個案總覽

Supplement for case W12227, W12228 and W12229

Sir Alex Ferguson, the most successful manager in British football history, is preparing for the 2012-2013 season-his record-setting twenty-sixth as manager of one of the world's most decorated professional football clubs and one of sport's biggest franchises. Over the years Ferguson has overcome several major challengers to United. The newest rival can be found closer to home: since Manchester City, United's "noisy neighbors," has switched owners, the club has invested unprecedented amounts of money in new players, resulting in its first league title in decades. How could Ferguson lead his team to another victory, and bring the next chapter in United's illustrious history to a successful end?

Addleshaw-Goddard (AG), the 15th largest law firm in the UK, is seeking ways to serve larger clients on more important legal matters. Part of this strategy involves its "Client Development Centre (CDC)," an innovative idea and set of services launched by Dr. Jim Hever who holds a Ph.D. in Strategic Leadership Development. The mission of the CDC is to improve the capabilities of clients' in-house legal departments by making them better partners with the business units and improving their leadership skills. The CDC has adopted an innovative pricing structure. Rather than charging direct fees for these consulting services, it proposed to the client that it contract with the firm for five times this amount in legal fees that might otherwise have gone to another law firm. It is in this way, AG hopes to increase its position with its larger clients. AG has also developed a very systematic program for identifying and serving its key clients, developed in collaboration with Cranfield School of Management. It is these clients that will be the focus of the efforts for the CDC. In addition, the firm has co-developed a training program with Cranfield to improve the skills of its own partners. The case explores whether these initiatives will lead to a long-term competitive advantage. The firm believes what really will produce competitive advantage is its "Me-To-You Mindset" initiative that encourages partners to look at the world through their clients' eyes. At the end of the case Hever is reflecting on a proposal he submitted for providing CDC services to one of the largest UK companies. The general counsel wants to pay for these services in cash should he decide to accept the proposal, rather than hiring AG for more legal work. Hever is wondering if this is a good way to take advantage of recent reforms allowing law firms to provide other professional services, like consulting, or if this is "off-strategy" for the mission of the CDC.

In 2001, the head of the Paris Subway reflected on how to transform Line 1 into a driverless line without triggering a social conflict. After the shock of the 2000 Notre Dame de Lorette subway accident, in which a train derailed and caused 25 injuries in a Paris subway station, the state-owned Paris subway operator Regie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP) decided to adopt new security measures and considered the opportunity to automate the oldest and the busiest line of the network. The Head of the Paris Subway, Serge Lagrange, believed that automating Line 1 would improve security as well as performance. However, the automation would bring about the downsizing of 219 drivers' positions. Lagrange had to figure out how to get the RATP employees on board, particularly drivers and trade unions. How could he convince them of the necessity to automate Line 1? How could he prevent the potentially major social conflict that might result from downsizing the drivers' positions?

Supplement for case 413061

On February 2011, a large earthquake hit Christchurch, New Zealand, causing loss of life. The Crusaders, a major sports franchise headquartered in Christchurch, must plan for the season, given that its facility has been extensively damaged and the season has already commenced. The franchisee board, managers, coaches and players have to deal with this catastrophe and build morale in the community by deciding what to do. The case examines the processes of decision-making and the participative nature of decisions involving players as well as management. The case examines the key role that leadership and character play in contingency and scenario planning.

Supplement for case W12203

On January 15, 2009, shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport, US Airways Flight 1549 struck a flock of Canada geese. The geese were then sucked into the plane's twin engines, causing total engine failure and the loss of power. Case A of this three-part series recounts how over the following four minutes, Flight 1549's Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles grappled with a variety of extreme challenges. Not only did they have to keep the plane under control, but they also had to quickly decide whether they could make an emergency landing at a nearby airport - or find another alternative to get the plane down safely in one of the most crowded regions in the country. Cases B and C then describe how, after the plane landed in the cold waters of the Hudson River, emergency responders from many agencies and private organizations - converging on the scene without a prior action plan for this type of emergency - scrambled to both rescue passengers and crew and stabilize the aircraft as it began to move downstream. Case Number 1966

Supplement for case HKS713

Supplement for case HKS713

Sitara was a village in India whose local governing body had 15 members headed by the gram-pradhan. In 2011, the gram-pradhan had approved a project for renovation of a large village pond as per the directives of the central government's MNREGA scheme. However, on starting the excavation work at the project site, it was found that the area was extremely marshy. Manual labourers turned up at the site everyday but declined to work in life-threatening conditions. MNREGA prohibited the use of machines except in the case of extraordinary circumstances without exactly defining what such circumstances might be. Thus, the gram-pradhan was forced to pay labour fees for no work. The case is set at this juncture, where a solution must be found. Part A illustrates how the Indian style of management that relies on competencies such as jugaad (creative improvisation), innovation, and resourcefulness leads to talent management and capability-building even at the bottom of the pyramid. Part B brings forth the trade-off between the management practice of jugaad and management through "systematic innovation." Part C sheds light on the public policy approach of examining the whole situation. The case also explores the competencies needed for the effective functioning of social and commercial institutions in the Indian context.

Throughout history, sudden insights across industries and disciplines have had one thing in common: they tend to come at strange times and places, and they tend to happen after an intense, prolonged struggle with a particular problem, followed by a break. The author describes the importance of the break or 'broken pattern' in our day, showing that it comes in two types: breaks that we make and breaks that we take. In both cases, breaks enable us to think differently - and more resourcefully, and those who aspire to creative thinking should make them a regular habit. He provides three approaches to daily breaks: meditation, 'pulsing' and daydreaming walks, all of which enable you to stop looking for 'the answer' - and find it.

