Description
Unformatted Attachment Preview
“This Whole System Seems Wrong”
Felipe Montez and Concerns about the
Global Supply Chain1
In 2003 Felipe Montez was hired to be a Purchasing Director and Product Designer for a Spanish
electronics company. This company focused on supplying fashion-forward personal electronics (such as
cell phones or MP3 players) and had built their reputation by quickly responding to trends in electronics
while still maintaining a reasonable price point. In order to keep prices low and produce products
quickly, the company outsourced certain elements of their production, most recently to factories in
South China.
Until Felipe was hired, the company had a 27 year history of working with a distributor in Hong Kong,
during which time no one from the Spanish headquarters had ever visited the actual Chinese factories
where their goods were manufactured. Felipe had previous experience working in Asia, and decided to
cut out the middle-man by working directly with the factories in China that supplied his company’s
goods. Working directly with their factories eliminated the distributor’s mark-up (which was sometimes
as high as 30%) and allowed for faster communication and delivery from the factory.
On Felipe’s first trip to China he visited several factories. Conditions varied from one factory to another.
A few of them were clean and very organized, but some facilities seemed more chaotic. Felipe was
particularly concerned about the conditions in the factory that produced the majority of his company’s
goods.
Many of the employees at this factory appeared to be very young (Felipe guessed they were 12-16 years
old). In response to questions about the youth of the workers, the factory manager told Felipe that
1
This case was inspired by interviews and observations of actual experiences but names and other situational
details have been changed for confidentiality and teaching purposes.
These cases were prepared for the Giving Voice to Values program for Columbia Business School by Mary C. Gentile,
Ph.D. and Professor William Klepper, with the assistance of Clelia Peters, Columbia ’09 and Miguel Lopez, Columbia ’08,
and with funding from the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Center for Leadership and Ethics. This case is also available through
the Columbia CaseWorks collection and appears in that collection as #081803.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
1
younger girls were valued for their precision work: they had small hands and could mount chips on
motherboards very carefully. Although younger girls were slower than an assembly machine, the factory
manager told Felipe they were cheaper to “run” and “maintain”. The young factory workers had to work
for what the foreman claimed to be an 8-hour work day, 6 days a week. In general, the factory manager
seemed to regard the workers less as human beings and more as part of a mechanical process. Felipe was
shocked to discover that during their shifts the workers were not allowed to look up, because the factory
manager did not want them to lose one second of concentration. In spite of these long hours of
concentrated work, the young girls installing chips into motherboards did not have magnifying glasses to
ease the strain on their eyes.
Felipe was also concerned that working conditions in the factory were unhealthy. He noticed that, in
spite of high temperatures in the region (often above 100º Fahrenheit), the only employees working in an
air-conditioned space were the ones working with the assembly machines, because the machines needed
a constant room temperature. Felipe was especially troubled by the fact that some factory employees
worked in the immediate vicinity of melted lead, while others painted plastic cases with only paper
masks for respiratory protection from resulting gasses. (In fact, on a later visit Felipe discovered that
these workers were paid more, as it was well-known in the community that these workers would often
get seriously ill, and perhaps even die.) The workers’ lives outside of the factory also concerned Felipe:
all of the workers lived next door in a factory-owned building that did not have windows or running
water.
After his visit, Felipe could not stop thinking about what he had seen at this factory. He had visited a
number of factories in China, and while there were certainly factories with worse conditions, there were
many where conditions were far better. He was uncomfortable about continuing to source the majority
of his company’s products from the factory with conditions as they were. On the other hand, Felipe
knew that this particular factory was prized for the speed and quality of its work and that his job was to
maintain the quality of his company’s goods. Felipe was unsure if he had the expertise to find a suitable
replacement factory, and he reasoned that even if he took his company’s business elsewhere, it would do
nothing to change the lives of the young people working in the factory.
Felipe knew some representatives for the other companies that sent work to this factory, and he talked to
them about his concerns. On the whole, they seemed far less concerned. In fact, many of his colleagues
pointed out that without a job in the factory, the young people who worked there would likely be doing
more difficult work in the fields, or in the case of the young girls, might be pressured into prostitution.
They suggested that working in the factory was a way out of poverty for these young people, even if
conditions were a little rough.
He knew that many of these other company representatives were far more senior than he was and had
been visiting this factory for years. Faced with their responses to his concerns, Felipe wondered, “If it is
okay for them to do nothing about the conditions, maybe it is alright for me to do nothing as well? After
all, they seem to know more about the situation than I do.” But with more thought Felipe realized he
wasn’t comfortable with this mentality—while working in a factory may have been better than the
alternative for these young people, it did not mean that conditions could not still be improved.
When he returned to Spain, Felipe discussed what he had seen with his manager and detailed his
concerns about certain conditions in the factory. His manager encouraged Felipe to follow up on specific
issues he had identified, such as the need for magnifying glasses for the young girls doing precision
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
2
work. However, he was discouraged from raising the larger issues, such as long hours and lack of breaks
for the workers, since his manager reasoned that any changes in the factory’s policies would increase
costs and therefore increase the purchase price of the goods they were sourcing from the factory.
