This belief that outcomes could have been predicted earlier is an example of a cognitive bias called Hindsight bias.
<h3><u>Explanation:</u></h3>
Hindsight bias is defined as the tendency in people to overestimate their own ability to predict an outcome in the future, that has nearly no chance of being predicted correctly. It is an extensively used term in psychology and fits the description given by question completely.
This is quite common and can be explained better by an example like when an outcome happens and a person says “I Knew It”, thus in this case, creating a tendency in them that they could’ve predicted the outcome which is simply chance and not a prediction at all.
C. Columbia, South Carolina.
The basic outline of the purpose and beliefs that the constitution stands for.
This is an example of<span> "appetite".</span>
<span>Appetite refers to the desire or want to eat food, some of the time because of hunger. Engaging nourishments can empower craving notwithstanding when hunger is missing, in spite of the fact that craving can be significantly lessened by satiety. Appetite exists in all higher living things, and serves to manage sufficient vitality admission to keep up metabolic requirements. </span>
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.
