LDR 6135 Paper One Case Analysis of Values in Tension Article

RunningHead: Case Analysisof ValuesinTensionEthicsAwayfromHome Article
Case Analysis of the “Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home” Article
Ardavan A. Shahroodi
Northeastern University
LDR 6135 The Ethical Leader
Dr. Hernan Murdock
Thursday, October 2, 2014

Case Analysisof ValuesinTensionEthicsAwayfromHome Article
Introduction
The “Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home” (Donaldson, 1996, pp. 48-62) article
creates an ethical universe for managers and leaders composed of “core human values” (pp. 52-
54). These values that are concerned with “respect for human dignity” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54),
“respect for basic rights” (p. 54) and “good citizenship” (p. 54) will guide managers and leaders
in making ethical decisions in host communities and countries away from familiar surroundings.
However, ethical decision making and behavior is also depended on organizational cultures
where leaders conduct themselves in an ethical fashion and standards of conduct are clear and
specific. All the same, Donaldson (1996) emphasizes that the intention to engage in ethical
conduct must also be accompanied with a genuine respect for the culture of the host community
and country in order to remain effective in view of the challenges that will be presented to the
organization.
The Key Lessons Learned from the Article
The “Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home” (Donaldson, 1996, pp. 48-62) article
analyses the ethical dilemmas that companies/organizations experience when operating in
foreign lands. These ethical dilemmas present themselves when “familiar laws and judicial
procedures that define standards of ethical conduct” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 48) are either missing
or dissimilar to one’s own country of origin. These dissimilarities may be rooted in the host
country’s particular approach towards the importance of protecting “civil and political rights”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 48), upholding non- “discriminatory employments practices” (p. 48) and
observing “environmental…health” (p. 48) or safety standards. Here, the challenge for
companies becomes the adoption of the types of “principles that can help them work through the
maze of cultural differences and establish codes of conduct for globally ethical business

practice” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 48). This challenge is also frequently related to operational
conditions where the “host country’s ethical standards seem lower than the home country”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 48). Donaldson (1996) observes that hypothetically there are two
traditional philosophical approaches that companies may rely on to formulate organizational
practices that would guide them in coming to term with the aforementioned challenges.
Donaldson (1996) refers to the first approach as the “cultural relativism” (p. 48) mode of analysis
where a company resigns itself to the mindset that “no culture’s ethics are better than any
other’s; therefore there are no international rights or wrong” (p. 48). As an example, in this
scenario, activities such as “bribery…insider trading” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 48) or conducting
business in an environmentally irresponsible manner are not viewed as “morally repugnant” (p.
48). Rather, cultural relativism accepts the view that “when in Rome, do as the Romans
do…especially when failing to do as the locals do means forfeiting business opportunities”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 48). The factors that worsen the ethical character of these environments
may also have to do with a “combination of ineffective enforcement and inadequate
regulations… [that lead] to behavior by unscrupulous companies that is clearly wrong”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 48). Donaldson (1996) rejects a culturally relativist ethical disposition and
holds that “there are fundamental values that cross cultures, and companies must uphold them”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 49). On the other extreme of ethical world view, very much distinct from
cultural relativism, Donaldson (1996) brings attention to what he labels as “ethical imperialism,
which directs people to do everywhere exactly as they do at home” (p. 49). Donaldson (1996)
contends that ethical imperialism is supported by the theory of “absolutism, which is based on
three problematic principles” (p. 49). First, absolutists argue that “there is a single list of truths”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 49) rejecting the posture “that different cultural traditions must be

