Facebook Policy Executive Sat Behind Kavanaugh

Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice president for global public policy, sat behind his friend, Brett Kavanaugh, during the charged hearings to determine whether he would win support as the next Supreme Court justice. Because of his position at Facebook, employees questioned his loyalties and whether it was appropriate for him to be so visible during the judge’s testimony about whether he sexually assaulted a woman as a teenager.

His appearance was a “surprise” to employees, and hundreds wrote about their concerns on Facebook’s intranet site. One employee wrote, perhaps expressing the sentiment of Facebook’s liberal employees:

“Let’s assume for a minute that our VP of Policy understands how senate hearings work. His seat choice was intentional, knowing full well that journalists would identify every public figure appearing behind Kavanaugh. He knew that this would cause outrage internally, but he knew that he couldn’t get fired for it. This was a protest against our culture, and a slap in the face to his fellow employees.”

Kaplan defended participating, referring to their 20-year friendship, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he didn’t violate any company policies by attending, although he did say he would not have made the same decision. Employees wanted to hear from COO Sheryl Sanberg about Ford’s accusations, and she was not forthcoming, according to a Times article. But she did comment on Kaplan’s attendance:

“As a woman and someone who cares so deeply about how women are treated, the Kavanaugh issue is deeply upsetting to me. I’ve talked to Joel about why I think it was a mistake for him to attend given his role in the company.”

Cover photo source.

Discussion:

• Read additional Facebook messages in the Times article. How would you summarize employees’ concerns?

• What’s your view of Kaplan’s attendance? Consider the “optics” in addition to company policy.

• Some might say that Kaplan was being authentic by sitting behind his friend. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?

• Which character dimensions are illustrated by this story?

Kavanaugh and Ford Demonstrate Vulnerability

During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford both displayed emotions for the media to analyze and compare.

A New York Times article reports, “Kavanaugh's show of both fury and tears was a cry from the flip side of the #MeToo movement.” We saw an angrier Kavanaugh than during his Fox News interview, perhaps a reaction to President Trump’s disappointment in his mild manner.

A CNN article recalls a 2005 interview when President Trump said, "When I see a man cry I view it as a weakness. I don't like seeing men cry." The article also concludes,

“Judgments on Kavanaugh's emotional performance will likely depend on each viewer's perspective, but he demonstrated the wider latitude that men in politics have today to show their emotions. However, were he a woman, he would likely be dismissed as overwrought, even hysterical, which helps explain why the witness who testified before him, Christine Blasey Ford, was far more composed and restrained.”

The Times article describes Ford’s presentation: “[H]er voice cracking but her composure intact.” In another Times piece, “The ‘Tight Rope’ of Testifying While Female,” the writer confirms, “She teared up in her testimony — her voice cracking — but she did not openly cry or break down.” That article also cites her asking for caffeine and telling a joke: “These are all codes for ‘she is displaying proper expectations of femininity.’”

Gender experts and other reporters also noted the contrast. Referring to Kavanaugh’s tears, Alicia Menendez of PBS said, “If he were a woman, we’d be questioning if she were unhinged.”

Both demonstrated vulnerability and risked emotional exposure. Despite the public backlash, Ford came forward to tell her story. And Kavanaugh responded by displaying emotions often viewed negatively for a man. However, overall, reports of his anger seem to overshadow the tears.

Kavanaugh image. Ford image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of the emotional displays during the testimony? How do you think gender differences factored into how each was judged?

• Have you ever cried at work? Which emotions are seen as appropriate, and which are discouraged? Should we be more open to both anger and sadness in the workplace?

Are U.S. Campuses Coddling Students?

A new book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, explores the impact of political discourse on U.S. college campuses. The book is an expansion of an Atlantic article in which Jonathan Haidt, one of the book authors, disputed “trigger warnings” and other anxiety-avoiding tactics.

The authors are clear that harassment and discrimination are wrong, and that students who experience them should report the incidents. But, according to a Bloomberg article, we may lose the ability to communicate with each other:

“They worry about the What worries him is the looseness of the term ‘bias’ and the idea that students are urged not to work out their concern with the alleged perpetrator but to report it directly to the authorities.”

Also concerning the authors is the high percentage of liberal faculty members. A recent study shows that 39% of the most elite liberal arts schools have no Republican professors. The Bloomberg writer notes the possible negative effect:

"Critics argue that the atmosphere of liberal orthodoxy increases the risk that graduates will enter the workforce without knowing how to confront political viewpoints different from their own.”

