Publication records

On Thursday January 27, 2011, hundreds of thousands of protesters in Egypt were vociferously demanding an end to the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak, and to the state of emergency he had let prevail, and nurtured during that tenure. The protest movement was expected to gather even greater momentum following the afternoon prayers the next day, a Friday. The communication and connectivity through social media had acted as a key catalyst in enabling the protesters to coordinate their actions. President Mubarak’s government decided to strike hard at the lifeline of this virtual medium, by exploiting some of the rights that the state of emergency had accorded them. That afternoon, the government ordered the three main voice and data communications providers in Egypt – Vodafone, Mobinil, and Etisalat – to suspend services in selected areas. Among these areas was Tahrir Square (“Freedom/Martyrs’ Square”) in Cairo, the biggest nucleus where protesters had assembled. Later, the government would also instruct these communications providers to broadcast propaganda text messages to all their subscribers, imploring them to be on the side of the Egyptian Army, which the government said was the true protector of Egypt. When Hatem Dowidar, CEO of Vodafone Egypt, heard about the government’s order, he was about to take a crucial decision. He knew that the situation in Egypt was being observed closely from all over the world. Dowidar also realized that the course of action he opted for would have consequences not just for Vodafone Egypt, but also for the parent Vodafone Group. He contemplated the possible consequences, well aware that any decision he took would invariably evoke strong reactions.

The case offers the opportunity to discuss some implications of national crises on multi-national corporations (MNCs), especially implications for business, society, and ethics. Given the fairly well-known historical context of the case, as well as, the non-technical nature of the underlying issue, the case can be used for a broad range of audiences. We have already successfully used the case in MBA settings, in executive education courses, and in workshops that were open to the general public.

On Thursday January 27, 2011, hundreds of thousands of protesters in Egypt were vociferously demanding an end to the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak, and to the state of emergency he had let prevail, and nurtured during that tenure. The protest movement was expected to gather even greater momentum following the afternoon prayers the next day, a Friday. The communication and connectivity through social media had acted as a key catalyst in enabling the protesters to coordinate their actions. President Mubarak’s government decided to strike hard at the lifeline of this virtual medium, by exploiting some of the rights that the state of emergency had accorded them. That afternoon, the government ordered the three main voice and data communications providers in Egypt – Vodafone, Mobinil, and Etisalat – to suspend services in selected areas. Among these areas was Tahrir Square (“Freedom/Martyrs’ Square”) in Cairo, the biggest nucleus where protesters had assembled. Later, the government would also instruct these communications providers to broadcast propaganda text messages to all their subscribers, imploring them to be on the side of the Egyptian Army, which the government said was the true protector of Egypt. When Hatem Dowidar, CEO of Vodafone Egypt, heard about the government’s order, he was about to take a crucial decision. He knew that the situation in Egypt was being observed closely from all over the world. Dowidar also realized that the course of action he opted for would have consequences not just for Vodafone Egypt, but also for the parent Vodafone Group. He contemplated the possible consequences, well aware that any decision he took would invariably evoke strong reactions.

The case offers the opportunity to discuss some implications of national crises on multi-national corporations (MNCs), especially implications for business, society, and ethics. Given the fairly well-known historical context of the case, as well as, the non-technical nature of the underlying issue, the case can be used for a broad range of audiences. We have already successfully used the case in MBA settings, in executive education courses, and in workshops that were open to the general public.

The case deals with the quest for boundaries of corporates’ social and environmental responsibility. It poses the question where the responsibility of a company might start or end in a given context and once the company has been able to assess the extent to which it holds itself responsible, what action it ought to take in this regard. In the case of Axel Springer the question is focused on the aspect how much responsibility the company might have for its supply chain: how far and how deep down the supply chain does or should responsibility of a corporation reach? On what facts does this responsibility depend? The publishing house Axel Springer AG serves as good example as it wonders about the scope of their responsibility: After making the strategic decision to move aggressively into the field of digital news and media, the company wonders about their responsibility for digital devices, in particular with respect to conflict minerals that are extracted for the production and use of such electronic devices under highly problematic conditions.

The case draws attention to a rather ambiguous, quite complex, and intertwined sustainability issue. It requires students to think laterally about anticipated and potential risks, about scopes and the extent of responsibility. The case can be well-introduced at a later and more advanced stage of the term as it deals with the concerns of an only indirectly involved media and publishing house that can either neglect or take up the challenge of dealing with conflict minerals. Students preferably know concepts of risk management and corporate responsibility or are acquainted with cases focusing on formulating, implementing, or articulating corporate responsibility before dealing with the question of at what stage and with what tier of the supply chain could or should corporate responsibility end.

The case serves as an illustration of organizational behavior when it comes to the issue of silence in organizations. It describes a critical leadership situation that requires speaking up against the orders of a superior in a hierarchical structure – in this case, the armed forces. When the protagonist, a young Israeli officer leading a special-forces platoon, receives an order that would put his platoon in extreme danger, he has to make a decision. The case is not concerned with combat situations, but rather with how to act as a responsible leader. Given the setting of an army unit governed by command and control, the initial case discussion is likely to focus on typical leadership issues, such as motivation and followership. However, the more interesting aspect concerns the dual roles that leaders typically have to fulfill, that is, they may be both leaders and followers. The protagonist of the case is a captain who receives an order from a major that will have consequences for the captain’s platoon. The core issue of the case is the decision to reject the order in question. Participants will discuss why speaking up is an issue in organizations and usually does not occur. The case also allows us to look at situations in high-risk organizations that allow open communication.

