In the article “World view @ Work” Michael Zigarelli brings to the surface an important topic, namely the importance of different worldviews in the workplace. Zigarelli explains that by understanding that there really is a difference in points of view and understanding the personal worldview of individual colleagues, it is easier to work cohesively in the same workplace. Zigarelli outlines the prominent worldview found in the Western workplace, secularism. He then goes on to explain two subcategories of this worldview, pragmatism and empiricism, and outlines the distinctions between the two. First of all, Zigarelli explains that in Secularism it is stated that God is unknowable, therefore the truth is unknowable. He then further clarifies this way of thinking by linking it to the fact that this belief leads to a very subjective way of distinguishing truth from what is right. Secondly, Zigarelli explains the first subcategory of secularism, pragmatism. Within this worldview, “right” is determined by “what works,” meaning that pragmatists assert the truth about what is known to have worked in the past and need assurance that the decisions they make on the workplace will lead to desirable results. Pragmatists want to find a quick fix and move on with little regard for future effects. Third and finally, Zigarelli explains the second subcategory of secularism, empiricism. Those who hold an empirical worldview believe that what is “provable” is right. Empiricists want data to support their decision and usually need scientific evidence to determine what is right. After Zigarelli finishes presenting us with the most important worldviews in the workplace, he connects to the application of how we as Christians can then use our understanding of the issues c...... middle of paper... ... and future distrust in the company. I believe in the case in which a pragmatic CEO asks a Christian CFO to report false information to raise the price of the company's shares; the Christian CFE would have several options. Their first option would be to provide information on other companies that have implemented this tactic in an attempt to do exactly what this CEO is trying to accomplish, yet try to link this information to the countless companies that have been audited and exposed for fraud and try to explain to the CEO that the long-term effects on these companies have been detrimental both to the careers of company officials and the tarnishing effect it has on the company's reputation. If that wasn't enough to change the CEO's mind, I think it would be wise for the CFO to look for a new job.