Reversal at Maryland

The University of Maryland has reversed its position on keeping football coach DJ Durkin. At first, Durkin was reinstated after a damning report about player abuse which resulted in the death of a student, Jordan McNair. Critics say the University’s Board of Regents overstepped in disallowing Loh to terminate the coach.

Now, pressure from students, players, the McNair family, and politicians left the University with no choice but to fire Coach Durkin. In a letter, President Loh explained the decision, including his previous concerns about Durkin’s return.

McNair’s father made a statement, including a message to President Loh when asked:

“The same thing I’ve always said to Dr. Loh. I’ve always commended Dr. Loh for having a level of integrity and doing the right thing even since he first initially came to the hospital, and secondly, when he came to us as a family to apologize and to take full moral and legal responsible for the tragic events that happened.”

In the meantime, Maryland players were involved in an altercation. It seems as though this situation has divided the team as well.

UPDATE: James T. Brady, chairman of the University System of Maryland’s Board of Regents, resigned last week, and President Loh is winning back his power. A Chronicle article notes that Loh won the “battle waged in the court of public opinion,” and whether he will leave the University as planned is now unclear. In a statement, Brady explained his decision and, using the word “proud” three times, cites board accomplishments during his tenure.

Discussion:

• How is this situation an issue of integrity?

• The regents had planned to terminate President Loh. Should they reverse this position too?

• What should the University do now to repair its image?

• We have heard nothing that I found from the regents (except their confidence in Coach Durkin). Should they communicate something now? What could they say that could help instead of hurt the situation?

University of Maryland President Resigns

Following a report about a student death, University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh will resign. Loh had apologized for the loss of Jordan McNair, a football player who died during rigorous training. A Washington Post article quotes the McNair’s attorney about the apology:

Hassan Murphy, the McNair family’s attorney, said Loh “remains the only person thus far in this process who has accepted moral and legal responsibility and has spoken from his heart about what happened.”

“If the university will not do right by Jordan, we promise to explore every possible avenue that will,” Murphy added.

Since then, an investigation uncovered deep issues with the athletics program and a culture of silence: “problems festered because too many players feared speaking out.” An independent committee presented its findings and recommendations in a 200-page report.

Rick Court, the former strength-and-conditioning coach, was terminated, but the athletics director and football coach will remain in their positions. Despite Loh’s recommendation, the University regents encouraged Loh to allow Coach DJ Durkin to return after his suspension. According to the Post article, Loh was permitted to stay at the university through June 2019 only if Durkin stayed on.

Several senators have questioned the decision and accuse the University of putting “athletics over academics.”

The Post also reports that several players walked out during their first meeting with Coach Durkin.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did the University regents make the right decision in asking for Loh’s resignation? Why or why not?

• Did Loh do the right thing by allowing Durkin to return?

• Analyze the investigation report: audience, organization, content, writing style, and so on. Which business writing principles are followed, and how could the report be improved?

Tesla Investigated for Fraud

Tesla is facing a new challenge this week: a U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe into whether the company misstated production data and therefore misled investors. The investigation will focus on Model 3 sedans.

A Wall Street Journal article explains part of the issue. CEO Elon Musk tweeted on July 2, 2017, “Looks like we can reach 20,000 Model 3 cars per month in Dec.“ But reports at the time showed a less optimistic picture. The result was only 2,700 cars produced for the entire year.

A spokesperson said the FBI document requests were voluntary and defended the company:

“When we started the Model 3 production ramp, we were transparent about how difficult it would be, openly explaining that we would only be able to go as fast as our least lucky or least successful supplier, and that we were entering ‘production hell.’ Ultimately, given difficulties that we did not foresee in this first-of-its-kind production ramp, it took us six months longer than we expected to meet our 5,000 unit per week guidance. Tesla’s philosophy has always been to set truthful targets –- not sandbagged targets that we would definitely exceed and not unrealistic targets that we could never meet. While Tesla gets criticized when it is delayed in reaching a goal, it should not be forgotten that Tesla has achieved many goals that were doubted by most. We are enormously proud of the efforts of the whole company in making it through this difficult ramp and getting us to volume production.”

Image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of Musk’s statement compared to the result: arrogance, entrepreneurial optimism, or something else?

• How well does the Tesla spokesperson address the investigation? What else, if anything, should the company say at this point?

