Stunning Trove of Facebook Internal Documents
The Wall Street Journal has uncovered internal emails, reports, and presentations that show Facebook’s communication struggles and contradictions. Some messages are in draft form and illustrate conflicts within the organization about how to manage apps and report on information. In one document, an employee wrote, “We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly.”
A document marked as attorney/client privileged, refers to a “whitelist,” which means that different standards apply to certain elite users. A WSJ writer explains the issue:
At times, the documents show, XCheck has protected public figures whose posts contain harassment or incitement to violence, violations that would typically lead to sanctions for regular users. In 2019, it allowed international soccer star Neymar to show nude photos of a woman, who had accused him of rape, to tens of millions of his fans before the content was removed by Facebook. Whitelisted accounts shared inflammatory claims that Facebook’s fact checkers deemed false, including that vaccines are deadly, that Hillary Clinton had covered up “pedophile rings,” and that then-President Donald Trump had called all refugees seeking asylum “animals,” according to the documents.
Other documents provide research about the negative impact of Instagram on teenage girls, including exacerbating body-image concerns and suicidal ideation. Yet, publicly, company officials have focused only on the benefits. During a congressional hearing, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “The research that we’ve seen is that using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits.” A spokesperson for Instagram told reporters that the negative impact on teens’ mental health is “quite small.”
So far, I don’t see a response from the company. This will be a difficult one to downplay, particularly with so many conflicting voices from within the company. This situation illustrates issues of transparency and integrity—inconsistency with Facebook’s stated values and public claims. Facebook might do best to acknowledge challenges and promise to do better, and then we would see whether they do.
Opening Statements in the Theranos Trial
Elizabeth Holmes is facing a criminal trial for her role in the spectacular success—and spectacular failure—of Theranos, a startup that claimed to change how people give blood and get health results. The high-profile case involves board members like Henry Kissinger and Rupert Murdoch, who believed in the company and in Holmes.
Opening statements are a lesson in persuasive communication. The prosecution said, ”This is a case about fraud and about lying and cheating to get money.” They accuse Holmes of knowing that test results were invalid and continuing the business as usual. Pointing to the fame Holmes received, prosecutors paint a picture of a desperate, failing executive who would do anything to protect her business and reputation.
The defense team presents Holmes as a victim—a hardworking entrepreneur doing her best and challenged by mental abuse from Ramesh Balwani, the company COO and her former boyfriend.
Each side framed their positions, and now we’ll see what evidence they present to support their claims. Holmes could face 20 years in prison, which is unusual for a corporate CEO. The second day of the trial was cancelled because a juror was possibly exposed to COVID-19. The drama continues…
Medical Journals Urge Climate Response
The editors of 220 medical journals wrote to inspire climate change action. In an open letter, the authors cite “catastrophic” health results of a degrading environment, particularly affecting ”countries and communities that have contributed least to the problem and are least able to mitigate the harms.”
The letter, below, is a good example of persuasive writing. We see a mix of emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility to encourage world leaders to do more. However, the writing doesn’t meet standards for organizing business messages. Business communication students could restructure the writing to make the organization more explicit, improve readability, and surface main points.
The UN General Assembly in September, 2021, will bring countries together at a critical time for marshalling collective action to tackle the global environmental crisis. They will meet again at the biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, and the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, UK. Ahead of these pivotal meetings, we—the editors of health journals worldwide—call for urgent action to keep average global temperature increases below 1·5°C, halt the destruction of nature, and protect health.
Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world, a state of affairs health professionals have been bringing attention to for decades.1 The science is unequivocal; a global increase of 1·5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.2, 3 Despite the world's necessary preoccupation with COVID-19, we cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions.
Reflecting the severity of the moment, this Comment appears in health journals across the world. We are united in recognising that only fundamental and equitable changes to societies will reverse our current trajectory.
