Barnes and Noble CEO Gets Fired

The Barnes and Noble board isn't giving any details about why CEO Demos Parneros was terminated. In a brief press release, the company cited "violations of the Company’s policies" and stated that the decision wasn't based on "any disagreement with the Company regarding its financial reporting, policies or practices or any potential fraud relating thereto."

However, the CEO's termination will result in a loss of severance pay, and he will no longer serve on the company board. Parneros joined Barnes and Noble in 2016 and accepted the chief position just a year ago. Given his short tenure with the company, the consequences seem reasonable.

Perhaps unusually, the statement emphasizes legal counsel:

This action was taken by the Company’s Board of Directors who were advised by the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. 

To me, this sounds unnecessary and defensive: of course a company would receive legal counsel in such a situation.

Cover image source.

Parneros image source.

Discussion:

• Why would the board of directors not say more about why Parneros was fired? Should they?
• What are the downsides of failing to reveal the reason for the termination?
• What are your thoughts about the statement, particularly the reference to legal counsel? Why would the board include this? Could it be self-promotional for the law firm?
• Which leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation? Which may be lacking?

Intel CEO Resigns Over Relationship With Employee

A Wall Street Journal article describes events leading to the Intel CEO's resignation. Brian Krzanich had an affair with a mid-level manager at the company, but the relationship ended years ago. Still, the affair became public when the woman told a co-worker who, citing the company's strict policy, reported it to the board of directors.

Intel has a particularly tough policy, which bans any relationships among managers and any employees and requires employees to report known relationships.

In a news release, the company announced the news in the first paragraph and then quickly moved to the future: the appointment of an interim CEO and expressions of confidence for Intel's strategy. Still, the stock fell 3.5% on the news.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did Krazanich do the right thing by resigning? Why or why not?
• What are the advantages and downsides of Intel's strict policy? "Non-fraternization" seems dated and odd, doesn't it? Why would a company use this title?
• Consider the employees who discussed the affair. We might assume that one confided in the other. What were the steps along the way that led to Krazanich's resignation? Who is accountable for the result?

Netflix Comms Officer Out After Using Racial Epithet

Jonathan Friedland, Netflix's chief communications officer, was fired after using the "N-word" at least twice at work. CEO Reed Hastings sent an email to employees explaining the situation:

“Several people afterwards told him how inappropriate and hurtful his use of the N-word was..."  “We hoped this was an awful anomaly never to be repeated.” “The second incident confirmed a deep lack of understanding, and convinced me to let Jonathan go now." "[I should]...have done more to use it as a learning moment for everyone at Netflix about how painful and ugly that word is, and that it should not be used.” “Depending on where you live or grew up in the world, understanding and sensitivities around the history and use of the N-word can vary.” “For nonblack people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song or reading a script). There is not a way to neutralize the emotion and history behind the word in any context.”

The first incident was during a PR meeting on the topic of sensitive words. It's unclear when and how the word was used the second time.

For his part, Friedland apologized on Twitter.

Discussion:

• What's your view of the situation and Friedland's use of the word? Consider that we don't have all of the context.
• Given what little we know, should Friedland have been fired?
• How does this situation potentially demonstrate a lack of humility?

Email Edits at MSU

Emails at Michigan State University reveal interesting email editing regarding the controversy about Larry Nassar, the medical doctor who sexually abused hundreds of female athletes, including many during his post at the university.

The previous university president resigned, and the interim doesn't seem to be winning much support. John M. Engler drafted an email that included these statements, obtained by The Chronicle of Higher Education:

But his email was edited to the following, a watered-down apology if that:

The university continues to be criticized for a lack of empathy for survivors of the sexual abuse, and perhaps here we see an example of the administration's failures to offer a sincere apology.

While trying to keep his job, Engler did apologize for an earlier statement, implying that Nassar's first victim would probably get a "kickback" from her lawyer for encouraging others to come forward. The trustees voted to keep Engler despite the controversy.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What is the value of an apology, and what does an effective apology include?
• What is the interim president's responsibility for the final email after the editing process?
• Which leadership character failures are demonstrated by this example?

Tesla Employee Accused of Sabotage

A Tesla employee is accused of hacking into the computer system and changing code that affected the manufacturing process of the Model 3 car. The company believes this is the reason for the production delays.

CEO Elon Musk sent an email to employees, explaining the situation and asking them to report anything that looks "suspicious." He also writes, "This can be done in your name, which will be kept confidential, or completely anonymously." Musk blames an employment dispute:

"The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad. His stated motivation is that he wanted a promotion that he did not receive. In light of these actions, not promoting him was definitely the right move."