The case may be used in a leadership course in MBA programs. It may also be used in executive education to support sessions on both leadership as well as crisis and error management. Apart from the main objective of highlighting the issue of speaking up, executives may also be asked to describe how to lead and motivate individuals beyond using the normal incentive tools (e.g., bonuses and promotions). On the whole, the case may be used to address the following subjects: speaking up, leadership, responsibility, motivation, and followership.

The six vignettes in this case present situations that call for the application of one of the six leadership styles: coercive, pacesetting, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and coaching. The vignettes, each demonstrating a correct, incorrect, or possible use of a particular style, can be used in class for the purpose of developing students’ leadership style, diagnostic skills, as a group discussion material, or as test material for post-class examination. Each of the vignettes is a generalized experience story based on examples shared by participants in executive education programs run over the course of the author’s eight years of teaching the leadership styles model as presented by Goleman (2000) at a leading European business school. The vignettes have been tested within the context of MBA and executive MBA programs, and executive education courses for high potentials, middle managers, and board level executives.

This is a set of six vignettes designed to help undergraduate and graduate students, as well as participants in executive education programs, understand the differences in use of six different leadership styles identified by the work of Litwin and Stringer (1971) and further popularized by Goleman (2000), Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2013), and the Hay Group (2009).

In 2008 Joe Justice saw the announcement for the Progressive Insurance X Prize—a $10 million prize aimed at the (im)possibility to build a 100 miles per gallon (mpg) car to road-legal safety specifications. Joe persuaded his wife to use their college grad savings of $5,000 to pay the registration fee. He started the work alone but blogged about what he was doing and what he was learning. Through social networking tools like Facebook and WordPress bloggers who shared his interest learned about his project. Some of these people joined Joe in his endeavor to tackle the challenge. Only three months later, Wikispeed had been formed. It counted 44 members in four countries, and had a functioning prototype which was entered in the X Prize competition. In 2010 they came in 10th in the mainstream class, outrunning more than one hundred other cars from well-funded companies and universities around the world. Following the press reaction to the success of team Wikispeed in 2011 they were invited to showcase their concept car at the Detroit auto show, the largest motor show in the world. Their car, the SGT01, was put on display in Cobo Hall right next to Ford and Chevrolet. Wikispeed was contacted by more than a hundred people who were interested in joining the team as well as in ordering the prototype. By 2013, more than five hundred people had joined team Wikispeed. They had also sold nine prototypes. The immediate issue of the case study is the decision whether the team should use a pair of existing axles, cut and weld them together to the right length for the next iteration of their prototype or develop their own pair of axles from scratch. More fundamentally, this case study looks at the way team Wikispeed used tools from the world of software development like modularity, which they call object-oriented architecture, scrum, and extreme manufacturing (XM) to organize their innovation efforts.

Depending on the scope of the course, the following teaching objectives can be emphasized: to discuss ways of how to coordinate product development efforts in the absence of traditional hierarchies; to understand the conditions when distributed innovation processes can be used in industries with physical products; to understand the key elements of agile development: modularity, scrum, and extreme manufacturing; to examine the principles and potential limitations of agile development for hardware development; to understand the roadblocks to agile product development in large established organizations.

The case describes the management practices and leadership principles of a media monitoring company. The company was founded in 1997 with the objective to become a leader in the German media monitoring market. In 2012, the company had achieved the goal the three founders had envisaged. They had acquired a dedicated group of employees, a tightly knit, family-like unit, which Landau called a “community of values.” These values were the basis of his leadership style, emphasizing participation, continuity, transparency, a continuous improvement to raise product quality, customer, and family orientation. The company governance structure, and facilities all reflected this core philosophy as well. During the past years a new set of challenges – namely, change of media usage triggered by iPhones and iPads, social media, and do-it-yourself media monitoring software - were threatening the company’s success and Lothar Landau was concerned whether his creation was prepared for the next 15 years.

The three part case discusses managing the dilemma of compliance versus entrepreneurial decisions (“intrapreneurship”) in a large corporation and decision-making processes in mature markets (here: US HQ) vs. emerging markets (here: Russia). The case concerns a medical devices company and the life sciences industry; however, market mechanisms are applicable to other industries as well. In Case A, two experienced Russian managers face a tempting business opportunity: founding a professional education center for healthcare personnel in one of the most prosperous regions of Central Asia seems to offer win-win situations for all stakeholders involved. Case B aims at strengthening the student’s capabilities for thinking about alternatives and developing the tenacity to pursue entrepreneurial ideas. The case closes in the third section by asking “Was it worth it?”

The three part case discusses managing the dilemma of compliance versus entrepreneurial decisions (“intrapreneurship”) in a large corporation and decision-making processes in mature markets (here: US HQ) vs. emerging markets (here: Russia). The case concerns a medical devices company and the life sciences industry; however, market mechanisms are applicable to other industries as well. In Case A, two experienced Russian managers face a tempting business opportunity: founding a professional education center for healthcare personnel in one of the most prosperous regions of Central Asia seems to offer win-win situations for all stakeholders involved. Case B aims at strengthening the student’s capabilities for thinking about alternatives and developing the tenacity to pursue entrepreneurial ideas. The case closes in the third section by asking “Was it worth it?”

The three part case discusses managing the dilemma of compliance versus entrepreneurial decisions (“intrapreneurship”) in a large corporation and decision-making processes in mature markets (here: US HQ) vs. emerging markets (here: Russia). The case concerns a medical devices company and the life sciences industry; however, market mechanisms are applicable to other industries as well. In Case A, two experienced Russian managers face a tempting business opportunity: founding a professional education center for healthcare personnel in one of the most prosperous regions of Central Asia seems to offer win-win situations for all stakeholders involved. Case B aims at strengthening the student’s capabilities for thinking about alternatives and developing the tenacity to pursue entrepreneurial ideas. The case closes in the third section by asking “Was it worth it?”