Cover image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view? Are we coddling students, or do they need more protection and “safe spaces”?

• How would you describe the differences among discrimination, harassment, and bias?

• How might the issue of protecting people from bias contribute to sexual harassment in the workplace? How can we help people sort out problems at an interpersonal level?

Disneyland Employees Speak Out

Disney employees are on screen in a New York Times op-ed video, "I Work at the Happiest Place on Earth. Why Can’t I Pay My Rent?" A 30-year concierge and a cosmetologist are featured more prominently. One is currently living in her car, and another says, tearfully, that she has spent time in her car. Both say they love their jobs, but along with 75% of Disneyland employees, they can't afford to pay "basic expenses every month." Data comes from a questionnaire and report, "Working for the Mouse."

The argument is for Disney to pay a living wage, and the call is for citizens to vote for an Anaheim proposal that affects Disneyland employees and some local hotel workers. In the video, one claim is that real wages have declined because of inflation—what $15 per hour bought seven years ago isn't the same today.

Business leaders who are fighting the measure say that the increase would hurt jobs. One local Chamber of Commerce member argued, "We estimate 3-4,000 jobs lost over next year or two by companies having to absorb this new increased cost. They're going to reduce hours and reduce jobs."

Senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is also featured in the video. He is proposing a bill he calls "Stop BEZOS" to tax Amazon and other large companies for public assistance received by their employees. The idea is for companies with 500 or more employees to pay the government back for support paid to their employees who cannot survive on earned wages.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How well does the video make the case for higher wages? Which are logical and which are emotional appeals? What evidence is presented?
• Assess the credibility of the questionnaire and report, "Working for the Mouse." From your assessment, what makes the report both credible and questionable? In what ways does the report reflect business communication standards, and in what ways does it fall short?
• Research the impact of raising wages on industry, for example, this Cornell report. What's your view of this argument? It's a complicated question because of different industries, locations, labor supply, rates, etc.
• In what ways do the employees featured in the video demonstrate courage? What risks did they take in appearing on screen?

School Policy for "Natural" Hair

An 11-year-old black girl was sent home from school because her hair didn't fit guidelines for "natural" hairstyles. Over the summer, Christ the King Parish School in Terrytown, Louisiana, established a new policy, published in its handbook, banning hair extensions, which Faith Fennidy was wearing.

Videos show Fennidy crying, and critics called the policy discriminatory. But the Archdiocese of New Orleans defended the school's decision:

"This policy was communicated to all parents during the summer and again before the first day of school, and was applied to all students.

"The school offered the student's family an opportunity to comply with the uniform and dress policy and the family chose to withdraw the student; the student was not suspended or expelled."

A representative for the school also said, "We remain committed to being a welcoming school community that celebrates our unity and diversity." Fennidy decided not to return to the school.

Discussion:

• What's your view of the policy? Do you find it appropriate, discriminatory, or something else?
• How do attire policies in companies compare? What examples of similar policies have been problematic for companies?
• Read more about the situation on BusinessInsider. How well did the school handle the situation? What, if anything, could have been done differently?

Men More Likely to Be Called by Surname Only

Multiple studies show that men are more likely than women to be referred to by only their last name, while women are referred to by their full name. We are likely to say "Trump" yet "Theresa May." The studies include references to politicians, teaching faculty, and scientific researchers.

The differences are most striking in the computer science field, in which only 20% of women but almost 50% of men were referred to by last name only.

Trouble comes when, as some of this research confirms, people view those referred to by only their last names as "more famous and eminent, a judgment that could result in more awards, funding, and other career benefits."

This research reminds me of a recent New York Times article that explained how Wimbledon lists women on its board of champions. Before marriage, Chris Evert was listed as "Miss C.M. Evert." After marriage, she became "Mrs. J.M. Lloyd." Announcers refer to "Mrs. Williams," yet Roger Federer is simply "Federer" and listed on the board as "R. Federer," married or not.

Board image source.

Discussion:

• To what would you attribute the difference in how people are referred?
• Have you observed this difference yourself, perhaps in other settings? Consider working environments and Hollywood, for example.
• Do you find this research and the tennis calling significant? Why or why not?

CEO Activism

Weber Shandwick's third annual report explores CEO activism, which Brian Moynihan, CEO Bank of America, defines and supports:

“Our jobs as CEOs now include driving what we think is right. It’s not exactly political activism, but it is action on issues beyond business.”

