Data in the Uber's Safety Report
Uber published its first safety report, and the company is lauded for its transparency. A Wall Street Journal article leads with the number of sexual assaults reported during the last two years: 5,981. Of course, any number is too many—no one should be assaulted in an Uber or anywhere else. And sexual assaults are notoriously underreported, so we have no idea how many have actually occurred.
At the same time, a skeptic might want to know the total number of rides in order to put the number of reports in context. The report does provide this information (see the report for footnotes):
The report makes additional attempts to put the numbers in context:
All of that work culminates in the Safety Report that we are sharing with you, the public, today. To put US safety challenges in context:
• In 2018, over 36,000 people lost their lives in car crashes in the United States alone (3)
• Approximately 20,000 people were the victims of homicide in 2017(4)
• Nearly 44% of women in the US have been a victim of sexual violence in their lifetime—which means that more than 52 million women live with that experience every day (5)
Every form of transportation is impacted by these issues. For example, the NYPD received 1,125 complaints of sex offenses in the transit system during the same time period covered by this report.(6,7) In the United States alone, more than 45 rides on Uber happen every second. At that scale, we are not immune to society’s most serious safety challenges, including sexual assault. Yet when collecting data for that portion of our report, we found there was no uniform industry standard for counting and categorizing those types of incidents.
The 84-page report is incredibly detailed and includes external reports for credibility and the number of charges for various types of assaults.
Discussion:
Analyze the report: the audience, communication objectives, organization, writing style, format. What works well, and what could be improved?
Does the context in these examples convince you that the numbers aren’t so bad? Why or why not?
Otherwise, how well does Uber address the safety issues? How do you assess the report credibility? What other questions do you have?
Why Entrepreneurs Don't Learn from Their Mistakes
A Wall Street Journal article describes research about failing entrepreneurs. The results are sobering: start-up business owners don’t seem to learn from their mistakes.
Francis Greene, at Edinburgh University Business School, explains several reasons for lack of learning. First, when entrepreneurs start new businesses, they have a different context and different customer, so any lessons learned from previous businesses might not apply. Greene also says that businesses typically “limp along”; during this slow-close process, it’s difficult to identify what the real problems were.
Finally, as you might expect, we have psychological barriers for failing to learn from failure. We tend to simplify reasons and blame external factors.
Greene suggests taking time to explore what happened after a business failed and ensuring that we have the industry expertise to succeed in the next venture.
Discussion:
This reminds me of Amy Edmondson’s HBR article, “Strategies for Learning from Failure.” What similarities and differences do see in their research findings and recommendations?
When have you failed? How did you learn from the experience? Can you identify ways to learn better in the future?
Should We Call Climate Change Something Else?
An AdAge writer wonders whether renaming climate change would change perceptions. Reframing is a common strategy for influencing behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Already, climate change seems to be the evolution of global warming, a less convincing idea, in part, because sometimes it’s quite cold, as President Trump says.
A brand team pondered the following new names:
Global Meltdown, Global Melting
Climate Collapse, Climate Chaos
Boiling Point, Melting Point
Scorched Earth
Discussion:
The author identifies “parameters and guideposts” for the new name: audience, reach, and message. What is important for each of these categories?
What’s your view of the proposed new names? Which do you like best and least, and why?
Meanings Behind OK, K, and kk
According to a New York Times article, the way to “scare your young co-workers” is to type “O.K.” instead of “kk.” A young worker explains:
To write “O.K.” or “K,” they tell me, is to be passive-aggressive or imply that I would like the recipient to drop dead.”
The article puts this generation gap in perspective:
A parting thought: Sociolinguistic research — which, until recently, tended to treat gender as binary — largely indicates that young women are the drivers of language change. (The authors of a frequently cited 2009 article from the journal “Language” found that men often lag “a full generation behind” — perhaps because they “retreat from or resist a change after it becomes associated with women.”) I don’t know for sure if the co-workers you mention are women but, on the off-chance you work with any, it’s never a bad time to remind yourself that studies (and women) find that women who talk at work are regularly dismissed, interrupted or ignored.
Discussion:
What’s your view of the differences among “Okay,” “O.K.,” “OK,” “K,” and “kk”? Do you see them the way this article describes? What, if any, role does gender play in your interpretation?