• In what ways does the company demonstrate a lack of vulnerability in this situation?

Google Admits Sexual Harassment Incidents

It’s been quiet until now, but Google has fired 48 employees for sexual harassment. A New York Times article exposed a number of high-profile departures dating back to 2014, including Andy Rubin, who developed the Android.

Rubin was paid $90 million when the company asked for his resignation, but executives never told the entire truth: that Rubin left because he was accused of sexual misconduct. Instead, then-CEO Larry Page, complimented him: “I want to wish Andy all the best with what’s next,” and “With Android, he created something truly remarkable—with a billion-plus happy users.” Rubin denies the claim and the circumstances of his termination.

In addition to this situation, the Times article cites a number of relationships between senior-level managers and employees. An email from CEO Sundar Pichai and the VP of people operations to staff acknowledges the 48 departures, including 13 “senior managers and above.”

Hi everyone,

Today's story in the New York Times was difficult to read.

We are dead serious about making sure we provide a safe and inclusive workplace. We want to assure you that we review every single complaint about sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct, we investigate and we take action.

In recent years, we've made a number of changes, including taking an increasingly hard line on inappropriate conduct by people in positions of authority: in the last two years, 48 people have been terminated for sexual harassment, including 13 who were senior managers and above. None of these individuals received an exit package.

In 2015, we launched Respect@ and our annual Internal Investigations Report to provide transparency about these types of investigations at Google. Because we know that reporting harassment can be traumatic, we provide confidential channels to share any inappropriate behavior you experience or see. We support and respect those who have spoken out. You can find many ways to do this at go/saysomething. You can make a report anonymously if you wish.

We've also updated our policy to require all VPs and SVPs to disclose any relationship with a co-worker regardless of reporting line or presence of conflict.

We are committed to ensuring that Google is a workplace where you can feel safe to do your best work, and where there are serious consequences for anyone who behaves inappropriately.

Sundar and Eileen

Image source.

Discussion:

• Should Google have been more transparent about the previous departures? Why or why not?

• Should the executives say more in the email about the specific departures mentioned in the Times article? Why or why not?

• Assess the email for audience analysis, objectives, tone, organization, and style. What works well, and what could be improved?

• Which leadership character dimensions does Pichai demonstrate and fail to demonstrate?

Racist Comments on a Ryanair Flight

People are calling for boycotts of Ryanair because staff didn’t address a passenger’s racist comments on a flight from Barcelona to London. The man went on a rant towards a 77-year-old, Jamaican-born, British passenger, calling her an "ugly black bastard” and “a stupid ugly cow."

The passenger tried to get the woman to move to another seat: "I don't care whether she's f------ disabled or not. If I tell her to get out she gets out." He also threatened her: “If you don't go to another seat, I'll push you to another seat.” The woman’s daughter said she was taking her mother on a trip after her husband had died.

Although other passengers tried to silence the man and called for him to be removed from the plane, staff seemed to do very little. Even after the incident was reported, the company posted a meager response on Twitter.

Later, the company also said, "As this is now a police matter, we cannot comment further."

Image source.

Discussion:

• What could be Ryanair’s rationale for not removing the man from the plane? Was it the right decision?

• Why didn’t Ryanair say more after the incident? What, if anything, should the company leaders have said?

Marriott Labor Strikes

More than 8,000 Marriott employees are going on strike to fight for higher wages and more input into decisions that affect them. Represented by the union Unite Here, workers represent 23 hotels across the country, and the number may grow.

A Marriott International spokesperson told Skift:

“We are disappointed that Unite Here has chosen to resort to a strike at this time. During the strike our hotels are open, and we stand ready to provide excellent service to our guests. We continue to bargain in good faith for a fair contract. While we respect our associates’ rights to participate in this work stoppage, we also will welcome any associate who chooses to continue to work.”

The GM of a Westin property told guests they would put their sustainability program “in effect for all guests for the duration of the work stoppage. Your room will be cleaned every third day of your stay, and any additional cleaning services you would like are available on request.”

According to the article and online reviews, guests are noticing. As one wrote, “The normal services you associate with a hotel were severely reduced, along with the attention provided with a RC [Ritz-Carlton] stay, were no longer available.”

