Governor Cuomo Address Sexual Harassment Allegations
In a video statement, Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed sexual harassment allegations made by three women. He begins well, explaining his decision to speak directly to the public on the topic, although lawyers advised him to wait. To preserve his image, this is a good call: research shows that his apology is unlikely to negatively affect lawsuit outcomes—and may even have a positive effect.
But his apology goes awry. He uses language that is classic in non-apologies, for example, “It was not my intention” and “I certainly never meant to….” In sexual harassment law, intent does not matter—only the impact. Further, this type of language typically doesn’t land well. People don’t care. Instead, he should focus on the impact on these women and perhaps on the office.
He also says, “I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable.” This is problematic because first, as he says at the beginning, he is a lawyer. As a lawyer and as a political leader, he should know better. Such language is reminiscent of “I’m sorry if you were offended,” implying that it’s the receiver’s problem. A couple of days earlier, after the second allegation, the governor said, “To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”
To his credit, he says, “I apologize” and “I’m sorry,” which people do want to hear in these types of statements.
We will see what results from these allegations, in the midst of calls for his resignation. Governor Cuomo also is embroiled in charges that he lied about the number of Covid deaths in nursing homes. So far, he says that he will not resign.
School Board Apologizes for Mocking Parents and Resigns
The Board of an elementary school in California resigned over embarrassing comments on a video call. Board members didn’t realize that they were public when they made disparaging comments about parents wanting schools to reopen. They mentioned that parents miss teachers as “babysitters” and want to be able to use marijuana again.
In response, several board members resigned, and the school district wrote a statement. Within the larger statement is a message from the board members who resigned:
We deeply regret the comments that were made in the meeting of the Board of Education earlier this week. As trustees, we realize it is our responsibility to model the conduct that we expect of our students and staff and it is our obligation to build confidence in District leadership; our comments failed you in both regards, and for this we offer our sincerest apology.
We love our students, our teachers and our community, and we want to be part of the remedy to help the District move forward, returning its full focus to students' needs. To help facilitate the healing process, we will be resigning our positions as Trustees of the Oakley Union Elementary School District, effective immediately. The Superintendent will be working with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to address the vacancies on the Board of Education.
This was a difficult decision, but we hear the community's concerns, and we believe yielding to your request that we step down will allow the District to move forward. Please do not let our failure in judgment cast a shadow on the exceptional work that our teachers, administrators and hard-working employees are doing for the students of this District. They deserve and will need your support as you move forward.
Business communication students will find ways to improve this message. The authors use passive voice in the first statement and weak subjects twice in the first paragraph (“it is”). As an apology, the statement also could do better. Sincere apologies include more about the impact of the act—the damage done. I don’t see that recognition clearly.
Lincoln Project Statement
Frank Bruni is right his article, ”When You Don’t Have Trump to Hide Behind: There’s now space for other scandals. Witness the Lincoln Project.” I’ve been missing hearing about improprieties with the shadow of Trump for the past four years. Now trouble at the Lincoln Project, a political group started in 2018 by Republicans to prevent the re-election of the former president, has come to light.
The issue raises questions of integrity. As the organization criticized the former president for his actions, 21 young men accused one founder of sexual harassment, while organization leaders knew of but did nothing about their complaints. In addition, questions linger about whether group leaders misused funds for personal gain.
The one leader accused of “grooming young men online” responded in a statement:
I am so disheartened and sad that I may have brought discomfort to anyone in what I thought at the time were mutually consensual discussions. In living a deeply closeted life, I allowed my pain to cause pain for others. For that I am truly sorry to these men and everyone and for letting so many people down.
The Lincoln Project also issued an official statement. One, dated January 30, isn’t available because of a broken link on the homepage. But another, dated February 14, is below:
The Lincoln Project has retained the law firm of Paul Hastings to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by John Weaver as part of a comprehensive review of our operations and culture. The review process is currently underway.
We are committed to creating a positive, diverse, and inclusive workplace environment at The Lincoln Project and inappropriate behavior by anyone associated with the organization will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We have already taken decisive action to address internal concerns. Additionally, we are releasing staff and former staff from the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to discuss their workplace environment. Based on the findings of this review we will take all necessary action to correct any issues or deficiencies that are identified.