The risks to health of increases above 1·5°C are now well established.2 Indeed, no temperature rise is “safe”. In the past 20 years, heat-related mortality among people older than 65 years has increased by more than 50%.4 Higher temperatures have brought increased dehydration and renal function loss, dermatological malignancies, tropical infections, adverse mental health outcomes, pregnancy complications, allergies, and cardiovascular and pulmonary morbidity and mortality.5, 6 Harms disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, including children, older populations, ethnic minorities, poorer communities, and those with underlying health problems.2, 4
Global heating is also contributing to the decline in global yield potential for major crops, falling by 1·8–5·6% since 1981; this, together with the effects of extreme weather and soil depletion, is hampering efforts to reduce undernutrition.4 Thriving ecosystems are essential to human health, and the widespread destruction of nature, including habitats and species, is eroding water and food security and increasing the chance of pandemics.3, 7, 8
The consequences of the environmental crisis fall disproportionately on those countries and communities that have contributed least to the problem and are least able to mitigate the harms. Yet no country, no matter how wealthy, can shield itself from these impacts. Allowing the consequences to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable will breed more conflict, food insecurity, forced displacement, and zoonotic disease—with severe implications for all countries and communities. As with the COVID-19 pandemic, we are globally as strong as our weakest member.
Rises above 1·5°C increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could lock the world into an acutely unstable state. This would critically impair our ability to mitigate harms and to prevent catastrophic, runaway environmental change.9, 10
Encouragingly, many governments, financial institutions, and businesses are setting targets to reach net-zero emissions, including targets for 2030. The cost of renewable energy is dropping rapidly. Many countries are aiming to protect at least 30% of the world's land and oceans by 2030.11
These promises are not enough. Targets are easy to set and hard to achieve. They are yet to be matched with credible short-term and longer-term plans to accelerate cleaner technologies and transform societies. Emissions reduction plans do not adequately incorporate health considerations.12 Concern is growing that temperature rises above 1·5°C are beginning to be seen as inevitable, or even acceptable, to powerful members of the global community.13 Relatedly, current strategies for reducing emissions to net zero by the middle of the 21st century implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.14, 15
This insufficient action means that temperature increases are likely to be well in excess of 2°C,16 a catastrophic outcome for health and environmental stability. Crucially, the destruction of nature does not have parity of esteem with the climate element of the crisis, and every single global target to restore biodiversity loss by 2020 was missed.17 This is an overall environmental crisis.18
Health professionals are united with environmental scientists, businesses, and many others in rejecting that this outcome is inevitable. More can and must be done now—in Glasgow and Kunming—and in the immediate years that follow. We join health professionals worldwide who have already supported calls for rapid action.1, 19
Equity must be at the centre of the global response. Contributing a fair share to the global effort means that reduction commitments must account for the cumulative, historical contribution each country has made to emissions, as well as its current emissions and capacity to respond. Wealthier countries will have to cut emissions more quickly, making reductions by 2030 beyond those currently proposed20, 21 and reaching net-zero emissions before 2050. Similar targets and emergency action are needed for biodiversity loss and the wider destruction of the natural world.
To achieve these targets, governments must make fundamental changes to how our societies and economies are organised and how we live. The current strategy of encouraging markets to swap dirty for cleaner technologies is not enough. Governments must intervene to support the redesign of transport systems, cities, production and distribution of food, markets for financial investments, health systems, and much more. Global coordination is needed to ensure that the rush for cleaner technologies does not come at the cost of more environmental destruction and human exploitation.
Many governments met the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic with unprecedented funding. The environmental crisis demands a similar emergency response. Huge investment will be needed, beyond what is being considered or delivered anywhere in the world. But such investments will produce huge positive health and economic outcomes. These include high quality jobs, reduced air pollution, increased physical activity, and improved housing and diet. Better air quality alone would realise health benefits that easily offset the global costs of emissions reductions.22
These measures will also improve the social and economic determinants of health, the poor state of which may have made populations more vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic.23 But the changes cannot be achieved through a return to damaging austerity policies or the continuation of the large inequalities of wealth and power within and between countries.
