Emails Show USC's Potential Role in the Admissions Scandal

Actress Lori Loughlin and her fashion-designer husband Mossimo Giannulli have been charged with bribing University of Southern California athletic officials to get their daughter admitted. Now emails from USC show that the school was courting them by asking for donations and arranging for personalized campus tours. In one email, a university official wrote, “I’d also be happy to flag her application.”

A New York Times article summarizes how accused parents plan to defend themselves against charges:

Motions by several of the defendants suggest they will argue, essentially, that they could not have defrauded the university, as prosecutors say, because the university was actively seeking such donations and offering a leg-up in admissions in return.

In a statement, USC downplayed the special treatment:

“What was being offered to the Giannullis was neither special nor unique. Tours, classroom visits and meetings are routinely offered. The primary purpose of a flag is to be able to track the outcome of the admission review process. It is not a substitute for otherwise being qualified for admission to USC.”

Parents are expected to say that their donations were legitimate, but USC is expected to say that the bribery was specific to the crew team official, who “agreed to pass the couple’s two daughters off as coxswains.”

Image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of this situation? Do you agree more with the parents’ or with the school’s perspective?

• What, if anything, do the school’s emails reveal? Consider this message to the parents: “Please let me know if I can be at all helpful in setting up a 1:1 opportunity for her, customized tour of campus for the family, and/or classroom visit?”

Carlos Ghosn's News Conference

Former head of Nissan Motor Co. and Renault SA Carlos Ghosn delivered a news conference from Lebanon after his escape from Japan. Ghosn was arrested in Tokyo in 2018 for misreporting income and misusing company funds. He left through a well-orchestrated exit in a box by private plane to his home country.

In what the Guardian calls “a lengthy and often rambling press conference in Beirut,” Ghosn spoke in four languages to defend himself. He criticized the Japanese criminal justice system and accused the Japanese government of working with Nissan executives to conspire against him.

Ghosn was adamant about his innocence:

“I don’t consider myself as a prisoner in Lebanon. I prefer this prison to the one before. I am ready to stay a long time in Lebanon, but I am going to fight because I have to clear my name.”

The Japan Times reports that the new conference “will have done little to turn the tide of public opinion in Japan and restore his reputation, which has been tainted by his alleged financial wrongdoing.” A former prosecutor in Japan said, “Ghosn didn’t have anything substantive to say. If he wants to restore trust, he shouldn’t do a self-absorbed speech like he did, but he should calmly make specific explanations and present evidence supporting those explanations.”

Discussion:

• Watch parts of the news conference. How well does Ghosn restore his image and prove his innocence?

• How should Ghosn communicate differently if he wants better outcomes?

WSJ Opinion About Boeing Emails

A Wall Street Journal writer argues that Boeing employee emails “explain nothing.” A previous WSJ article concluded that emails demonstrated a “cavalier attitude towards safety,” and a Reuters article concluded that employees “distrust the 737 MAX” and “mock regulators.”

The opinion writer, Holman Jenkins Jr., argues, “all of corporate America, not just Boeing, lives these days by employing creative, freethinking people who spout off acerbically, critically and colorfully in electronic messages.” Jenkins questions the reporting of these emails and what is omitted.

Jenkins also asks why these employees didn’t write about MCAS design flaws: “If the hypercritical people seen in these messages had known about MCAS’s design flaws, it never would have gotten through.” He also notes that the only emails referring to MCAS were from 2013, although system changes were made in 2016.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Read Jenkins’ article. What do you consider to be his strongest and weakest arguments?

• Based on his argument and your own reading of media reports, what’s your opinion about the significance of the emails?

• What issues of integrity does this situation raise?

Boeing Internal Documents Don't Reflect Well on Safety

The lead article in today’s The Wall Street Journal is titled, “Internal Boeing Documents Show Cavalier Attitude to Safety.” In 150 pages of emails and other documentation, employees worry that they don’t have enough time to correct safety issues and refer to regulators as “morons” and “stupider.”