Musk gives other possible explanations for the deceit. He mentions short-sellers and members of the oil and gas industry who "don't love the idea of Tesla advancing the progress of solar power & electric cars."

The employee, Martin Tripp, disputes the claim, saying he was a "whistle blower." According to Tripp, he merely sent a query to a database to confirm waste and safety issues he saw at the company. Tripp has worked for Tesla since 2007.

Meanwhile, an email exchange between Musk and Tripp has become public:

Tripp: “Don’t worry, you have what’s coming to you for the lies you have told to the public and investors.”

Musk: “Threatening me only makes it worse for you”

Tripp: “I never made a threat. I simply told you that you have what’s coming. Thank you for this gift!!!!”

Musk: “You should ashamed of yourself for framing other people. You’re a horrible human being.”

Tripp: “I NEVER ‘framed’ anyone else or even insinuated anyone else as being involved in my production of documents of your MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WASTE, Safety concerns, lying to investors/the WORLD. Putting cars on the road with safety issues is being a horrible human being!”

Musk: “There are literally injuries[sic] with Model 3. It is by far the safest car in the world for any midsize vehicle. And of course a company with billions of dollars in product is going to have millions of dollars in scrap. This is not news.

“However, betraying your word of honor, breaking the deal you had when Tesla gave you a job and framing your colleagues are wrong and some come with legal penalties. So it goes. Be well.”

Image source.

Discussion:

• I'm curious about the possibility of employees reporting anonymously when Musk gives an email address. How is this possible?
• Have you been in a situation where you were unhappy with how you were treated by management? What resources were available to you?
• Assess Musk's email to employees: the audience focus, organization, tone, and so forth. What works well, and what could be improved?
• What's your view of the dispute between the company and the employee? With whom do you side, and why?

Tesla Layoff Memo

Tesla will cut about 9% of its staff, according to a memo sent to employees. In the message, CEO Elon Musk is direct about the decision, which he claims addresses some overlapping roles. Musk also says that profits haven't been a priority but that the company must now focus on profitability to be successful.

In the last paragraph, Musk expresses his gratitude to those leaving the company:

"To those who are departing, thank you for everything you’ve done for Tesla and we wish you well in your future opportunities. To those remaining, I would like to thank you in advance for ult job that remains ahead. We are a small company in one of the toughest and most competitive industries on Earth, where just staying alive, let alone growing, is a form of victory (Tesla and Ford remain the only American car companies who haven’t gone bankrupt). Yet, despite our tiny size, Tesla has already played a major role in moving the auto industry towards sustainable electric transport and moving the energy industry towards sustainable power generation and storage. We must continue to drive that forward for the good of the world."

A Bloomberg article criticizes the memo for burying news that it will end its partnership with Home Depot. Musk does address the issue, particularly how employees are affected, in the fifth paragraph.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How clearly does Musk's memo communicate the news the employees?
• What organizational approach does Musk use in the memo? How effective is this approach given the situation and audience?
• What's your view of Bloomberg's criticism about the Home Depot decision? How, if at all, could Musk have handled this differently?
• What leadership character dimensions are demonstrated in Musk's memo? Where, if at all, does he fall short?

Valedictorian's Speech About Sexual Assault Is Cut Short

Just as a high school valedictorian started talking about sexual assault at the school, her mic was cut off. Lulabel Seitz, in Petaluma, CA, had planned to discuss issues of students, including herself, being silenced after reporting incidents of sexual misconduct. The school administration warned her to avoid the topic in her speech: “For weeks, they have threatened me against ‘speaking against them’ in my speech. Sometimes we know what’s right and have to do it despite the threats.”

When the time came for her speech, Seitz said, “Because the class of 2018 has demonstrated time and time again that we may be a new generation, but we are not too young to speak up, to dream and to create change, which is why even when some people on this campus, those some people..." And then there was silence from the podium as her classmates cheered her on: "Let her speak."

She did continue, on YouTube, where she uploaded her complete speech and the ending to her sentence: “And even learning on a campus in which some people defend perpetrators of sexual assault, and silence their victims, we didn’t let that drag us down.”

This story exemplifies the Streisand Effect, which The Economist describes as demonstrating "how efforts to suppress a juicy piece of online information can backfire and end up making things worse for the would-be censor." The Effect was named when performer Barbra Streisand sued the California Coastal Records Project for including pictures of her Malibu house. The suit was considered frivolous, and photos of the home went viral, giving Streisand far more attention than she would have otherwise received from the Coastal Project. 

In the case of the high school student, the administration silenced her during the ceremony, but her YouTube video, as of this writing, received almost 230,000 views, far more than the number of people who attended graduation. Also, now the school's handling of sexual misconduct situations is on full display.

