個案總覽

How do you tell one of your direct reports that she stinks? This case explores the dynamics behind having difficult conversations, and giving and receiving feedback. It is designed to illustrate the negative effects that can result after a difficult conversation and ways to reduce the risk of adverse consequences. The case also touches on relationships in the workplace and the correlation they have to the bottom line. In the A case students have to decide whether to confront a worker about her hygiene problems. The B case offers a role-playing situation to practice conducting a difficult conversation. We learn in the C case that the discussion went terribly wrong, and in the E case readers are provided an epilogue.

How do you tell one of your direct reports that she stinks? This case explores the dynamics behind having difficult conversations, and giving and receiving feedback. It is designed to illustrate the negative effects that can result after a difficult conversation and ways to reduce the risk of adverse consequences. The case also touches on relationships in the workplace and the correlation they have to the bottom line. In the A case students have to decide whether to confront a worker about her hygiene problems. The B case offers a role-playing situation to practice conducting a difficult conversation. We learn in the C case that the discussion went terribly wrong, and in the E case readers are provided an epilogue.

How do you tell one of your direct reports that she stinks? This case explores the dynamics behind having difficult conversations, and giving and receiving feedback. It is designed to illustrate the negative effects that can result after a difficult conversation and ways to reduce the risk of adverse consequences. The case also touches on relationships in the workplace and the correlation they have to the bottom line. In the A case students have to decide whether to confront a worker about her hygiene problems. The B case offers a role-playing situation to practice conducting a difficult conversation. We learn in the C case that the discussion went terribly wrong, and in the E case readers are provided an epilogue.

How do you tell one of your direct reports that she stinks? This case explores the dynamics behind having difficult conversations, and giving and receiving feedback. It is designed to illustrate the negative effects that can result after a difficult conversation and ways to reduce the risk of adverse consequences. The case also touches on relationships in the workplace and the correlation they have to the bottom line. In the A case students have to decide whether to confront a worker about her hygiene problems. The B case offers a role-playing situation to practice conducting a difficult conversation. We learn in the C case that the discussion went terribly wrong, and in the E case readers are provided an epilogue.

Despite all the uncertainty mergers and acquisitions create for buyers and sellers, a solid, well-planned post acquisition integration strategy can create opportunity. During the fall of 2001, following a lengthy U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust review, General Mills Inc. acquired the Pillsbury subsidiary from Diageo PLC with an eye towards enhancing their revenue. Although General Mills financial advisors seemed to think that the balance sheets and products of the two corporations complimented each other and made a perfect match, the organizations were very different. Any shift in corporate control meant things were going to change. Kevin Wilde, the vice president and chief learning officer for General Mills was part of the transition team responsible for helping the post acquisition integration go smoothly. While spending most of the summer working on the acquisition planning stage, Wilde and the team tried to envision what employees' fundamental concerns would be and how the team could help ease anxieties in both organizations. How should the Pillsbury integration process proceed? Despite the extensive planning process, were there any surprises that would affect integration efforts? Could General Mills and Pillsbury be integrated in a way that would generate more value than the companies were generating separately? And which changes should be the team's top priorities? The B case identifies several issues relevant to managing the integration and includes: human resource and organizational information, marketing initiatives, strategy statements, plant closings, and operational changes.

Supplement to case IN1204. The case explores some of the conflicts generated by the liberalization of labour and services markets in the European Union (EU) following the post-Communist enlargement in 2004, focusing in particular on the role played by the European Court of Justice as the frequent arbitrator of conflicts over market liberalization in the EU.

An abstract is not available for this product.

Supplements the (A) case.

In January 2000, Jose Antonio Justino, accepted an offer to become the Managing Director of the Consumer Division of Johnson & Johnson Brazil (in Portuguese-Johnson & Johnson Comercio e Distribuicao Ltda.). Johnson & Johnson Brazil (J&J Brazil) had been the early leader in Brazil in a variety of products, including disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, bandages, cotton swabs, sunscreen, and baby care products. Unfortunately, performance had deteriorated in recent years, with both sales and profitability dropping significantly. Market share in many categories was falling because of increased competition from local firms and multinationals. The company group chairman of J&J's global consumer business told Justino in February that he would have to present a business plan at a J&J meeting in Mexico in May 2000. The business plan would have to identify the specific steps that would allow J&J Brazil to restore profitability by the end of 2000 and position the company for future growth

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.

