More from these Authors

• Case | HBS Case Collection | May 2007 (Revised November 2019)

  Dollar General (A)

  Willy Shih, Stephen P. Kaufman and Rebecca McKillican

  Dollar General Corporation (DG) operates one of the leading chains of extreme value retailers in the United States. 2006 revenues reached $9.2 billion, making DG the 6th largest mass retailer in the country. With revenues growing at 9% annually over the five-year period up to 2005, DG had the distinction of being only one of three retailers to outperform Wal-Mart in both revenue and profit growth in that time. Life in a Dollar General store paints a vivid picture of the roots and historical focus of the company. Opportunistic buying has given the stores an eclectic merchandise mix. Analysts often referred to this category as "treasure hunt" SKUs. Offers an opportunity to examine a company's business model, particularly since DG has been so successful competing with Wal-Mart where so many other retailers have not. While it started out as a family business in the five-and-dime tradition, it evolved to a close-out retail model where its unique low-overhead operations were advantageous. As it added highly consumable categories its mix shifted, but it managed to retain its low-overhead model. Interestingly, the mix shift was likely more an emergency strategy driven by store-level operations than by top-down driven strategy. Frames the growth options available to DG's CEO as he grapples with how to maintain growth.

  Keywords: Business Model; Family Business; Disruptive Innovation; Growth and Development Strategy; Competitive Advantage; Retail Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Shih, Willy, Stephen P. Kaufman, and Rebecca McKillican. "Dollar General (A)." Harvard Business School Case 607-140, May 2007. (Revised November 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Article | Harvard Business Review | October 14, 2019

  The Truth About Open Offices: There Are Reasons Why They Don't Produce the Desired Interactions

  Ethan Bernstein and Ben Waber

  It’s never been easier for workers to collaborate—or so it seems. Open, flexible, activity-based spaces are displacing cubicles, making people more visible. Messaging is displacing phone calls, making people more accessible. Enterprise social media such as Slack and Microsoft Teams are displacing watercooler conversations, making people more connected. Virtual-meeting software such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and Webex is displacing in-person meetings, making people ever-present. The architecture of collaboration has not changed so quickly since technological advances in lighting and ventilation made tall office buildings feasible, and one could argue that it has never before been so efficient. Designing workplaces for interaction between two or more individuals—or collaboration, from the Latin collaborare, meaning to work together—has never seemed so easy.
  But as the physical and technological structures for omnichannel collaboration have spread, evidence suggests they are producing behaviors at odds with designers’ expectations and business managers’ desires. In a number of workplaces we have observed for research projects, those structures have produced less interaction—or less meaningful interaction—not more.
  In this article we discuss those unintended consequences and provide guidance on conducting experiments to uncover how your employees really interact. That will help you equip them with the spaces and technologies that best support their needs.

  Keywords: Buildings and Facilities; Interpersonal Communication; Communication Technology; Design; Human Resources; Performance Productivity; Organizational Design;

  Citation:

  Bernstein, Ethan, and Ben Waber. "The Truth About Open Offices: There Are Reasons Why They Don't Produce the Desired Interactions." Harvard Business Review 97, no. 6 (November–December 2019): 82–91.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Register to Read

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2019

  Engaging the Nationwide Workforce

  Ethan Bernstein, Jessica Gover and Sarah Mehta

  Nationwide is “on your side,” but did employees feel that way? CAO Gale King and CEO Steve Rasmussen, starting in 2008, invested heavily in a human capital strategy centered around “engagement” at the Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Set in 2014, this case tells the story of those efforts to bolster employee engagement as a key part of the company’s strategy to recover from the financial crisis (which it did far more effectively than most of its peers, rising in the Fortune 500 ranking as a result). From 2008 to 2013, Nationwide has seen employee engagement improve from the third to the sixth decile of Gallup’s North American Finance and Insurance workgroup database. The case details the multi-pronged human capital strategy that Rasmussen and King implemented. It concludes by asking students to consider: will a new initiative aimed at moving Nationwide’s dozen brand under a single umbrella jeopardize the culture gains that Nationwide has achieved over the last six years?

  Keywords: Talent and Talent Management; Change; Change Management; Transformation; Insurance; Human Resources; Employees; Employee Relationship Management; Retention; Selection and Staffing; Employment; Human Capital; Leadership; Leadership Development; Organizational Change and Adaptation; Social Psychology; Financial Services Industry; Insurance Industry; United States; Ohio;

  Citation:

  Bernstein, Ethan, Jessica Gover, and Sarah Mehta. "Engaging the Nationwide Workforce." Harvard Business School Case 420-036, October 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related