In February 2018, one employee wrote, “Would you put your family on a MAX simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t.” A pilot wrote, “I still haven’t been forgiven by god for the covering up I did last year. Can’t do it one more time. Pearly gates will be closed.” Still another employee wrote, “This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys.”

A defense attorney argues that employees were just “blowing off steam” in their emails.

In the past few months, Boeing’s culture has come to light—once lauded as a place where people felt proud to work but now a place where people feel stressed and remorseful. CEO Doug Muilenberg has since been terminated and replaced temporarily by CFO Doug Smith.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Read more about the internal communications. What lessons can employees and their managers take away from this story?

• What’s your view of the emails? Do they indicate big problems at the company, or is the attorney right that employees are just venting to each other? How does the concept of “cherry picking” come into play?

• What should Boeing do to manage this situation? Consider this news in light of the company’s crisis communication planning you read about in another post.

Accountability in the News

Two situations this week remind us that CEOs should take accountability for mistakes in their companies.

On an investor call, Home Depot CEO Craig Menear said retail theft is on the rise:

“This is happening everywhere in retail. We think this ties to the opioid crisis, but we’re not positive about that.”

Menear faced criticism on Twitter for blaming the opioid crisis rather than taking responsibility for product loss at a warehouse.

On another call, Costco CFO Richard Galanti talked about losses because of a website crash:

"It was unfortunate. Despite all the efforts to have plenty of processing capacity, if you will, there was something that occurred." He also acknowledged, “[W]e did leave something on the table.”

In both situations, the executives could be more direct.

Discussion:

• Do you agree with my assessment? Why or why not?

• What evidence should Costco provide to back up its claim?

• What else could the executives have said differently? (Hint: Note Galanti’s use of passive voice.)

• In addition to accountability, what leadership character dimensions are illustrated by these examples?

JPMorgan Recorded Phone Conversation

Jimmy Kennedy, an African-American former National Football League player, tried to open a private wealth account at JPMorgan but had trouble getting attention. He recorded a conversation with an African-American employee, Richardo Peters, who said, “You’re bigger than the average person, period. And you’re also an African-American. We’re in Arizona. I don’t have to tell you about what the demographics are in Arizona. They don’t see people like you a lot.”

In a New York Times article that published the recording, Peters recounted a specific example of discrimination against a Black customer. When he was trying to bring on another new client, who had received a large settlement, his manager said, “You’ve got somebody who’s coming from Section 8, never had a nickel to spend, and now she’s got $400,000, What do you think’s going to happen with that money? It’s gone.” His manager’s position was that the customer would not invest money with the bank.

Other incidents at the bank led to Peters’ termination, and he is suing for racial discrimination. JPMorgan also recently settled a class-action lawsuit for $24 million to Black employees who claimed discrimination: according to a New York Times report, “in some cases by isolating them from colleagues and dumping them in poorer branches.”

A few days later, CEO Jamie Dimon addressed the situation in a memo to employees.

Discussion:

• How do you assess this situation at JPMorgan? Read more in the NYT article.

• A February Essence article describes and praises JPMorgan’s Advancing Black Pathways program to support the Black community. What’s your view of the effort in light of this news?

• How do you assess CEO Jamie Dimon’s response in the memo? We don’t see the entire memo, but CNBC posted quotes.

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):

View fullsize

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?

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?

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

Image source.

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?

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.

Taubman image source.

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?

LeBron James Enters the Tweet Debate

As the NBA struggles to recover after Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong protesters, LeBron James questioned Morey’s choice:

“Yes, we all do have freedom of speech. But, at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others, when you’re only thinking about yourself. . . . I believe he wasn’t educated on the situation at hand, and he spoke. And so many people could have been harmed, not only financially, but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful. . . .”

The Wall Street Journal reports that people were “stunned” by his comment because James is typically careful about his public comments.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of James’ commenting on the situation? Should he have avoided commenting? Why or why not?