In particular, countries that have disproportionately created the environmental crisis must do more to support low-income and middle-income countries to build cleaner, healthier, and more resilient societies. High-income countries must meet and go beyond their outstanding commitment to provide US$100 billion a year, making up for any shortfall in 2020 and increasing contributions to and beyond 2025. Funding must be equally split between mitigation and adaptation, including improving the resilience of health systems.
Financing should be through grants rather than loans, building local capabilities and truly empowering communities, and should come alongside forgiving large debts, which constrain the agency of so many low-income countries. Additional funding must be marshalled to compensate for inevitable loss and damage caused by the consequences of the environmental crisis.
As health professionals, we must do all we can to aid the transition to a sustainable, fairer, resilient, and healthier world. Alongside acting to reduce the harm from the environmental crisis, we should proactively contribute to global prevention of further damage and action on the root causes of the crisis. We must hold global leaders to account and continue to educate others about the health risks of the crisis. We must join in the work to achieve environmentally sustainable health systems before 2040, recognising that this will mean changing clinical practice. Health institutions have already divested more than $42 billion of assets from fossil fuels; others should join them.4
The greatest threat to global public health is the continued failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1·5°C and to restore nature. Urgent, society-wide changes must be made and will lead to a fairer and healthier world. We, as editors of health journals, call for governments and other leaders to act, marking 2021 as the year that the world finally changes course.
FG serves on the executive committee for the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change and is a Trustee of the Eden Project. RS is the Chair of Patients Know Best, has stock in UnitedHealth Group, has done consultancy work for Oxford Pharmagenesis, and is chair of the Lancet Commission of the Value of Death. The other authors declare no competing interests.
This Comment is being published simultaneously in multiple journals (appendix). This full list of journals, as well as a further list of supporting journals, can also be found on the BMJ website.
Delta Airlines and the Delta Virus
Unfortunately for Delta Airlines, the new COVID-19 variant is called Delta. In a message to employees, below, CEO Ed Bastian, refers to the virus by its scientific name, B.1.617.2 variant. He has also called it “the most recent virus variants” and simply “the variant.” Jimmy Fallon joked about the issue on his late-night show, saying that the airline is now called “Del-tay.”
Bastian may not need to worry. Reports show that Corona beer sales didn’t decline after the coronavirus first hit the news.
Bastian’s email to employees also is a good example of a persuasive message. He encourages employees to get vaccinated and describes extra precautions for those who are not. However, he stops short of requiring vaccinations as have other CEOs.
Ed Bastian to Delta Colleagues Worldwide
COVID-19 update
Since the earliest days of the pandemic, our No. 1 priority has always been to protect our people and customers. Over the past 18 months, we have invested heavily in cleanliness, personal protective equipment, testing, and – most importantly – vaccines.
Today I’m pleased to announce that we’ve reached the milestone of 75% of our people vaccinated, which puts us one step closer to getting back to what we do best – connecting the world and running the best airline on the planet. I want to personally thank all of you who have taken the time to receive a vaccination – your actions are making a real difference.
In addition to vaccinating our people, we’ve been proud to partner with the state of Georgia to operate the state’s largest mass vaccination site at the Delta Flight Museum, where nearly 35% of the state’s mass vaccination doses were administered to residents. In total, more than 150,000 doses were administered to our employees, their family members and friends at Delta clinics around the country.
Delta's top priority is protecting our people. Since the start of the pandemic, we've invested resources to mount industry-leading safety measures in the operation.
While we are grateful for the progress we’ve made, the most recent virus variants make it clear that more work remains ahead. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global health crisis, and one of the most dangerous challenges our world has faced in this lifetime. Over the past few weeks, the fight has changed with the rise of the B.1.617.2 variant – a very aggressive form of the virus. Our Chief Health Officer, Dr. Henry Ting, describes the variant as a “heat-seeking missile” that transmits predominantly through the unvaccinated community.
