The Truss Construction Crisis

Critical Thinking Paper:  Why Multiple Perspectives Can Help Shed Light on a Problem
Introduction
The crisis in the truss construction shop has come about because of a number of different factors that have given way to complaints, fears and concerns. The complaints have come from workers on the floor, sales reps dealing with customers, and customers questioning whether the trusses are up to standards. The fears are that the worker safety is in peril; sales may not go through which hurts the pay of sales reps; and that trusses might fail, which puts clients and the public at risk. The concerns are that the company has made claims about the strength of the trusses and it is unclear at this point whether the trusses can satisfy those claims; owners want to do more testing to see if trusses are failing at lower weight levels; workers want to know if the breakthrough technology used to create the trusses is really innovative or just cheap and dangerous. To address this crisis, management needs to engage in critical thinking. Critical thinking involves identifying the problem, gathering information, sorting out that information and accepting that which is relevant, understanding various points of view, and making the right decision based on what is morally right and what is in the best interests of all involved (Halpern, 2014). It should not mean having to chose one stakeholder over another, and it should not mean having to compromise. Critical thinkers look to create win-win situations out of what appear to be lose-lose situations (Nalis, Schutz & Pastukhov, 2018). As Fisher and Ury (1991) point out, the key to success is in getting everyone to agree with a firm yes that everyone’s needs have been met. That is what this paper will show by explaining the issue, analyzing the data, and discussing alternative points of view and recommendations.
Explanation of the Issue
The issue at stake is that a truss strength test was conducted, the truss broke because it was pushed past its threshold maximum, and an employee was injured. Various questions, concerns and fears have arisen as a result. One worker has even leaked information to the public, whether accurate or misleading is unknown, about what is going at the truss construction shop and why people should be alarmed. Overall, it is not a good look for the company. However, it does not mean the crisis cannot be solved with a little bit of critical thinking. As Julian (2002) explains, every crisis can be resolved by simply asking what one’s duty is in a situation and then adhering to that duty while keeping an open mind about how to use the situation to achieve an even greater outcome than what might have been expected.
What is known is that someone was injured on the floor. Why did this happen? Was the person following safety standards? Does the construction shop have safety standards? Does it need to develop safety standards? Safety is rightly an issue for employees and it should be addressed. The safety needs of workers should be satisfied.
The other issue is that the public now does not know whether the promises made by the company about the trusses are true. The company needs to be as transparent as possible. The truss that broke was past its maximum threshold. That means it broke because it was not designed to hold anymore weight. Even if everyone expected it to be able to, those expectations were obviously wrong. The recommended threshold was recommended for a reason and was correct. The truss will not be good past a certain limit. That needs to be made very clear to the public. Clients have to know what they can expect from the truss. Customer safety needs have to be satisfied just as much as worker safety needs.
Then there is the issue of the sales team. They have skin in the game as well because they are on the front lines making claims to customers and promising delivery. If shipments are held up, they lose customers, which means they lose pay. Before the company does anything it has to first be sure that the trusses are safe. So it needs to ask: Has the company tested the trusses enough at lower levels?
Analysis of the Information
The most relevant information is that regarding the trusses themselves. The truss is at the heart of everyone else’s issues—aside from the separate but related issue of workplace safety. The workplace safety issue needs to be addressed regardless of what is turned up during the course of the investigation on the truss strength. The workplace has to be secured, and it must be known whether the injured worker was following safety protocol. If so, the protocol needs to be revised. If not, then why was he not? If there is no protocol, it must be developed. That is the separate issue. The main issue affecting the other stakeholders is the truss itself.
The truss was developed to be commercial strength, but it was also made using new methods. Since a truss broke, workers are concerned the methods are inadequate. They want to know the truss is of good quality and that the company is not cheating on the build. The sales team has to know what to tell customers. What is the actual strength of the truss? If there is no certainty on this, the sales team is going to have a difficult time selling it.
Managers may be fearful of going forward because of the bad press and the negative reactions of everyone. But managers cannot avoid making hard decisions (Julian, 2002). They have to be willing to face the unknown and believe that they can overcome obstacles by seeking the good and working to satisfy the needs of all stakeholders (Bosworth, 2011). If they come up against people who are not of good will then they have to sever connections with them. That appears to have been what happened with the worker who leaked information to the public about the trusses. He had no right to do that and he only poured gasoline on the fire. The managers were justified in firing that person. It was a reckless act on the part of the worker because he did not have all the information. The managers themselves do not have all the information, so how could the employee. Those types of workers cannot be trusted to be part of a solution, so firing that person was appropriate.
