Answer: Felipe's best choice is David.
Explanation: <u>The one candidate who has more pro's than con's is David.</u>
<u>For instance he offers experience that the company currently lacks, he is a good listener and he also shows an assertive communication style, one can infer that because one of his characteristics is that he can challenge others in a respectful manner. </u>
<u>Charles is a long-time friend of Felipe and he would probably be biased.</u>
<u>Barbara has good qualities but she has an agresive style of communication which in an organization that aspect could lead to conflict.</u>
<u>Andrea on the other hand is soft spoken and shy, which shows a submissive style of communication, which is not very recommend in the organizational setting or company.</u>
Answer:
a. Social Intelligence
Explanation:
Social Intelligence refers to some intelligence where the person gets to know the behaviour of a person by their way of working and knowing them in person.
This is generally referred to as a tact where the person uses his common sense to address the problem or situation in hand.
Here, in the given instance, Fatima is a manager, and has to inform an employee about his tardiness, and as the employee might feel embarrassed in front of his colleagues, she makes sure that the person does not feel bad and accordingly chooses a time where she can talk to him personally about this instance.
So that he shall not feel embarrassed in front of his colleagues and inferior in any manner.
Here, she uses social intelligence as a tact to overcome this situation, and normalise the tardiness of her employee.
<span>In written prose, it is expected that thoughts are organized and coherent. Unlike colloquial language, we have the ability to edit written language</span>
I think is A) sorry if it’s wrong
<span>This is nondialectical thought. This is a thought process that does not see that there could be two sides to a situation. In the case of a failed relationship, having a person take all the blame for its ending can show a failure to understand how both partners could have contributed to the situation and how both are at least partially responsible.</span>