The report found that almost half of Americans "believe CEO activism influences the decisions and actions of government," and almost half of consumers "would be more likely to buy from a company led by a CEO who speaks out on an issue they agree with." Millennials, particularly, prefer CEOs to speak out on issues, and CEOs with more social media accounts have better stock performance for their company.

A Wall Journal Street writer observes that leaders rarely make a business case for issues, even if their company would benefit. Instead, they are speaking to consumers directly to change hearts and minds.

Top issues for CEOs include training, equal pay and sexual harassment, and CEOs are avoiding gun control, nationalism, marijuana legalization, and abortion."

A Forbes article offers this advice for CEOs:

• Develop an authentic voice and quick actions
• Connect your customers with your activism efforts
• Align activism efforts with a company’s mission  
• Be willing to act against your own self-interest

Discussion:

• What are the risks and rewards of activism to a CEO and to the company? How does integrity factor in?
• What examples have you seen of CEOs speaking out? How do you assess the situations? How did you feel about the gestures?
• Read the Weber PPT deck. What principles of business report writing are followed, and what could be improved?

Papa John's Founder Resigns

Papa John's founder and chairman John Schnatter resigned after using the "N-word" on a conference call. This may have been the last straw for the executive, who sparked controversy about NFL players "taking a knee" during the national anthem. Schnatter blamed league players and leadership for declining viewership he linked to declining pizza sales. Muddying the issue, Schnatter won unwanted support from some neo-Nazis.

This incident involved Laundry Service, a marketing firm that was helping Schnatter navigate future PR crises. During a role play, Schnatter said, “Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s." His point was that the KFC chairman didn't face any backlash. A Forbes article details more of the conversation:

"Schnatter also reflected on his early life in Indiana, where, he said, people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died. He apparently intended for the remarks to convey his antipathy to racism, but multiple individuals on the call found them to be offensive, a source familiar with the matter said. After learning about the incident, Laundry Service owner Casey Wasserman moved to terminate the company’s contract with Papa John’s."

In a statement, Schnatter apologized: 

"News reports attributing the use of inappropriate and hurtful language to me during a media training session regarding race are true. Regardless of the context, I apologize. Simply stated, racism has no place in our society."

Image source.

Cover image source.

Discussion:

• A Netflix executive resigned after a similar situation. What differences do you see in these two situations, and do they matter in  terms of the resulting resignations?
• Papa John's next challenge is how to distance itself from Schnatter, whose face is on the pizza boxes. Should the image be removed? Why or why not?

Women Run "As Themselves"

After years of female politicians running for office in the pantsuit uniform, we're seeing newcomers present themselves more authentically. Women on the campaign trail are wearing skinny jeans and sweaters and talk openly about their children, mental illness, and credit card debt. A New York Times article describes their approach as "vulnerability that campaign consultants have long told women to avoid."

A 29-year-old Democratic candidate for Congress says the race is "so dang personal to me," and "It's personal" is a tagline for her commercials. Other examples are showing tattoos, wearing natural hair styles, and discussing a divorce.

A 2017 study, "Modern Family: How Women Candidates Can Talk About Politics, Parenting, and Their Personal Lives," confirms the approach. Comparing tested images, the study authors conclude, "Images [should] work strike the right balance of authenticity, formality, and the interaction between the candidate and the child." According to the findings, the image on the left side "works" but the image on the right doesn't: "Images that don’t work fail because they look too staged, are too casual, and either center the child too much, or seem like the candidate is ignoring the child."

Cover image source.

Discussion:

• How might this approach relate to our current political environment and the MeToo Movement?
• What are the potential downsides for women using this approach on the campaign trail?
• How does this story related to women leaders in business?
• Which business writing principles of report writing does the report follow? Analyze the report organization, content, and writing style.

Communicating Strategy at HBO

A New York Times article gives us a window into how leaders are telling employees about the future of HBO. The article describes a town hall meeting John Stankey, an AT&T executive, held for about 150 employees. When AT&T acquired Time Warner in 2016, HBO was part of the deal, so employees are likely anxious to know the company's plans. The Times article describes the meeting as "a straight-shooting, hourlong talk."

Stankey communicated a clear theme throughout his talk: increasing viewer engagement: 

We need hours a day. It’s not hours a week, and it’s not hours a month. We need hours a day. You are competing with devices that sit in people’s hands that capture their attention every 15 minutes.

