The case study presents almost an ethical scenario in a business setting. The main protagonist is Nasira, who is young first-serious employment at K9DC, a producer of various pet accessories. The company orders parts and assembles them in Michigan, using the made in USA trademark. It is Nasira’s job to procure parts. She is looking for a new fabric lining for dog cots. One supplier is overseas with cheap but durable fabric, but Nasira has concerns about their working conditions and manufacturing practices. The other company located in the nearby Midwest offers lower quality fabric that may be a chewing hazard for dogs for a higher price, and there is clear evidence about their illegal environmental dumping. Management at K9DC is letting Nasira know that a choice has to be made immediately, or the company will face production delays and layoffs, of which she will be the first to go as a new employee. Nasira realizes that she is from an ethical standpoint because her decision not only supports the unethical practices of these suppliers but can also impact the final product of her own company K9DC.
The critical thinking tool that could be used here is the ladder of inference. Schwartz (2016) describes it as a means to reevaluate data that was originally seen. It is a model of decision-making developed by Harvard professors Chris Argyris and Donald Schön. The premise is to slow down and consider the data being taken in. Usually, people make decisions based on past experiences, and single-moment assumptions as the brain are wired to prioritize data to the model which an individual holds. The goal of this tool is to take step by step to check these assumptions. First, one starts out with broad data and assumptions and eventually narrows it down by taking into account the details until there is a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. Therefore, for the situation, Nasira should use the ladder of inference to analyze the information regarding each supplier and the outcomes of working with each one.
A recommended solution is for Nasira to recommend the supplier from overseas, Far-Right Inc. First; her concerns are based fully on speculation, unlike the other supplier where there is concrete data in terms of protests and lawsuits. Her assumptions are based on the premise that Far Right is located overseas and therefore must use exploitative labor and substandard environmental protocols. However, she needs to apply the ladder of inference and gather more information, making objective and logical decisions. She needs to investigate further, and until then, it is the best choice. Second, the quality of the fabric matters, not only for the bottom line of K9DC but for the safety of pets for its consumers. The Midwest manufacturer’s fabric was of poorer quality and a hazard for dogs. If they were to go with it, K9DC could at worst experience a reputation blow with decreased sales that would put it out of business and, at worst, would face lawsuits from pet owners. Since Nasira is faced with a choice between the two, Far-Right Inc. is the safest alternative. That way, she is able to keep the company afloat and her job, taking the time to then consider additional manufacturers in the future that may be more transparent in their business dealings, and if she receives a promotion, she may have a greater influence with what type of suppliers K9DC works for going forward in terms of quality and sustainability.
Reference
Schwartz, K. (2016). Three tools for teaching critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Web.