According to Dr. Ting, while breakthrough cases among the vaccinated do occur, the vast majority of those are mild and often present no symptoms at all. However, the variant has resulted in a significant rise in hospitalizations and deaths, almost entirely impacting those who have not yet been vaccinated. While we can be proud of our 75% vaccination rate, the aggressiveness of the variant means we need to get many more of our people vaccinated, and as close to 100% as possible.
We’ve always known that vaccinations are the most effective tool to keep our people safe and healthy in the face of this global health crisis. That’s why we’re taking additional, robust actions to increase our vaccination rate:
Effective immediately, unvaccinated employees are required to wear masks in all indoor Delta settings. This requirement will remain in place until community case rates stabilize.
Starting Sept. 12, any U.S. employee who is not fully vaccinated will be required to take a COVID test each week while community case rates are high. Those with a positive result will need to isolate and remain out of the workplace.
Beginning Nov. 1, unvaccinated employees enrolled in Delta’s account-based healthcare plan will be subject to a $200 monthly surcharge. The average hospital stay for COVID-19 has cost Delta $50,000 per person. This surcharge will be necessary to address the financial risk the decision to not vaccinate is creating for our company. In recent weeks since the rise of the B.1.617.2 variant, all Delta employees who have been hospitalized with COVID were not fully vaccinated.
Effective Sept. 30, in compliance with state and local laws, COVID pay protection will only be provided to fully vaccinated individuals who are experiencing a breakthrough infection.
More details will be coming soon from your divisional leaders.
I know some of you may be taking a wait-and-see approach or waiting for full FDA approval. With this week’s announcement that the FDA has granted full approval for the Pfizer vaccine, the time for you to get vaccinated is now. We can be confident that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective, and has undergone the same rigorous review for other approved medications to treat cancer and heart disease, as well as other vaccines.
If you aren’t fully vaccinated, I strongly urge you to discuss the issue with your personal physician or health provider. In addition, testing and vaccination information is available on Deltanet, and Dr. Ting provides regular, informative updates on the state of the virus and the tools available to keep yourself and your loved ones safe and healthy.
Protecting yourself, your colleagues, your loved ones and your community is fundamental to the shared values that have driven our success for nearly a century. Vaccinations are the safest, most effective, and most powerful tool we have to achieve our goals, live up to our values and move forward.
Ed
Robinhood's Strategy Faces Regulatory Questions
Robinhood is in the news again for its marketing tactics. I featured the investment app in the 11th edition of Business Communication and Character for its aggressive communication, including gaming graphics, to lure young, inexperienced investors into trading.
When users open a Robinhood account, they receive a free share to get started. This requires a proxy statement to be delivered to the user, which costs small companies a lot of money—for very few purchased shares. New regulations may prevent companies like Robinhood from seeking reimbursement.
Users don’t get any great bargain. As a Wall Street Journal writer explains, “Customers have a 98% chance of receiving a share priced between $2.50 and $10.”
Robinhood has maintained its defense as it faces increased scrutiny. A spokesperson said, “Customers love our free-stock program, and we think it fits squarely into our mission to democratize finance for all.”
This situation is another example of how the company’s strategy benefits some but negatively impacts others. For that reason, the communication becomes an issue of character—failing to consider the effect of one’s actions.
New "Jeopardy!" Host Resigns
Just nine days after he got the job, Mike Richards resigned as the new host of ”Jeopardy!“ The Anti-Defamation League revealed comments that the host made on a podcast, “The Randumb Show,” between 2013 and 2014.
Although Richards was selected as a host without too much personality to overshadow the show, his reputation is now tarnished by these remarks.
What surprises me is that the show producers didn’t uncover the comments themselves. Or did they find them benign? Did they also discount litigation against him when he was a producer for “The Price Is Right” and “Let’s Make a Deal”?
Regardless, this is yet another warning to students and others to consider carefully what they say and post online; everything becomes a permanent digital record.
