Search results

From 2002 to 2011, coffee-machine manufacturer Keurig Incorporated had grown from a privately held company with just over $20 million in revenues and a plan to enter the single serve coffee arena for home consumers, to a wholly owned subsidiary of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., a publicly traded company with net revenues of $1.36 billion and a market capitalization of between $8 and $9 billion. In 2003 Keurig had introduced its first At Home brewer. Now, approximately 25 percent of all coffee makers sold in the United States were Keurig-branded machines, and Keurig was recognized as among the leaders in the marketplace. The company had just concluded agreements with both Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks that would make these retailers' coffee available for use with Keurig's specialized brewing system. The company faced far different challenges than when it was a small, unknown marketplace entrant. John Whoriskey, vice president and general manager of Keurig's At Home division, had to consider the impact that impending expiration of key technology patents and the perceived environmental impact of the K-Cup® portion packs would have on the company's growth. Whoriskey also wondered what Keurig's growth potential was, and how the new arrangements with Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts could be leveraged to achieve it.

This case draws upon the literature on appropriate leadership behaviors that Yahoo’s Founders or CEOs could have adopted. It discusses the process of environmental analysis that would have an impact on Yahoo!’s strategy. It discusses and depicts the levels of environmental analyzes that Yahoo! as a firm ought to have undertaken in mapping its competitive environment. Further, this case discusses transformational leadership factors and those behavioral traits that exemplify each of these factors. Finally, the four elements of aspiration in discussing future firm direction are identified. These include an appropriate vision translated into a clarifying mission reflected in specific objectives grounded in explicit value statements.

This case is based on secondary data sources that include official company records, online reports and commentary, newspaper reports, public interviews and books. All such information has been appropriately referenced.

Yahoo!, in its 22 years of existence, has demonstrated remarkable tumult. It has witnessed a succession of six CEOs, exhibited a roller coaster trajectory in its stock price and, for the most part of its existence, played “catch-up” with its strategic competitors. It has also struggled to define its core purpose, its industry category and its very essence of being. In early 2016, CEO Marissa Mayer announced that Yahoo! would be willing to sell its core internet business and that its board would “engage on qualified strategic proposals.” However, the board also reiterated that turning around Yahoo! to prosperity continued to remain a top priority. What went wrong, so terribly wrong, with Yahoo! in an otherwise lucrative industry? Does Yahoo! suffer from a fundamental, essential malaise which, if addressed, could restore it to wealth and vibrancy? This case focuses on the period 1994, the inception of Yahoo!, to early 2016. The acquisition of Yahoo! by Verizon, completed in 2017, is not to be considered for purposes of this case study.

This case is particularly suited to be taught in a capstone strategic management course for MBA/Master’s level business students, after they have been exposed to core courses in Marketing, Business Law, Accounting, Supply Chain, Corporate Finance. It may also be taught in an advanced strategy course for undergraduate business students, typically in their final year of study. Finally, this case can be used to teach senior management in executive management programs.