A Fortune 500 company changed its stance on fraud from "The CEO is to be informed when someone is prosecuted for fraud" to "The CEO is to be informed when someone who commits fraud is NOT prosecuted." The number of frauds in the company decreased significantly. Why might that be?
The phrase "The CEO is to be informed when someone is prosecuted for fraud" is just an informative phrase which gives information to the CEO that someone is prosecuted for fraud. Becasue if a person already prosecuted for fraud then CEO is not required to take any other action against that person.
However "The CEO is to be informed when someone who commits fraud is NOT prosecuted" is phrase which given the name of person to the CEO who committed fraud and still not prosecuted. Having this information CEO can take any other necessary action against that person who commited fraud but not walking freely.
Hence the second phrase will decrease frauds significantly becasue the person who is going to commit a fraud is aware then even in case he is not prosecuted the CEO can take any other action against him.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.