Edit: By training everyone, not just the people directly involved with such situations, anyone considering corrupt acts will know that everyone - from the tech support person who helps them send the corrupt message to the receptionist who takes the corrupt call to the finance underling who mails the check - everyone will recognize it. There is no talking the rube into helping them; there are eyes everywhere, all the time.
> What good does it do ... the shareholders?
Note that we commonly talk as if people will naturally care about the interests of one group of humans they don't know, the shareholders, but not another group, the public. Various rules say you should care about both (and there are many more rules regarding the latter).
It also shifts culpability to the individuals; aka CYA for the org. Corporate counsel will say "We have training for this every year; they knew they were not supposed to do that,and we weren't aware they were doing that, so it's not our fault"
Very important to highlight this; since joining a different big tech company I have quickly realized how much the internal processes (everything from expenses to security posture) are structured to put the maximum responsibility on the person furthest down the totem pole.
In small European companies I've worked for this would be considered a big red flag and a sign of broken company culture, but for US companies it is seemingly the norm.
Try working for a big European company, it’s no different.
Size brings more savvy lawyers.
Me, I'd be more likely to narc to the government, especially if I can get a share of the penalty like SEC narcs do.
Blown the whistle to who and about what. As I understand it, Enron's brilliance was breaking up the actions so each low ranking employee was looking at legal things and you had to be quite high up to see the issues
And also obeisance -- on the part of the person required to sit through these trainings (and pretend that they had some connection to reality).
Happily, it was better than that. Most of these courses were online, and you could just let the videos of actors working through scenarios run in the background and then answer some simple questions. The questions never varied and the correct answer was usually pretty obvious (e.g., don't pick any answer that includes hiding a body).
Siemens ask different questions in reruns of end tests, vary the order the questions are in, and also ask questions you can’t answer from understanding the topic. Eg ‘what colour was the background of the graph demonstrating the effect?”
Sounds like a bad test. You are not supposed to fill your head with details like what color shoes your teacher was wearing.
My method was to open another browser tab, then you can play several at the same time. The next company I was at prevented that somehow. So I opened a few different web browsers. Then they broke that and also made each clip about 2 mins long and had loads of them, so you can’t even queue them up in one browser.
This is the definition of ineffective training :)