Helping Students Negotiate Salary

With more companies posting salary ranges, students may have an easier time negotiating job offers. New laws in California, New York, and Colorado require companies to be more transparent, and the hope is to reduce gender and racial inequities. Advice from Business Communication and Character, 11e (Chapter 14), follows. Asking for more requires courage, so students need encouragement and practice.

Consider the entire package. Negotiating an increase in salary is best because annual merit increases will build on a larger base every year. But the compensation and benefits package also could include bonus and equity (company stock) pay, healthcare benefits, relocation assistance, tuition reimbursement, sign-on bonus—and other aspects of the job that you may value, such as how much time you can work from home, the start date, and so on. Think about what is most important to you and where the company might have flexibility. For example, vacation time and retirement plans may be fixed for every new hire at your level, but a hiring manager might have more leeway with relocation, a sign-on bonus, and remote work options.

Know your value. Review your resume and focus on your skills and accomplishments related to the job and company. Be confident about what you bring to the table. People in dominant identity groups may have an easier time with this idea, which partly explains the gender pay gap in the United States and elsewhere.

Research starting salaries. Explore your college’s career management office, Glassdoor, PayScale, Salary.com, and other sites to determine the likely range for the position and location. You might share your offer with other students; people are surprisingly willing to talk about their finances today, and transparency helps reduce the pay gap. Keep your expectations realistic. You can ask a recruiter about a salary range—but not too early in the process. Negotiations typically don’t start until after you have a job offer. If asked about your requirements, try to get a salary range from the employer first, so you don’t “low-ball” yourself.

Highlight your assets. When you begin to negotiate, give concrete examples, for example, similar work and accomplishments at other companies. Think about why the employer should pay you more. Often, they are looking for your motivation level. In other words, how can you prove—with evidence—that you’ll work harder than other employees and, therefore, be worth the extra compensation? Avoid talking about your needs, for example, student loans; other than relocation, an employer will pay more for what you can contribute—not for your expenses.

Decide on your approach. Include all your requests up front so the employer doesn’t get frustrated and feel manipulated when you negotiate each term separately. If you don’t get the salary or other terms you request, what will you do? Be clear about what you’re willing to compromise and at what point you will decline the offer.

Practice. Practice what you’ll say with friends and others to address counterarguments and hold your ground. You don’t need to apologize (“Sorry to bother you with this. I know you’re busy”). Instead, adopt a confident, persuasive, yet friendly tone (“I’m very excited about the position and joining the team, and I know I’ll bring a lot of value to the table, particularly because of my experience at ___ [or something relevant you accomplished]. I'm wondering if we can explore a slightly higher starting salary of $ ___”). Your goal is to convince the employer, without sounding too demanding, that you’re worth the extra compensation.

Resume Cakes and Other Attention-Getters

Every couple of years an attention-getting resume goes viral, and students might wonder what they could do to get eyes on their job application. This time, we see a cake with a resume screen printed in the icing, sent to Nike headquarters.

The lesson for students is the same: creative approaches for creative jobs might work but are probably not appropriate for more conversative positions or industries. I also wonder, despite the reports on programs like Good Morning America, how often these ideas turn into job offers. A couple have, but I imagine that companies don’t want to encourage a lot of cakes, which, because of safety concerns, are probably discarded.

This story doesn’t have a happy job ending but became about the Instacart driver who carried the cake—and her 8-month-old son—around Nike’s campus to hand deliver the cake. It’s inspiring to see the lengths people will go for their dream job and how determined people can be. But I would encourage students to find other ways to differentiate themselves in the job market.

Uber's Response to Hack

What sounds like a major security breach is getting minimal response from Uber so far. A hacker, possibly 18 years old, apparently posed as a colleague to get IT access through an employee. An embarrassment to the company, the breach could include “full access to the cloud-based systems where Uber stores sensitive customer and financial data.” But Uber communications are trying to minimize the impact.

Three days after the breach, the only message I can find is a “Security Update,” copied below, on Uber’s Newsroom page. Company leaders are likely scrambling to lock down and protect information, but more communication is important. Criticism is harsh because of how easily the hacker appears to have duped an employee through social engineering and because of the unfortunate timing: Uber’s former chief security officer is currently on trial for paying hackers $100,000 to avoid disclosing a breach back in 2016.

The communication and situation are challenging, but people are watching and waiting, as we see in these tweets. This situation raises issues of several character dimensions, for example, accountability, humility, integrity, and courage. With more transparency, the company might be less vulnerable now, not more, as the leaders might fear.