• What’s your view of his comments? How well did he handle the situation?

• What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by James’ comments?

NBA Tweetstorm

The NBA is thrust into a political quagmire after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of the Hong Kong protesters: '“Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.” The tweet has since been deleted.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is dancing a line between protecting Morey’s free speech and staving off China’s backlash. Critics say the league is driven by profit instead of principle. He has tried to clarify his position:

“It is inevitable that people around the world — including from America and China — will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences. However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way.”

At this point, The Wall Street Journal reports better news:

“The situation appears to have de-escalated. After a week of blistering anti-NBA rhetoric in Chinese media, the government is signaling that it’s time to cool it, a message that includes the vitriol directed at the Rockets, according to one person familiar with the situation.”

But the Journal also acknowledges: “China’s love affair with the Rockets might not be the same again.”

Discussion:

• Should Morey have avoided sending the tweet? Why or why not?

• How do you assess the league’s response to the situation?

• Analyze Silver’s news conference. What did he do well, and what could he have done differently?

Layoffs Planned at WeWork

After a failed IPO and questions about its leadership and financials, WeWork is planning to downsize. New co-CEOs Artie Minson and Sebastian Gunningham warned employees to expect layoffs but said they will be handled “humanely.”

The new leadership had already prepared employees: "While we anticipate difficult decisions ahead, each decision will be made with rigorous analysis, always bearing in mind the company's long-term interest and health." The new information gives employees a better sense of what will come.

But news stories aren’t consistent. Fortune reports 2,000 layoffs or about 16% of WeWork employees affected, while Dice reports 5,000. Dice acknowledges differences in reporting.

Affected employees could be in business segments that will be spun off, so they may still have a job. WeWork may try to sell Meetup, Managed by Q, and Conductor brands.

Discussion:

• Assess WeWork’s communications to employees so far. Even if the percentage were clear, the number of layoffs may change. Are the new leaders doing the right thing in giving an estimate now?

• Employees know layoffs are coming “soon.” Should they have more specific dates? Consider whether this is a good idea.

https://fortune.com/2019/09/25/wework-new-ceos-memo-employees/

WeWork: "Humbler"

Several articles in the past few weeks have scolded WeWork CEO Adam Neumann and the investors who followed his story.

The Wall Street Journal was the first to describe Neumann’s odd behavior and published another article, “WeWork Investors Turned Off by ‘Sloppy’ IPO Filings.” The recent article explains one problem in the filings (shown below):

“A section headed ‘illustrative annual economics’ that assumed 100% workstation utilization vanished, for example, as did two graphs portraying a typical location going from ‘-$’ to ‘+$,’ with no y-axis showing the actual dollar amounts being depicted.”

A New York Times article, “Was WeWork Ever Going to Work?” criticizes investors for missing obvious problems with the company’s initial business plan, such as the reliance on start-up revenue when most entrepreneurial ventures fail. According to this report, it took people finally looking at the data to realize how much We is losing and how hard it will be for the company to succeed.

The article includes other examples of investors’ blind exuberance:

“It is not merely money that separates the ruling class from the rest of the country. Often it seems as if it is the gaping difference in the application of common sense. Ultimately, it was the bankers, technocrats, statesmen and acolytes of the data-junkie class who were willing to believe that Elizabeth Holmes, a 19-year-old college dropout who thought a black turtleneck would make her Steve Jobs, was going to revolutionize blood-testing. It didn’t seem to matter that she could not deliver any real evidence to prove it.”

An Inc. article, “The Future of WeWork: Leaner, Humbler, and Duller,” suggests a new path for We. The author suggests less hype, fewer employees, and more discipline for the company to survive.

WeWork image source.

Discussion:

• Who do you blame for WeWork’s failed IPO?

• If you believe the New York Times article, investors are gullible. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why might this be the case?

• Read the “Note”—the fine print—under the table, shown above. How do you interpret this information?

• What should We do now to build credibility and save the business?