Concurrently, we are also working with outside counsel and professional consultants to strengthen our corporate governance, finance and operational structure, human resources, and leadership to position The Lincoln Project to further maximize our impact and lean into our important mission advancing democracy.
The Lincoln Project was founded to combat political forces who seek to undermine our democracy. We revolutionized how political action committees operate and spent $81 million last cycle to create and place more than 300 advertisements, host national town halls, conduct voter outreach, and launch a podcast and streaming video network that engaged millions of voters. Eighty percent of our funds went to voter contact and content production. Our historic results speak for themselves.
Moving forward, we have important work ahead of us and we have created a nationwide movement of Americans who support our objectives.
In order to continue fulfilling our promise to our millions of supporters and contributors, we must address any and all internal organizational issues immediately and put in place a governance and diverse leadership structure that reflects our core values and ensures we will continue to attract the best talent available.
The Lincoln Project will continue producing and distributing our popular content and commentary while these reviews are being conducted and we are operating at full capacity.
The statement start is unfortunate and squirrely. Perhaps an apology might be more appropriate? As an apology, if this is the intent, the statement doesn’t work very well. Apologies admit specific wrongdoing, acknowledge the impact, and describe positive steps planning for the future. I don’t see that here.
McKinsey Pays Settlement for Work with Purdue Pharma
Management consulting company McKinsey will pay almost $600 million to settle several lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis, including offering marketing advice to Purdue Pharma. The largest settlement is for $573 million, which Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey describes in a video.
Healey’s presentation and delivery are interesting because she represents families and is speaking for 47 attorneys general in several U.S. states. Her anger is evident, but her audience is small: only 53 views one week after it’s posted, and at least three of those are me. What are the communication objectives? This will make a good class discussion.
McKinsey’s response is also interesting for students studying business communication and character. In an email to staff, Global Managing Partner Kevin Sneader describes “setting a higher standard.” Whereas the governors consider McKinsey’s actions unlawful, Sneader does not agree:
“Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.”
The Massachusetts court filing explains the legal argument.
At some point in 2019, two McKinsey executives debated in emails “eliminating all our documents and emails.” These executives have been terminated. (See McKinsey communications.)
Amazon Announces New CEO
In a news release, Amazon announced that CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos will be stepping down, transitioning to role of Executive Chair of the board. He will be succeeded by Andy Jassy, currently CEO of Amazon Web Services. The change won’t take place until the third quarter of 2021.
The news is announced in two short paragraphs within the company’s fourth quarter results:
Amazon is also announcing today that Jeff Bezos will transition to the role of Executive Chair in the third quarter of 2021 and Andy Jassy will become Chief Executive Officer at that time.
“Amazon is what it is because of invention. We do crazy things together and then make them normal. We pioneered customer reviews, 1-Click, personalized recommendations, Prime’s insanely-fast shipping, Just Walk Out shopping, the Climate Pledge, Kindle, Alexa, marketplace, infrastructure cloud computing, Career Choice, and much more,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “If you do it right, a few years after a surprising invention, the new thing has become normal. People yawn. That yawn is the greatest compliment an inventor can receive. When you look at our financial results, what you’re actually seeing are the long-run cumulative results of invention. Right now I see Amazon at its most inventive ever, making it an optimal time for this transition.”
In a longer message to employees, Bezos writes in the same conversational style, but he is more inspirational. The email is also posted on the Amazon public site.
The change is big news and garnered the lead Wall Street Journal story today with the headline, “Amazon CEO Change to Come Amid Regulatory Scrutiny.” The article cites Amazon’s 44% profit increase in the fourth quarter of 2000 as well as the challenges ahead:
“But Amazon also faces the biggest regulatory challenges in its history, with multiple federal investigations into its competitive practices and lawmakers drafting legislation that could force Amazon to restructure its business. Tension with regulators and lawmakers has directly embroiled Mr. Bezos, who was called to testify in front of Congress last summer for the first time.”