Felipe knew that some larger public companies had more stringent requirements for their factories. He
had also heard that some electronics companies were talking about creating an industry group to enforce
better labor standards in their factories in Asia. However, most of these companies were placing orders
on a much larger scale than his company (often working as the exclusive client of large factories, unlike
his company, which worked with factories that were serving a variety of different clients), and he
suspected his management wouldn’t want to get involved in issues that might ultimately raise prices. He
did find out, however, that his company had a small charitable fund that focused on providing microfinance loans to women in India.
Still, as a junior member of the staff, Felipe was concerned about pressing this issue. He could tell that
his manager considered the discussion over, and going above his head seemed like a bad idea. Felipe
was also concerned that he could undermine his credibility in the company or be branded as too naïve.
However, when he thought about things he had seen in China, he felt guilty and sad, even when he tried
to tell himself that this was just the reality of the world. He wanted to act prudently and effectively, but
how? What could he do and say next?
Last Revised: 02/28/2010
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
3
Portfolio Task B: The Writing Process in the Digital Era
Course Code
Course Title
MBA554
Communication and Writing for Accountants
Course Instructor
Coursework format
Dr Anfaal Ahmad-Khan
Part A: Business Report
Part B: Reflection
Part C: Mini Case (writing an email)
Part A: 5%
Part B: 2%
Part C: 3%
Part A: 1000 words
Part B: 250 words
Part C: 300 words (part i: 200 words; part ii:
100 words)
(always +/- 10% of the word limit) excluding
references)
17th March 2024 at 10pm
Weighting
Word limit
Submission date
Overview of Part A, B and C
Part A: In Module 2, we looked at applying the 3-x-3 writing process to business messages. This
included prewriting (to analyze, anticipate and adapt), drafting, (to research, organize and draft) and
revising (to edit, proofread and evaluate). Revise these phases before you begin Part A. We also
discussed that writing should be purposeful, economical and audience centered. Now it is your turn
to actively implement the 3-x-3 writing process. Carefully read the background and task for Part A
below. You will produce a business report following the 3-x-3 process. Ensure that you note down
the time that you spend doing each phase of the 3-x-3 writing process (prewriting, drafting, and
revising) as you will need this for Part B. After reading the instructions for Part A, please be aware
that we did not cover Grunig’s (1978) Situational Theory of Publics. This is a new concept/theory for
you to self-learn about. This will contribute to your prewriting and drafting time which is routine
practice in the business setting.
Part B: This is a personal reflection on Part A. Please see below for instructions.
Part C: In Module 2, we looked at writing techniques and strategies (such as professionalism, tone,
clarity etc.). We also discussed the importance of communication styles. See below for more details.
Part A: Business Report
Background:
You are a strategic communication consultant hired by a small tech startup, “InnoTech Solutions,”
which is preparing to launch a groundbreaking product in the highly competitive market of smart
home devices. As part of your consultancy, you have decided to apply Grunig’s (1978) Situational
Theory of Publics to assess and enhance the company’s communication strategies, with a specific
focus on engaging investors.
Task:
Your task is to write a comprehensive business report that analyzes how InnoTech Solutions can
effectively employ Grunig’s Situational Theory of Publics to navigate the complex landscape of
stakeholders and publics, with a primary audience of potential investors, in the smart home device
market.
Report Rubric:
See Appendix A (at the end of the document) for the report rubric.
Word limit: 1000 words
Part B: Reflection
Task:
Reflect on your experience of the 3-x-3 writing process that you applied in Part A. In you reflection
discuss the following:
i.
According to research, you should expect to spend about 25% of your time prewriting, 25%
drafting, and 50% revising. Did you spend a similar amount of time on each phase of writing?
State your % time allocation on each phase. Did this meet your expectations? Did you follow
the order (prewriting drafting revising)? If not, elaborate.
ii.
Briefly discuss your experience on each phase of the writing process. Did you implement any
strategies/techniques that were discussed in Module 2 (such as brainstorming, mind
mapping, freewriting, shorter sentences etc)?
iii.
Which phase of the writing process did you find the most challenging? Why?
iv.
What did you learn about your own writing process?
Part C: Mini Case
Background:
Read the ‘Felipe and Tech Musica Mini Case’ uploaded to e-Learning under ‘Portfolio 2’
Felipe is the Purchasing Director and Product Designer at a
Tech Musica, a Spanish electronics company that makes
“fashion-forward personal electronics” such as MP3
players. Felipe has encountered a serious problem and told
his boss Humberto about it, but the boss has rebuffed him.
Your boss Humberto has refused to do anything about the situation (see the mini case for details).
However, he mentions that you may raise the issue to the company’s CEO. You are now in a
conflicting situation. One the one hand, you are looking for a promotion and don’t want to displease
senior management but on the other hand, your personal ethic does not enable you to remain silent
on the issue. After a few days of contemplating, you decide to compose and send an email to the
company’s CEO, Amanda Goold, alerting her to the issue.
Task:
i.
ii.
Compose an email of 200-words directed to Amanda Goold, the company’s CEO expressing
your concerns.
