Ohio Football Coach: Another Case of Deleted Messages

Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer will forgo pay and the ability to coach three games because of his failure to appropriately handle a staff member's misconduct. A New York Times article chronicles issues with Zach Smith's behavior, including paying $600 at a strip club during a recruiting event, a domestic violence charge, and an affair with a staff member.

During a press conference, Meyer apologized, saying, "I should have done more, and I am sorry for that," and "I followed my heart and not my head."

The Times article also describes a conversation between Meyer and Smith about deleting text messages. I should count the number of stories on this blog since 2010 illustrating that deleting texts and emails fail to get the desired result. These messages are almost always recoverable, and the act of deletion makes the accused look even more guilty. 

In addition, in this situation, Ohio State officials at first failed to produce messages requested by the school newspaper. Worse, several staff knew about the request, but no one even approached Coach Meyer to retrieve them.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Once again, where are the many places deleted messages may be stored? How else can they be retrieved?
• What's your view of the strip club visits? Could Meyer reasonably argue that this is just part of the recruiting process? After all, no students were invited—only university and high school coaches. 
• Assess the press conference. How well did university officials, including Meyer, respond to reporters' questions? Did the team appropriately take accountability?

The Debate Over Quarterly Reporting

President Trump is asking the SEC to no longer require report quarterly earnings. Instead, companies would report results every six months.

This may be good news for those who believe that publishing frequent earnings reports encourage a short-term focus. The idea is that investors make rash decisions based on the results from only three months.

One downside of the change could be less transparency. The value of quarterly reports is that investors are more aware of what's happening. In addition, the process itself may be useful internally, as a former investment banker explains:

"What I see from the inside of the quarterly earnings cycle is that there’s actually a lot of discipline in it. That process of having to prepare it, release it, explain it and answer questions has real value.”

Also, not everyone agrees that eliminating the report will foster longer-term thinking. As a compromise, some are proposing that reports are still published, but that specific earnings-per-share guidance information isn't included.

Discussion:

• Describe the  importance of transparency in financial reporting. How does this relate to accountability?
• What's your view of the proposal to eliminate quarterly reports? Do you see additional benefits or downsides than what is mentioned here?
• In his tweet, President Trump refers to making "business (jobs) even better." How do you see this as a result of his proposal?

Sacha Baron Cohen: Questions of Ethics and Integrity

Most famous for this Borat movies, Sacha Baron Cohen is at it again. He has a new Showtime series, "Who Is America?," and pranks mostly people with conservative political views. Impersonating something who might favor his target's position, he gets people to make embarrassing statements and do humiliating acts.

On a recent episode, Cohen convinced a gun-rights advocate to bite on a sex toy. (I didn't watch it.) Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was duped recently and wrote a scathing Facebook post, calling Cohen “evil, exploitative and sick." For her interview, Cohen impersonated someone who appeared to Palin to be a disabled war veteran.

His strategy is to make people vulnerable: by impersonating someone who appears to be a person in need or a supporter, he lowers the interviewee's defenses so they are more easily humiliated.

Cohen's stunts remind me that companies send employees to impersonate customers to get competitive data. Or maybe this is a stretch?

Cover image.

Discussion:

• What's your view of Cohen's work: mean, exploitative, demeaning, clever, funny, or something else?
• Now consider his work using two frameworks: ethical decision making and integrity. How do his interviews measure up?
• What about my analogy to getting competitive data? What are the similarities and differences? Have you been asked by a company to use this tactic? Did you comply? Why or why not? It's a common practice.

What Is "Dehumanizing" Speech?

The New York Times reports Twitter's struggle to define what constitutes "dehumanizing" speech. Apparently, the only agreement among Twitter's team members is that the decision is "incredibly complex."

Categorization is critical, as the company has a reputation as a sometimes dark place of trolls and harassment. Yet this week, Apple, Facebook, YouTube have expunged content from Alex Jones's Infowars, which is known for spreading misinformation, including that the shooting at Sandy Hook was a hoax. You can imagine how this angered families of lost children.

