Search results

To evaluate a difficult career choice under compelling organizational circumstances. To analyse a complex organizational culture to understand the nuances of career decisions. To relate career dilemmas to relevant conceptual and theoretical strands of organizational behaviour. To interpret the leadership style and its interaction with organizational culture. To determine possible strategic recourses to deal with the dynamics of destructive leadership and toxic cultures.

The case is about the experiences of Raamit Pell, a Middle-level Executive at Accadia Management Services, and his encounters with a new boss, Pret Sohn. Raamit Pell had joined Accadia at a time when the organization was undergoing some political and cultural turmoil. When Pret Sohn came in as the new Chief Executive Officer six months later, there were a lot of expectations. But, Pret Sohn too began following Accadia’s existing political culture, indulging in unhealthy organizational practices. He caused mental harassment to many executives. One such executive was Raamit Pell. Despite Raamit’s excellent performance, Pret Sohn denied him a well-deserved promotion. Sohn justified it by saying that performance alone did not matter. Raamit felt deeply disturbed and considered quitting Accadia. He was reluctant to leave as a defeated man. Subsequently, he received an offer from another subsidiary of Accadia’s holding agency. As he was undergoing a three-month mandatory notice period for his release, Raamit became concerned about his decision to leave Accadia. Deep in his mind he longed to redeem his hurt pride at Accadia. So, he was pondering whether he had taken the decision to resign in haste.

Level: Post-graduate/doctoral and executive education programmes in management and allied subjects. Courses: Courses in Career Decisions, Organizational Behaviour, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Organizational Ethics.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 7: Management Science.

Kiera, a young, enthusiastic sales rep, was recently promoted to manager of a sales team of five. In her first year on the job, she tackled a major revamp of the company's outdated training materials and organized a regional conference for her area, but neither her boss nor corporate seemed to appreciate the work she had been doing. Without support or guidance from her boss, Kiera was confused. What was she supposed to do? Parts A and B of the case present two different perspectives on coaching. Part A contains a narrative from the point of view of the “coachee,” Kiera, who was learning how to work with her boss, ultimately with the assistance of an executive coach. This case focuses on coaching as a tool to enhance self-management and relationship management and to improve personal performance. Part B describes how Kiera started to learn the “coach approach” to managing her team with the continued guidance of her executive coach. She learned to apply the same skills that her coach used with her in Part A to diagnose her team, share feedback, and communicate expectations. She was learning how to listen and ask thoughtful questions, but she also needed to expand her awareness to “other-management” and build her own coaching skills to enhance her team's performance.

Kiera, a young, enthusiastic sales rep, was recently promoted to manager of a sales team of five. In her first year on the job, she tackled a major revamp of the company's outdated training materials and organized a regional conference for her area, but neither her boss nor corporate seemed to appreciate the work she had been doing. Without support or guidance from her boss, Kiera was confused. What was she supposed to do? Parts A and B of the case present two different perspectives on coaching. Part A contains a narrative from the point of view of the “coachee,” Kiera, who was learning how to work with her boss, ultimately with the assistance of an executive coach. This case focuses on coaching as a tool to enhance self-management and relationship management and to improve personal performance. Part B describes how Kiera started to learn the “coach approach” to managing her team with the continued guidance of her executive coach. She learned to apply the same skills that her coach used with her in Part A to diagnose her team, share feedback, and communicate expectations. She was learning how to listen and ask thoughtful questions, but she also needed to expand her awareness to “other-management” and build her own coaching skills to enhance her team's performance.

This descriptive case is drawn from the secondary sources by Mungaray (2018), a dissertation. The author, Kimberly R. Shannon (f.k.a. Mungaray) conducted the qualitative research over several months that included several dialogue or talking sessions with organization personnel. Additionally, she collected journals kept by the participants and conducted one-on-one interviews with each participant before and after the series of talking sessions. IRB approval was obtained prior to data collection. The people and places were disguised pursuant to the secondary sources. No AI was used in the writing of the case or Instructors’ Manual.

This descriptive case study considers the dynamics surrounding the promotion of women to top management (partner) in a Certified Public Accounting firm. The case study presents the perspectives of the current partner and the potential partners to help students recognize microinsults, microinvalidations and other privileged behaviors that perpetuate stereotype threat and learned helplessness, which thus creates barriers to career progression. These often unintentional comments and behaviors may further marginalize certain people (women, people of color and other marginalized identities, including an intersection of identities). The case concentrates on gender inequities and helps students develop an understanding of leadership implications while exercising their ability to consider multiple perspectives and motives. The case enables students to develop a plan of allyship.