Below is Richards’ email to “Jeopardy!” staff about the previous litigation, including a version of the now-classic, “This is not who I am.” Below the email is his apology about the podcast comments, including versions of the old classics, “I’m a father” and “It was a joke.”
Team Jeopardy!
Recently, Jeopardy!, our host search and the possibility of me hosting has been all over the news. I want to take a moment so that you can hear directly from me. The last year has been the most challenging in the history of the show. I know we are all still dealing with the loss of our hero, Alex, while at the same time continuing to produce amazing shows for our millions of fans through the pandemic. Our success over that time with our guest-host rotation, including the more than $3 million we raised for charities, is a singular achievement and a testament to your talent and dedication. I’ve produced a lot of television over the years, and I could not be more impressed with team Jeopardy!
It is true that I was asked if I would consider hosting the show. I was humbled and deeply honored. No final decisions have been made and discussions with me and other potential hosts are still ongoing. I know I have mentioned this to you all before, but the choice on this is not my decision and never has been. Throughout this search, Sony’s top priority has always been to continue the incredible legacy you and Alex built. As you know, Alex always believed the game itself and the contestants are the most important aspects of the show, and that will continue to be the guiding principle as the decision is finalized.
I want to address the complicated employment issues raised in the press during my time at The Price is Right ten years ago. These were allegations made in employment disputes against the show. I want you all to know that the way in which my comments and actions have been characterized in these complaints does not reflect the reality of who I am or how we worked together on The Price is Right. I know firsthand how special it is to be a parent. It is the most important thing in the world to me. I would not say anything to disrespect anyone’s pregnancy and have always supported my colleagues on their parenting journeys.
I am very proud of my time on The Price Is Right and Let’s Make a Deal. During my tenure, our female cast members welcomed seven beautiful children. We embraced and celebrated each pregnancy and birth both in front of and behind the camera. It was a joy to watch their families grow and highlight their happiness as part of the show.
For us, I realize there is a lot going on right now as we ramp up for the new season. Please do not hesitate to reach out of you have any questions or concerns.
It is truly an honor to get to work with all of you to produce this amazing show, and I look forward to the days ahead as we get back into production.
Mike
"It is humbling to confront a terribly embarrassing moment of misjudgment, thoughtlessness, and insensitivity from nearly a decade ago. Looking back now, there is no excuse, of course, for the comments I made on this podcast and I am deeply sorry," Richards said in a statement to the Ringer. "The podcast was intended to be a series of irreverent conversations between longtime friends who had a history of joking around. Even with the passage of time, it's more than clear that my attempts to be funny and provocative were not acceptable, and I have removed the episodes. My responsibilities today as a father, husband, and a public personality who speaks to many people through my role on television means I have substantial and serious obligations as a role model, and I intend to live up to them."
New Research About Remote Work
A new study identifies advantages and challenges of working from home (WFH). A New York Times article cites little research in the area, but a recent paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics provides insights for companies and employees considering WFH arrangements.
The study was at Ctrip, a Chinese travel agency. The abstract follows:
Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned either to work from home or in the office for nine months. Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter and more convenient working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction, and their attrition rate halved, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell. Due to the success of the experiment, Ctrip rolled out the option to WFH to the whole firm and allowed the experimental employees to reselect between the home and office. Interestingly, over half of them switched, which led to the gains from WFH almost doubling to 22%. This highlights the benefits of learning and selection effects when adopting modern management practices like WFH.
Remote employees seem to suffer bias. A study author put it simply, “They can get forgotten.” Informal conversations and other face-to-face interactions increase belonging—they create “in groups” and “out groups.” As a result, some people are better known and trusted, particularly by senior leaders, who are more likely to be in the office. These relationships lead to more mentoring, sponsorship, and promotion opportunities. With more women wanting to WFH than men, this issue could increase gender inequality at work.
WFH employees should aim to increase their social presence—reducing the perceived physical distance. A Forbes writer offers good advice for building relationships from afar:
Share openly.
Assume goodwill of others.
Stay in close proximity.
Be predictable.
