Introduction I was exposed to "case method" teaching in both the Harvard Law School J.D. and the Harvard Business School Doctoral Program. However, it was really during my nine years of teaching in classrooms at the INCAE Business School and the Harvard Business School during the 1970s that I came to deeply appreciate and begin to understand the methodology. When I left my academic career to become a full time consultant with Bain & Co, I gained an even deeper appreciation and understanding of why the principles underlying good case method teaching make for both superior managers and superior teachers. Starting with a real life story of a manager, in this article, I advance the thesis that superior managers often use case method teaching techniques. Seeing why these techniques are superior in a business context helps us understand why students coming from a case method curriculum are likely to get superior training for real world management positions. Also through my experience with "live cases," I argue that the structure of thinking embedded in the classic Harvard business case is an efficient way of thinking through most business problems. Vern in Action One day around 1985, when I had left academia and was playing the role of consultant to business leaders with Bain & Co, I was sitting in on the weekly management meeting of a CEO client (let's call him Vem) that I greatly admired. Watching him in action, I noticed that a big part of his success as a manager was his use of case method techniques. He sat at the head of the table. He had a carefully prepared agenda which this day included a tough strategy decision. He asked John, the involved division manager to introduce the issue and provide relevant background. He then went around the table asking each of his direct reports to provide input on the decision and say what they felt the company should do. These included Steve, head of production, Mark, head of marketing, Jim from HR and Jane, the CFO. He returned to John for his recommendation as he would be responsible for implementing the strategy. When Mark asserted something about consumer preferences as part of his recommendation, Vem asked him, "How do you know that? What hard data do you have?" When Jim simply repeated Steve's argument, Vem gently said, "Am I correct, you're just agreeing with Steve? If so, just say so and we'll move on." John's recommendation at the end reflected the majority's conventional solution and was clearly different from Mark's more audacious approach. Vem, wishing to go deeper on the differences between these two options, asked each, "How would you go about implementing your solution?" He gave them time to debate their differences and amplify their arguments. This permitted the group to visualize more fully in time and space the two options. However Vem didn't let the discussion bog down, he kept pushing it forward. At one point Vem brought the group up short by asking John, "What piece of evidence or analysis would cause you to agree with Mark?" A moment of silence followed. Each was forced to think about what data might cause them to change their opinion. In this meeting Vern did not reveal his own thinking, although I knew he was drawn to Mark's more audacious solution. Instead he ended the meeting asking both Steve and Mark to use the two weeks before the group would meet again to do a piece of analysis both had agreed was important. Two weeks later, with the new data and analysis, Steve and the others changed their mind and agreed on a version of Mark's more audacious recommendation. Vem closed the discussion saying "It looks like we all agree, let's do it." Good Case Method Teaching As I watched Vem in action, I suddenly thought He's doing what a good case method teacher does. Since I've seen Harvard business cases taught in a great variety of ways, some of which violate important principles of case method teaching, let me use Vern's actions to highlight some of the critical things good case method teachers do. …