This case is appropriate for undergraduate courses in ethics, organizational behavior, leadership, industrial psychology, sociology, women and gender studies, capstone courses in business or accounting and communications. Graduate courses in organizational behavior, leadership and women and gender studies.

Derived from field and telephone interviews, e-mail communications, and secondary sources, this two part case describes how Gerald Mahoney, a shoes salesman in a Foley's Department store, is faced with a problem - Macy's has bought out the Foley's chain and, in doing so, has upscale the product line of shoes and altered his commission-based compensation system. These changes have resulted in less sales for Mr. Mahoney and therein lower commission - a difficult situation since he, his wife, and his daughter were barely getting by on his currently salary. Part A of the case describes an opportunity that presents itself to Mr. Mahoney; to leave his current job with a guaranteed low salary with possible additional income from commissions for a job selling residential homes which becomes purely commission-based to start with after three months of a salary plus commission pay that includes job training. In Part B Mr. Mahoney has decided to take the sales job with ABC Home Builders and receives his assignment. He finds that the working conditions of the sales office are not conducive to selling. His office is located in the rear of a trailer that is extremely run down and is paired with a competitive, noncommunicative saleswoman. The case ends with Mr. Mahoney feeling hopeless and alienated.

This two part case has been written primarily for an undergraduate junior level course in career planning or sales management and deals with the issues of recruitment, placement, training, and compensation. The case may also be employed in a course dealing with human resource management (from an individual's perspective), salesmanship, and organizational behavior.

The main data used to develop this case were remote, synchronous interviews with the three characters in the case. The authors conducted two interviews with the main character in the case, Geoff Brown, specifically: (1) an initial 30 min interview to determine the fit and focus of the case and to help create the interview protocol for the full case interview (this initial interview was conducted on March 12, 2024); and (2) an hour-long interview to ask targeted questions to fully develop the case narrative (this interview was conducted on March 28, 2024). Geoff Brown was also involved in reviewing drafts of the case, approving the final version of the case and reviewing the assignment questions in this instructors’ manual (IM).

This case focuses on Geoff Brown, Executive Director at Alberta Chicken Producers (ACP), which is a not-for-profit organization in Alberta, Canada, that is responsible for representing 250 regulated chicken producers. Brown is grappling with what to do with the remote/hybrid work policy at ACP. Part of the impetus for reconsidering this policy was the comments from ACP’s long-tenured Office Manager and Executive Assistant, who had been asking Brown to bring this policy forward to a staff meeting for discussion throughout the past year. Brown now feels ready to move these discussions forward but is unsure of how to proceed and what the best practices would be to ensure that the policy in place for remote work is beneficial for work engagement, individual and organizational work performance, work–life balance, employee relationships and fairness perceptions.

The target audience for this case is undergraduate and graduate students taking a course in the disciplines of human resources management or organizational behavior. This case will be especially relevant for a human resources management course when studying the topics of employee benefits (e.g. work–life balance), health and safety (e.g. stress) and work design (e.g. telecommuting), and this case will be especially relevant for an organizational behavior course when studying the topics of motivation (e.g. fairness), communication, organizational culture and decision-making.

On the evening of December 29, 1972, Eastern Air 401 (EA401) was on a routine flight from New York to Miami. Despite EA401 flying one of the most advanced aircraft at the time (the Lockheed L-1011), it crashed in the Florida Everglades killing 101 of its 176 passengers. Drawing from various first-hand accounts (cockpit voice recorder) and secondary evidence (news reports and online sources) of the tragedy, this teaching case provides a detailed account of the key events that took place leading up to the accident. The case describes how the pilots on EA401 were confronted with a simple scenario, a landing gear bulb not working in the cockpit, and through the distraction that ensued made a series of errors. Through many of the quotes in the text, readers gain an understanding of the impressions and perceptions of the pilots, including how they felt about many of the critical decisions and incidents during the last minutes of the flight. The case concludes by highlighting the main findings of the NTSB report.

Depending on individual course objectives, this case can take two or one day to debrief. Specifically, if this case is used in an organizational behavior course, most of the case questions could be discussed in one day. However, if this case is used in a capstone HRM or group dynamics type course on teams and team training and performance, a second day could be used to develop documentation outlining training design or performance evaluation designs.