Reference no: EM132216824

Steven works for a global consulting firm. Several of his company’s clients are in countries where bribery is legal and considered an ordinary part of business. After a weeklong meeting in Pakistan, Steven decides to recommend to his leadership team that they should work with a Pakistani vendor who can assist with a major project.

Before leaving for the airport to return home, Steven picks up a newspaper that was delivered outside his hotel room. Inside the folded newspaper he finds $20,000. Steven immediately knows that it was left by the Pakistani vendor as a reward for a positive recommendation.

While his organization has a policy against the acceptance of bribes, Steven’s elderly mother called him before he left for Pakistan. In tears, she shared with him that her house is scheduled for foreclosure next month. She fell behind in her payments because of the increasing cost of her prescription medications. She does not have sufficient funds to bring the mortgage current and stop the foreclosure. With $18,000, she can stop the foreclosure as well as pay off the balance of the mortgage.

Steven is the only representative from his firm at the hotel. So it is extremely unlikely that anyone at his firm would know if he kept the money. While no one at his firm would admit to taking international bribes, Steven (along with other executives) knows that people in the company accept bribes “under the table.” There is no time before his flight for Steven to identify who, in particular, left the money – so it is not possible for him to return it.

Because he made his decision before finding the money and he believes the vendor is the best organization to help his firm, Steven intends to recommend working with the Pakistan vendor whether he keeps the money or not.

Write a 2 to 3-page paper (excluding title page and references) that analyzes:

What should Steven do? Why?

What are the strengths and limitations of a relativistic approach to ethical leadership?