The Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin is navigating a minor paper shortage that has become a full-blown crisis due to management's bizarre approach to problem-solving, with four competing proposals ranging from financially ruinous theatrics to academic lectures. This manufactured emergency highlights a critical need for corporate intervention to prevent the branch's unique brand of chaos from permanently damaging key customer relationships and the company's reputation.
Core Themes:
Browse our Insights Marketplace for frameworks and tools that drive results
Explore MarketplaceThe Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin Paper Company has managed to transform a routine three-day supply delay into what can only be described as a masterclass in organizational dysfunction. What should have been a simple "call the backup supplier" situation has somehow evolved into four competing manifestos on crisis management philosophy, each more bizarre than the last. Corporate now faces the unenviable task of choosing between solutions that range from financially ruinous to completely detached from reality, all while the clock ticks toward Friday deadlines and three major customers wonder why their paper supplier has apparently lost their collective minds.
The stakes would be straightforward if this were a normal company: preserve customer relationships, minimize costs, get back to business. But this is Dunder Mifflin Scranton, where a paper shortage becomes an opportunity for one employee to propose a cross-state shopping spree, another to deliver lectures on supply chain ethics, and a third to create spreadsheets that would make NASA jealous. Corporate's real challenge isn't just managing a inventory crisis—it's preventing four middle managers from turning a solvable problem into a cautionary tale about why some people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions without adult supervision.
Dunder Mifflin's Scranton branch has spent fifteen years proving that you can run a successful paper distributorship through sheer force of personality, questionable decision-making, and what can generously be called "creative" management techniques. Under Regional Manager Michael Scott's leadership—and here we use the term "leadership" in its most abstract sense—the branch has maintained $2.8 million in annual revenue through a combination of aggressive relationship building, competitive pricing that occasionally ventures into charity territory, and an uncanny ability to succeed despite themselves.
The current crisis began on what sh...
Access full cases, analysis, recommendations, and community insights
The firm of Holmes & Watson faces a fundamental conflict between its core competency of rapid case resolution and its unsustainable daily-retainer business model, which rewards inefficiency. This dilemma forces a strategic decision on how to redefine its value proposition to align professional ethics with the practical necessity of financial stability.
Explore the Case
BumBox, once a celebrated AI platform for business model selection, faces an existential crisis due to revelations of systematic algorithmic bias and subsequent widespread customer and investor distrust. The company must now choose a strategic path forward to either rebuild its tarnished reputation through radical transparency and re-engineering, pivot its core offerings, seek an acquisition, or undertake a controlled dissolution.
Explore the Case
The Pan Pacific Defense Corps faces a critical governance crisis as a new predictive model for Kaiju attacks shifts the bottleneck from reaction time to strategic decision-making, forcing leadership to confront an uncomfortable question about how much society should spend to prevent potential loss of life when each Jaeger deployment costs hundreds of millions of dollars and combat engagements require $5 billion in repairs. With four distinct governance models under consideration—ranging from unlimited government spending to algorithmic efficiency to decentralized national control—the organization must establish a deployment framework that balances fiscal sustainability against its public mandate while acknowledging that different stakeholder groups hold fundamentally incompatible views about whether economic considerations should ever influence life-or-death decisions.
Explore the Case