Bezos also was in the news recently because his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, donated $5.9 billion in the past year. A New York Times article contrasts her philanthropy with criticism about Bezos’s extraordinary wealth and lack of attention to environmental issues and employees’ concerns. A Vanity Fair author writes, “She got even [for his having a public affair] by doing what he does not: sharing his unbelievable, unconscionable, indescribable wealth with those he makes his money off of, i.e. everyone else in the world.”
GM CEO's Letters to Environmental Leaders
General Motors has changed its position on climate change. The company, led by CEO Mary Barra, had supported President Trump’s efforts to eliminate California’s ability to set its own strict environmental standards.
With a new incoming president, Barra communicated that the auto industry will likely support President Biden’s environmental policies. The news came in the form of a letter to environmental leaders and encouraged “customer adoption of electric vehicles.” Barra also touted GM’s ability to meet the demand. She ends on a positive note: “This effort is critical to addressing climate change, and we look forward to working together.”
A New York Times writer calls the move a “maneuvering” and “a public humiliation to Mr. Trump” since he was still in office at the time. A public policy professor noted, “This is about as bold as it gets. This huge pivot, so closely following an election result, particularly from a firm like General Motors, is a big, big deal.”
Twitter Announces Ban of President Trump
Two days after the riots on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter announced a “permanent suspension” of President Trump’s account after a temporary suspension.
Comparing Twitter and Facebook’s message, on January 7, about a temporary suspension, is a lesson in writing structure. Whereas Mark Zuckerberg used the indirect organizational plan, Twitter’s message states the news right up front. Zuckerberg starts with the rationale and announces the decision at the very end. Twitter starts with the decision, and then provides explanatory text, including sample tweets and the company’s assessment.
Another difference between these messages is the writer. The Twitter post is unsigned, whereas Zuckerberg signed the Facebook message himself. Additional rationale for the decision is posted on the Facebook site. Both approaches could work, and analyzing the communication is (almost) as interesting as the decisions themselves.
Random note: “Permanent suspension” sounds odd to me. A suspension is something temporary.
Company
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
By Twitter Inc.Friday, 8 January 2021
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement.
The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.
Overview
On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:
“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
Assessment
We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This determination is based on a number of factors, including:
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.
Zuckerberg's Message About President Trump's Account
Facebook has decided that President Trump will no longer use its platform for his messages—at least for a while. The decision came after riots at the U.S. Capitol and after Twitter and Facebook suspended the president’s account. The tech companies said that the president violated its rules by inciting violence and/or making false claims about the election.
YouTube blocked a video of President Trump expressing sympathy for the protestors and calling them “special.” The tech platforms had tried labeling posts, but the president’s false claims were still believed.
Some call this time an “inflection point": “Hey Mark Zuckerberg, @jack, @SusanWojcicki and @sundarpichai -- Donald Trump just incited a violent attack on American democracy. Is that FINALLY enough for you to act?!" At this point, Twitter has not yet permanently banned the president from tweeting.
Zuckerberg uses the indirect style for his post, with the main point in the very last sentence. He makes his argument first, and then we read the decision. It’s an interesting choice, which might not convey the courage that people would like to see.
Additional analysis and rationale for the decision are posted on the Facebook site.
United Airlines’ Response to Passenger Death
United Airlines is doing damage control after a passenger flying from Orlando to Los Angeles was rushed to a hospital in New Orleans and died. The cause of death hasn’t yet been reported, but the airline confirmed that the passenger had Covid-19 symptoms.
Customer response is fierce, partly because the passenger’s wife told others that her husband had Covid, and partly because the airline continued to fly the plane with passengers. Like most airlines, United asks passengers about their symptoms before flying, but they do not verify.
Communications are scant. I see nothing on United’s home page but found a news release dated December 16, two days after the passenger death, titled, “United and CDC Work Together on Contact Tracing Initiative for All International and Domestic Flights.” Recent tweets mention nothing about the situation, although one conveys the same message as the news release: “comprehensive, voluntary contract tracing.”
Some might feel that this is the least the airline can do in the situation.
