BUSN250 CASE STUDY

Explain the events in the case in terms of perception and attitudes. Does personality
play a role?
Recalling that Jack was a previous convict, he would do everything regardless to keep any
action that he can get, as associations disregard using previous prisoners. Susan had used Jack
a comparative way Mr. Clarkson had used her, by doing so Susan accepted that Jack would in
a little while grain trust of his related delegates and be pushed in trying advances and in the
far away future he might just land an administrator position, as Susan did . Since summing up
is a worked in like manner us individuals have, Jack's colleagues were questionable when
they got familiar with that Jacks establishment. At the time Jack was preforming remarkably
in his commitments and his partners expected to adjust his image of a committed individual.
Right when the main scene happened, Susan resisted Jack, which was straightforwardly as
she is her chief and has each benefit to ask him, recollecting his experience and Jack
understood that as anyone would be questionable towards the person with a criminal record.
However, it wasn't right to censure Jack for the second bad behavior with no adequate
evidence. This is an incredible occurrence of summing up and Jack, being an irreproachable
man held each benefit to shield himself and exhibit his guiltlessness. This exhibits the extent
that acknowledgment, character plays a significant activity, when in doubt we see things in an
opposite way, we stick to social denotes that have been actualized onto us with considering
how an individual is fit for change.
What should Susan do? Should she fire Jack or give him another chance?

Susan should not fire Jack, as she doesn't have any solid confirmation that could exhibit that
Jack did the bad behavior. If she goes with the decision of firing him, it could restore the kind
of a case of unjustifiable end which will incite the association having a negative picture and
Susan losing her work as her chiefs would acknowledge that she isn't fit for the chairman
position. If she decides to give Jack one greater chance, she ought to at first investigate the
condition and exhibit his blamelessness, in case he hasn't taken the money. In case she gives
him one greater open door without exhibiting his blamelessness, she may lose the trust of her
associates and they may inquire about her perceiving. Susan could in like manner revile her
decision from a hurtful better than average situation .From this view, she should put include
on pushing ahead with Jack and give him another shot as how there is basically no
verification that puts jack at the territory of the bad behavior. Finally, Susan could think
about her as choice utilizing a character hypothesis of good lead which underlines the
character of the individual and the purpose behind the performing skilled pro as opposed to
the showing itself or its outcomes. In that capacity, Susan will rebuke her choice dependent
on Jack's remarkable character as opposed to continuing on through that he is failing.
Considering these hypotheses, I think Susan should from the beginning direct further
evaluation to consider the to be as accountable social occasion. If, upon further appraisal, it is
as yet uncertain who took the money, thinking Susan should give Jack another validity since
it would be improper her to fire him for something, she is questionable of. Regardless, she
should introduce higher security, conceivably as discernment cameras, to ensure that this kind
of direct doesn't continue.