The article reminds me of a 2015 study about periods in texts, apparently a signal for something dramatically final instead of how I use them—to end sentences like this one. How has punctuation use in texts changed over time?
Communications Criticized at Syracuse University
A Chronicle of Higher Education article says that communications at Syracuse University “didn’t help” the racial issues. In the past few weeks, videos, slurs, and drawings, such as swastikas, culminated in a rumor that a “white-supremacist manifesto” was sent to students’ phones. The manifesto was said to be a copy of the one associated with the March New Zealand shootings, and Chancellor Kent D. Syverud responded, “It was apparent that this rumor was probably a hoax, but that reality was not communicated clearly and rapidly enough to get ahead of escalating anxiety.”
The response didn’t address student concerns, which have been bubbling for years. Syverud was criticized for his response in 2014 during campus protests about climate. To the recent racist incidents, students are demanding quicker and more direct action. The chancellor’s choice of words is also at issue, as expressed by Mona Lisa Faz, a graduate student of communications:
“Since when did calling someone the n-word or creating a swastika in the snow ever count as bias?” she wrote in an email to The Chronicle. She called Syverud’s response “a whitewashing and playing down of what is really happening. I get you don’t want to alarm people, but I’m a Latina, and when you play down a hate crime, THAT is alarming to me and my community.”
The University is trying to catch up, posting a chart showing students’ demands and actions taken.
Notes image source.
Protest image source.
Discussion:
Read more about the Syracuse University situation. What were the administration’s major missteps? How can they best recover now?
What’s your view of the chart? What works well about this approach, and how might it fall short?
Some are calling for the chancellor to resign. Should he? Why or why not?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
Prince Andrew's BBC Interview Does Not Go Well
Prince Andrew took a BBC interview to explain his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who had served prison time for having sex with a minor. The Duke of York spent a night at Epstein’s mansion, which some victims called a ”House of Horrors.” The Duke is shown in photographs, along with photos of young women coming into and leaving the house. One woman claims that, when she was 17, she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew. Since that time, Epstein committed suicide in jail, where he was facing sex trafficking charges.
Prince Andrew told the BBC interviewer, “I kick myself for on a daily basis because it was not something that was becoming of a member of the Royal Family and we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down, simple as that."
When asked about his stay at the mansion, Prince Andrew replied, "It was a convenient place to stay. I mean I've gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable but that's just the way it is."
He also referred to Epstein’s behavior as unbecoming: “Do I regret the fact that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes.” When questioned, he said, “I’m sorry. I’m being polite. I mean in the sense that he was a sex offender.”
Responses to the interview have been negative. Since the interview, AON, Cisco, KMPG, and a British charity have removed or are considering removing their brand affiliations with the prince’s name and his work.
Prince Andrew has since tweeted his sympathy and decision to “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future.”
Discussion:
Describe the arguments for and against Prince Andrew’s decision to take the BBC interview.
Looking at the BBC interview, do you think he could have handled the situation better? What could he have done differently?
Analyze the prince’s tweet. What’s your view of that decision and communication? How well is the prince managing the fallout?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
Fabricated Letters to the SEC
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is planning a policy change that, as a Bloomberg article describes, “would shift power from investors to corporate boards” and “limit[s] the power of dissenting shareholders.” Unfortunately, when Chairman Jay Clayton announced the change, he cited several fabricated letters of support to the SEC.
The SEC failed to recognize that many letters followed a similar template and included a random line in the mailing address—“A Coalition of Growth Companies.”
Clayton was impressed that the SEC heard from such a variety of people, such as veterans and retired police officers, but people contacted said they didn’t write the letter or agreed to having their name on a letter without understanding the implications.
The Bloomberg article reports Clayton’s response:
The SEC declined to comment on any irregularities with the letters. In a Tuesday interview, Clayton sidestepped a question about how the agency ensures comment letters are genuine. He did emphasize that the regulator’s potential revamp of shareholder voting rules are proposals, adding that there will be ample time for people on both sides to weigh in before any changes are finalized.
“We welcome input in all ways,” Clayton said in the interview with Bloomberg Television’s David Westin. “On this issue, where there are a lot of different views and a lot of different interests, we encourage people to come in and talk to us, send us their comments.”
