Children's Hospital, is confronted with an ethical dilemma when her supervisor, Beatriz, suggests a facial recognition system at the hospital. The proposed project would draw on images in the hospital's database, as well publicly available images and information about arrest records, to identify visitors and trigger alarms when flagged individuals enter certain areas of the hospital. While her team is interested in the project, Tasha is concerned about privacy, bias in automated systems, public relations, and opportunity costs. This case set is intended to be used with students from a wide range of backgrounds, including especially team leads (who may have an MBA or other graduate-level degree) and data scientists. It would be particularly useful in courses on data ethics, technological innovation, technology management, and data law or policy.

This case set is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. In the A case, Tasha, leader of a data analytics team at Gotham Children's Hospital, is confronted with an ethical dilemma when her supervisor, Beatriz, suggests a facial recognition system at the hospital. The proposed project would draw on images in the hospital's database, as well publicly available images and information about arrest records, to identify visitors and trigger alarms when flagged individuals enter certain areas of the hospital. While her team is interested in the project, Tasha is concerned about privacy, bias in automated systems, public relations, and opportunity costs. In this B case, Tasha brings her concerns to Beatriz and outlines the ways in which the project would conflict with the core mission of the organization. This case set is intended to be used with students from a wide range of backgrounds, including especially team leads (who may have an MBA or other graduate-level degree) and data scientists. It would be particularly useful in courses on data ethics, technological innovation, technology management, and data law or policy.

This exercise helps students practice bringing vulnerability, compassion, and curiosity to a discussion. Over two rounds, groups of students are asked to both answer questions about themselves and listen as others answer, sharing in an environment of confidentiality and care.

Corporate boards are more diverse than ever before. So why aren't firms seeing the expected results? Plus, one way to encourage consumers to upgrade, the headphone advantage, and more.

Many DEI initiatives are scuttled because DEI leaders and legal teams feel themselves to be at odds over questions of acceptable risk. DEI leaders see lawyers as guardians of the status quo, whereas legal experts, trained to anticipate the worst, believe they are protecting the company from legal risk. However, as the authors point out, businesses routinely choose to accept significant legal risk. In most situations they're confronted with a risk-reward calculus that's easy to quantify. But with DEI that's harder, because the only thing on the balance sheet is the cost. Absent a foundation of trust and support, lawyers are skittish about signing off on initiatives, and the business is more likely to waste resources on performative exercises. And bad DEI poses a greater risk than does good DEI. When it comes to establishing a productive partnership between DEI leaders and legal counsel, the key is to collaborate early and often. In this article, the authors provide a framework to help you balance the nuances of legal risk with the need to implement effective initiatives.

As co-founders of home nursing company Buurtzorg, Jos de Blok and Gonnie Kronenberg prized both self-management and organizational learning. Buurtzorg's 10,000 nurses across 950 neighborhood nursing teams in the Netherlands were empowered to manage themselves, both in terms of client care and team management. In its 16 years of existence, that had made Buurtzorg highly successful and had made its model attractive both for other Dutch companies and internationally. Yet because neighborhood teams managed themselves, so much of what they learned remained in the team. While nurses would sometimes try to spread such solutions to peer nursing teams, such as through calls/texts or the compan's internal social network BuurtzorgWeb, there was no holistic, top-down process for reviewing and disseminating best practices across all nursing teams-in part because Buurtzorg had been designed to avoid such hierarchical, top-down management in favor of a more flat, nimble, and minimally bureaucratic organization. They attributed much of the company's success (in terms of high client satisfaction and low employee turnover) to that model. But as the Dutch population aged and the country faced an increasingly dire nursing shortage, nurses would need to work more efficiently than ever, and elevating local, variegated learning to company-wide best practices would be one way to do so. How could Buurtzorg break the tradeoff between prizing self-management and effective sharing of best practices for organizational learning?

Rabobank had become one of the agile frontrunners in Europe's banking industry. As the company entered the next phase of its transformation, known as Simplify@Scale, it needed to take stock, not only of its success in implementing agile processes but also of the quality of the leadership that had emerged across the organization. With agile structures largely in place across the bank's global operations, the company began to focus on developing a new organizational culture and an agile brand of leadership. Beyond delivering speed and flexibility in a disrupted and increasingly digital landscape, agile at Rabobank had been a vehicle for strengthening the values of accountability, transparency and craftsmanship in its workforce. Importantly, the agile organizational redesign had flattened the hierarchy and shifted decision making towards the frontline. This resulted in a management landscape in which - rather than dictating - leaders were expected to empower and enable teams to make their own decisions and come up with their own solutions. For most, this required a continuous process of developing awareness of and proficiency in several new modes and styles of leadership. At the same time, leaders had to dispel the notion that agile was about working in a free-flowing, wholly spontaneous fashion. Their task was to enforce a disciplined set of team rituals and coordination mechanisms - the Rabobank "heartbeat." Meanwhile, continuous scaling of agile structures and processes within the bank produced some unforeseen challenges, particularly in the areas of setting priorities and allocating resources. These underscored the competing dynamics of leadership agility: Leaders as subjects as well as objects of power and influence, who both initiate and absorb change while concurrently thinking and doing.

Under the leadership of Larry Miller, chairman and former president of Nike's Air Jordan brand, annual revenues for the Jordan brand soared from $150 million to over $4 billion. But for over 40 years, Miller guarded a secret. When he was younger, he spent nearly a decade in and out of prison for homicide and armed robberies. While incarcerated, he focused on his education, and graduated with honors from college. After a potential employer rescinded their offer when he disclosed his crimes, Miller decided to remain silent about his past for the next four decades. Miller hopes that sharing his story will affect positive change, serving as a source of inspiration for troubled youth and encouraging leaders to promote fair chance hiring of formerly incarcerated people.

This case is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. Gia is an early-career data analyst at an industry-leading social media company. When she is asked to prepare a research report presenting analysis of user data, Gia is confronted with a challenge. After conducting thoughtful research and reviewing previous reports, she is troubled by data suggesting that her company's flagship product is negatively impacting young users. Her supervisor advises her that acting on these concerns is futile and may lead to consequences for her prospects at the company. Despite this warning, Gia wants to raise these concerns to her superiors, but she is unsure how to do so effectively. This fictionalized case addresses ethical issues around social media, data, and young users, as well as strategies for early-career employees to voice concerns to superiors.

This case is part of the Giving Voice to Values (GVV) curriculum. To see other material in the GVV curriculum, please visit http://store.darden.virginia.edu/giving-voice-to-values. Gia is an early-career data analyst at an industry-leading social media company. When she is asked to prepare a research report presenting analysis of user data, Gia is confronted with a challenge. After conducting thoughtful research and reviewing previous reports, she is troubled by data suggesting that her company's flagship product is negatively impacting young users. Her supervisor advises her that acting on these concerns is futile and may lead to consequences for her prospects at the company. Despite this warning, Gia wants to raise these concerns to her superiors, but she is unsure how to do so effectively. This fictionalized case addresses ethical issues around social media, data, and young users, as well as strategies for early-career employees to voice concerns to superiors.