respected” (p. 49). Secondly, absolutists hold that the aforementioned list of truths “can be
expressed only with one set of concepts” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 49) such as “the language of basic
rights” (p. 49) thereby failing to adequately appreciate that “we all learn ethics in the context of
our particular cultures, and the power in the principles is deeply tied to the way in which they are
expressed” (p. 52). Thirdly, absolutists “call for exactly the same behavior around the world”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 49) and believing in a “global standard of global behavior” (p. 52)
neglecting to acknowledge that “context must shape ethical practice” (p. 52). Donaldson (1996)
observes that “cultures have different standards of ethical behavior—and different ways of
handling unethical behavior” (p. 52) and consequently “there is no international consensus on
standards of business conduct” (p. 52).
The remedy that may rectify the aforementioned ethical dilemma, Donaldson (1996)
proposes, is in companies assisting “managers distinguish between practices that are merely
different and those that are wrong” (p. 52). Here, he emphasizes that “for relativists, nothing is
sacred and nothing is wrong…For absolutists, many things that are different are wrong”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 52). Both these postures are inherently inadequate in truly understanding
the “real world of business decision making” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 52). In exchange, what
Donaldson (1996) calls for are three overarching principles that must shape ethically oriented
business decision making. The first principle is “respect for core human values, which determine
the absolute moral threshold for all business activities” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 52). The second
principle resides in “respect for local traditions” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 52) and the third principle
promotes the “belief that context matters when deciding what is right and what is wrong” (p. 52).
Donaldson (1996) holds that ethical behavior must take into account a genuine respect for
“differences…respect for local traditions” (p. 53) as distinct from a culturally relativist position

since “some activities are wrong no matter where they take place” (p. 53) such as recklessly
contaminating the environment. In endeavoring to describe the principle of core human values
such as the “Golden Rule” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 53) which Donaldson (1996) believes must
“define minimum ethical standards for all companies” (p. 53), he asserts that “despite important
differences between Western and non-Western cultural and religious traditions, both express
shared attitudes about what it means to be human” (p. 53). Here, Donaldson (1996) utilizes John
Rawls’ (1971) notion of “overlapping consensus” (as cited in Donaldson, 1996, p. 53) to observe
that in evaluating various cultural traditions “seemingly divergent values converge at key points”
(p. 53). The resulting analysis point towards the understanding that all cultural traditions accept
the core human value that “individuals must not treat others simply as tools; in other words, they
must recognize a person’s value as a human being” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 53). Donaldson (1996)
calls this core human value as the “respect for human dignity” (p. 54). In addition, Donaldson
(1996) argues that a second core human value is the imperative that “individuals and
communities must treat people in ways that respect people’s basis rights” (p. 53). Furthermore,
Donaldson (1996) introduces the core human value of “good citizenship” (p. 54) emphasizing
that “members of a community must work together to support and improve the institutions on
which the community depends” (p. 53). Donaldson (1996) states that the aforementioned core
human values must be regarded by companies as an organizing set of platforms where they may
“formulate and evaluate standards of ethical conduct at home and abroad” (p. 54). However, he
asserts that companies must create “specific guidelines” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54) on
expectations for ethical conduct that will “translate core human values into core values for
business” (p. 54). Accordingly, companies are able to “respect human dignity by creating and
sustaining a corporate culture in which employees, customers, and suppliers are treated not as

means to an end but as people whose intrinsic value must be acknowledged, and by producing
safe products and services in a safe workplace” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54). Core human values
also require that companies “respect basic rights by acting in ways that support and protect the
individual rights of employees, customers, and surrounding communities, and by avoiding
relationships that violate human beings rights to health, education, safety and an adequate
standard of living” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54). Lastly, core human values necessitate that
companies act as good citizens in “supporting essential social institutions such as the economic
system and the education system, and by working with host governments and other organizations
to protect the environment” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54). The aforementioned core values must act
as a “moral compass for business practice” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 54) that will distinguish
“acceptable” (p. 54) behavior from “intolerable” (p. 54) conduct such as “dumping
pollutants…lying about product specifications” (p. 54) or utilizing forced labor.
Donaldson (1996) emphasizes that the realization of ethical business conduct on the
organizational level is facilitated only when managers are “guided by precise statements that
spell out the behavior and operating practices that the company demands” (p. 54). However, in
realizing an ethical business culture, it is not sufficient to merely possess “statements of values
and codes of conduct” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 55), rather “living up to them…when the temptation
to behave unethically is strongest” (p. 55). This requires codes of conduct that are
“explicit…but…also leave room for a manager to use his or her judgment in situations requiring
cultural sensitivity” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 56). Donaldson (1996) cites the example of Motorola
whose code of conduct states that, “Employees of Motorola will respect the laws, customs, and
traditions of each country in which they operate, but will, at the same time, engage in no course
of conduct which, even if legal, customary, and accepted in any such country, could be deemed