The school responded with a short statement:

"Administrators and staff in Petaluma City Schools care deeply about the safety and well being of our students. Due to student privacy issues, we cannot and should not respond with specific information. We can say that when issues of sexual assault come to our attention, local law enforcement has initial jurisdiction and determines the course of action."

Discussion:

• What, if anything, should the school administrators have done differently before Seitz's speech?
• What is Seitz's responsibility? Should she have avoided discussion of sexual assault, as she was instructed by school officials?
• What else should school officials say now? How can they repair the district's image and address issues raised?
• How is this an issue of integrity for the school and for Seitz?

Analyzing Communications Around the USC Crisis

After the University of Southern California's president resigned last month, crisis communication experts analyzed university messaging. When a gynecologist was accused of inappropriate exams and comments over decades working for the university, 200 faculty called for President C.L. Max Nikias's resignation. Faculty wrote that they believed Dr. Nikias "has lost the moral authority to lead the University.” Although the Administration denies any type of coverup, the gynecologist was allowed to continue in his job even after many allegations in 2016. Dr. Nikias did resign.

A Wall Street Journal article chronicles the following university communications:

A May 21 statement from university Provost Michael Quick denied university leadership knew of the doctor’s improper behavior, stating: “It is true that our system failed, but it is important that you know that this claim of a cover-up if patently false.” Prior to that, the university issued statements about the matter from Mr. Nikias on May 18 and May 15, and statements from other university officials on May 15 and May 16. University administrators also are contacting students.

Criticism of the communication includes sounding defensive, not completing the investigation quickly enough, and failing to report investigation results to those affected. One writer complimented the statement by the chair of the university's executive committee.

Discussion:

• How does this situation illustrate character dimensions such as vulnerability, accountability, and integrity?
• Read the executive committee chair's statement. In what ways does the statement illustrate authenticity? What other character dimensions are illustrated?
• Assess the university's other statements. What's your assessment of each?
• What should the university do at this point to rebuild trust?

Communications About Cuba Plane Crash

A plane crashed near the Havana, Cuba, airport, leaving more than 100 people dead and only three survivors. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel delivered the bad news:

"There has been an unfortunate aviation accident. The news is not very promising. It seems that there is a high number of victims."

The president also described recovery efforts:

"Things have been organised, the fire has been put out, and the remains are being identified,"

The reason is unknown, although an Al Jazeera article referred to the Boeing 737 as "aging." Aviation accidents are rare, but a BBC article chronicles several, including the previous crash in Cuba, in 1989, which killed 150 people.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How well does the president communicate the events? We see only two short quotes here, so he may have said more. What else should he say? How can he communicate compassion?
• Research communications around other deadly plane crashes. How do the situations compare, and how should the communications differ?
• Should Boeing make a statement about the situation? Why or why not?

Japanese Train Company Apologizes for Early Departure

In the United States, we're used to late transportation services, but in Japan, early departures can be an issue—even 25 seconds early. Japan's rail system is known as "one of the most punctual railway services in the world."

West Japan Railways (JR West) issued a statement and formal apology for the delay: "The great inconvenience we placed upon our customers was truly inexcusable.” The statement included a commitment to do better: “We will be thoroughly evaluating our conduct and striving to keep such an incident from occurring again." 

Also interesting, from a cultural perspective, is the decision process: the conductor mistakenly thought the train was departing at 7:11. Realizing the mistake but having already closed the doors and seeing no waiting passengers (although a few were waiting), the conductor decided to leave early rather than reopening the doors, which could have caused the train to be late, a far worse result.

A Sora News article explains the impact on the Japanese people:

"Being six minutes late is enough to get you in trouble in with bosses and teachers in Japan, and those who missed a transfer because they couldn’t take the 7:12 would be even later reaching their destination."

Back in 2013, I wrote about NY Metro-North's failure to apologize for a derailment that killed four people. Although the MTA has been more willing to apologize lately, this situation represents a stark contrast.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How would you describe the cultural differences—about both time and apologies—between Japan and the United States illustrated in this situation? What might account for these differences?
• What are the risks of over-apologizing?
• How does this situation illustrate accountability and integrity as character dimensions?

MSU's Denial as a Cultural Issue

A Chronicle of Higher Ed article blames Michigan State University's ambitions and culture for their leaders' lack of response to years of sexual abuse on campus. More than 12 people knew of complaints against physician Larry Nassar, but the abuse continued for years.

Lou Anna K. Simon's leadership is questioned in the article. Although clearly a committed leader to the university, Simon is criticized for focusing so much on "two decades of status-climbing" that a culture of denying any wrongdoing evolved. One of the trustees summed up the issue in a letter and emphasized "We must embrace our obligation to apologize and offer justice."