The former Medtronic CEO and current Professor of Management Practice at Harvard describes the importance of following your True North and explains why he refers to the past 10 years as "leadership's lost decade". He describes five types of leaders that often lose sight of their True North and get derailed. He also talks about the importance of leading an "integrated life" and shows that authentic leadership entails a transition from 'I' to 'we'.

Jess Westerly is the assistant product owner of CRM applications for computer and office supply wholesalers and retailers at Kauflauf, a fast-growing provider of subscription enterprise software headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany. Only months into her job, outsider Westerly tries and fails to implement a change in field consultants' sales call patterns. Westerly had introduced the changes to the sales organization via a memo that outlined her directive and explained the reasons behind it. Field consultants immediately complained about the infringement on their decisions about how to spend their time and the insensitivity to the relationship-oriented nature of developing business. Three months later, sales statistics show little difference in calling patterns. After explaining, defending, and reshaping her stalled initiative, Waverly presents her amended proposal to key senior executives and is given three weeks to produce an implementation plan. If the plan is deemed acceptable, she will be asked to implement it.

In late spring 2009, Stroz Friedberg co-presidents Edward Stroz and Eric Friedberg had to set growth targets for 2010. The leading global consulting firm they had built specialized in managing digital risk and uncovering digital evidence and had grown very rapidly. With the firm's CFO, they believed that the firm could grow from $58 million to $72 million, a growth rate of 27% over the preceding year. However, the firm's 11 offices had submitted first draft FY 2010 plans that together added up to firm-wide revenues of only $53 million, a growth rate of negative 10.2%. The preceding years of rapid growth had been successful but challenging, and a thorough review of the firm's culture, systems, structure, and processes in late 2008 had resulted in a significant set of changes to which the organization was still adjusting. Stroz and Friedberg wondered whether to push for continued, aggressive growth.

You can also find this case divided into A, B, and C cases. See OB85(A) Dealing with a Toxic Boss for the A, B, and C cases. Ned was an upper middle manager in a major construction company. Six months prior, he was hired away from a competitor to develop the company's market in the fast-growing southeast region. As it turned out, the major challenge was not with the market, but with his boss, Bill, Southeast Regional Director. The case describes Ned's experience working with Bill and Ned's analysis about how to handle the situation. After a meeting with Bill that did not yield any improvements, Ned decided to approach John, the company president, about the negative impact that Bill's behavior was having on building the Southeast Region. The discussion with the company president did not produce any real changes either. Ned struggled with whether to continue raising issues about the impact of Bill's actions on both business growth and employees or simply resign.

This case is divided into A, B, and C cases. See OB85 Dealing with a Toxic Boss for an expanded version of the full case. A Case: Ned was an upper middle manager in a major construction company. Six months prior, he was hired away from a competitor to develop the company's market in the fast-growing southeast region. He was assigned to Atlanta to grow that business. As it turned out, the major challenge was not with the market, but with his boss, Bill, Southeast Regional Director. The A case describes Ned's experience working with Bill and Ned's analysis about how to handle the situation. B Case: After a meeting with Bill that did not yield any improvements, Ned decided to approach John, the company president, about the negative impact that Bill's behavior was having on building the Southeast Region. The B case covers Ned's discussion with the company president, Bill's subsequent behavior, and new issues that arose in the regional office. C Case: Ned struggled with whether to continue raising issues about Bill and the impact of Bill's actions on both business growth and employees or simply resign. Case C covers Ned's decision, his plans for rolling out that decision, and the implications of his actions on others.

This case is divided into A, B, and C cases. See OB85 Dealing with a Toxic Boss for an expanded version of the full case. A Case: Ned was an upper middle manager in a major construction company. Six months prior, he was hired away from a competitor to develop the company's market in the fast-growing southeast region. He was assigned to Atlanta to grow that business. As it turned out, the major challenge was not with the market, but with his boss, Bill, Southeast Regional Director. The A case describes Ned's experience working with Bill and Ned's analysis about how to handle the situation. B Case: After a meeting with Bill that did not yield any improvements, Ned decided to approach John, the company president, about the negative impact that Bill's behavior was having on building the Southeast Region. The B case covers Ned's discussion with the company president, Bill's subsequent behavior, and new issues that arose in the regional office. C Case: Ned struggled with whether to continue raising issues about Bill and the impact of Bill's actions on both business growth and employees or simply resign. Case C covers Ned's decision, his plans for rolling out that decision, and the implications of his actions on others.

This case is divided into A, B, and C cases. See OB85 Dealing with a Toxic Boss for an expanded version of the full case. A Case: Ned was an upper middle manager in a major construction company. Six months prior, he was hired away from a competitor to develop the company's market in the fast-growing southeast region. He was assigned to Atlanta to grow that business. As it turned out, the major challenge was not with the market, but with his boss, Bill, Southeast Regional Director. The A case describes Ned's experience working with Bill and Ned's analysis about how to handle the situation. B Case: After a meeting with Bill that did not yield any improvements, Ned decided to approach John, the company president, about the negative impact that Bill's behavior was having on building the Southeast Region. The B case covers Ned's discussion with the company president, Bill's subsequent behavior, and new issues that arose in the regional office. C Case: Ned struggled with whether to continue raising issues about Bill and the impact of Bill's actions on both business growth and employees or simply resign. Case C covers Ned's decision, his plans for rolling out that decision, and the implications of his actions on others.

This note describes the Congruence Model, a method by which an organization can assess whether its building blocks (critical tasks, formal organizational arrangements, people, and culture) are aligned (congruent) with its strategy. The model postulates that misalignments are at the root of performance gaps within the organization.