Answer:
A. Jack is making a(n) <u>internal attribution</u> about his girlfriend's behavior, whereas John is making a(n) <u>external attribution</u>.
Explanation:
An internal attribution refers to a situation in which <u>an individual uses a personal reason to explain the outcome of a situation</u>. For example, a specific behavior is the result of the person's personality.
On the other hand, an external attribution refers to the situation when <u>the individual attributes a result to an external situation or environmental factor</u>, not to the person's characteristics. For example, when you fail an exam and you blame an external factor, such as the teacher or the weather.
In this case, <u>Jack is making an internal attribution</u> about his girlfriend's behavior because he thinks she broke up with him because she is selfish; whereas <u>John is making an external attribution</u> because he thinks his girlfriend broke up with him because she had a family emergency to attend.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
Schedules legislative agenda, consults with members to advance agenda
the britished or sombody else tried to attack again