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.
Answer: I believe it's communism
Explanation:
This is a place where people ask for their needs. I don’t think it’s cool to do these types of things
Answer:
The options are
A. during the game, a person in a gorilla suit walked into and out of the scene; almost everyone failed to notice
B. during the game, a person in a gorilla suit walked into and out of the scene, nearly half failed to notice
C. a person in a gorilla suit was one of the ball passers, almost no one failed to notice
D. a person in a gorilla suit was one of the ball passers, nearly half failed to notice
The answer is - A. during the game, gorilla suit walked in and out, almost everyone failed to notice.
The experiment by Simon and Chabris in 1999 involved participants watching people passing a basketball around in order to keep track of some activity within the game. The distinctive feature of the scene in which a proportion of people failed to notice was during the game, gorilla suit walked in and out, almost everyone failed to notice.