---

September 16, 10:30am PT

While our investigation and response efforts are ongoing, here is a further update on yesterday’s incident:

• We have no evidence that the incident involved access to sensitive user data (like trip history).

• All of our services including Uber, Uber Eats, Uber Freight, and the Uber Driver app are operational.

• As we shared yesterday, we have notified law enforcement.

• Internal software tools that we took down as a precaution yesterday are coming back online this morning.

September 15, 6:25pm PT

We are currently responding to a cybersecurity incident. We are in touch with law enforcement and will post additional updates here as they become available.

Google Employee Petition

Google employees are petitioning for the company to stop collecting abortion-related data. The concern comes after Roe v. Wade was overturned, which could put women who search for abortion services in jeopardy.

Launched in January 2021, Alphabet Workers' Union is driving the petition, now signed by more than 650 employees. The group is asking Google to refrain from turning data about searches and illegal abortions over to authorities, as Facebook did; to omit “misleading ‘pregnancy crisis centers’” in search results, including maps, which often lead to anti-abortion centers; to stop donations and lobbying entirely; and more.

As tech employee activism becomes more prevalent, employees feel more empowered to demonstrate courage. I don’t see the entire petition, but I wonder whether employees are asking for too much, particularly an end to all lobbying and political donations. A more focused, realistic request of actions that show the company’s leadership among tech companies could be more effective.

Although the petition was sent to CEO Sundar Pichai and other executives on Monday, the group hadn’t received a response by Thursday. Company leaders are called on to demonstrate integrity—transparency in communication and consistency with company principles. This is also an opportunity to lead with humility and to show a willingness to be vulnerable because this is a highly sensitive issue with no clear answers. Although a difficult situation to address, leaders must respond, particularly before the story becomes about the lack of response.

Quiet Quitting and Communication

I wonder whether “quiet quitting” is a communication cop out. TikToker @zkchillin describes the term as “quitting the idea of going above and beyond at work.” He explains, “You’re still performing your duties, but you’re no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life. The reality is, it’s not.”

This sounds like having a work-life balance, and I’m all for it. But the hyperbolic language (and alliteration) makes me curious about how this decision gets communicated. In professional jobs, position descriptions are flexible documents, with the last bullet typically, “other duties as assigned.” How do employees decline responsibilities, particularly tasks they were expected to—and had been willing to—perform in the past?

If an employee feels overburdened, it’s their responsibility to raise concerns over time. That takes courage and integrity and is a more mature and direct strategy than what sounds like passive-aggressively not doing work. Without that conversation, when output is compared to previous work, the employee will appear to be slacking even if they are meeting job responsibilities.

What is the impact on others? If tasks are openly renegotiated, then a team could work more efficiently. Instead, “quiet quitting” misses this opportunity and implies that some work might get tossed to other team members.

I also wonder how long this strategy will last if layoffs become more prevalent in a down economy. Employees have the upper hand now, but that won’t always be the case.

Meta Explains Chatbot Offense

Meta’s new artificial intelligence software is already failing. The chatbot, BlenderBot 3, seems to believe Jewish conspiracy theories and that President Trump won the 2020 election, as shown in the conversation here.

Meta is focusing on BlenderBot 3’s pilot status and requires users to accept a statement before they interact:

I understand this bot is for research and entertainment only, and that is likely to make untrue or offensive statements. If this happens, I pledge to report these issues to help improve future research. Furthermore, I agree not to intentionally trigger the bot to make offensive statements.

The company describes BlenderBot 3 as a “state-of-the-art conversational agent that can converse naturally with people” and claims that feedback will improve how the bot interacts:

Since all conversational AI chatbots are known to sometimes mimic and generate unsafe, biased or offensive remarks, we’ve conducted large-scale studies, co-organized workshops and developed new techniques to create safeguards for BlenderBot 3. Despite this work, BlenderBot can still make rude or offensive comments, which is why we are collecting feedback that will help make future chatbots better.

As we learned from other messages this past week, company leaders are pushing back on complaints and asking customers to be patient. We’ll see whether Meta’s strategy of managing expectations turns out better for Blender than Microsoft’s response to complaints about its 2016 chatbot, which was removed after making anti-Semitic, racist, and sexist comments. Meta asks us for feedback, but I’d rather get offended by humans and invest my time in educating them instead of a bot.