Robinhood's Misleading Communications
Investment app Robinhood will pay $65 million in fines for misleading customers. The 2013 start-up has grown rapidly, attracting younger, inexperienced investors with no-fee accounts and no minimums. But Robinhood generates revenue through “payment for order flow,” essentially a kickback from Wall Street firms and the same practice Bernie Madoff used to defraud investors.
Robinhood uses behavioral nudges and notifications to push users to invest in riskier stocks, resulting in higher trading volume, sometimes dramatic losses—and more revenue for the company. An NBC article describes the visuals:
When smartphone owners pull up Robinhood’s investment app, they’re greeted with a variety of dazzling touches: bursts of confetti to celebrate transactions, the price of bitcoin in neon pink and a list of popular stocks to trade.
Charles Schwab, meet Candy Crush.
A competitor compared the design to Las Vegas.
Of course, all is well when stocks go up, but when stocks decline, users have to make up the loss. For one 20-year-old man, his bill appeared to be $730,000, and he committed suicide.
Wishing Someone Well
News outlets are reporting that President Trump wishes Ghislaine Maxwell “well.” An associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell is charged with child sex-trafficking and has pleaded not guilty.
President Trump knew Epstein and Maxwell and met them “numerous times over the years.” according to his interview with Axios. When an Axios interviewer questioned the president’s previous statement that he wishes her well, he explained what he meant:
"Her boyfriend died in jail, and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen. Was it suicide, was he killed? And I do wish her well.”
“I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad [sic] for anybody.”
“I do. I wish her well.”
“I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well.”
Discussion:
What does it mean to “wish” someone “well”?
What's your view of President Trump’s comments? Appropriately empathic towards Maxwell, compassionate, insensitive towards victims of sexual abuse, polite, or something else?
The president defended his initial comments. Should he have done so or changed his approach? Why?
Zuckerberg Testifies About 2012 Emails
Mark Zuckerberg faced one particularly tense moment during the U.S. Congressional Antitrust Hearing. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) accused Facebook of antitrust activities in its acquisition of Instagram:
“Facebook, by its own admission ... saw Instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from Facebook. So rather than compete with it, Facebook bought it. This is exactly the type of anti-competitive acquisition the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”
Nadler’s conclusion is based on 2012 emails among Zuckerberg and his staff. In one email he wrote about Instagram:
“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again. Within that time, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, those new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.”
Within an hour, Zuckerberg sent a second email, which some say proves his guilt:
“I didn’t mean to imply that we’d be buying them to prevent them from competing with us in any way.”
During the hearings, Zuckerberg defended the acquisition:
“I think the FTC had all of these documents ... and unanimously voted at the time not to challenge the acquisition. In hindsight, it probably looks obvious that Instagram would have reached the scale that it has today. But at the time, it was far from obvious.”
Discussion:
Research and describe relevant U.S. antitrust laws.
Read more about the 2012 emails and watch the hearings. How well did Zuckerberg defend the Instagram acquisition?
Did Zuckerberg’s follow-up email prove his guilt? Why or why not?
P&G Commercials Demonstrate Empathy
Two Proctor and Gamble ads illustrate the role of empathy in understanding aspects of being Black in America. The first ad here, “The Look,” shows how a Black man experiences others’ reactions to him throughout the day. The second ad allows the viewer to watch intimate conversations that Black families have about race.
Discussion:
How would you describe the role of empathy in addressing bias?
What are the objectives of these ads? How well do they meet those objectives?
What makes these ads effective—or not—in your opinion?
Company Statements About George Floyd's Murder
Business Insider has assembled a list of companies’ statements and promised actions following the killing of George Floyd and the public protests.
TikTok, General Motors, McDonald’s—many brands are jumping into the conversation and posting messages that are both placating and inspiring.
Discussion:
Read the list of statements and actions. Which sound most meaningful to you?
Should all brands post a message? Which should, and what is important to convey?
Facebook's Position on Twitter's Labeling
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg weighed in on Twitter’s decision to fact-check and label some of President Trump’s tweets. In response to protests after the death of George Floyd, one tweet promised “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Twitter hid the tweet with a note that it “violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence.”
