Question
Evaluate the persuasiveness of the Magretta (1998) and Rosenthal (2013) articles using the concepts outlined in Chapter 6 of the Critical Thinking… text. Be sure to outline which aspects you find particularly persuasive and which elements you find less persuasive, and why.
Dyer, L. (2006). Critical Thinking for Business Students. Captus Press. (Chapter 6: Techniques of persuasion)
Magretta, J. (1998). Fast, global, and entrepreneurial: Supply chain management, Hong Kong style. An interview with Victor Fung. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 102–114.
Rosenthal, C., & Berinato, S. (2013). Plantations Practiced Modern Management. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 30–3.
Sample paper
Persuasiveness of the Magretta (1998) and Rosenthal (2013) Articles
Magretta (1998) narrates how Li & Fung addresses the change of customers’ demands in the market by shortening the supply chain response time. Magretta sounds very convincing and persuasive in her argument since she uses the fact of things that are already happening and can be proved by data in Li & Fung sales accounts, and its current position in the global market. According to the article, Li & Fung practice effective supply-chain management by stripping away costs and time from the product delivery cycles. Magretta convincingly explains why the company opted for this measure. The need to cater for the changing of customers’ needs pushed the company to come up with a unique way to address the dissatisfactory waiting time in clothes retailing business. According to Magretta, customers have become more fashion-driven, and to remain in the market, a retailer needs to ensure customers get what they need at the right time. This is quite a convincing reason since, the change in customer behaviors is a common phenomenon in the market, and it is not only affecting the clothes industry but almost all industries, including the computer industry as mentioned by Magretta. Magretta’s arguments turn to be highly convincing because the evidence is all over for anyone interested to see. Her approach to managing the supply chain ensures that the customers’ demands are meant by working with different suppliers, millers, and factories to fasten the production process. She convincingly explains how this process reduces the production time by ensuring active retailer participation in the shrinking delivery cycle. The argument put across by Magretta is quite convincing that it is considerably hard to counter. Magretta knows all the facts involved in Li & Fung’s business to maintain its business in the dynamic market. There is no negative evidence that can be used by any critic to counter Magretta’s argument. Her evidence is strongly in support of measures taken by Li & Fung to manage the value chain in a manner that the company earns a global position. When explaining the Li & Fung approach, one feels that it is a business model that can adapt at any time and bring business success. This makes Magretta’s paper and claim to be highly persuasive (Dyer, 2006).
Rosenthal and Berinato’s (2013) article focuses on the kind of accounting done in a plantation during slavery. Different from the Magretta paper, the article can be considered to be less convincing and persuasive. This is because Rosenthal and Berinato claim that the plantation facilities used modern management methods compared to factories. This claim was supported by three main reasons. One of the reasons was the slavery did not have turnover while factories did. According to the interviewee, slavery was forced and they did not have a choice other than doing the labor, this resulted in no turnover in the slavery system. This can only mean that there no even deaths or illnesses in slavery. This is also a way of depicting humans as machines, which is not convincing since working nonstop results in fatigue-related complications that are likely to results in absenteeism. Second, the interviewee claims that the slave owners practiced a newly invented accounting method. This sounds less convincing since the new accounting method was not invented due to the slavery system, but it was invented by the slave owners. The author tries to use these accounting records invented for a different purpose to convince the reader of how the accounting systems related to the slavery system, which seems a bit conflicting. Third, the article stated that the new accounting method was to be used to assess individual slave productivity. This sounds less convincing because it is hard to find a strategy or a device that measures the productivity of an individual laborer or employee even in modern times. This also refers back to the argument that it was not due to the slavery system that the modern accounting method was invented. Then it could not have been efficiently used on measuring slaves’ productivity. This makes the argument and the provided evidence less convincing, making the paper less persuasive (Dyer, 2006).
References
Dyer, L. (2006). Critical thinking for business students. Captus Press. (Chapter 6: Techniques of persuasion)
Magretta, J. (1998). Fast, global, and entrepreneurial: Supply chain management, Hong Kong style. An interview with victor Fung. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 102–114.
Rosenthal, C., & Berinato, S. (2013). Plantations practiced modern management. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 30–3.
Related:
