Pope Francis's Letter

Pope Francis has joined the conversation about sexual abuse in the Catholic church after 1,000 victims and 300 perpetrators were identified by a grand jury investigation report in Pennsylvania. The report also revealed how the church systematically covered up the abuse over a 70-year period.

In an open letter, which is posted on Vatican News, expresses empathy early and often, for example, in this passage:

In recent days, a report was made public which detailed the experiences of at least a thousand survivors, victims of sexual abuse, the abuse of power and of conscience at the hands of priests over a period of approximately seventy years. Even though it can be said that most of these cases belong to the past, nonetheless as time goes on we have come to know the pain of many of the victims.  We have realized that these wounds never disappear and that they require us forcefully to condemn these atrocities and join forces in uprooting this culture of death; these wounds never go away. The heart-wrenching pain of these victims, which cries out to heaven, was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced.  

Pope Francis's letter follows one by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, when abuse in Ireland became widely known.

Discussion:

• Compare the two letters. In what ways are they similar and different? How might the circumstance and timing affect each approach?
• How is the letter organized? How would you describe the tone?
• Which character dimensions does Pope Francis demonstrate in his letter?

The Debate Over Quarterly Reporting

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

Maryland Apologizes for Football Player's Death

University of Maryland at College Park has taken responsibility for mistakes during training that caused a football player's death. During a news conference, President Wallace D. Loh said he met with the student's parents to apologize. After the investigation, Loh concluded:

"The University accepts legal and moral responsibility for the mistakes that our training-staff made on that fateful workout day." And to the parents, "You entrusted Jordan to our care, and he is never returning home again."

Such an admission is unusual and welcome in light of cover-ups and shifting blame.

As a result of this incident, the head coach was placed on leave and another coach, Rick Court, has left the university. Court had been accused of "name calling and other intimidation," according to a Chronicle report.

Some are calling for Loh's resignation as well. Trouble started with the athletics director around the same time. Loh has publicly expressed concerns about how these situations might affect his presidency:

“That’s the sad part,” he said. “I think most presidents have to hold on for dear life. Many, many presidents have not been able to bounce back.”

Discussion:

• In what ways does Loh make himself and the University vulnerable, and how might this work in their favor?
• Did Loh do the right thing? Should he resign?
• Assess Loh's news conference. What does he do well, and what could he improve?
• How well does Loh express compassion during the news conference?

Sacha Baron Cohen: Questions of Ethics and Integrity

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

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

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

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

Cover image.

Discussion:

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

What Is "Dehumanizing" Speech?

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Discussion:

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

Fun Funeral Ads?

Death is inevitable, and we don't like to talk about it. A UK company is trying to change that with "edgy" ads, for example, people running on a beach carrying coffins as surfboards.

The ads are causing a stir. Transport for London, which regulates the city's ads, rejected them as  potentially causing “serious and widespread offense," although officials hadn't actually seen the ads. Still, on social media, people referred to the ads as "shocking,” “vile,” “insensitive,” and “tasteless.”

The ads compare burial and cremation prices, and one offers "one-way" travel with "roasting temperatures." The ad company founder defended the approach:

“Our reluctance to talk about death is the reason funeral costs continue to spiral and why you pay far too much for writing a will or settling an estate. That’s what we seek to change.”

Discussion:

• Why do we have a difficult time talking about death?
• How would you describe the ads and the agency's strategy?
• Could the ad strategy bring about a positive change? Will the ads bring in business?
• What if these ads ran in the U.S.? How, if at all, do you think the response might differ?

CEO Activism

Weber Shandwick's third annual report explores CEO activism, which Brian Moynihan, CEO Bank of America, defines and supports:

“Our jobs as CEOs now include driving what we think is right. It’s not exactly political activism, but it is action on issues beyond business.”

The report found that almost half of Americans "believe CEO activism influences the decisions and actions of government," and almost half of consumers "would be more likely to buy from a company led by a CEO who speaks out on an issue they agree with." Millennials, particularly, prefer CEOs to speak out on issues, and CEOs with more social media accounts have better stock performance for their company.

A Wall Journal Street writer observes that leaders rarely make a business case for issues, even if their company would benefit. Instead, they are speaking to consumers directly to change hearts and minds.

Top issues for CEOs include training, equal pay and sexual harassment, and CEOs are avoiding gun control, nationalism, marijuana legalization, and abortion."

A Forbes article offers this advice for CEOs:

• Develop an authentic voice and quick actions
• Connect your customers with your activism efforts
• Align activism efforts with a company’s mission  
• Be willing to act against your own self-interest

Discussion:

• What are the risks and rewards of activism to a CEO and to the company? How does integrity factor in?
• What examples have you seen of CEOs speaking out? How do you assess the situations? How did you feel about the gestures?
• Read the Weber PPT deck. What principles of business report writing are followed, and what could be improved?

When an Online Conversation Goes Bad

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

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

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

Cover image.

Discussion:

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

Professor Fakes Offer Letter

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

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

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

Image source.

Discussion:

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

Papa John's Founder Resigns

Papa John's founder and chairman John Schnatter resigned after using the "N-word" on a conference call. This may have been the last straw for the executive, who sparked controversy about NFL players "taking a knee" during the national anthem. Schnatter blamed league players and leadership for declining viewership he linked to declining pizza sales. Muddying the issue, Schnatter won unwanted support from some neo-Nazis.

This incident involved Laundry Service, a marketing firm that was helping Schnatter navigate future PR crises. During a role play, Schnatter said, “Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s." His point was that the KFC chairman didn't face any backlash. A Forbes article details more of the conversation:

"Schnatter also reflected on his early life in Indiana, where, he said, people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died. He apparently intended for the remarks to convey his antipathy to racism, but multiple individuals on the call found them to be offensive, a source familiar with the matter said. After learning about the incident, Laundry Service owner Casey Wasserman moved to terminate the company’s contract with Papa John’s."

In a statement, Schnatter apologized: 

"News reports attributing the use of inappropriate and hurtful language to me during a media training session regarding race are true. Regardless of the context, I apologize. Simply stated, racism has no place in our society."

Image source.

Cover image source.

Discussion:

• A Netflix executive resigned after a similar situation. What differences do you see in these two situations, and do they matter in  terms of the resulting resignations?
• Papa John's next challenge is how to distance itself from Schnatter, whose face is on the pizza boxes. Should the image be removed? Why or why not?

Report Concludes that Amazon Is "Delivering Hate"

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

Scott Pruitt Resigns

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

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

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

Inappropriate or Untimely Request

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

Obvious or Annoying Question

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

Overwhelming Request or Question

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

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

Image source.

Discussion:

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

Barnes and Noble CEO Gets Fired

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

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

Perhaps unusually, the statement emphasizes legal counsel:

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

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

Cover image source.

Parneros image source.

Discussion:

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

Intel CEO Resigns Over Relationship With Employee

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

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

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

Image source.

Discussion:

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

Netflix Comms Officer Out After Using Racial Epithet

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

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

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

For his part, Friedland apologized on Twitter.

Discussion:

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

Email Edits at MSU

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Discussion:

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

Tonys Recap: Speeches and Politics

As usual, the annual Tony awards was a star-studded night with fancy clothes and big celebrities. But this year, the show got political.

Most significantly—or most viral—was Robert De Niro's "F-bomb" preceding President Trump's name. He received a highly positive reaction from the Hollywood audience, with people cheering and standing. The comment, which De Niro repeated, was censored in the United States, but an Australian feed let it roll, so it's available in full on YouTube.

A highlight of the night was hearing graduating students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, where a shooter recently killed 17 people and left more injured. Students sang "Seasons of Love" from "Rent" and encouraged us to "measure your life in love." A Washington Post article referred to this segment as "the most moving moment" of the night.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of De Niro's outburst: inappropriate, inspiring, or something else?
• How would you respond to the same question about the high school students?
• One could argue that De Niro is "just being his authentic self." How would you respond to this perspective?

Valedictorian's Speech About Sexual Assault Is Cut Short

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

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

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

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

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

The school responded with a short statement:

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

Discussion:

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

More About the Roseanne Situation

Reactions to Roseanne's tweets and her firing raise interesting questions about communication. Let's look at decisions and responses from five groups: cast members, ABC executives, conservatives, the makers of Ambien, and President Trump.

Cast Members

Perhaps the most immediate and vocal reaction came from Sara Gilbert, who plays one of Roseanne's daughters on the show. Although she likely has a lot to lose, Gilbert did not hesitate in expressing her anger at Roseanne's tweet about Valerie Jarrett. 

ABC Executives

A New York Times article sheds more light on ABC's decision to cancel the show. Channing Dungey, appointed to lead ABC Entertainment in 2016, is the first African-American woman in such a senior leadership role at a network. With this decision, which was supported by more senior-level executives at ABC, Dungey has made her mark and won praise from other entertainment executives.

Conservatives

Political conservatives support Roseanne and blast the media and firing for silencing her voice. A writer for InfoWars, which has connections to radio host Alex Jones, referred to Roseanne's extraordinary ratings and the "PC police." Conservatives see this as another example of censorship of the right.

Ambien

After the firing, Roseanne returned to Twitter and seemed to blame sleep drug Ambien for her comments: "It was 2 in the morning and I was ambien tweeting." The drug maker Sanofi responded quickly to defend its "side effects."

President Trump

The president also has jumped into the conversation, which contradicted his press secretary's claim: "That's not what he's spending his time on." President Trump's tweet took aim at CEO Bob Iger: 

"Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that 'ABC does not tolerate comments like those' made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn't get the call?"

The president and Roseanne are mutual fans.

Discussion:

• Which, if any, of these reactions surprise you?
• Assess Ambien's response. How well did the company defend the brand?
• Should President Trump have involved himself in this situation? Why or why not?