Be easy to read.
Support others.
Be selective about your relationships.
Hold others accountable.
Demonstrate integrity and tell the truth.
In the coming years, as more companies offer the option and more employees choose to WFH, we'll learn more about how to successfully WFH.
Apple Clarifies Policy
Apple software chief Craig Federighi spoke with a Wall Street Journal reporter about a misunderstood policy related to child pornography. The company had announced new reporting guidelines for illegal content. As part of the same message, they described new guidelines about photos sent to and from children. User backlash concerned how the company was monitoring their phones.
Federighi said, “I do believe the soundbite that got out early was, ‘Oh my God, Apple is scanning my phone for images.’ This is not what is happening.” He clarified that, using algorithms, they’re looking at photos stored on iCloud—not on people’s phones. The company is flagging only those photos that meet criteria of child pornography.
During the published interview with the WSJ reporter (what made the final cut on the website), Federighi didn’t emphasize the end goal: protecting children. The reporter provided this context, but the message was not at the forefront’s of Federighi’s main points. His focus was on clarifying the initial message: “I think our customers own their phones,” again, distinguishing what we choose to post on Apple’s server.
Federighi also demonstrated humility by admitting that the message was garbled and that AI technology does make mistakes. In hindsight, it sounds as though Federighi would have announced these guidelines in separate messages with more detail about the photo search process.
Report Details Governor Cuomo's Pattern of Sexual Harassment
The New York State attorney general published a 165-page report detailing how Governor Andrew Cuomo has sexually harassed women for years and how a culture of “fear and intimidation” allowed his behavior to continue.
In addition to the report, other communications about the situation are interesting examples, particularly of persuasion:
Governor Cuomo’s video response
NY Times opinion calling for his resignation
What makes each of these messages credible—or not—is a rich topic of discussion. The report and other messages use details and examples to prove their points. In his video message, the governor intersperses images of him hugging and kissing many people. His strategy is to “normalize” and de-sexualize his behavior. However, the report describes incidents that go beyond these displays and concludes that the governor violated federal and New York State sexual harassment law.
Update: Governor Cuomo resigns. In a video, he explains his decision, which seemed inevitable.
Millennials Talk Openly About Salaries
According to a Wall Street Journal article, millennials don’t carry the salary baggage of previous generations. Growing up in the open world of social media, this generation is used to sharing information about themselves that older people might consider taboo. In addition to salaries, millennials talk about credit card debt, savings, and other financials.
The transparency is helpful to other people their age. Employees can negotiate for fair salaries and, in some cases, not feel shame around money because they know that others are either in similar situations or have advantages that they don’t enjoy. The article also cites examples of people feeling better about their circumstances knowing that others carry a lot of debt, while they choose not to.
The article reminds me of the idea of “radical transparency” practiced at Bridgewater Associates and, to a lesser degree, some other companies. Being open about employees’ performance and compensation can cause hard feelings but may encourage a greater degree of fairness.
Facebook Responds to President Biden's Criticism
Facebook is on the defensive after President Biden said the company is “killing people.” The president blamed Facebook for not managing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and, as a result, causing more deaths: “Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated. And they’re killing people.”
President Biden later softened his message, saying that information from about a dozen people is wrongly influencing people’s decisions: “Facebook isn’t killing people; these 12 people are out there giving misinformation. Anyone listening to it is getting hurt by it. It’s killing people. It’s bad information.”
In response, Facebook published a statement on its website, “Moving Past the Finger Pointing.” The writer, Guy Rosen, VP of Integrity, offers several points of evidence. He mentions partnerships with universities, the high vaccination rate among Facebook users (85%), and measures the company has taken, including promoting “authoritative information” and labeling “debunked” content.
Rosen disputes what is perhaps President Biden’s implied claim: that Facebook is the reason he missed his goal of having 70% of Americans vaccinated by July 4.
A New York Times Daily podcast analyzes the arguments and finds strengths and weaknesses on both sides. The reasons people don’t get vaccinated are complicated. At the same time, the reporter concludes, Facebook could do more to prevent the spread of misinformation.