Perhaps understandably, the talk may have included some contradictions. Here are two subsequent paragraphs in the Times article:

They pledged to take a hands-off approach to the company’s crown jewel, HBO, which has won endless Emmys while generating billions in profits.

But the town hall meeting suggested that AT&T would not be a passive corporate parent.

Attempting to quell employees' fears about layoffs, Stankey noted the lack of duplication between HBO and AT&T.

Discussion:

• How do you explain the two statements above? How might HBO employees perceive the talk?
• Read more in the article. What else strikes you as important from an employee perspective?
• Overall, how transparent would you describe the executive's approach?
• What are the advantages and drawbacks of a town hall meeting? What other communication channels would be helpful during an acquisition?

Body Language During a Job Interview

A Business Insider article gives tips for body language, and some suggestions are better than others.

The best advice is to "sit up straight" and "walk in with your shoulders pulled back and head held high"―good for an interview and for posture. The given example is for when you approach a receptionist, and this is a good first test of your communication skills and how you treat people throughout the interview process. Also good advice is to "nix sweaty palms with cold water" at a restroom before the interview starts.

Other advice is questionable. The point of "hold still" and "don't cross your legs" is to avoid excessive fidgeting, but a natural, comfortable position is probably best. In an hour-long interview, you can certainly shift your body a bit, which may include uncrossing and re-crossing your legs a couple of times. You don't want to appear stiff; authenticity is best.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Which advice from the article do you find most and least useful?
• In what ways do you tend to fidget? Have you found ways to control this, such as pulling back your hair or avoiding dangling jewelry?  

Tonys Recap: Speeches and Politics

As usual, the annual Tony awards was a star-studded night with fancy clothes and big celebrities. But this year, the show got political.

Most significantly—or most viral—was Robert De Niro's "F-bomb" preceding President Trump's name. He received a highly positive reaction from the Hollywood audience, with people cheering and standing. The comment, which De Niro repeated, was censored in the United States, but an Australian feed let it roll, so it's available in full on YouTube.

A highlight of the night was hearing graduating students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, where a shooter recently killed 17 people and left more injured. Students sang "Seasons of Love" from "Rent" and encouraged us to "measure your life in love." A Washington Post article referred to this segment as "the most moving moment" of the night.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of De Niro's outburst: inappropriate, inspiring, or something else?
• How would you respond to the same question about the high school students?
• One could argue that De Niro is "just being his authentic self." How would you respond to this perspective?

"Can We Use 'I'?"

In an article, "The Soul-Crushing Student Essay," a writing instructor at The New School in New York City laments first-year students' writing. Every semester, he says, students ask, “Do you mean we can write with the word ‘I’?” He says, "Somewhere along the way, these young people were told by teachers that who they are in their writing ought to be divorced from who they are on their phones, or as the writer Grace Paley may have said, with their families and on their streets."

He encourages students to write about their own experience:

First, we need to value more the complete and complex lives of young people: where they come from, how they express themselves. They have already lived lives worthy of our attention and appreciation.

Second, we need to encourage young people to take seriously those lives they’ve lived, even as they come to understand—often through schooling and just as often not—that there’s a whole lot more we’ll expect of them. Through this, we can help them learn to expect more of themselves, too.

I'm sensitive to the topic because several students recently asked me this question about their final assignment—a self-reflection paper.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Were you taught to avoid "I" in writing? What was the reason?
• What is the value of writing from your own experience?
• How does using "I" make your writing clearer and more concise?

Ghostwriting for Dating Ads?

Ghostwriting is moving beyond celebrity biographies to customer service emails, employment negotiations, and posts on dating sites.

Online dating coach Erika Ettin admits, "I write to potential matches. I respond. I delete the inappropriate people.” She'll also rewrite profiles and swipe on her clients' behalf. She defends the practice:

I know sometimes people paint ghostwriting in a negative way. They say it’s disingenuous. But it’s a trend that’s going to continue. People don’t always know what to write and how to put their best foot forward.

A few years ago, actor George Takei was criticized for using a ghost writer. His 4 million Facebook followers were upset when they learned he paid $10 a joke. 

Image source.

Discussion: 

• When do you think it's appropriate to hire a ghostwriter, and when does the practice cross a line? 
• Ettin mentions the argument that using a ghostwriter is "disingenuous." Do you agree? Why or why not? Is it authentic? What's the difference? 
• Would you hire a ghostwriter for dating or for job communications? Why or why not? 