Discussion:
How does something like this happen? Who is responsible?
Assess Clayton’s response. How well is he handling the situation? What, if anything, should he do differently?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
T-Mobile's Full-Page Ad
In signature pink, T-Mobile ran a full-page ad in Sunday’s New York Times. The ad also feels like T-Mobile because we see “From the desk of John Legere,” the charismatic CEO and frequent tweeter with comments such as, “One of our best weapons is the ineptness of the competition. #sorrynotsorry.”
For a persuasive message, the ad is curious and a good example for business communication students to analyze.
Discussion:
Who are the primary and secondary audiences for this ad?
What are T-Mobile’s communication objectives, and how well does this message achieve them?
If you were advising the company, what suggestions would you have for revisions?
Microsoft's Diversity and Inclusion Report
Microsoft’s 2019 Diversity and Inclusion report is the company’s sixth since 2014.
In the introductory letter, we learn about positive changes in demographic data:
In technical roles alone, we have 49% more women, 48% more Hispanic/Latinx, and 67% more African American/Black employees than we did three years ago. And beyond population growth, this year’s snapshot shows diversity representation has risen in every demographic category we track.
The report includes a few dazzling graphics, such as the one shown here.
Discussion:
Read the entire report. What principles of business communication are followed?
What suggestions for improvement would you suggest to the report authors?
What’s your view of the graphic shown here? What is the main point? How else could the data be shown?
Although the report writers acknowledge that some of the diversity increase in technical roles is attributed to employee growth, what other questions might a skeptic ask?
SoftBank's Vague WeWork Slides
SoftBank already took a financial hit because of its investment in WeWork. Now, the company is facing criticism about its data analysis and presentation.
A deck SoftBank Group (SBG) used to justify its WeWork investment includes several “hypothetical” and vague slides, like this one.
If you’re having trouble reading the footnote, here it is:
This hypothetical illustration is provided solely for illustrative purposes, reflects the current beliefs of SBG as of the date hereof, and is based on a variety of assumptions and estimates about, among others, future operating results, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs and the timing and manner of sale, all of which may differ from the assumptions on which this hypothetical illustration is based. There are numerous factors related to the markets in general or the implementation of any specific operational plan that cannot be fully accounted for with respect to the hypothetical illustration herein. Any targets or estimates are therefore subject to a number of important risks, qualifications, limitations, and exceptions that could materially and adversely affect the hypothetical illustration presented herein. Accordingly, actual results may differ materially from the hypothetical illustration presented herein. For the avoidance of doubt, this illustration does not reflect actual results or metrics from the company.
The slide title is also odd: the illustration isn’t hypothetical, but the profitability is.
Discussion:
How might this chart affect SoftBank’s credibility?
What other examples in the SoftBank deck are problematic?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
Letter from WeWork Employees
As WeWork plans layoffs, employees are asking for input into what happens to them and their peers. Referring to themselves as WeWorkers Coalition, the employees wrote a letter to the management team.
To the We Company Management Team:
WeWork’s company values encourage us to be “entrepreneurial, inspired, authentic, tenacious, grateful and together.” Today, we are embracing these qualities wholeheartedly as we band together to ensure the well-being of our peers.
We come from many departments across the company: building maintenance, cleaning, community, design, product, engineering and more. We believe that in the upcoming weeks we have the unique opportunity to demonstrate our true values to the world. This is a company that has inspired many of us, challenged us, and has been a formative personal and professional experience for those of us who began our careers here. WeWork has been not just a workplace, but a source of friendships and inspiration along the way.
We also believe our product can have a lasting positive impact on the world. We want to improve workplace happiness for millions of office workers and support small and medium sized businesses in their entrepreneurial efforts. We have been proud to support these goals and dedicate our time and talent to achieve them. This has been our story so far.
Recently, however, we have watched as layers are peeled back one-by-one to reveal a different story. This story is one of deception, exclusion and selfishness playing out at the company’s highest levels. This is a story that reads as a negation of all our core values. But this story is not over.
Thousands of us will be laid off in the upcoming weeks. But we want our time here to have meant something. We don’t want to be defined by the scandals, the corruption, and the greed exhibited by the company’s leadership. We want to leave behind a legacy that represents the true character and intentions of WeWork employees.