Companies Navigate Comms After Roe v. Wade

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, women’s constitutional right to have an abortion, companies are faced with thorny decisions about whether and how to communicate. Leaders have become more vocal on social issues, for example, gay marriage and Black Lives Matter, but this situation may be more complicated.

Several companies have expanded their health care coverage to include travel for medical procedures, but they avoid the word “abortion.” For example, Disney sent an email to staff:

“We have processes in place so that an employee who may be unable to access care in one location has affordable coverage for receiving similar levels of care in another location,” including, “family planning (including pregnancy-related decisions).”

Other companies were more direct. Back in April, after the Texas ruling that limited abortions, Yelp’s chief diversity officer said, “We want to be able to recruit and retain employees wherever they might be living,” She raised the issue of equity—access for employees who may not have the funds to travel. She also said, “The ability to control your reproductive health, and whether or when you want to extend your family, is absolutely fundamental to being able to be successful in the workplace,”

Starbucks, facing unionization efforts and staffing issues, sent three letters to partners during the past few months and posted them publicly. Each uses the word “abortion” and acknowledges different views on the subject and that some may feel “disheartened or in shock.”

How companies approach these communications reflects their business, employee base, location, and culture. We might expect Starbucks, whose founder and current interim CEO Howard Schultz has consistently been vocal on controversial issues. Starbucks leaders demonstrated courage, vulnerability, compassion, and integrity—standing up for what they believe is right, despite strong feelings on the other side.

Business Communication and Character Lessons from Jan. 6 Hearings

Not every faculty member will want to talk about the United States House Select Committee hearings about the January 6, 2021, attack on the capitol. At the time, some public school teachers were instructed not to “wade into” the events. But for faculty who are willing to take a degree of risk, the hearings serve as excellent illustrations of business communication principles and leadership character dimensions. Following are a few examples.

BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Media Choice: The committee chooses different media for different purposes. Students can evaluate why they might have chosen text, interviews, scripts, live or recorded witness testimony, video, etc. and how effective each is for the purpose.

Delivery Style: Committee representatives and witnesses demonstrate a variety of delivery styles. Some are more natural/conversational or scripted than others. What is the impact of William Barr’s use of a profanity (“b—s—”)?

Claims and Evidence: The committee uses a variety of evidence to prove their claims about former President Trump’s role in trying to overturn the election. For example, the fourth hearing describes voting data in Georgia and Arizona. Students could evaluate, for any of the seven claims, which evidence was strongest and weakest. We also see examples of balancing emotional appeal (for example, Ruby Freeman’s and Shaye Moss’s testimony in the fourth hearing), logical arguments (for example, the testimony in the second hearing about laws and constitutional restrictions on former Vice President Pence’s ability to refuse to certify votes), and credibility (for example, the committee shows a link for viewers to see witness bios online). See a summary of evidence here.

Organization: The committee is trying to prove that former President Trump had a seven-part plan (listed below) to overturn the election. The points are written using message titles (or talking headings) and serve as the committee’s claims. At the beginning of each hearing, committee leaders preview the claim and evidence.

Q&A: Although some of the questions are clearly scripted, students can analyze types of questions asked and how witnesses respond. They may find notable differences between recorded and live testimony.

Email Privacy: Once again, we learn the lesson that emails, text messages, and voicemails may be made public during legal investigations; any communication is discoverable.

CHARACTER

Vulnerability: Several witnesses demonstrate vulnerability; they risk emotional exposure in addition to the targeting and harassment they already experienced.

Humility: We see former President Trump’s lack of humility in his unwillingness to accept failure or defeat.

Compassion: Committee members are compassionate when interacting with witnesses, although we see minimal emotion.

Integrity: The committee contrasts integrity of witnesses with that of former President Trump.

Courage: By participating on the committee, Republican members risk backlash from colleagues and constituents; witnesses demonstrate courage by contradicting former President Trump’s claims and, in some cases, his demands.

Accountability: Witnesses stand by their decisions, for example, in refusing to overturn election results.

Authenticity: Some witnesses and committee members come across as more “genuine” than others.