Another tweet claimed that “mail-in voting will lead to massive fraud and abuse,” and Twitter posted a warning to “get the facts.” Until now, Twitter had not enforced its policies for the president’s tweets.
Facebook is taking a different tack. CEO Mark Zuckerberg described the company’s position:
"I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think in general, private companies shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that."
The Wall Street Journal editorial board defended Zuckerberg’s decision: “We wish Facebook would take a lighter touch when it comes to political speech overall.”
Discussion:
What’s your view of Twitter’s actions? Why do you think the company began labeling President Trump’s tweets now?
Should Facebook follow suit? How might each company’s mission play a role in its actions?
Jenner Pays for Frye Festival Post
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires that paid endorsements are not misleading. Celebrities like Kendall Jenner cannot post support on social media for a product or organization without specifying that she is being paid to do so. The FTC publishes Endorsement Guides to clarify responsibilities.
Jenner promoted the 2017 failed Frye Festival, implying that Kanye West might perform. Although she was paid $275,000, she didn’t reveal the sponsorship. She has since been sued and will pay a $90,000 settlement, which may help some of the many associates of the festival who lost money in the venture.
To learn more about what happened to the Frye Festival—a major public relations and communication failing—see documentaries on Hulu and Netflix.
Discussion:
What are the ethical implications of celebrities endorsing products?
When a celebrity endorses a product, are you more likely to buy it?
If you’re familiar with the festival, describe what went wrong.
A Leader Example in My Book Is Charged With Conspiracy
I was sad to see that Paul Kruse, former CEO of Blue Bell Creamery, has been charged with covering up the listeria breakout in 2015. In my book, Building Leadership Character, Kruse is a positive example of a leader who demonstrates vulnerability. His 2016 video announcing employee layoffs after the breakout was emotional and authentic.
Prosecutors say that Kruse delayed recalling tainted products, instructed employees to tell customers that product delays were caused by mechanical problems, and failed to take other appropriate action.
Blue Bell agreed to pay $19.5 million to the Department of Justice and posted a statement on its website, which focuses more on the future than on the past.
Discussion:
Can you reconcile both perspectives of Kruse as a leader? Could he be someone who covers up listeria and someone who gets emotional when talking about employee layoffs?
Assess the company’s statement. Who are the audiences, and what are the communication objectives?
Companies That Returned Federal Funding
Controversy swirls as companies grapple with whether to keep or return federal funding for the COVID-19 crisis. Distributions from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) seem unfair as some small businesses—the intended recipients—can’t get forgivable loans, while some larger businesses received millions of dollars that, at least in some cases, isn’t needed as emergency funding.
As the first and most highly publicized company, Shake Shack returned $10 million. Forbes tallies several others, including Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Sweetgreen, and the Los Angeles Lakers.
Store image source. Food image source.
Discussion:
What’s your view of companies that returned money compared to those that didn’t?
How should a company decide whether to return the funding?
Shake Shack doesn’t include a press release on its website or a tweet about the decision. What’s your view of this approach? Should the company promote the decision more boldly? Why or why not?
Lysol Disputes Claims of Cure
During his press conference, President Trump questioned whether disinfectants could be used internally to fight the new coronavirus:
“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”
The president later said, “I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen.” But Lysol executives are concerned that people may take the idea seriously and try to treat themselves. Reckitt Benckiser, which makes Lysol products, issued a statement, “Improper Use of Disinfectants.”
Discussion:
Watch the president’s comment during the press conference. What’s your view of his speculation?
Analyze the Lysol maker’s response. What works well, and what could be improved? What is appropriate or inappropriate for a brand’s parent to dispute the president’s claim in this way?
Improving Column Charts
So many charts about COVID-19 could be improved. Here’s one from a Business Insider article, which compares death rates for the flu and COVID-19.
Discussion:
What issues do you see in the graphic? (Hint: Check the x axis, and describe what the percentage on the y axis represents.) How would you fix the problems?
What are the consequences of designing charts in this way?
Find another recent chart to analyze. In what ways does the graphic convey information accurately, and how does it fall short?