This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Interesting read this week, guys. A couple of things bother me, here. What kind of store is this when there are two department managers (implying they are peers) working in the same store and one manager needs another’s to get a promotion? Peer review? That doesn’t make much sense to me; that should be a competitive atmosphere more than a subordinate one. What also bothered me was the implication that Angie was guilty. It’s fairly clear that something is amiss, but baseless charges are worse than being labeled a “goody-goody”. While we’re on the topic of things that don’t make sense, why does Neal have a last name, but Angie doesn’t? Are they husband and wife? Brother and sister? That’s awkward. Anyway, on to the real question. Was Neal justified? Not a chance. I was morally disturbed by his reaction, although I see it every day. Neal’s character and apparent lack of any sort of intestinal fortitude really annoyed me as I read through the situation a number of times, and certain things became clear. So I went to my good friend, the Dictionary, for respite. Here is what I found: hon·or- noun- \ ˈ ä-n r\ : ə a keen sense of ethical conduct : INTEGRITY <a man of honor > (nice segue) in·teg·ri·ty- noun...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 08/06/2011 for the course ACCT 300 taught by Professor Snow during the Spring '11 term at American Public University.
- Spring '11