In a tweet, CEO Jack Dorsey explained Twitter's decision to keep Infowars content, but employees, particularly, have not responded positively.

Twitter is in a difficult spot because, on the other hand, sites have been criticized for censoring conservative views. Del Harvey, the company's VP of Trust and Safety, wrote an email to employees further explaining the company's rationale.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How would you define "dehumanizing" speech? What character dimensions are involved?
• What persuasive strategies does Harvey use in her email to employees? Which are most and least convincing and why?
• What is your view about Infowars content? Should Twitter remove it from the site as other social media companies have done? How might your own political views factor into your thinking?

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?

When an Online Conversation Goes Bad

A new Cornell University study identifies a framework for determining when online discussions will turn ugly. By analyzing conversations between Wikipedia editors, the research team developed a computer model to predict, with 65% accuracy, when interactions would become "toxic."

People can identify these discussions with 72% accuracy. You can test whether you can identify which conversations will turn into personal attacks using an online tool.

The model analyzed politeness and other rhetorical strategies, for example, editors' use of "please," expressions of gratitude, and fact-checking. When editors used more direct questions and "you," conversations were more likely to go awry.

Cover image.

Discussion:

• How did you do on the online quiz? What did you learn from the experience?
• What is the value of this research? Consider social media sites such as Twitter. How could the model be used, and what are the potential positive and negative consequences?

Professor Fakes Offer Letter

To negotiate for a higher salary, a Colorado State University faculty member invented an offer letter from another university. At first, Brian R. McNaughton was successful: he received an additional $5,000. But the university eventually found out the truth.

McNaughton resigned and now faces criminal charges for his actions. In a long letter, he cited personal pressure and other faculty submitting fake offers for increases in salary, but the university denies this history.

A Fast Company article offers advice for whether to use this approach to negotiate for more money. Of course, the article doesn't recommend faking another offer. Still, even presenting real offers is complicated and risky.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What do you see as the possible complications and risks associated with presenting your current employer with another offer?
• Consider using another offer during the recruiting process. What should you consider before you use this tactic?

Report Concludes that Amazon Is "Delivering Hate"

A scathing report accuses Amazon of spreading hate in the form of white supremacist and racist material. The report, published by Partnership for Working Families and the Action Center on Race and the Economy, cited books, clothing, jewelry, and other items for sale. Listings include Nazi memorabilia, references to lynching, and Confederate flags, for example, a baby's onesie with a burning cross and a noose decal.

The report authors argue that, although Amazon has policies in place to prevent the sale of "products that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views," the company acts too slowly or not at all to remove such items. 

Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, said that Amazon hasn't been criticized as much as Twitter and Facebook have been.

Discussion:

• The law professor acknowledged that Amazon wouldn't be held liable. What do you think is the company's responsibility?
• What's the danger of both too little and too much oversight of item listings? 
• Analyze the report: audience, objectives, organization, writing style, and so on? Which business report writing principles are followed, and what could be improved?

Scott Pruitt Resigns

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt resigned after months of accusations of overspending and other ethical issues. Questions about Pruitt's judgment involved expensive travel, getting a job for his wife, and underpaying for an apartment.

President Trump had supported Pruitt, but the controversy may have reached a tipping point. Discovery of secret calendars could have been the last straw. A whistleblower said Pruitt kept three different calendars to hide meetings.

In his resignation letter to the president, Pruitt referred to "unrelenting attacks on me personally, [sic] my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us." In a tweet, President Trump was gracious and complimentary.

Discussion:

• If you're familiar with Pruitt's history in the position, which of his alleged ethical lapses do you consider more serious? Which are less serious?
• On balance, do you agree with Pruitt that he was attacked? How might your own political views affect your perspective?
• Did he do the right thing by resigning? Why or why not?
• How does Pruitt's resignation letter differ from resignation letters written for corporate jobs?

Before You Hit Delete: How to Respond to Emails You Want to Ignore

Students know how it feels: you spend hours crafting the perfect email—and then nothing. You refresh and refresh, check on your phone, laptop, and desktop. We know how it feels, so why don’t people respond to emails? Here are three common reasons and suggested responses for each. Sometimes having the language helps, and of course, these can be adjusted to the situation and for your own style.