Unite Here is negotiating with Marriott for three improvements:

(1) Wages high enough so that workers do not have to work multiple jobs to earn a living wage; (2) a voice in determining how much automation and what kind of automation makes its way into the hotel industry; and (3) better measures for workplace safety.

Marriott image source. Striker image source.

Discussion:

• If successful, the strike could inspire more hospitality workers to join the union. Is that a good result? Why or why not?

• What’s your view of the employees’ requests: not enough, reasonable, outrageous, or something else?

• What leadership character dimensions are demonstrated or not demonstrated by this situation?

Teacher Recommendation Letters Influence Harvard Decision

Details about Harvard’s admissions process are surfacing during the trial about how the university’s “race-conscious” decision policy may adversely affect Asian-Americans. The entire guidebook for admissions decisions in 2014 was entered into evidence.

This week, Harvard revealed that white students typically receive “somewhat stronger” recommendation letters from teachers and guidance counselors than Asian-American students, which affects each group’s “personal rating.” The personal ratings on based on characteristics such as kindness, courage, and leadership. When writing letters, reviewers are asked to assess “consistent testimony of an applicant’s unusual effervescence, charity, maturity, or strength of character.”

Back in 1990, the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights criticized Harvard’s practice of using a personal rating and admissions officers’ stereotypical comments of Asian-American students. The same issue seems to be presented here, with comments from teachers and guidance counselors.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How valuable do you think teacher and guidance counselor letters of recommendation are in the admissions process? How much weight should they carry in the overall decision?

• By definition, the personal rating includes subjective evaluations. Should universities try to avoid subjectivity in the admissions process? Why or why not?

Facebook's Messaging Over Time

The Wall Street Journal reports how Facebook has repositioned itself since its founding in 2004.

In 2005, at Harvard, founder Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook’s purpose is to ”look people up” and for “connecting to people.” In 2008, Facebooke expands and messages focus on helping people “share information. . . and share parts of their identity with each other.” In 2010, Zuckerberg’s vision enlarged: “People can have instantly social and personalized experiences everywhere that they go.” Soon after, Zuckerberg focused on problem solving.

In 2012, Zuckerberg said, “Our mission isn’t to be a public company. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.” By 2013, Zuckerberg was seeing Facebook’s role in selecting governments, getting healthcare access—improving people’s lives.

More recently, given concerns about privacy and misinformation, Zuckerberg’s messages focus on responsibility.

Image source.

Discussion:

• The WSJ video has a negative connotation about Facebook’s changing message, particularly in light of today’s news about shareholder proposals to split Zuckerberg’s roles. Do you agree with this assessment?

• How well has Zuckerberg handled messages about the evolution of Facebook in the past 14 years? What, if anything, can he do differently now?

• Do you agree with the proposal to split the CEO and chairman jobs? In other words, does Zuckerberg have too power? Does he need help at this point?

• How is Facebook’s evolving messaging a potential matter of integrity?

Bad News at Verizon and Sears

Verizon and Sears employees are facing job loss in the coming months.

Verizon is outsourcing some technology functions to Infosys, resulting in 2,500 jobs leaving the company.

At first, Verizon wasn’t planning to offer severance, but pressure from employees caused company leaders to change the approach. Timing was part of the problem: last month, 44,000 Verizon managers were offered a voluntary severance package to leave the company. Now, about 1,000 employees have a choice of whether to work for Infosys or accept severance pay.

Sears is declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy after years of attempts to save the department store. The company has been steadily shedding stores. Only 700 are left, down from 1,000 in February, and more than 3,000 about a decade ago.

CNN reports that Sears has been warning investors that they may go out of business, and suppliers are requiring payment up front.

Sears image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of Verizon’s severance plans: unfair, discriminatory, financially necessary, based on sound principles, or something else?

• Sears investors and suppliers recognize the likely fate of Sears. How prepared do you think employees are? What could the company do to help employees at this point?

Senators Send Harsh Letter to Google

The U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation sent a strongly worded letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The senators question what the company has done to protect 500,00 users whose profile information was stolen in 2015. Their anger stems from knowledge of an internal memo, cited in a Wall Street Journal article, discouraging disclosure because of fear of “immediate regulatory interest” and the requirement for Pichai to testify before Congress.