Tesla's Contentious Conference Call

Called "the most unusual call...in 20 years," "bizarre"—and "the best call I've heard in a long time," Tesla's earnings call is a popular news item. On balance, as one analyst said, “Needless to say, the call didn’t go well," and the evidence is in the stock price, which dropped 7.9% (5% within 20 minutes).

Here are a two highlights of CEO Elon Musk's responses to questions:

Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi: "And so where specifically will you be in terms of capital requirements?"

Musk: "Excuse me. Next. Boring, bonehead questions are not cool. Next?"

RBC's Joseph Spak: "The first question is related to the Model 3 reservations, and I was just wondering if you gave us a gauge as maybe some of the impact that the news has had. Like, of the reservations that actually opened and made available to configure, can you let us know, like, what percentage have actually taken the step to configure?

Musk: "We're going to go to YouTube. Sorry. These questions are so dry. They're killing me."

At one point, Musk, frustrated by a question, said, "Please sell our stock and don't buy it." Candor is one thing, but I'm not sure a CEO wants to alienate investors.

CNBC host Jim Cramer is one of the opposing voices, who complimented Musk on his directness and telling the truth. He said that many CEOs are thinking what Musk said out loud. At the same time, Cramer acknowledged that this might be Musk's last call.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of Musk's responses during the call? What factors into your assessment?
• Watch Cramer's analysis. To what extent do you agree with his assessment?
• What are the risks of Musk's approach (in addition to the short-term stock price drop), and what are the potential rewards?
• Some might say Musk is being authentic. How do you see it?

WhatsApp Co-Founder Leaves Over Data Controversy

Founder and CEO of WhatsApp Jan Koum will leave because of clashes with Facebook, which acquired the start-up in 2014. Koum confirmed the decision in a Facebook post.

Koum follows another WhatsApp executive, Brian Acton, who left last year after publicly criticizing Facebook's decision to put ads on WhatsApp. Acton's public comments have continued; in March, when Facebook was in the news for the Cambridge Analytic controversy, he posted, "It is time. #deletefacebook."

Privacy was also paramount to Koum, who said WhatsApp was designed "around the goal of knowing as little about you as possible." We can see how this stance would conflict with Facebook's ad strategy, which targets users based on many known characteristics.

Mark Zuckerberg has been gracious about Koum's departure, at least publicly. He responded to Koum's post on Facebook:

Jan: I will miss working so closely with you. I'm grateful for everything you've done to help connect the world, and for everything you've taught me, including about encryption and its ability to take power from centralized systems and put it back in people's hands. Those values will always be at the heart of WhatsApp.

Discussion:

• Describe the culture clash between Facebook and WhatsApp. What do you think went wrong during the acquisition process?
• Assess Koum's and Zuckerberg's posts. How well do they represent their companies and themselves?
• What's your view of Acton's open criticism of Facebook: disloyal, hurtful, authentic, courageous, or something else?

More About the Starbucks Bias Situation

After the arrest of two black men in a Philadelphia store, Starbucks announced that 8,000 stores will close on May 29 for racial-bias training. But are some skeptical about the impact that one day of training will have, and the company seems to be imitating Chipotle's decision to close stores for food safety training. On the other hand, the company could have blamed the employee who called the police, a crisis communication strategy we have seem in many other situations. 

An article in the New York Times describes racial bias research in hospitality customer service and may tell us more about the incident in Philadelphia. In one study, researchers sent emails to hotels using different names that reflected gender and race, asking for restaurant recommendations. Responses indicated racial bias, as the authors describe: "Hotel employees were significantly more likely to respond to inquiries from people who had typically white names than from those who had typically black and Asian names."

In addition, researchers analyzed "politeness," for example, whether employees wrote "best" or "sincerely" before signing their name. They were more likely to use such words when responding to guests with names that sounded white, and the authors describe another finding for this group: 

They were three times as likely to provide extra information — even when the initial inquiry was just about restaurants — to white than to black or Asian people.

In addition to training, the authors suggest periodic customer service audits and consistent scripts and policies.

In a turn, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross has apologized to the two men who were arrested. In his original video, Ross defended the officers actions and said, based on a sergeant's experience at Starbucks, "they are at least consistent in their policy." But in the news conference, Ross says, "shame on me" and "I have to do better." 

Image source.

Discussion: 

• What's your view of the research about customer service at hotels? What does the research potentially say about the situation at Starbucks?
• Have you experienced bias in a customer service setting? What was the situation, and how did you handle it? 
• How well does Ross handle the apology in the news conference? How does his identity factor into his response? How does he demonstrate authenticity, vulnerability, and other leadership character dimensions?

