Question

Analyse the following caselet and answer the question that follows:
Genius Consulting is a boutique consulting firm started by Shirish, Balram, Rahman and Xavier, four friends from a premier business school. They committed themselves to abide by two principles:
a) not to indulge in anything unethical and
b) share earnings equally.
Genius Consulting could not get a significant project till the following year, when they managed a big one after Rahman’s father referred their firm to his top management. Convinced of the team’s talent following an impressive presentation, the top management awarded them the project even though six other referred teams made presentations. The day following the presentations, they met to decide the way forward for the organization. Which of the following choices would be the most appropriate for Genius Consulting?

• A. As this project violates both their principles, Genius Consulting should not take up the project.
• B. Due to the violation of the first principle Genius Consulting should not take up this project.
• C. They should take up the project. Further, since Rahman had agreed to equal sharing, he is not entitled to finder’s fee.
• D. They should take up the project and as the referral helped them survive, Rahman should be paid finder’s fee.
• E. They should take up the project. But, in order not to violate the principles, Rahman can be paid finder’s fee this year and an equal amount be deducted from his compensation the next year.

Hint:

In ethical dilemma questions, always map the situation back to the original principles. If no principle is violated, the opportunity should be pursued, but additional compensations or exceptions must not break agreed rules.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Identify the principles.
The firm had committed to two guiding principles: 1. Avoid unethical practices.
2. Share earnings equally.


Step 2: Assess whether the project violates principle (a).
The project was awarded not because of favoritism or nepotism but after a fair presentation. Although Rahman’s father referred the firm, the award was based on merit (presentation quality). Hence, it does not amount to unethical practice. Thus, principle (a) is not violated.

Step 3: Assess principle (b) regarding equal sharing.
Rahman’s referral helped secure the opportunity, but the team had already agreed to share all earnings equally. Granting Rahman an extra finder’s fee would violate this principle. Therefore, to remain consistent with their agreement, Rahman should not get special compensation.

Step 4: Evaluate options.
(A) Incorrect — It assumes both principles are violated, which is not true.
(B) Incorrect — The first principle (ethics) is not violated since selection was based on merit.
(C) Correct — Take up the project, but earnings should be shared equally without extra reward to Rahman.
(D) Incorrect — Giving Rahman a finder’s fee violates equal-sharing principle.
(E) Incorrect — Suggesting a finder’s fee with adjustments is unnecessary and complicates fairness.


Step 5: Conclusion.
The most appropriate choice aligns with fairness and principles: accept the project, but share equally without giving Rahman any finder’s fee.

Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{C. They should take up the project, and Rahman is not entitled to finder’s fee.}} \]