Apologizing may be a sore subject for the trustees because Simon avoided it in the case of Larry Nassar's victims, according to the Chronicle article:

She talked about how “it is virtually impossible to stop a determined sexual predator and pedophile, that they will go to incomprehensible lengths to keep what they do in the shadows.” She often used “regret,” “sympathize,” and “acknowledge” in her written statements, but not “apologize.” She emphasized that sexual assault is a societal problem, not a Michigan State one. She highlighted all of the steps the university had taken to prevent sexual misconduct.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Analyze the trustee's letter. What principles of business writing are followed? What are the strengths of the letter, and what could be improved?
• The trustee encourages MSU leadership to listen. What does he mean by this, and how would listening help the situation?
• What is the value of apologizing and admitting failure? What are the potential downsides, particularly for a university trying to improve its stature?
• This story illustrates several failings of leadership character. Which can you identify, and which do you think are most relevant here?

The Future of Meetings?

Microsoft's meeting vision shouldn't come as a surprise: voice recognition programs are already making their way into the workplace. But a new device, which captures both facial expressions and voice, picks up everything, even side conversations.

The future of meetings has some people worried about jokes and off-hand remarks that will be forever documented. On the other hand, one benefit may be that people will be more careful about what they say. Will workplace civility improve?

The software has additional benefits. It translates and transcribes, making it easier for international and deaf meeting participants.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of this technology: perfect for business, too much, or something else?
• How, if at all, do you think this technology will improve meetings?
• In what online meetings have you participated? What were the benefits and downsides?
• To what extent do you think this technology would help to hold people accountable?

Air France Grapples with Strike and CEO Resigns

Negotiations over pay aren't going well at Air France, and CEO Jean-Marc Janaillac has stepped down as a result. The last straw was a pay increase proposal that failed to win staff support. The company offered 7% increases over five years, but the union is holding out for 5.1% this year.

You may remember the last highly publicized conflict at Air France, in 2015, when employees angrily ripped clothing off two company executives after 3,000 layoffs were announced. Janaillac was appointed in 2016 to resolve the disputes, but they have continued, and investors have expressed their frustration: the stock is down 40% this year.

Air France says rising fuel prices and a strong euro will make the strikes more challenging for the airline, which managed to keep long-haul flights on schedule but cancelled about 20% of medium-haul and some short-haul flights because of staffing shortages.

In his resignation speech, Janaillac was emotional, clearly disappointed in the outcome. Unfortunately, his decision to step down didn't inspire investors, who responded by bringing the share price down another 14%.

French Prime Minister Bruno Le Maire refuses to bail out the company:

“If it doesn’t make the necessary efforts to be at the same competitive level of Lufthansa and other major airlines, it will disappear. I am not taking the money of the French and putting it in a company that isn’t at the required competitive level.”

Image source (cover).

Image source (above).

Discussion:

• How can the airline manage through the current crisis? What type of communication could be helpful at this point?
• Janaillac put his job on the line with the latest pay proposal. Did he do the right thing by resigning? Why or why not?
• Which leadership character dimensions are at play in this situation?

MSNBC Correspondent Responds to Criticism

MSNBC Correspondent Joy Reid is trying to explain homophobic posts on her blog, which has been inactive for years:

"I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things ... But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me."

Reid hired a security analyst to prove that her site had been hacked, saying that the breach was "part of an effort to taint my character with false information by distorting a blog that ended a decade ago.” But the investigation didn't uncover evidence. The hacking defense typically doesn't turn out well. Remember Amy's Baking Company in 2013?

On her show, "AM Joy,"  Reid apologized for past comments:

“I have not been exempt from being dumb or cruel or hurtful to the very people I want to advocate for. I own that. I did it. And for that I am truly, truly sorry.”

A Mediaite story details Reid's previous posts:

“I look back today at some of the ways I’ve talked casually about people and gender identity and sexual orientation and I wonder who that even was. But the reality is that like a lot of people in this country, that person was me.”

A Vox article acknowledges that people's views, particularly of same-sex marriage, have changed. In the end, Reid spoke about her personal development:

“The person I am now is not the person I was then. I like to think I’ve gotten better as a person over time — that I’m still growing, that I’m not the same person I was 10 or five or even one year ago. And I know that my goal is to try to be a better person and a better ally.”

Discussion:

• How could Reid have addressed the issue without the hacking defense?
• Watch Reid's video apology. How well does she handle the situation?
• People do change. Do you find Reid's comments sincere and believable? Why or why not?