This story is a good example of persuasion—and politics and business.
Shorter Meetings, but More of Them
According to a Wall Street Journal article, meetings are 20% shorter, but workers have more of them. Since the pandemic, everyone seems to want to “check in.” We check in on employees we don’t trust, and we want to keep people “in the loop” and engaged.
Managers also check in to convey empathy. We’re told to be caring during transitions, so that means more meetings.
Employees have had it. Even with the time reduction—20 minutes instead of 30, and 50 minutes instead of an hour—a lot of time is spent meeting, which is taking a toll on efficiency.
More Hope for Email’s Demise
A hopeful New York Times article surmises that Gen Z will save us all from email. The subtitle sums up the sentiment:
“It’s actually crazy how outdated it is.” People born after AOL Mail was invented seem to prefer to communicate in almost any other way.
The article cites a study that describes the many collaboration tools employees use every day—tools from different companies that aren’t necessarily sanctioned by their organization. An employee might use Google Docs, Zoom, Apple iMessage, and Microsoft PPT or some other combination of products. This chart shows what tools people under 30 use more frequently.
One 24-year-old said she uses “literally anything but email” when given the choice. Email is viewed as a cause of stress, particularly having to check it often and because it often means task delegation: an email brings something that needs to get done. Because email takes time away from other tasks, employees also feel interrupted, and research tells us people need about a minute to get back on track.
A FastCompany writer hypothesizes that the younger generation might finally kill email, and iMessage, rather than Slack or Microsoft Teams, might be the bullet. I’m skeptical, but like these articles, I remain hopeful. Being older, I don’t have the emotional baggage of email because that’s how I grew up. But I understand the grace and simplicity of Apple tools and welcome them at work.
Clear Line Charts
A New York Times opinion article illustrates the power of the line chart. With the title, “This Is Tax Evasion, Plain and Simple,” the author describes the U.S. corporate rate over time and compared to other countries.
The authors argue that countries have reduced corporate rates to compete for businesses, and over time, the rate has become too low. The chart at right compares the U.S. to other countries, while the chart below shows the change in U.S. wage and corporate taxes since 1950.
Additional charts show that companies have moved money to tax havens abroad, but economies and workers have not benefitted.
An economist and a writer and graphics editor paired up to produce the article. We see the influence of both—the data, plain language, and charts paint a vivid picture.
Blame the Intern
HBOMax customers received an email with the subject, "Integration Test Email #1,” that obviously wasn’t intended for them. In a follow-up email, the company blamed an intern for the mistake.
Twitter responses poured it to support and empathize with the intern. Embarrassing stories ranged from sending emails to big groups to typos. As an intern, someone replaced all “parties” to “panties” in a 50-page legal document (dare I say “brief”?).
The best was when Monica Lewinsky weighed in.
Interns make mistakes; we all do. Facing the situation with humility—the ability to learn—is the best approach. The HBOMax situation could have been a lot worse, and fortunately, the public turned it around to focus on the shared experience we have all had.
Free Speech Case
In an 8-to-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a high school cheerleader could use F-bombs on social media. The student was suspended from the team after posting a video and disparaging the team and the school. But the court upheld her right to free speech.
The justices did say that the school has the right to take action when a student’s behavior in person—or online—is disruptive to the classroom, but they didn’t believe that this case warranted the school’s decision.
This was an important decision but left the door open to other cases. As one attorney said, the decision was “common sense,” but others might be greyer and more complex.
Resume Gaps
A Wall Street Journal columnist tells us, “Don’t Sweat Your Pandemic Résumé Gap.” High school students have gotten a reprieve from taking some standardized tests for college applications, and that generosity seems to have extended to prospective employees. People faced all sorts of challenges during the pandemic, and this reporter argues that employers will let it slide.
