Case studies

The case was created via an interview of the protagonist in 2018 at the US Military Academy by the authors.

The case describes the dilemma First Lieutenant Williams faces when his platoon sergeant unexpectedly leaves. Organizational norms and accepted practices suggest Lieutenant Williams should choose the most senior squad leader, Staff Sergeant Boyer. The departing Platoon Sergeant even recommended Staff Sergeant Boyer. However, based on recent observations, Lieutenant Williams felt Staff Sergeant Boyer may not be the best fit. Instead, the lieutenant considered choosing the newest squad leader, Staff Sergeant Harrison, who seemed to be highly proficient, but had yet to prove himself. Before the lieutenant could fully weight his options, Staff Sergeant Boyer confronted him about a decision.

This case is designed for use in undergraduate courses on leadership and management. The case was not only designed primarily for teaching a lesson on organizational justice, but can also be used to integrate lessons on communication, power and influence, and decision making. Each of these elements is present in the case. The instructor can choose to incorporate them into the lesson for a more wholly encompassing lesson or choose to focus on only the organizational justice aspects at play in the case.

The fraud diamond theory, the COSO framework on internal control and theories of ethical leadership and ethical decision making are applied.

The details of this case were compiled using publicly available information, including court records and news reports. No modifications were made to the names of individuals or places mentioned in the case. All resources have been properly cited.

Employee embezzlement is a common issue in limited resource organizations when adequate controls are not in place to prevent or detect fraud. In such organizations, personal financial hardships can drive individuals to commit crimes that are out of character. This case is a story of a respectable small-town couple implicated in a near million dollar embezzlement scheme. Students are asked to consider what went wrong and propose solutions for the prevention of similar crimes. Lessons learned from this case emphasize the importance of ethical leadership, creating a strong ethical environment and how small unethical acts can escalate over time.

Instructors can utilize this case to teach the topics of ethical leadership and decision making, fraud prevention and detection and internal controls. The themes of this case fit well into any business ethics, accounting or auditing course at the undergraduate or graduate level. The case has been implemented in courses for full-time and part-time MBAs, and master’s programs in finance, human resources and accounting.

James, a financial advisor at Bank Private, is advising a high net worth client with $1 million to invest. Bank Private can offer an investment that returns a fixed rate of 5.5% (compounded annually) for twenty years. James needs to prepare financial projections for the client that include annual interest and annual taxes as well as total interest and total taxes.

This case is one of a pair of cases used in a merger negotiation. It is designed to be used with “British Petroleum, Ltd.” (UVA-F-1263). One-half of the class prepares only the British Petroleum (BP) case, and one-half uses this case. BP and Amoco are considering a merger, and are in the process of negotiating a merger agreement. Macroeconomic assumptions, particularly forecasting future oil prices in an uncertain environment, and assumptions about Amoco's ability to reduce exploration and production costs make Amoco's future cash flows difficult to predict.

This case and its companion, “Myerson Industries” (UVA-QA-0299), constitute the materials for a negotiating exercise. The exercise is a distributive-bargaining situation surrounding the negotiation of the price for the construction of a building (some minor opportunities exist for creating mutual value).

In 2007 Conseco's CEO, C. James Prieur, faced a complicated set of problems with his company's long-term care (LTC) insurance subsidiary, Conseco Senior Health Insurance (CSHI). CSHI faced the threat of congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, triggered by an unflattering New York Times article alleging that CSHI had an unusually large number of customer complaints and was denying legitimate claims. This threat came in addition to broader systemic problems, including the fact that the entire LTC industry was barely profitable. What little profitability existed was dependent on the goodwill of state insurance regulators, to whom the industry was highly beholden for approvals of rate increases to keep it afloat. Furthermore, CSHI had unique strategic challenges that could not be ignored: First, the expense of administering CSHI's uniquely heterogeneous set of policies put it at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the industry and made rate increases especially necessary. Second, state regulators were negatively predisposed toward Conseco because of its notorious reputation and thus were often unwilling to grant rate increases. Finally, CSHI was dependent on capital infusions totaling more than $1 billion from its parent company, Conseco, for which Conseco had received no dividends in return. Faced with pressure from Conseco shareholders and the looming congressional investigations, what should Prieur do? Students will discuss the available options in the context of a long-term relationship between Conseco and state insurance regulators. Prieur's solution to this problem proved to be innovative for the industry and to have far-reaching consequences for CSHI's corporate structure.

