Answer:
The use of the term "ethical" sometimes is a bit too lax when applied to evaluate situations. However, sometimes, it can also be too harsh. In response to your two questions, these would be the answers:
1. The ethical question here would be whether Greedy was right in overusing a benefit that the charitable organization had with the First California Bank. As President of the organization, it is in the hands of Greedy to ensure not just development, but also sustainable development of the organization. However, in the course of his attempts to improve the growth and efficacy of Send Me Money, he abused the benefit of the overdraft, and not to just any extent, but to the negative balance of 10.000 dollars. Although his intentions were in favor of the organization, and he used the money wisely, there still lies the question of if he could not have accomplished just as much, without abusing a benefit that could very well mean the end of the organization. So the ethical issue is that although the intention of Greedy was in the benefit of the organization, he did not take the best interest of it into account, because if he had, he would have tried to accomplish his goals without bringing the debt so high.
2. I disapprove of the way that Bill Greedy acted because he could have accomplished much more realistic goals and not placed the organization at risk by raising the debt to a bank to such high levels. Even if he increased fundraising efforts, it is evident that these were not successful, as the debt is so high.
The answer is B. They wanted to deceive people into thinking
they wanted to encourage the public to support.
Gross national happiness is a proportion of financial and good progress that the King of Bhutan presented during the 1970s as a choice to total national output. Instead of concentrating carefully on quantitative monetary measures, net domestic bliss considers an advancing blend of personal satisfaction factors
Gross domestic happiness bliss is abused. It covers issues with debasement and low expectations for everyday life in the entire nation, as indicated by the nation's new head administrator.
Answer: engagement
Explanation:
Engaged employees are not those who work hard because they have to but they are the one who actual understand the goal and the mission of the company and they make it their own. They are personal invested in seeing the company reach that goal.
Usually these employees are motivated by the investment that the company also put on them.
They emotionally care for the company that they work for and for them it's not about just getting paid for the work that they do or being moved into the next level but it's about seeing the company succeed.
US citizens have to serve on a jury when called and should <span>vote in a federal election.</span>