to be in violation of the accepted business ethics of Motorola or the laws of United States
relating to business ethics” (p. 56). Donaldson (1996) argues that the adoption of statements of
values must only be regarded as an initial stage in bringing about an ethical business climate to
be followed by leaders referring “often to their organization’s credo and code and must
themselves be credible, committed, and consistent” (p. 56). Most importantly, organizational
leaders must act in ways “as though ethics…matter” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 56) and only then
“company’s employees” (p. 56) understand and behave in a similar fashion.
Donaldson (1996) proposes that ethical judgment must also take into account the need to
come to terms with “moral ambiguity” (p. 56) in situations where Thomas Dunfee refers to as
“moral free space” (as cited in Donaldson, 1996, p. 56). In these cases, “managers must chart
their own courses—as long as they do not violate core human values” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 56).
Nevertheless, Donaldson (1996) strongly argues that the act of “bribery” (p. 58) must always be
understood as unethical on the basis that it “undermines market efficiency and predictability,
thus ultimately denying people their right to a minimal standard of living” (p. 58) in addition to
the very fact that it “undermines essential social and economic systems” (p. 58). In a powerful
statement, Donaldson (1996) asserts that “some degree of ethical commitment—some sense that
everyone will play by the rules—is necessary for a sound economy” (p. 58). Irrespective of the
issue of bribery, Donaldson (1996) holds that managers must learn to “distinguish a value in
tension with their own from one that is intolerable” (p. 58) in environments where “the host
country’s ethical standards not only are different but also seem lower than the home country’s”
(p. 58). On occasion this is a conflict that Donaldson (1996) labels as a “conflict of cultural
tradition” (p. 58) rooted frequently on “strongly held religious and cultural beliefs… [and] not
likely to change (p. 58). In other situations, “ethical standards” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 58) may

conflict due to the “countries’ different levels of economic development” (p. 58). Donaldson
(1996) refers to these scenarios as one being effected by a “conflict of relative development” (p.
58). An example of a “conflict of relative development” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 58) are “wage
rates that seem inhuman to more advanced countries” (p. 58). In these occasions, managers must
ask themselves: “Would the practice be acceptable at home if my country were in a similar stage
of economic development?” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 58). These conflicts diminish as “economic
conditions improve in a developing country” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 58). However, there are
occasions when “a host country’s standards are inadequate at any level of economic
development” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 60) such as lax or nonexistent “pollution standards” (p. 60)
that “would considerably increase a person’s risk of developing cancer” (p. 60) or inadequate
regulatory structures that would expose patients to “dangerous side effects of a drug treatment”
(p. 60). Donaldson (1996) proposes “when relative economic conditions do not drive tensions”
(p. 60) managers “should deem a practice as permissible only if they can answer no to both of
the following questions: Is it possible to conduct business successfully in the host country
without undertaking the practice? And is the practice a violation of a core human value?” (p.
60). As a result, in his evaluation, the Japanese practices of “gift giving” (Donaldson, 1996, p.
60) provided that it is restricted “in its scope and intention” (p. 60) will be an acceptable mode of
conduct as distinct from bribery which is never permissible due to the very fact that it is
inherently destructive to core human values.
Donaldson (1996) contends that organizations must create a “culture that rewards ethical
behavior” (p. 60) and promote a “global ethical perspective among managers” (p. 60). In this
pursuit, companies must “treat corporate values and formal standards of conduct as absolutes”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 60) and do not “waver on its principles either at home or abroad” (p. 60).