Briefly discuss if you would/wouldn’t cc your boss, Humberto into the email. Justify your
answer (100 words maximum). Note: there is no right or wrong answer!
Refer to the Portfolio guidance document for formatting, referencing and bibliography,
submitting your Portfolio task and Turnitin etc.
Appendix A
Criteria
Analysis and
Application of
Grunig’s Theory
Demonstrates
understanding of
Grunig’s theory
Identifies and
defines relevant
publics
Strategic
Recommendatio
nss
Proposes tailored
communication
strategies
Understanding of
Grunig’s
influence on
strategies
Emphasis on
strategies for
engaging
investors
Challenges and
Mitigations
Exceptional
Proficient
Basic
Limited
Exhibits a
sophisticated
understanding of
Grunig’s 1978
Situational Theory,
providing nuanced
insights and
connections.
Clearly and accurately
identifies all relevant
publics in the smart
home device market,
demonstrating insight
into their
characteristics and
expectations.
Demonstrates a solid
understanding of
Grunig’s theory,
effectively applying its
principles to the
analysis.
Shows a basic
understanding of
Grunig’s theory but
may lack depth or
some key
connections.
Displays a limited
understanding of
Grunig’s theory, with
significant gaps or
misconceptions.
Identifies most
relevant publics with
accurate descriptions,
showcasing a good
understanding of their
characteristics.
Identifies some
relevant publics but
may lack accuracy in
descriptions or miss
key stakeholders.
Fails to accurately
identify or describe
relevant publics.
Offers highly effective
communication
strategies tailored to
each identified public,
demonstrating
creativity and
thorough
consideration of
situational factors.
Clearly articulates
how Grunig’s
situational factors
shape the
recommended
communication
strategies, showcasing
a deep understanding
of theory-application
connection.
Places a strong and
explicit emphasis on
communication
strategies designed to
engage potential
investors,
demonstrating a keen
awareness of investor
interests.
Presents well-thoughtout communication
strategies, tailored to
each public, with a
clear connection to
situational factors.
Provides basic
communication
strategies, but may
lack depth or a clear
connection to
situational factors.
Offers generic or
ineffective
communication
strategies without
clear ties to
situational factors.
Demonstrates a solid
understanding of how
Grunig’s theory
influences the
recommended
strategies.
Shows a basic
understanding of the
connection between
Grunig’s theory and
recommended
strategies, but lacks
depth.
Fails to clearly
articulate the
influence of Grunig’s
theory on
recommended
strategies.
Recognizes the
importance of
engaging investors and
includes relevant
strategies, though
emphasis may be
moderate.
Mentions engaging
investors but lacks
clarity or specific
strategies for their
involvement.
Fails to emphasize or
provide strategies for
engaging investors.
Identifies
potential
challenges
Provides
proactive and
effective
mitigations
Professionalism
and Presentation
Maintains a
formal and
professional tone
Clarity of writing,
grammar, and
spelling
Overall
Presentation
Structure and
organization
Adheres to
formatting and
submission
guidelines
Clearly identifies and
anticipates potential
challenges in
implementing the
recommended
strategies, showing
foresight and insight.
Offers well-reasoned
and proactive
measures to mitigate
potential challenges,
showing a
comprehensive
approach to problemsolving.
Identifies most
potential challenges,
demonstrating a good
understanding of
potential obstacles.
Identifies some
potential challenges,
but may miss key
issues or lack depth in
understanding.
Fails to identify or
misinterprets
potential challenges.
Provides effective
mitigations for
identified challenges,
though some may lack
depth or
thoroughness.
Offers basic
mitigations, but may
lack specificity or
overlook some key
challenges.
Mitigations are
insufficient, unclear,
or ineffective.
Consistently
maintains a formal
and professional tone
throughout the
report, adhering to
proper business
communication
standards.
Writing is
exceptionally clear,
with flawless
grammar and spelling
throughout the
report.
Mostly maintains a
formal tone, with
occasional lapses or
minor deviations.
Demonstrates an
attempt at
professionalism but
may have frequent
lapses or significant
deviations.
Lacks a professional
tone throughout the
report.
Writing is mostly clear,
with few grammar or
spelling errors.
Writing is somewhat
unclear, with
noticeable grammar
and spelling errors
that impact
readability.
Writing is unclear,
with frequent and
significant grammar
and spelling errors.
Report is
exceptionally wellorganized, with a
logical flow of ideas
and clear
headings/subheadings
sss
Strictly adheres to
formatting and
submission guidelines,
presenting a polished
and professional
report.
Report is wellorganized, with a
mostly logical flow and
clear
headings/subheadings
ss.s
Report is somewhat
organized, with
occasional disruptions
in flow or unclear
headings/subheadings
sss
Report lacks
organization, with a
confusing flow and
unclear or missing
headings/subheadings
sss
Mostly adheres to
formatting and
submission guidelines,
with minor deviations
or oversights.
Somewhat adheres to
formatting and
submission guidelines,
with noticeable
deviations or
oversights.
Fails to adhere to
formatting and
submission guidelines.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