In the immediate term, we want those being laid off to be provided fair and reasonable separation terms commensurate with their contributions, including severance pay, continuation of company-paid health insurance and compensation for lost equity. We are not the Adam Neumanns of this world — we are a diverse work force with rents to pay, households to support and children to raise. Neumann departed with a $1.7 billion severance package including a yearly $46 million “consulting fee” (higher than the total compensation of all but nine public C.E.O.s in the United States in 2018). We are not asking for this level of graft. We are asking to be treated with humanity and dignity so we can continue living life while searching to make a living elsewhere. In consideration of recent news, we will also need clarity around the contracts our cleaning staff will be required to sign in order to keep their jobs, which are being outsourced to a third party. Those of us who have visas through WeWork need assistance and adequate time to find a new employer to sponsor our respective visas.
In the medium term, employees need a seat at the table so the company can address a broader range of issues. We’ve seen what can happen when leadership makes decisions while employees have no voice. We will need to see more transparency and more accountability.
We also need the thousands who maintain our buildings and directly service members to receive full benefits and fair pay, rather than earning just above minimum wage.
We need allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment to be taken seriously, acted on immediately and resolved with transparency.
We need diversity and inclusion efforts to materialize into real actions, not just talking points at company meetings.
We need salary transparency so we can surface and address systemic inequalities.
We need an end to forced arbitration contracts, which strip employees of their right to pursue fair legal action against the company.
We need all of this, and more.
In the long term, we want the employees who remain at WeWork, and those who join in the future, to inherit something positive we left behind. We want them to never find themselves in this position again, and for that to happen, they need a voice.
With this letter we are introducing ourselves, the WeWorkers Coalition. We are taking full advantage of our legal right to establish this coalition, and in doing so, we hope to give the future employees of WeWork the voice we never had.
We want to work with you. Please join us in writing a better ending to this chapter of the WeWork story.
By this Thursday at 5:00 p.m. EST, we would like to receive confirmation of your receipt of this letter and an indication of your willingness to meet us.
The WeWorkers Coalition
@weworkersco • info@weworkersco.org • #weworkers-coalition
Discussion:
What principles of business writing do the employees follow?
What persuasive strategies do they use in the letter? Find examples of logical argument, emotional appeal, and credibility.
What do you consider the strongest and weakest arguments?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated in this situation?
Conversational Voice Tone for Polling
Pollsters have a tough time getting people to answer their phones, no less answer questions about who they might vote for in the next presidential election. With such low response rates, callers have to sound conversational and personable, just as business presenters have to engage to their audience.
In a Daily Podcast, pollsters describe how to avoid sounding robotic, which is particularly difficult when you’re “reading off a screen.” The same applies to presenters who read from their notes or slides.
Discussion:
What principles of voice tone do the pollsters’ examples in the audio clip illustrate?
How can you apply these principles to your business presentations?
CVS Apologizes to Puerto Rican Customer
A Purdue University engineering student showed his Puerto Rican identification card to two CVS employees who said he couldn’t buy cold medicine. The customer service representative and a supervisor at the Indiana store said he needed to show a valid U.S. ID card or visa. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens.
José Guzmán Payano told reporters his point of view:
"And then when she asked me for a visa, I was in shock at that time. It wasn't worth talking anymore. It is weird because we're such a broad campus at Purdue. There are people from everywhere. But I can't use my ID from Puerto Rico? Not even my passport? This shouldn't happen here. Period."
Guzmán Payano also explained the situation to his mother, who relayed the story on Facebook, which attracted attention. Although Guzmán Payano filed a complaint with CVS, it took more than a week for the company to respond—after the story appeared in a local newspaper. The company told The NY Times this was an “an isolated incident,” and confirmed, “We absolutely recognize Puerto Rican driver’s licenses to be a valid form of U.S. identification.
A spokesperson for CVS said the company will investigate:
"We are committed to ensuring that every customer receives courteous, outstanding service in our stores, and we apologize to the customer for his recent experience. We are fully investigating this matter to learn more about what occurred."
CVS exterior image source. CVS interior image source.