Secondly, Donaldson (1996) holds that companies must “design and implement conditions of
engagement for suppliers and customers” (p. 60) that will delineate standards that must be
followed when garnering or securing such partners. Thirdly, companies must “allow foreign
business units to help formulate ethical standards and interpret ethical issues” (Donaldson, 1996,
p. 60) thereby ensuring that these thresholds remain relevant within the parameters of the local
conditions. Fourth, companies must “support efforts to decrease institutional corruption”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 62) in the host country of operation since “individual managers” (p. 62) by
themselves are unable to “wipe out corruption…no matter how many bribes they turn down” (p.
62). Fifth, companies must “exercise moral imagination” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 62) by
endeavoring to resolve “tensions responsibly and creatively” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 62).
Crucially, organizations must consistently remind themselves that “in a global business
environment, values in tension are the rule rather than the exception” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 62)
requiring a level of unwavering “commitment” (p. 62) that offers their managers a sound and
resilient “foundation for behaving ethically” (p. 62).
A Reflection of How this Article Can Help You Improve Your Ethical Decision Making
Skills
The “Values in Tension: Ethics away from Home” (Donaldson, 1996, pp. 48-62) article
helps me better understand and compose strategies that one may devise in order to engage in
ethical conduct in potentially unethical environments. This indeed is not an unfamiliar dilemma
for me or my family. As I conveyed in Week One Discussion Board Initial Post, the career of
my mother as a leader in the educational field was irreparably harmed due to her persistent
refusal to engage in unethical conduct in a land tainted with incessant corruption and nepotism.
Although this ethically oriented behavior offered her a stellar reputation among her colleagues in

the educational profession and with our acquaintances, this moral posture also affected the
financial fortunes of our family extremely negatively. Nevertheless, in reflection, I would have
taken a similar ethical path and placed the same moral criteria in my decision making process
and actions. In my own career in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry, my most fundamental
goal was reflected in my desire to render exceptional and beyond the call of duty service to our
guests, coworkers, those within the purview of my responsibility, my employers and the larger
community. In reading Donaldson’s (1996) article, I could clearly detect the deep respect for the
“core human values” (pp. 52-54) that energized the performance of our work and the
maintenance of our work oriented relationships. The value of “respect for human dignity”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 52) inspired us not to “treat others as tools” (p. 53) and “recognize a
person’s value as a human being” (p. 53). Specifically, in relations to guests, we placed strong
emphasis on rendering very attentive service to the elderly, the disabled and families. Our
intention was to make certain that they receive the best of our service and not possess a perpetual
feeling that they are being hurried or for that matter neglected by the establishment. I
specifically warned our associates that their service must be absolutely free of all preconceived
notions of stereotypes that they may have formed in their minds in the past or the present. All
guests, it was emphasized, deserved to be treated with the outmost respect and deference. The
response that we consistently received from our customers was simply astonishing. Even today,
I am surprised by the magnitude of the positive feedback that we would receive from our guests.
With respect to our employees, I took special pride that those who were in my responsibility
were treated fairly and respectfully. We placed a unique level of performance oriented pressures
on ourselves and it was only fair that such dedication is rewarded in a genuine manner. I also
felt that I am in the service of those who are in my responsibility organizationally. I would

continuously encourage our employees to pursue educational opportunities in other professional
disciplines in addition to helping their career growth internally. Nevertheless, it must be noted at
this juncture that the great majority of those who were trained by our teams and moved to other
sectors of the operation, would eventually leave our organization in order to pursue successful
careers in other occupations. This affected me very deeply; however I was unable to reverse this
trend due to my limited power outside our own sectors of operation. Among those associates, I
do remember so many exceptional employees. In regards to my employers, I have never
understood that relationship on the basis of monetary compensation, but rather on the basis of
duty, honor, loyalty and responsibility. Many over the years, have commented on the degree of
deferential treatment that I offer to the members of our teams while simultaneously maintaining a
sincere sense of loyalty towards my employers. However, on occasion, when I have ascertained
that certain factors beyond my control have restricted my ability to offer the aforementioned
level of service to guests and employees, I have simply left the given organization. In these
situations, for many years, on the municipal level, I trained entering service providers on a
volunteer basis in order to improve their chances of success in the working world (My present
responsibilities have deprived me of the opportunity to continue this volunteer work, although I
look forward to engage in other volunteer work in a different setting in the future).
Donaldson’s (1996) core human value of “respect for basic rights” (p. 53-54) was of
particular importance in the performance of our work. This respect was evident in the diligence
that was exercised in asserting to the members of our teams the significance of strictly following
anti-discrimination statutes in their dealings with each other and guests. In general, Hospitality
and Tourism organizations enjoy a very diverse employee population and as a result attention to
reinforcing anti-discriminatory practices was of unique significance. I am convinced that my