MTA Criticized for Lack of Transparency

Commissioners at the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) questioned increasing costs and whether the agency has been transparent. Of particular concern are additional costs of about $1 billion and cost overruns for a project that resulted in 19 instead of 32 subway stations getting renovated. One commissioner said, “It is indefensible that we did not receive this information prior to it being reported in the press." The governing body discovered the information from a Wall Street Journal article.

Chairman Joe Lhota, who was appointed last summer, acknowledged that the agency has been working on being more transparent:

“Not a second in a day goes by when I don’t think about transparency at this agency and what we need to do to provide information to all of you."

NY Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson requested more transparency about spending and service improvement measurements and asked for monthly briefings and an "evaluation of efficacy."

Image source.

Discussion:

• How would you define transparency, and how does it relate to accountability?
• After reading more about the situation, how would you assess the agency's actions? Do you agree with the commissioners' assessment? If you believe a lack of transparency exists, do you think it's intentional? Does it matter if it is?
• Why do organizations lack transparency? What do they potentially gain and lose?
• What do you think an "evaluation of efficacy" means?

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?

Starbucks Apologizes, Again

Two black men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks. Witnesses say they were just waiting for a friend and asked to use the restroom. The reason for calling the police seemed to be the same: that they were just waiting for friend. But because they didn't order anything, they were asked to leave and did not. Other customers say this is common at Starbucks, and the only reason the police were called was because the two men were black.

The company, at first, gave a weak apology using unclear pronoun references (see "this" and "these"). A longer apology came from the CEO Kevin Johnson later. In the statement, he identified steps the company would take and closed with this paragraph:

Finally, to our partners who proudly wear the green apron and to customers who come to us for a sense of community every day: You can and should expect more from us.  We will learn from this and be better.

Johnson also posted an apology video.

In a video statement, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross explained the situation from his point of view and defended the officers' actions. He also said that all officers get implicit bias training and gave an example of a police sergeant who was also denied access to a Starbucks bathroom. Ross's conclusion was that "they are at least consistent in their policy." Of course, not everyone agrees.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Analyze Johnson's statement. Who are his primary and secondary audiences? What are his communication objectives, and how well did he achieve them?
• What organizational strategy does Johnson's statement illustrate? How do you assess his tone and writing style?
• What is an unclear pronoun reference, and how are they used in the first apology?
• What's your view of the situation? Did Starbucks do wrong? If so, at what point(s)? Are you boycotting Starbucks, as some promote, as a result?
• Which leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this example?

Uber CEO Compares Self-Driving Cars to Student Drivers

In defense of autonomous cars, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said, "Ultimately, self-driving cars will be safer than humans. But right now self-driving cars are learning. They’re student drivers.” On NBC's Today Show, Khosrowshahi confirmed that the company will continue its self-driving program despite a fatal crash last month in Arizona. 

In the interview, when asked about Facebook and other technology companies facing privacy and safety issues, Khosrowshahi said he considers, "the challenges of technology getting into everyday life and the responsibilities that come with it." He repeated "responsibility" twice more within about the first minute of the interview. Like Mark Zuckerberg during the recent hearings on Capitol Hill, he said, "I welcome regulation," and "we're partnering with regulators."

Also as Zuckerberg clarified with lawmakers, Khosrowshahi said they don't sell data; however, he also said they don't "monetize data," which Facebook cannot say with its business model to sell ads. 

Image source.

Discussion:

• What principles of persuasion does Khosrowshahi demonstrate in this interview? Consider logical argument, emotional appeal, and credibility.  
• What principles of leadership character does he demonstrate? 
• What do you consider the strengths of this interview? What could Khosrowshahi improve? 

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?

Howard University Reports on Misappropriated Funds

Howard University's investigation has concluded that $369,000 had been misappropriated by six employees who were terminated last year. A full report by the university identifies how they "double dipped" by receiving both tuition assistance and university grants between 2011 and 2016.

In a cover letter to the report, President Wayne A.I. Frederick wrote, “Howard University is committed to uncovering any impropriety in the administration of university-provided financial aid and federal student aid, to remediating all problems identified during this investigation, and to maintaining a robust compliance program to prevent any inappropriate dealings in the administration of financial aid."

A Washington Post article reports that the university tried to avoid going public before the review was completed, but an article posted online made this impossible. Student protests, which went on for more than a week, also may have sped up the timing.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What business writing principles does the report demonstrate and fail to demonstrate? How could the report be improved?
• Assess the president's cover letter. Who are his primary and secondary audiences, and what are the communication objectives? How well does the letter achieve those objectives?
• What can the university do now to restore trust?
• How well does the university take responsibility for the situation?