In the letter, the senators compare Google’s response to Facebook’s in light of the Cambridge Analytica breach:

“At the same time that Facebook was learning the important lesson that tech firms must be forthright with the public about privacy issues, Google apparently elected to withhold information about a relevant vulnerability for fear of public scrutiny.”

The senators then list specific information about vulnerabilities for Google to provide by October 30.

Google logo image source.

Discussion:

• Read the Wall Street Journal article for more background information. Did the senators respond appropriately? Why or why not?

• What is Google’s accountability in this situation? What is the committee’s accountability?

• In addition to responding to the senators’ requests, what, if anything, should Google communicate to the public at this point?

• Google may have been avoiding its own vulnerability.

Amazon Loses Favor After Announcing $15 Wage

Amazon received good press for announcing employees would earn a minimum of $15/hour. But today’s news tells a different story.

Although the hourly wage will increase, Amazon is cutting bonuses and stock options, and employees fear it will cost them thousands of dollars in total compensation. The stock options, according to employees’ online posts, gave them a sense of company ownership. Some proposed walking out on Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year. Amazon had also granted bonuses for attendance and productivity, called Variable Compensation Plan, or V.C.P.

In response, company leaders said they would look at employees’ total compensation to make sure no one would be worse off after the changes. A spokesperson also released this statement:

"The significant increase in hourly cash wages more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and [restrictive stock units]. We can confirm that all hourly Operations and Customer Service employees will see an increase in their total compensation as a result of this announcement. In addition, because it's no longer incentive-based, the compensation will be more immediate and predictable."

Box image source. Cart image source.

Discussion:

• This is quite possibly a miscommunication or, more to the point, poor communication from Amazon officials to employees. How could the company have done a better job?

• How well does the statement address the criticism? What else should the company communicate at this point?

• How is this an issue of integrity for the company?

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?

Crisis at Sloan Kettering

Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center’s chief executive, Craig Thompson, has resigned from two boards, Merck and Charles River Laboratories, following investigations of conflicts of interest. Thompson issued a statement about his decision to resign:

“I have taken feedback from our staff and faculty seriously and intend to lead by example. I believe this is the right decision for Memorial Sloan Kettering and will allow me to redouble my focus on MSK priorities: quality patient care, faculty, scientists and staff.”

Sloan Kettering’s chief medical officer, Jose Baselga, was accused of not reporting millions of dollars he received from pharmaceutical companies for his research articles. Baselga previously resigned from Memorial Sloan Kettering as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, where he served on the board. As one former patient wrote, failing to disclose payments gives “the appearance of influence is troubling. It highlights ineffective oversight, with the potential to cast a shadow on the center’s other excellent doctors.”

When the story first broke, Memorial Sloan Kettering leadership wrote a letter stating, “MSK and our faculty need to do a better job.”

Thompson photo source.

Discussion:

• Analyze the MSK letter. Who is the audience, and what are the communication objectives? How do you assess the organization and writing style?

• Should Thompson also resign his chief executive position at MSK? Why or why not?

• How well does MSK leadership take responsibility for the problems? How is this an issue of integrity for MSK?

Amazon Increases Pay to $15/Hour

Starting November 1, Amazon will pay 250,000 and 100,000 seasonal workers at least $15 an hour. A blog post quoted CEO Jeff Bezos:

“We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead. We’re excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us.”

The post include a video, “Amazon associates react to $15 minimum wage announcement”:

The company also they would work to increase the federal minimum wage, which, as an Amazon SVP says, could improve from the “current rate $7.25 [which] was set nearly a decade ago,”

One analyst predicted that, after taxes, Amazon’s operating profit will take a hit of 1 of 2%. But the move is being well received. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders, a former critic, complimented the decision:

“What Mr. Bezos has done today is not only enormously important for Amazon’s hundreds of thousands of employees, it could well be a shot heard around the world. I urge corporate leaders around the country to follow Mr. Bezos’s lead.”

Discussion:

• Assess Amazon’s blog post and video. How well does the company use the news to improve the company’s image?

• What’s your view of the move: the right thing to do, a bad financial decision, or something else?
  

Google CEO: No Political Bias

Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote an email to staff with a clear message: Google does not have a political bias in search results. Pichai is responding to President Trump’s allegations as well as his own employees’ concerns about suppressing conservative news.