Discussion:
In Guzmán Payano’s mother’s Facebook post, she wonders how this could have happened: “Was it his accent? Was it his skin color? Was it the Puerto Rican flag on the license?” What do you think?
How well has CVS handled the situation to this point? What, if anything, should the company have done differently? What should they do now?
In an updated post, Guzmán Payano’s mother asks people not to harm CVS employees. This isn’t the first time we have seen violent reactions following social media posts. What’s your view of this?
Unusual Reporting on a CEO Exit: "Fired"
McDonald’s Corporation has terminated its CEO for having a consensual relationship with an employee. Steve Easterbrook is viewed as an effective leader who made the company leaner and made good use of technology. McDonald’s immediately announced Easterbrook’s successor as Chris Kempczinski, formerly the President of McDonald's USA.
In a news release, the company explained the decision:
“Kempczinski succeeds Steve Easterbrook, who has separated from the Company following the Board's determination that he violated company policy and demonstrated poor judgment involving a recent consensual relationship with an employee.”
In an email to employees, Easterbrook wrote, “This was a mistake. Given the values of the company, I agree with the board that it is time for me to move on.” Easterbrook’s admission made it easier for McDonald’s to be transparent about the situation. In similar CEO-departure emails, we’ll see language such as, “parted ways,” “resigned,” or “stepped down,” when we know the decision wasn’t really mutual.
Easterbrook leaves McDonald’s with $670,000 in severance pay in addition to a prorated bonus and stock options.
Easterbrook image source (home page). Kempczinski image source (this page).
Discussion:
What’s your view of how McDonald’s announced the decision in the news release? What are the benefits to the company of describing what happened rather than being vague?
Did McDonald’s do the right thing by terminating Easterbrook for a consensual relationship? Why or why not?
EY's Training Program Considered Sexist
Ernst & Young delivered a training program for female executives about a year ago, and it’s coming back to bite them. Critics say the program was sexist and cite the following as an example:
In the session in question, attendees were told be “polished,” have a “good haircut, manicured nails, well-cut attire that complements your body type,” it states on Page 36 of the 55-page handout. But that’s followed by a warning: “Don’t flaunt your body―sexuality scrambles the mind (for men and women).”
The criticism became public because a former partner is suing the firm for harassment.
In response, EY said, “Any isolated aspects are taken wholly out of context,” and that the program received positive evaluations. They did, however, say the program “is no longer offered in its current form.” The company also issued this statement:
“We are proud of our long-standing commitment to women and deeply committed to creating and fostering an environment of inclusivity and belonging at EY, anything that suggests the contrary is 100% false.”
Discussion:
Read the former partner’s letter to EY. What are her strongest and weakest arguments? What is your overall reaction to the letter?
What’s your view of the company’s response?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation?
Boeing CEO Responds to Questions
This week, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg answered lawmakers’ questions about the two Max 737 plane crashes in the past year. Facing families of deceased passengers, Muilenburg began his testimony with an apology:
“I’d like to begin by expressing my deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who were lost in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accidents, including those who are here in the room today. I wanted to let you know, on behalf of myself and all of the men and women of Boeing, how deeply sorry I am. As we observe today the solemn anniversary of the loss of Lion Air Flight 610, please know that we carry the memory of these accidents, and of your loved ones, with us every day. They will never be forgotten, and these tragedies will continue to drive us to do everything we can to make our airplanes and our industry safer.”
One of the most tense moments was when Senator Ted Cruz questioned Muilenburg (see video). Muilenburg also faced criticism as he was leaving. The mother of a victim of the second crash responded to his invoking his Iowa farm background:
“Go back to Iowa. Do that.” She also said, “I don't feel like you understand. It's come to the point where you're not the person anymore to solve the situation."
Discussion:
Watch more of Muilenburg’s testimony. What are some examples of questions he addressed well, and how could he have done better?
How well does Muilenburg balance emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility in his testimony?
What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this situation and by Muilenburg’s testimony?
Muilenburg’s interaction with the mother is a difficult situation for anyone to handle, and we can certainly understand her grief and anger. How would you have responded?
CNN reports:
“In response, Muilenburg said he respects her viewpoint. "But I want to tell you the way I was brought up. And I'm just being honest here about it. I learned from my father in Iowa ... when things happen on your watch you have to own them and you have to take responsibility for fixing them," he said.