A survey of recruiters found that 49% believe a gap is now acceptable instead of a red flag. Recruiters say you don’t need to over-explain a gap, which could be due to family obligations. Instead, have a concise statement prepared such as, “I was glad to spend time with my family, and now I’m excited to get back to work.”
It will look good if you attended classes or earned a certificate during your time off, but that isn’t essential. At the same time, the optimistic article offers a warning: more than two years out of the workforce makes it difficult to re-enter.
I’m glad to see this article and hope the sentiment extends beyond pandemic times. I am a bit concerned about the survey response. If 49% of recruiters will make allowances for time off, what about the other 51%? Of course, the news affects women more than men because women were more likely to be home during the pandemic.
Persuading Wall Street
The Wall Street Journal describes a hedge-fund manager’s decision to convince Wall Street investors to improve Exxon’s board oversight. A former coal mine owner, Christopher James spent $250 of personal funds to rally support from other fund managers and win three board seats to encourage environmental, social, and governance (ESG) changes at the company.
Exxon was vulnerable, and the timing was right. James created an organization, Engine, which wrote an open letter to Exxon and shareholders. The demands include “putting the Company on a path to net zero total emissions by 2050.”
James says his inspiration came from a conversation with his children:
The hedge-fund manager’s school-aged sons asked him how he could consider himself an environmentalist if he invested in energy companies, and Mr. James said he struggled with his explanation.
“As I was listening to myself talk, I thought `I am really splitting hairs on this.’” One of his sons, he said, “had this look on his face where his forehead wrinkled. He didn’t buy it.”
James also said, “I can get rid of this compartmentalization. I could realign my values with an investment thesis.”
This story is a great example of integrity and courage character dimensions. James is living his values and took action despite risks.
Grubhub's Goodwill Message
Grubhub is demonstrating gratitude with an ad directed primarily toward restaurants. The company benefitted greatly during a tough year for restaurants. During COVID restrictions, food delivery services did well, raising prices and cutting into restaurants’ margins. Grubhub and others have been criticized for hefty commissions and for listing restaurants on their sites when they weren’t affiliated with the service.
Now that restrictions are lifting, analysts predict that delivery services will continue to thrive. Still, an AdAge author notes that Grubhub needs to “remain relevant as in-person dining comes back.”
In the commercial, Grubhub speaks to restaurant workers:
“Here’s to you, restaurant. Thank you, from the bottom of our stomach. . . . Without you, we wouldn’t be Grubhub. We’d just be ‘hub.’”
Will the commercial ring false? Will it feel to restaurant owners and staff that Grubhub is manipulative or insincere? I don’t know. Obviously, the secondary audience is diners.
Senders of true goodwill messages, for example, messages of appreciation, don’t expect anything in return. Thank-you messages may bring about favor, but they are not intended for future reciprocation.
Popeyes Publishes Diversity Scorecard
Popeyes fast-food chain is publishing its diversity data related to marketing. The company will provide data about females and ethnic diversity among those represented in ads and members of creative teams, marketing departments, and external ad agencies.
With vivid colors and eye-catching graphics, the “scorecard” shows demographics at-a-glance. The chart is easy to understand and shows clearly where the company has more work to do. Text on the webpage admits deficiencies:
“We acknowledge our own lack of diversity and our commitment to be better, more diverse, and more inclusive. So today, we want to share our starting point.”
Text also draws conclusions for each group, for example, the ad teams:
“Our agency teams demonstrate the highest gender diversity of any pillar, but continue to lack in racial and ethnic diversity amongst Black/African-Americans.”
Popeyes’ approach is solid for improving diversity—and getting publicity. The Wall Street Journal article reflects well on the company. For the webpage, the “mandates” work well to identify targets, although they seem easily achievable. I don’t see on the webpage why diversity is important. Beyond the obvious—to increase market share—so what?
The scorecard is a good example of transparency but can be improved in other ways. A summary would give an overall percentage that can be tracked more easily over time. Also, I wonder about employees and partners who don’t identify as either male or female. Maybe that non-binary group could be represented as well.