After reading and analyzing this case, students will be able to: evaluate the impact of a regulatory environment on business strategy; and assess the pros and cons of various market strategies as well as recommend important non-market strategies for a firm in crisis in a highly regulated industry.

In November 2005 Fidelity Homestead, a savings bank in Louisiana, began noticing suspicious charges from Mexico and southern California on its customers' credit cards. More than a year later, an audit revealed peculiarities in the credit card data in the computer systems of TJX Companies, the parent company of more than 2,600 discount fashion and home accessories retail stores in the United States, Canada, and Europe.

The U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Justice Department, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found that hackers had penetrated TJX's systems in mid-2005, accessing information that dated as far back as 2003. TJX had violated industry security standards by failing to update its in-store wireless networks and by storing credit card numbers and expiration dates without adequate encryption. When TJX announced the intrusion in January 2007, it admitted that hackers had compromised nearly 46 million debit and credit card numbers, the largest-ever data breach in the United States.

After analyzing and discussing the case, students should be able to:

• Understand imbedded operational risks

• Analyze how operational risk decisions are made in a firm

• Understand the challenges in the electronic payment transmission process, which relies on each participant in the process to operate best-in-class safety systems to ensure the safety of the entire process

• Recognize the sophistication of IT security threats

Understand imbedded operational risks

Analyze how operational risk decisions are made in a firm

Understand the challenges in the electronic payment transmission process, which relies on each participant in the process to operate best-in-class safety systems to ensure the safety of the entire process

Recognize the sophistication of IT security threats

After it introduced the extremely successful Droid smartphone into the market in 2009, Motorola quickly moved to develop the next-generation Droid 2 before the next wave of smartphones (including the rumored iPhone 4) flooded the market. The development process was moving smoothly for the company when Verizon, its biggest partner, dropped a bombshell. It wasn't happy with the mechanical camera button on the Droid 2 (citing customer feedback) and wanted it to be changed to a software button like the iPhone's. This request immediately placed Motorola in the proverbial horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, it couldn't brush away the request of its biggest and most important partner. On the other hand, changing the camera button now would mean delaying the Droid 2's entry into the market. Should the Droid 2 team remove the camera's hardware button in favor of a software button per Verizon's request, or not?

John Smith, the product manager, leads the cross-functional Droid 2 team. The case setting is an emergency “war room” meeting to address this critical issue, just weeks prior to launch. John's objective is to obtain the salient facts and opinions of team members quickly so he can make an informed recommendation to his boss by the end of the day. He is concerned that this last-minute request for a design change will not only threaten to delay the launch, which would have significant financial implications, but could potentially create deep fissures in a hitherto effective team that had been running like a well-oiled machine.

The case puts students in a situation that simulates a real-world discussion and allows them to experience what it is like, as a product manager, to orchestrate a meeting with cross-functional teams that have conflicting priorities and agendas. It illustrates the challenges a product manager faces while striving to make important decisions with little or no direct authority over the various teams.

After reading and analyzing this case, students will be able to:

• Experience the dynamics of cross-functional teams in product management

• Practice running effective and productive meetings

• Practice bringing together various personalities and points of view

• Understand the importance of setting goals and clear expectations

• Internalize the importance of building relationships and influencing teams, even when you do not have direct authority

Experience the dynamics of cross-functional teams in product management

Practice running effective and productive meetings

Practice bringing together various personalities and points of view

Understand the importance of setting goals and clear expectations

Internalize the importance of building relationships and influencing teams, even when you do not have direct authority