個案總覽

In Differences at Work: Emily (C) HBS Case No. 9-408-047 describes how the original email author apologizes to her acknowledging that his behavior was extremely inappropriate. While Emily accepts the apology, she still forwards the email on to her boss with a note saying that she felt after reading the email that she could not remain quiet. Her boss never responds. Later, after Emily has left the firm, she asks her boss about his inaction.

In Differences at Work: Jason (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-049 Jason decides that his firm should have a more articulated position that everyone in the firm understands about why diversity benefits the firm instead of pursing diversity because it feels like the "right" thing to do.

In Differences at Work: Jenny (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-050, we learn that Jenny's boss is woman who thought the entire incident was funny. Jenny wonders whether to confront her boss about her discomfort with the situation.

In Differences at Work: Ben (C) 9-408-044 Ben shares the remark with his bosses who let Ben decide whether to report the incident to Human Resources. He decides not to, but several years later he still regrets his inaction.

In Differences at Work: Erica (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-048, Erica discovers that both she and the client are African-American. She reflects on why she has been invited to attend the dinner.

In Differences at Work: Martin (B) HBS Case No. 408052 Martin leaves the firm partially because of the incident but he does not tell his firm the reason for his departure.

In Differences at Work: Sam (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-054 Sam receives an informal apology from Human Resources which leaves Sam feeling unsatisfied as it is not an official company response. Sam leaves the company for unrelated reasons shortly thereafter but still continues to think about the incident.

In Differences at Work: Alex (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-042 turns to his uncle, an employment lawyer, to discuss the situation. After receiving a matching offer from his current firm, Alex decides to stay with his firm but concedes that he did not have to make any hard ethical decisions. He wonders what he would have done if he had not received the matching offer.

In Differences at Work: Ben (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-043 Ben shares his colleague's comment with another colleague who empathizes with Ben's discomfort but dismisses the remark as a joke, leaving Ben to decide whether he wants to confront his colleague.

In Differences at Work: Will (B), HBS Case No. 9-408-045, Will describes how decided to respond to the question so that his colleague could tell from his answer that Will was a gay man.

In Differences at Work: Allie (B) HBS Case No. 9-408-055 Allie and her colleague initially refuse to go but when her boss makes a scene they reluctantly agree to accompany him to the beach despite his inappropriate behavior. Later back at company headquarters they tell their boss' boss about the incident who tells the women that he will support them if they decide to file a sexual harassment claim.

In Differences at Work: (C) HBS Case No. 9-408-056 Allie decides not to pursue a sexual harassment charge and instead remedies the situation by transferring to the marketing division in her company. She reflects on how powerless the situation made her feel and how it has made her extremely cautious about workplace interactions.

On December 1999, Schibsted, Norway's largest media company, launched a free daily newspaper, 20 Minutes simultaneously in Zurich, Switzerland, and Cologne, Germany. As of February 2000, the launch of 20 Minutes in Zurich had been considered a success, whereas the Cologne launch had been fraught with difficulty. Schibsted had been caught up in a lawsuit filed by two prominent German publishers. The Cologne edition had been shut down for five weeks. After an appeal, Schibsted had been granted approval to restart distribution. Now the question was: Should Schibsted launch 20 Minutes in Cologne again? This is a supplemental case to "Schibsted (A): Should We Launch '20 Minutes'?"

Supplement for IMD527

Supplements the (A) case.

Supplements the (A) case.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.

After five months of a fairly relaxed work schedule, Katzu Mizuno found himself wrapped up in an intense analysis. A first-year associate at Lynch Investments, Mizuno had received a morning phone call in February 1996. The caller was his boss, Anna Curti. The subject was a long-time customer, MCI. In contrast to the booming stock market, the performance of MCI's share price had been underwhelming. The board of directors had recently discussed repurchasing shares in order to bolster shareholder value. But cash was tight. If MCI intended to implement a stock repurchase program within the next six months, the company would have to use debt financing to supply the cash. Although the current debt-to-equity ratio of 40% was arguably below the industry average and MCI had excess debt capacity, the decision was far from simple. MCI had contacted Lynch to provide an analysis and recommendation regarding the proposed debt issue and stock repurchase. Curti needed to respond quickly, which gave Mizuno little time. The board planned to disclose the details of its plan to improve shareholder value by the end of the following week. Any recommendation and accompanying analysis would be intensely scrutinized. The heat was clearly on. As Mizuno labored to complete and refine the analysis in front of him, heavy on his mind was how he would relay his findings to Curti. What information and resources would she need in order to advise the client on whether to move forward with the plan?