Astros Executive Fired After Yelling at Female Reporters
Brandon Taubman, assistant manager of the Houston Astros baseball team, was fired after comments made to female reporters. The situation became more complicated because the team, at first, criticized a Sports Illustrated reporter, Stephanie Apstein, and called her article, “misleading and irresponsible” and a “fabrication.”
In the team club house, after a game, Taubman yelled at the female reporters, “Thank God we got Osuna. I’m so f------ glad we got Osuna!” The MLB suspended Osuna for 75 games because of a domestic violence charge, and the Astros took a PR risk in hiring him. A Sports Illustrated writer criticizes the team’s decision:
But in truth, the Astros' front office acts as if it is tired of being yelled at about this subject. They want to be allowed to play their baseball games and pop their champagne without being forced to think about anything that happened away from the ballpark.
The team’s first response of defending Taubman didn’t stick. They later issued a statement apologizing to both the group of female reporters and Apstein.
Ernst & Young is scrubbing its website of ties to Taubman, who worked for the firm. EY is facing its own trouble following criticism about a training program for women.
Discussion:
What’s your view of the situation—both Taubman’s outburst and the Astros’ response?
Analyze the team’s statement. What leadership character dimensions does this illustrate, and how does it fall short? What could be improved?
Did EY do the right thing by trying to disassociate with Taubman? Why or why not?
Beautiful Graphic
The New York Times summarizes how much time democratic candidates spoke during a recent debate—and how much time they spent on each topic—in a well-designed graphic.
At a glance, we see that Senator Elizabeth Warren had about three times more air time than did Tom Steyer. We also see the topics that captured the most attention. However, we don’t see a cumulative calculation of topics, which could also be useful.
Discussion:
What works well about this graphic? What could be improved?
What’s your view of the color combination?
If you watched the October 14 debate, does the time allocation surprise you? If so, why do you think that might be?
Plain Language from Financial Advisers
A Wall Street Journal writer asks financial advisers to speak to us in plain English. A new Securities and Exchange Commission rule—described in 564 pages—calls for simpler writing. But the author wants advisers to go further, for example, to use more visuals and categories: “color-coded from red to green, for instance, or arrayed on a scale from 1 to 10.”
Fortunately, the rule includes a summary, although students of business communication will find problems:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) is adopting new rules and forms as well as amendments to its rules and forms, under both the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to require registered investment advisers and registered broker-dealers (together, “firms”) to provide a brief relationship summary to retail investors. The relationship summary is intended to inform retail investors about: the types of client and customer relationships and services the firm offers; the fees, costs, conflicts of interest, and required standard of conduct associated with those relationships and services; whether the firm and its financial professionals currently have reportable legal or disciplinary history; and how to obtain additional information about the firm. The relationship summary will also reference Investor.gov/CRS, a page on the Commission’s investor education website, Investor.gov, which offers educational information to investors about investment advisers, broker-dealers, and individual financial professionals and other materials. Retail investors will receive a relationship summary at the beginning of a relationship with a firm, communications of updated information following a material change to the relationship summary, and an updated relationship summary 2 upon certain events. The relationship summary is subject to Commission filing and recordkeeping requirements.
Plain language in government documents started as an initiative in the 1990s, and the group highlights before-and-after examples.
Discussion:
How could you rewrite the summary, above, for easier reading?
Review the Plain Language website. What are your impressions of the group’s work?
Women in the Workplace Report
Lean In and McKinsey have co-published a report about women at work. The report concludes, “Five years in, we see bright spots at senior levels. But companies need to focus their efforts earlier in the pipeline to make real progress.”
According to the findings, although more women have higher level positions than they did five years ago, they still face obstacles. One stumbling block is getting that first management position. Another is how women are treated at work. The report identifies particular challenges for “only” women—“being the only or one of the only women in the room at work.”
The report is a good example of a well-organized, beautifully designed report with clear graphics, such as this one. However, the axis is truncated.
Discussion:
Describe how the axis is truncated. What problems does this create?
What surprises you about the report findings? What, if anything, doesn’t surprise you?
Describe the report organization.
Which graphics do you find most and lease useful?