Supplement to KEL328

Supplement to KEL337

Two-party term sheet negotiation between a venture capitalist and the founder of an aerospace start-up company in which participants are scored both on their substantive performance and on the other party's perception of the relationship. The venture capital (VC) firm Aerovent Capital is considering a $100 million investment in the startup company Earth Escape. The founder of Earth Escape and the lead partner from Aerovent Capital must negotiate a term sheet outlining eight significant terms of the investment. Both parties are concerned with structuring a deal that protects their substantive investment interests and with creating a positive foundation for their potential collaboration. The simulation introduces the incorporation of process and relationship interests into negotiation strategy.

Two-party term sheet negotiation between a venture capitalist and the founder of an aerospace start-up company in which participants are scored both on their substantive performance and on the other party's perception of the relationship. The venture capital (VC) firm Aerovent Capital is considering a $100 million investment in the startup company Earth Escape. The founder of Earth Escape and the lead partner from Aerovent Capital must negotiate a term sheet outlining eight significant terms of the investment. Both parties are concerned with structuring a deal that protects their substantive investment interests and with creating a positive foundation for their potential collaboration. The simulation introduces the incorporation of process and relationship interests into negotiation strategy.

After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush launched a military offensive in Afghanistan, which led to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives thought to be behind the attacks. Top US officials debated how to extract crucial information from them about Al Qaeda's future plans. The Central Intelligence Agency wanted to apply aggressive interrogation methods, which it argued were necessary to convince detainees to reveal what they knew. But CIA officials worried such techniques might violate both international treaties banning torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners of war and detainees and, more consequentially, the domestic laws that enforced them. To protect its agents, the CIA sought a clear statement from the Bush Administration on how far agents could go in efforts to force detainees to talk. These cases tell the story of OLC's legal findings and their consequences. Part A (1853.0)describes a series of OLC memoranda on the treatment of detainees in the "war on terror," culminating in an August 2002 opinion that became known as the "torture memo," which narrowly interpreted the legal meaning of torture but took a broad view of presidential wartime powers under the Constitution. Part A ends as Assistant Attorney General and OLC head Jay Bybee must decide whether to sign the opinion. Part B (1854.0) tracks the results of the torture memo, tracing the use of interrogation techniques it sanctioned from CIA detention centers overseas to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the view of some, these harsher techniques eventually "migrated" to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where abusive treatment of detainees became an international embarrassment for the US. HKS Case Number 1854.0

After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush launched a military offensive in Afghanistan, which led to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives thought to be behind the attacks. Top US officials debated how to extract crucial information from them about Al Qaeda's future plans. The Central Intelligence Agency wanted to apply aggressive interrogation methods, which it argued were necessary to convince detainees to reveal what they knew. But CIA officials worried such techniques might violate both international treaties banning torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners of war and detainees and, more consequentially, the domestic laws that enforced them. To protect its agents, the CIA sought a clear statement from the Bush Administration on how far agents could go in efforts to force detainees to talk. These cases tell the story of OLC's legal findings and their consequences. Part A (1853.0)describes a series of OLC memoranda on the treatment of detainees in the "war on terror," culminating in an August 2002 opinion that became known as the "torture memo," which narrowly interpreted the legal meaning of torture but took a broad view of presidential wartime powers under the Constitution. Part A ends as Assistant Attorney General and OLC head Jay Bybee must decide whether to sign the opinion. Part B (1854.0) tracks the results of the torture memo, tracing the use of interrogation techniques it sanctioned from CIA detention centers overseas to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the view of some, these harsher techniques eventually "migrated" to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where abusive treatment of detainees became an international embarrassment for the US. HKS Case Number 1854.1

The spring of 2005 marked a tricky juncture for the leaders of a program designed to improve health care access for thousands of residents living in impoverished, isolated settlements just north of the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and also for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which had provided the program with a four-year startup grant, due to expire in a few months time. The project leaders wanted to keep the Integrated Health Outreach System (IHOS) alive, but were not sure how to fund it. In addition, frustrated by aspects of the project's design, they wanted to reorganize and refocus the program. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, meanwhile, had gone through an internal organizational change that had significantly changed RWJF's approach to charitable giving. In general, the Foundation was no longer funding "safety net" programs like IHOS, but had moved toward broader, systemic, collaborative efforts to address the root causes of poor health in vulnerable populations. But the RWJF administrators recognized that the plight of the IHOS clients was extreme. In addition, they knew that resources on the border were scarce. In practical terms, that meant the Foundation was reluctant to cut off the IHOS funding at least not until IHOS could stand on its own feet. HKS Case Number 1852.0