However, it could be that the individual truly had the best interest of the public in mind. If this is the case, it may be fair to discuss with the worker why what he did was wrong and ask him if he wants to be part of the solution. Firing a worker who raises questions about safety can be a bad look as well, so it might be warranted to give that worker another opportunity at the firm. It depends on the character of the worker and what his intentions are. Management may want to consider that.
The information obtained thus far indicates that the most important thing to do is to make sure the trusses are strong enough to meet the conditions advertised. If not, then the advertising claims have to be pulled. If so, then the trusses can be sold. Further testing may not be necessary if it has already been done. The managers should make sure that testing standards have been met. The injury of a worker should not be viewed as reason to hold back deliveries if the injury resulted from workers not adhering to safety standards. The test conducted at the time was one in which the risk of truss failure was a possibility since the truss was being pushed past its max.
Consideration of Alternative Viewpoints and Conclusions
Considering alternative viewpoints is important because there are so many different stakeholders in this issue. It is not just a simple matter of satisfying the needs of one group; there are multiple groups—workers, sales team, customers, the public, managers, and safety inspectors. They all should be consulted and questioned so that everyone feels that they are included on this matter and that they are helping to contribute to a positive outcome. To make a critical decision, one needs the information and the information will best be provided by hearing the alternative viewpoints.
The workers for instance will have their view on the construction of the trusses. They will be able to share their experience on how well they are built and what their thoughts on the matter are. They will give some important perspectives on what they consider the build quality to be. They should be given the opportunity to express their thoughts on the matter.
The sales team also has to be considered. Their point of view is oriented towards selling the product, so they need to be heard. They will want to know what they can and cannot say. They will also let managers know what has already been said. Managers should be aware of what customers are expected so that they know how to handle the situation on that end.
The public has already been told something about the truss construction, thanks to the leaker, and their perspective now also has to be heard. They want to know what is going on with the trusses and if the trusses are being developed in a way that meets industry standards. They do not want to be misled or rely on leakers for information. They are going to want the company to be transparent. The company should listen to this and accept it as reasonable.
The safety team will also have a perspective to consider. The safety team will know what tests have been run and whether the trusses have passed enough tests to be able to be taken safely to market with confidence that the maximum load will hold. The safety team also will be able to tell managers what the conditions are on the floor. The floor safety protocols should be established and if they are not then the safety team will likely have some ideas on this.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Everyone has to be given his due in this particular issue, from the workers on the floor to the consumer buying the trusses from the sale team. Everyone is a stakeholder and everyone’s interests must be met. The way to do that is to understand what each group needs. The one thing they all have in common is that they all need to know what the truss can do. That means the truss has to be tested. The truss has been tested, but it is unknown if more testing is required. If the testing done can verify that the truss is good up to the max load, then there is nothing to worry about: all stakeholders can sleep calmly knowing that they are either working on and selling trusses that are safe or that they are buying trusses that will not fail so long as they are not pushed beyond their maximum weight limits.
The issue of safety in the construction shop is a separate issue altogether. A worker has been injured. That is unacceptable. He is now in an induced coma because something either went wrong on the floor and proper safety guidelines were not followed, or because there are no proper safety guidelines in place. There is no reason a worker should be injured during a truss stress test. It should be obvious to everyone what the risks of such a test are and if a worker is in a position where he could be injured that is on management to figure out why that is happening. Management should be concerned about these two issues because they are the problems that are at the bottom of the truss construction crisis.
Management should therefore make sure that the trusses are being tested sufficiently. If they have not been tested to standard according to the safety team, then there is nothing to do but delay shipment until all necessary tests can be completed and the true state of the trusses can be verified. If this means losing sales, that is unfortunate; however, it does not mean the sales team has to despair. Give the sales team an opportunity to keep these sales by informing clients that testing is being done to verify truss weight limits and that as soon as this is completed the trusses will ship. If it turns out that the tests show the trusses are not meeting expectations, it means the entire production has to shut down because the trusses themselves represent a significant problem. That is a bridge that should not be crossed until it is necessary. Right now, everything indicates that the truss failed because it went over the max threshold and that in itself should not be a cause of major concern. The public can be informed about this as well, and it should be explained that the injury of the worker was because of safety guidelines either not being followed or not being implemented. This injury should not be related to the issue of the trusses at all, since the truss failure was at a point above the threshold.
References
Bosworth, D. A. (2011). Faith and resilience: King David's reaction to the death of Bathsheba's firstborn. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 73(4), 691-707.
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes. NY: Penguin.
Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking, 5th edition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Julian, L. (2002). God is my CEO: Following God's principles in a bottom-line world. Simon and Schuster.
Nalis, D., Schütz, A., & Pastukhov, A. (2018). The Bamberg Trucking Game: A Paradigm for Assessing the Detection of Win–Win Solutions in a Potential Conflict Scenario. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 138.