career path in the field of Human Resources will offer me a much wider and deeper opportunity
to contribute in this particular area. Donaldson’s (1996) core human value of “good citizenship”
(p. 53-54) has been an inherent aspect of my relationship with my places of employment and
community. This was precisely the reasoning underlying years of volunteer service, teaching
and preparing entering service providers so that they may enjoy successful careers in addition to
ensuring that the community receives a professionalized standard of competent service. Most
importantly, I have always felt that there exists a seamless relationship in between how I respect
other human beings’ sense of dignity and basic rights and my endeavors to engage in good
citizenship conduct and practice. In my mind these are interdependent, interrelated and
interconnected concepts and activities. The exercise of any one of these core human values in
conjunction with each other or separately ensure that other core human values in our list are also
observed, strengthened and implemented. In this dynamic, good citizenship is a naturally
occurring phenomenon when human dignity and basic rights are respected in individual
relationships, organizationally and at the societal level.
Donaldson’s (1996) exhortations underscoring the crucial importance of “creating an
ethical corporate culture” (pp. 54-56) will be of particular importance in the improvement of my
ethical decision making skills. Experience and history have illustrated to me that the
effectiveness of my work is directly related to the degree of ethical conduct and practice
emphasized in the organization. In this light, when core human values have been protected and
promoted in the organization, I have been able to contribute more effectively to the performance
and vitality of the workplace. Whereas, in situations when leadership is “not living up”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 55) to the “statements of values and codes of conduct” of the organization
and thereby has forfeited “credibility” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 55), the degree of my service

oriented effectiveness has also been compromised. As a result, I must always remember that in
potential leadership positions, I must persistently practice what I have preached to the
organization and be a model of ethical conduct in the workplace. In addition, I must be
cognizant that effective standards and statements of values “must provide clear direction about
ethical behavior” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 55) and be “unambiguous” (p. 55) in addition to being
“explicit” (p. 56) in order to be “useful” (p. 56) for the employees and the organization. All the
above is a reminder that “corporate values and formal standards of conduct” (Donaldson, 1996,
p. 60) must be regarded and treated as “absolutes” (p. 60) absent of any “waver” (60) in their
implementation. Nevertheless, as Donaldson (1996) has consistently emphasized, this level of
diligence must also be accompanied by respect for other cultural “traditions” (p. 52), a
realization that “context matters” (p. 52), the inclusion of other “business units to help formulate
ethical standards and interpret ethical issues” (p. 60) and “moral imagination” (p. 62). These all
involve a leadership temperament of listening and creativity combined with understanding and
tolerance. This also must include a leadership approach acknowledging that the “ultimate truth”
does not always reside within oneself; however it may be garnered through cooperation with
others in the organization and the society at large.
The Top Five Key Actions You Would Implement Assuming You are Starting a Business
Engaged in International Business
The first action would concentrate on creating a type of organizational culture that
practices and promotes truthfulness, fairness and respect in relations with our employees,
customers, suppliers and the greater society. The standard of truthfulness will be observed by
offering products that are not harmful to our customers. This standard will also be observed by
ensuring that our employees are not harmed, injured or become ill in the process of producing