In one part of the email, he writes,

“Recent news stories reference an internal email to suggest that we would compromise the integrity of our Search results for a political end. This is absolutely false. We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda. The trust our users place in us is our greatest asset and we must always protect it. If any Googler ever undermines that trust, we will hold them accountable.”

Pichai may also be defending the results of an internal email chain in which employees discussed ideas for including information in search results. Here we see some of the internal debate:

“Can we launch an ephemeral experience that includes Highlights, up-to-date info from the US State Dept, DHS, links to donate to ACLU, etc?” the email added.

Several officials responded favorably to the overall idea. “We’re absolutely in…Anything you need,” one wrote.

But a public-affairs executive wrote: “Very much in favor of Google stepping up, but just have a few questions on this,” including “how partisan we want to be on this.”

“To the extent of my knowledge, we’d be breaching precedent if we only gave Highlights access to organizations that support a certain view of the world in a time of political conflict,” the public-affairs executive said. “Is that accurate? If so, would we be willing to open access to highlights to [organizations] that…actually support the ban?”

Pichai image source.

Discussion:

• Read Pichai’s entire email to staff. Who is the audience and what are Pichai’s communication objectives? How well does he meet them? What organizational structure does Pichai use?

• How well does Pichai take and assign accountability about Google’s search debate?

• What’s your view of the internal email discussion? What, if anything, surprises you about this discussion? It was, of course, intended to stay internal.

Amazon Employees Take Bribes to Delete Negative Reviews

Amazon is investigating its own employees for taking money through intermediaries to help sellers. Sellers report being offered and receiving confidential data, such as search key words, to help boost sales on the site.

The trouble seems most serious among Chinese Amazon employees, who work for lower salaries and may have more incentive to supplement their wages. A Wall Street Journal article describes the process:

Brokers search for Amazon employees on Chinese messaging platform WeChat and send messages asking them if they would like to provide these services in exchange for cash, according to brokers and sellers who say they have been approached by brokers.

The going rate for having an Amazon employee delete negative reviews is about $300 per review, according to people familiar with the practice. Brokers usually demand a five-review minimum, meaning that sellers typically must pay at least $1,500 for the service.

An Amazon spokesperson defended the company’s practices: “We hold our employees to a high ethical standard and anyone in violation of our Code faces discipline, including termination and potential legal and criminal penalties,” and “We have zero tolerance for abuse of our systems, and if we find bad actors who have engaged in this behavior, we will take swift action against them.”

With more than two million independent sellers on the site, competition can be fierce. Sellers have been known to encourage fake reviews and repeated clicks for higher rankings.

Discussion:

• Which principles of ethical decision making come into play in this situation? In other words, how do we know that the employees’ behavior is unethical?

• We might say that Amazon employees in China are underpaid, and that’s why they are taking money on the side. Does this justify their behavior? Why or why not?

Accusation and Defense of Brett Kavanaugh

On the final days of interviews with Brett Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice, a woman has accused him of sexual assault when they were teenagers, more than 30 years ago. Professor Christine Blasey Ford wanted to stay anonymous, but she is now known as the one who claims Kavanaugh assaulted her at a Georgetown Preparatory School party when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. She revealed her allegation in a letter to her congressman. Dr. Blasey believes that she would have been raped if Kavanaugh weren’t drunk. Both will testify on Monday.

For leadership and business communication students, let’s look at the arguments on both sides. Here is some of the evidence presented so far:

• Twenty-four women who attended private school with Dr. Blasey supported her in a signed letter “to attest to her honesty, integrity, and intelligence.” (For some letter-writing history, read the defense of Professor Avital Ronell and the subsequent explanation.)

• Dr. Blasey passed a polygraph test, but critics say the test is imperfect for proving truthfulness.

• Although Dr. Blasey doesn’t remember some details (for example, whose house they were at), trauma experts say this is typical for people who experience such a trauma.

• Kavanaugh denies the incident: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

• Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s roommate at the time, said, “I have no memory of this alleged incident." Dr. Blasey claims he was in the room during the incident. Judge also said, "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” He also said they were raised in Catholic homes that didn’t tolerate such behavior and that Kavanaugh was “brilliant” and not “into anything crazy or illegal.” Judge wrote a book, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, about his time at Georgetown Prep.

• Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook has become public and is “raising eyebrows,” as MSNBC and CNN both report. The yearbook includes captions such as “Do these guys beat their wives?” and “100 kegs or bust,” indicating a party culture. Mark Judge’s yearbook page, shown here, includes a quote: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”

The FBI and/or congressional investigation is a nearly impossible task. Does this evidence help?

Cover image source. Yearbook image source.

Discussion:

• Which of these evidence points do you consider most and lease relevant to the question of whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Blasey?

• What biases might you bring to the analysis? Think about your own assumptions and how they might affect your interpretation.

• What advice would you give to members of Senate Judiciary Committee as they decide what happened and, ultimately, whether Kavanaugh should be elected to the highest court position.

Nike Takes a Chance on Kaepernick

Former National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick will be the new celebrity face of Nike's "Just Do It" campaign. Kaepernick was the center of controversy when players were both complimented and criticized for "taking a knee" to protest racism and promote social justice.

Nike and Kaepernick already had a sponsorship deal, but this new contract extends it. The deal may be "awkward," to use The New York Times's phrase, because the NFL has not been able to stop player protests, to the dismay of President Trump and others.

Also, Kaepernick hasn't played in the league since 2016 and has an active grievance, accusing the league of conspiring to prevent him from playing.

But neither Nike nor Kaepernick are shying away from the message. The first ad shows Kaepernick with the caption, "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

As part of the deal, Nike will contribute to "Know Your Rights," Kaepernick's foundation to "fight oppression of all kinds globally, through education and social activism.

Discussion:

• What risks is Nike taking with this contract? Do you believe the campaign will be well received, divisive, or something else?

• Nike didn't respond to The New York Times for comment about the story. Should the company include a comment or make a statement? Why or why not?

• What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this story?

President Trump Criticizes Google

In two tweets, President Trump criticized Google and other technology companies of "suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good." Calling the situation "very serious" and "very dangerous," he claims that "fake" liberal news is elevated in search engines, while "fair" Republican/Conservative perspectives are suppressed.

The president's evidence is based on searching for "Trump News," which he claims resulted in 96% of stories from "National Left-Wing Media." The data came from Lou Dobbs' reporting on Fox Business Network about an "unscientific study" by PJ Media, a conservative organization.

It's also unclear which news organizations Fox and President Trump put in the "left-wing" category. A Wall Street Journal article explains that the president considers even mainstream media outlets to be "fake news," so what he calls unfair representation may not align with a "statistically neutral news aggregator." 

Yet the article acknowledged that the search engine algorithm for Google News is "opaque." In addition, Facebook was questioned during Congressional Hearings about suppressing conservative views, and several technology companies did recently close accounts belonging to Alex Jones and InfoWars, a conservative organization, for violating terms of agreement. Social media sites (except Twitter, which has retained Jones's account) provide reasons for closing Jones's account such as his claiming that the shooting at Sandy Hooks Elementary School in 2013 was a hoax.

A spokesperson for Google denies biased search results:

"We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment."

Discussion:

• Try to find evidence on both sides of this argument: that Google News is unbiased against President Trump and that his claims are unfounded.
• What's your view about Google Search results? How might your own political perspective factor into your view?
• How can you ensure that you're getting the most balanced news possible? (Hint: Don't rely on your Facebook feed.)

Archbishop Calls for Pope's Resignation

As more allegations of sexual abuse within the Catholic church become known, the most senior levels of the organization are facing new challenges. Last week, Pope Francis wrote a letter chastising abusers and calling on the Church to do better. Today, a former senior Vatican, who was an ambassador to the U.S., accused the pope of knowing about and covering up abuse cases since 2013. He is calling on the pope to resign.

The situation involves Archbishop McCarrick, who resigned as cardinal in July. McCarrick is accused of sexually abusing seminarians, and the Pope is accused of "rehabilitating" him rather than disciplining him and removing him from his position. 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò explains his reasoning in documented "testimony," including this segment:

Image source of Pope Francis and Archbishop McCarrick.

Discussion:

• Should the pope resign? Why or why not? How does this situation compare to corporate examples? Consider the hierarchy and relationships.
• In what ways is this situation a matter of integrity?
• Viganò uses the word parrhesia. What does this mean, and how does this relate to business communication?
• Which other leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?