Mariah Carey Talks About Having Bipolar Disorder

In 2001, singer Mariah Carey learned she had bipolar disorder, and now she is admitting it to the world. In an People magazine cover story, Carey talks about her initial denial and her decision to open up about her diagnosis:

“Until recently I lived in denial and isolation and in constant fear someone would expose me. It was too heavy a burden to carry and I simply couldn’t do that anymore. I sought and received treatment, I put positive people around me and I got back to doing what I love — writing songs and making music.”

“I’m just in a really good place right now, where I’m comfortable discussing my struggles with bipolar II disorder. I’m hopeful we can get to a place where the stigma is lifted from people going through anything alone. It can be incredibly isolating. It does not have to define you and I refuse to allow it to define me or control me.”

Bipolar disorder, also called manic-depressive disorder, affects about 5.7 million adults in the U.S., which is about 2.6% of the population.

Reactions to the news seem mostly positive, with comments such as this on Twitter:

This story reminds me of a TedX talk, "Everyone Is Hiding Something" about a woman's struggle with an eating disorder.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What are the potential personal and professional consequences to Mariah Carey of going public with her diagnosis?
• What do you hide about yourself that might be useful for others to know?
• What is the value of admitting personal struggles in the workplace?
• How does Mariah Carey's story demonstrate leadership character dimensions, such as courage, compassion, authenticity, and vulnerability?

Zuckerberg Testifies Before Congress

In many hours of testimony, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did his best to address lawmakers' questions about data privacy and, surprisingly, how Facebook works. Senators and Members of Congress asked questions about texting, about how the company makes money without a subscription model (Zuckerberg: "We sell ads."), whether Facebook owns users' data, whether Facebook sells data, how many "data categories" Facebook collects, and so on. This video compilation does not reflect well on our lawmakers.

Zuckerberg himself seemed surprised by some of the questions and wasn't fully prepared to answer them. A reporter captures a photo of Zuckerberg's notes, which are what we would expect, but it's fun (in a voyeuristic way) to see them.

On the second day of testimony, questions improved, and many focused on Facebook's treatment of conservative political views. These were fair questions, and Zuckerberg admitted they had made mistakes in screening some content as inappropriate. But several representatives seemed to ask similar questions about this and about the consent agreement with the FCC, as if the question hadn't been asked just moments earlier.

In a New York Times Daily Podcast, reporters discussed Zuckerberg's continued references to starting Facebook in his dorm room. They believed the strategy was a good one for demonstrating his humanity (emotional appeal) but was potentially damaging for his credibility because it reminded lawmakers that he is only 33 years old. A seat chair, which internet trolls called a "booster seat," didn't help.

Wall Street responded well to Zuckerberg's testimony, with the stock price rising both days.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of Zuckerberg's testimony? Watch as much as you can tolerate.
• Should lawmakers have a better understanding of Facebook? What is their level of responsibility?
• Identify a few specific questions and Zuckerberg's answers. What leadership character dimensions does he demonstrate, and how could he have improved?
• Watching the testimony, how would you assess his authenticity? Do you know more about him as a person? Should we?

Heineken Pulls "Lighter Is Better" Ad

Heineken seemed to be playing with fire in a new beer ad, "Sometimes, Lighter Is Better." The commercial shows a bartender sending a light beer to a light-skinned woman. On its way down the bar, the beer passes darker-skinned people. The promotion was for 99-calorie Heineken Light.

Chance the Rapper is one of many who called the ad racist, and he accused the company of intentionally trying to attract attention.

An AdAge article explains that the ad traveled from Europe last summer, where it received little attention, to the recent release in the U.S. As one agency owner explains, "What sometimes is acceptable in Europe isn't acceptable in the U.S. and I think that a lot of time the failure comes in not really evaluating the impact that it is going to have in a particular region."

Heineken pulled the ad, and spokesman Bjorn Trowery published a statement:

"For decades, Heineken has developed diverse marketing that shows there’s more that unites us than divides us.

"While we feel the ad is referencing our Heineken Light beer—we missed the mark, are taking the feedback to heart and will use this to influence future campaigns."

Discussion:

• Would you call the ad racist? Why or why not? 
• Do you think Heineken intentionally created a controversial ad? What evidence do you find either way?
• How is this an issue of authenticity and integrity for the company?