our products in addition to making certain that the natural environment of the mother or host
country is not negatively affected by our business related activities. We will concentrate on
making a fair and reasonable profit honestly while our employees will be compensated justly
with a living wage and benefits including health insurance so that they are able to provide
comfortably for their families. We will not under any condition whatsoever resort to bribery in
order to gain unfair competitive advantage and we will not entertain and accept any such
requests accordingly. Our organizational leaders, managers and supervisors will be instructed
unequivocally that their performance reviews will be influenced negatively in the event that it
will be ascertained that they have been disrespectful to their subordinates. In addition, we will
not tolerate any discrimination, prejudice, intimidation or exclusion on the basis of protected
categories such as race, ethnicity, religion sex, gender national origin, disability, etc.
Furthermore, we will insist on a level of performance from our organizational leaders and
associates that would render our customers a valuable product or service. Above all, we will
promote a constructive open communication atmosphere in the organization based on
truthfulness and respect.
Secondly, at the first available opportunity, we will engage in a type of outreach activity
that would specifically include the construction of a health clinic for the mothers and children of
the community. In the event that such a facility is already in existence in the host community,
we will do all that we are able to do in order to support that clinic financially and with our
resources. The services that will be offered in such a facility must include prenatal/post-natal,
infant and mother/child care in addition to nutritional assistance.
Thirdly, we will cooperate and work closely and energetically in partnership with all non-
profit, non-governmental (NGOs) or governmental organizations in order to improve the health

of the host community. Again, this will include supporting financially establishments that are
already serving the needs of the host community. We will also enthusiastically participate and
support programs in partnership with other organizations intended to reduce poverty and hunger
in the community.
Fourth,
We will also cooperate and work in partnership with all non-profit, non-governmental
(NGOs) or governmental organizations in order to protect and improve the health of the air,
water and the natural environments of the host community and country. We will work on behalf
of threatened species and make certain our business related activities do not harm their living
habitats.
Fifth, we will refuse to cooperate and underwrite those sectors or interests in the host
country who promote undemocratic principles, oppress the poor and exploit the defenseless.
Conclusion
The “Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home” (Donaldson, 1996, p. 48-62) article
upholds three core human values that enable individuals, leaders and organizations to act
ethically in foreign lands and away from the mother country. Here, “respect for human dignity”
(Donaldson, 1996, p. 54), “respect for basic rights” (p. 54) and “good citizenship” (p. 54)
underwrite and facilitate the type of behavior that will be considered ethical universally and
among all cultures. Simultaneously, Donaldson (1996) emphasizes that in pursuit of creating
cultures where such conduct is practiced, organizational leaders must loyally practice what is
expected form subordinates in ethical conduct. In addition, organizations must also provide for
their associates clear and specific guidelines and expectations in regards to ethical conduct.

Finally, Donaldson (1996) asserts that the desire to engage in ethical behavior must also be
accompanied with deep respect for the culture of the host country and community in order to
generate the type of decision making that will be effective in resolving the ethical dilemmas of
managers and leaders.

References
Donaldson, T. (September-October 1996). Values in tension: Ethics Away from Home, When is
different just different, and when is different wrong. Harvard Business Review. LDR 6135, The
Ethical Leader. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from College of Professional Studies,
Northeastern University Blackboard Website:
https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexec
ute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3d_2249305_1%26url%3d .
Dunfee, T. (n. d.). In T. Donaldson, Values in tension: Ethics Away from Home, When is
different just different, and when is different wrong. Harvard Business Review (September-
October 1996) (pp. 48-62). LDR 6135, The Ethical Leader. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from
College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University Blackboard Website:
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. In T. Donaldson, Values in tension: Ethics away from
Home, When is different just different, and when is different wrong. Harvard Business Review
(September-October 1996) (pp. 48-62). LDR 6135, The Ethical Leader. Retrieved September
21, 2014 from College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University Blackboard Website:

LDR 6135 Paper One Case Analysis of Values in Tension Article

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to LDR 6135 Paper One Case Analysis of Values in Tension Article

Similar to LDR 6135 Paper One Case Analysis of Values in Tension Article (20)

More from Ardavan Shahroodi

More from Ardavan Shahroodi (20)

LDR 6135 Paper One Case Analysis of Values in Tension Article