(Susan Young/Harvard Business School)“What do you think?” is a question that has graced case method discussions at the Harvard Business School for the past 100 years. The question reflects long-held beliefs by some members of the HBS faculty that an important role for an instructor is to pose questions, questions that students assume primary responsibility for discussing.
There is no assumption that there is always a right answer. Rather the emphasis is on the quality of analyses and thought processes employed in coming up with responses.
When asked early in a discussion by a student for an opinion from the instructor, the traditional response from the instructor is, “What do you think?” I’ve been asking it in this space for 22 years this month.
"The case method requires that instructors often pass control of the learning process to the class."
Creative faculty members find problem cases everywhere. There is an old saying at the School that so-and-so is so good at teaching that he or she could teach the newspaper. In fact, the late professor Theodore Levitt of the marketing faculty was known for occasionally walking into class with a copy of a newspaper, and he would conduct class based on some of its contents, regardless of the material assigned for that day. Some of the columns we’ve shared over the years have been prepared based on newspaper reporting. Last month’s column on the decisions facing Disney’s CEO, Bob Chapek, is an example.
The case method is controversial. The primary pedagogical rap on it is that it is an inefficient way to teach some things. This is particularly true, the argument goes, if concepts or quantitative techniques are the subject of the day. Why not instead employ an expert to lecture on the subject? The counter argument is that the case method fosters a process of self-discovery not common to a student sitting in a lecture hall.
The case method requires that instructors often pass control of the learning process to the class. Many critics are unwilling or unable to do this. On almost any given day at HBS, someone in the class knows more about the material being taught than the instructor. That’s why instructors are encouraged to prepare their own case materials. It’s a way of educating themselves as well. And a body of cases often leads to research based on anecdotal information obtained in case preparation. This is another source of criticism from those preferring research based on large data bases of quantitative information and advanced analytic techniques.
"It can be a living hell for some distinguished CEOs returning to the School thinking that they can begin the transition to retirement by 'lecturing.'"
We are told that management challenges and opportunities posed by such things as the need for sustainability, the development of the metaverse, questions about the future of work and the workplace, grey swans such as pandemics, and on and on, are greater than ever before. Is the case method the best, or even a good, way to inspire and develop people able to lead in a world demanding more and more social conscience as well as organizational agility and adaptability?
Clearly, the case method is not for everyone, students or faculty members. It can be a living hell for some distinguished CEOs returning to the School thinking that they can begin the transition to retirement by “lecturing” in the classroom. It also requires adaptability on the part of instructors moving between HBS and other schools, including schools that either don’t emphasize the case method and/or place more emphasis on research than teaching in their instructor evaluations.
The case method has weathered a hundred years of controversy and criticism. Can it survive another hundred years? What do you think?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's note: Heskett explores the leader's role in his book, Win From Within: Build Organizational Culture for Competitive Advantage.
Your feedback to last month’s column
As Disney Board Chair, What Would You Advise CEO Bob Chapek Regarding ‘Don’t Say Gay’?
By the time cases are discussed at HBS and elsewhere, we often have more information about the problem and how management addressed it. That need not alter the nature of the case discussion, unless one assumes that we always predict the future accurately and respond in the right manner. It helps explain why some of the most fruitful case discussions concern matters that transpired years ago.
Last month’s column provides a case in point. It posed an issue facing Disney’s leadership about whether and how to respond further to a piece of legislation on which employees, customers, and investors hold greatly varying views.
The column provoked some very thoughtful responses. In taking a public stand supported by some of its employees, Disney ran the risk of alienating portions of all of its constituencies as well as those holding political sway over the home state of its Disney World.
The sense of many responses to the column was that Disney CEO Bob Chapek should lower the company’s profile on the cultural issue in question, meet with his employees (rather than a small group of staff), and reaffirm the company’s values that Elizabeth Brady reminded us include “World of Belonging: We reimagine tomorrow through stories and storytellers who inspire a more inclusive world” and “World of Hope: We bring comfort, optimism, and joy to our communities and inspire hope, especially for children.” This may help explain why many people went to work for Disney and why the company’s CEO took a stand that favored the views of some employees at the risk of alienating parents/customers and investors.
Jon Ketcham suggested that if any further public statements are made, they should emphasize that “Disney supports inclusion.” and “Disney supports parents.”
Others questioned whether the issue was sufficiently important or one on which nearly all constituencies could agree. This line of thinking urged Disney’s leadership to get out of the controversy, to conduct discussions internally to learn from the experience, and to move forward with a clear view of the nature of the issues in which Disney should be involved.
As David Wittenberg put it, “There are some offenses that are so egregious that no one in good conscience should ignore them. There are others which are objectionable but which do not require a response by a corporation such as Disney.”
Ricardo Durazzo commented, “… don’t become a pawn in political infighting between politicians and activists. This is not our fight. Disney will follow and respect the law of the land, whatever it may be.”
Another strategy in rapidly changing situations is to write a “B case” that takes issues in the original case further. The Disney “B case” is writing itself at this moment. Most of us know now that even without any further public statements on the corporation’s behalf, management has seen Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the state’s legislature continue to litigate the issue by dissolving Disney’s 55-year-old Reedy Creek Improvement District on June 1, 2023 (providing over a year to negotiate this situation further). The district was created by state law to exempt 38 square miles of property from most state and local regulations. It allows Disney to collect taxes, follow its own building codes and provide emergency services for its six theme parks and resorts in the area.
So now we can ask the question, “What should Bob Chapek do now?” What do you think?