Inappropriate or Untimely Request

• Thanks for the email, but this isn’t really my area of interest [or expertise]. I hope you find someone else to help.
• Thanks for reaching out, but I’m not the right person for this because . . .
• This sounds like a great idea, but I’m fully committed at this point. Best of luck on the project.
• Can this possibly wait until September when I’ll have more time to focus on this?

Obvious or Annoying Question

• May I suggest that you look at the policy for this information? [Add a link.]
• I’m not sure I understand your question. Can you please clarify how I can help?
• From my point of view, we already covered this when we talked on Thursday. I’m not sure how else to clarify my thinking on this.
• I’m forwarding your email to . . . who can better address your question.

Overwhelming Request or Question

• This is a lot! Could we schedule a quick call to discuss?
• I’m having trouble digesting all of this. Can you please send back a few bullets that I can respond to?
• The short answer to your question is . . . If you need more from me, can you please be more specific about how I can help?
• I can answer some of this . . . For your other questions, I suggest trying . . .

Admittedly, all of these responses require some engagement, but we respond to emails for good reasons: to demonstrate respect, to educate, and for reciprocity. I would argue that replying is “the right thing to do”—and a brief response requires very little from us to be good corporate citizens.

Image source.

Discussion:

• When have you written an email that was ignored? Why do you think the person didn't respond, and how did you feel? Could you have done anything differently to get a response?
• When have you ignored an email? Why didn't you respond?
• Do you agree that responding is the "right thing to do"? Why or why not? When, if ever, is it acceptable to ignore an email?
• What leadership character dimensions may be lacking when people don't respond to emails?

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?

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?

Starbucks Clarifies Policy

Following criticism for arresting two black men in a Philadelphia store, Starbucks has set a new policy for bathroom use. Company leaders decided to adopt a more open policy, allowing anyone to use a store bathroom without purchasing products.

But people questioned the effect on Starbucks locations, worrying the policy would invite homeless people and drug users. Customers want space available for themselves. Employees, particularly, complained that the policy didn't have enough guidance for them to know, for example, when to call the police.

The new policy lists the following expectations for people in their stores:

• Using spaces as intended
• Being considerate of others
• Communicating with respect
• Acting responsibly

The policy also refers to "Addressing Disruptive Behaviors" procedures and clarifies, "If a situation presents an immediate danger or threat to partner or customer safety, Starbucks partners should call 911."

I'm struggling with the term "customer." The policy uses this terminology, and the WSJ article refers to paying and non-paying customers. To me, the latter is an oxymoron, but perhaps it is not given the company's mission to create a "third place."

Image source.

Discussion:

• What benefits and potential downsides do you see from Starbucks' open policy?
• How could Starbucks further clarify the policy to address customers' and employees' concerns?
• One point of clarification, if you haven't mentioned it, is about timing. How long should people be permitted to stay without purchasing an item? What are your thoughts about what is fair?
• What's your view of the term "customer" in this context?

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?

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?

Layoffs at Qualcomm

A Business Insider headline puts the news and purpose right up front:

Qualcomm is reportedly laying off as many as 1,000 employees as part of a $1 billion cost savings plan

The decision comes after a hostile takeover bid from Broadcom, a competitor in Singapore. Qualcomm made a commitment to save costs to its shareholders and appears to be following through, despite that the failing takeover bid. 

A Bloomberg report reminds us that the company cut jobs in 2015, as well, in response to an activist investor's interests. A New York Times article calls Qualcomm "collateral damage" in "a looming trade war between the United States and China" that may impinge the company's growth.

The company declined to comment on news stories, and nothing related to layoffs is posted on its website.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Should Qualcomm executives be more forthright about the change? What, if anything, should they communicate to the public and how?
• How do you assess the admission that the layoffs are intended to ward off hostile takeovers and reduce costs? How do you think these reasons would be received by shareholders? the press? customers? employees?
• How are the news and the company's communication an issue of integrity for Qualcomm?