Group vs. Individual Decision-Making: Mudge Paper Company
This case study analysis examines a contract negotiation dispute at Mudge Paper Company, centering on sales lead Lauren Becall's unilateral decision to accept revised terms from the company's largest customer, Bart's Office Supplies. The paper explores both Lauren's and CEO John Crickett's perspectives, then systematically compares the advantages and disadvantages of group versus individual decision-making. It identifies specific cognitive biases — anchoring and overconfidence — that influenced Lauren's choice to act alone, and evaluates the business-financial implications of the new contract terms. The analysis concludes that a group decision-making process would have produced better, more sustainable outcomes for Mudge Paper Company.
- Overview of the Case and Stakeholder Perspectives: Lauren's and CEO Crickett's contrasting views on the contract decision
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Group vs. Individual Decision-Making: Theoretical comparison of decision-making modes applied to case
- Lauren's Cognitive Biases in the Decision-Making Process: Anchoring and overconfidence biases driving Lauren's solo decision
- The CEO's Bias in the Decision-Making Process: CEO's skepticism toward Bart's shapes negotiation constraints
- Business Facts Supporting Group Decision-Making: Financial analysis of contract terms favoring group consultation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates theory directly with case details — each concept (groupthink, anchoring bias, overconfidence) is immediately grounded in specific character behaviors, making the analysis concrete and persuasive.
- The financial facts section adds analytical rigor by quantifying the stakes ($0.75 million increase in sales vs. foregone interest and elevated credit risk), showing the student can evaluate business decisions numerically.
- The paper maintains a balanced tone, presenting Lauren's perspective charitably before critiquing it, which demonstrates critical thinking rather than one-sided argumentation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied concept analysis — taking abstract management theories (groupthink, cognitive biases, decision-making models) and systematically applying them to a specific organizational scenario. Each theoretical concept is introduced with a citation, defined precisely, and then mapped onto a named character and situation, showing mastery of the source material rather than surface-level description.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a prompt-response structure across five sections. It opens with a stakeholder perspective analysis (Lauren vs. the CEO), then pivots to a conceptual comparison of decision-making modes, followed by two bias-identification sections, and closes with a quantitative business argument. This progression moves from descriptive to analytical to evaluative, building toward a clear and supported recommendation.
Overview of the Case and Stakeholder Perspectives
This case study revolves around Lauren Becall, the head of the sales team at Mudge Paper Company and the salesperson responsible for supporting the company's largest customer, Bart's Office Supplies. At one point, Lauren decides on the terms of Bart's new contract without consulting her two colleagues to obtain their views. Lauren's boss, CEO John Crickett, advocates for group discussions and is concerned about her choice to reach a decision alone.
From Lauren's perspective, the decision needed to be made immediately, as Bart's had threatened to consider a competitor's offer (from King Paper) if Mudge did not respond the same day. The CEO also wanted an immediate answer so that he had a clear mind going into the Memorial Day holiday. Lauren may therefore argue that she did not have time to call a meeting with her colleagues, as doing so would have caused delays and cost the organization its contract with Bart's. In her view, Bart's was a significant customer and Mudge could not risk the business relationship. Moreover, Lauren did not trust her colleague Griffith to serve Mudge's best interests, given his close relationship with Bart's CEO. Her other teammate, Ronnie, was indecisive and often sought to please both parties, making her of limited help in a high-pressure situation. For these reasons, Lauren chose to accept Bart's new terms alone, guided by what she understood to be the company's best interests.
She acknowledged that the new contract threatened the company's cash flow position — it meant that Mudge would forgo interest on late payments and increase the credit limit by $0.5 million. However, the contract would bring in approximately $2.5 million in sales, compared to the $1.75 million initially agreed upon. In Lauren's view, the increase in sales volume was sufficient to offset the lost interest revenue.
Lauren recognized that the CEO would be disappointed with her decision to act alone, given his preference for group decision-making. The CEO was skeptical about the contract because it increased the credit limit from $0.75 million to $1 million and extended invoice payment terms from 30 days to 45 days — both of which threatened the company's cash flow. Furthermore, since Bart's was already paying invoices within 60 days rather than the 30 days stipulated in the original agreement, despite having no credit issues, the CEO believed the company was taking advantage of the existing business relationship. Despite the increased sales volume, the CEO would unlikely have consented to the new contractual terms. In his view, the proposed plan would hurt the company, and Lauren erred in deciding unilaterally.
On balance, Lauren needed to consult with other team members before reaching any final decision, in order to ensure collective ownership of the outcome. The argument that Mudge would have lost the contract without a same-day response is questionable — Lauren herself acknowledged this was probably a negotiation technique rather than a genuine ultimatum.
References
Band, B., & Partridge, L. (2001). Advanced decision-making. Select Knowledge.
Fight, A. (2005). Cash flow forecasting: Essential capital markets. Elsevier.
Griffin, R. W. (2021). Management (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Pizam, A. (2015). International encyclopedia of hospitality management. Routledge.
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behaviour. Pearson.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.