Thank you for posting your question here at brainly. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more questions.
Below are the choices:
Proposed a 'middle ground' option to break deadlocks.
Worked to avoid options that others might disagree with.
Used your influence to make sure your own ideas were accepted.
Tried to find one solution which satisfies everyone's expectations.
<span>Changed your own position to accommodate the interests of others.
The answer: </span><span>Tried to find one solution which satisfies everyone's expectations.</span>
So far I think they are correct tell me if I am wrong please.
Answer:
You should think about fair competition.
Explanation:
The ethics question here would be: Is the contribution I'm willing to pay to get the contract a bribery? So, if there are better firms than mine but they don't have the money to pay the contribution, does it mean I get preferential treatment because I can afford it? Wouldn't it be considered unfair by many?
This a common practice in business and although seen morally wrong by many, it is the only way to ensure some contracts are signed. People who advocate this way of dealing with allocating contracts say that it is a fair way, everybody has the opportunity in life to make money and some people would always make more than others. Critics say that it's unfair, especially for smaller firms and developing companies, as their chances to win big contracts are being reduced drastically.