---

Here are the committee’s main claims:

Trump attempted to convince Americans that significant levels of fraud had stolen the election from him despite knowing that he had, in fact, lost the 2020 election:

1. Trump had knowledge that he lost the 2020 election, but spread misinformation to the American public and made false statements claiming significant voter fraud led to his defeat;

2. Trump planned to remove and replace the Attorney General and Justice Department officials in an effort to force the DOJ to support false allegations of election fraud;

3. Trump pressured Vice President Pence to refuse certified electoral votes in the official count on January 6th, in violation of the U.S. Constitution;

4. Trump pressured state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results in his favor;

5. Trump’s legal team and associates directed Republicans in seven states to produce and send fake "alternate" electoral slates to Congress and the National Archives;

6. Trump summoned and assembled a destructive mob in Washington and sent them to march on the U.S. Capitol; and

7. Trump ignored multiple requests to speak out in real-time against the mob violence, refused to instruct his supporters to disband and failed to take any immediate actions to halt attacks on the Capitol.

PGA Commissioner Sends Letter to Suspend Golfers

After a new golf tour has wooed Professional Golfers’ Association players, the association announced that they are no longer eligible to play in the PGA. The commissioner’s letter is an example of bad news for those who accepted the opportunity from the LIV Golf Invitational Series, a Saudi-backed organization, and it’s an example of persuasive communication for those who might consider doing the same.

In his letter, Commissioner Jay Monahan justifies the decision, using the word “regulations” several times. He mentions that players didn’t get proper releases for the conflict and blames players for making a “choice for their own financial-based reasons.” Monahan also appeals to a wide audience when he writes, “But they can’t demand the same PGA Tour membership benefits, considerations, opportunities and platform as you. That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners.”

Monahan uses strong language throughout and calls out specific players at the end of the letter, which players received while they were in the middle of a tournament. He demonstrates courage by facing some backlash, and he demonstrates some vulnerability by acknowledging, “What’s next? Can these players come back?”

The PGA is also holding players accountable, although not everyone agrees. In a statement, LIV Golf calls the decision “vindictive” and promises further action. The brief tweet is a notable counterweight to the PGA’s two-page letter. Students may analyze both in terms of tone, audience focus, content choices, and organization.

Argument for Public Health Approach to Reduce Shootings

After the tragic shooting at a Texas elementary school, pundits are proposing ways to finally reduce gun deaths. A New York Times opinion article, with graphics, describes a public health approach, which is different from what Nicholas Kristof calls the “liberal approach” of gun control.

The article is a good example of persuasive communication with descriptive message titles and infographics to illustrate each main point. Kristof summarizes his ideas in a 3 X 3 matrix.

In addition to his mix of text of graphics, Kristof uses strong language throughout, including the ending: “So let’s not just shed tears for the dead, give somber speeches and lower flags. Let’s get started and save lives.” I find the balance of logical argument, emotional appeal, credibility (logos, pathos, ethos) appropriate, but others might disagree.

Questions for business communication students might be, does Kristof demonstrate both courage and compassion, and how well do the graphics illustrate the main points of Kristof’s argument?

Spirit Airlines Appeals to Shareholders

Spirit Airlines is trying to persuade shareholders to approve a merger with Frontier Airlines (and reject a hostile takeover bid from JetBlue). Communications on the website, evenmoreultralowfares.com, don’t mention JetBlue’s bid at all:

• Website

• Slide deck

• FAQs

• Infographic

These messages illustrate adapting information to different genres. As we read each, we see clear, repeated main points—more cost savings for customers and value for shareholders. The company also promises promises more career opportunities and greater job stability for team members. In short, “Everyone wins.” The slide deck is a particularly good example for business communication students to analyze.

In a press release, Spirit confirms the plan with Frontier and encourages shareholders to reject JetBlue’s bid. But the messages on the website, above, remain unchanged. I was expecting to see a clearer comparison, but Spirit’s approach seems to be offensive rather than defensive.

Amazon Insults an Employee

Amazon’s Staten Island, NY, warehouse is the company’s first to unionize. The vote is momentous and could start a wave of activity in other Amazon facilities.

Similar to their response at other facilities, for example, Bessemer, Alabama, company leaders used aggressive tactics to fight the union. In this case, the employee leading the effort, Christian Smalls demonstrated all the markings of a courageous leader. But a leaked email from the general counsel shows the company’s response to him personally:

“He’s not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how we’re trying to protect workers.”

“Not smart” is insulting and obviously inaccurate. “Articulate” is also highly inaccurate—and stings with racism. Amazon underestimated its employees, but the battle is not over.

Amazon is trying to get the decision overturned. Company leaders might demonstrate vulnerability and humility at this point instead.

image source.

Will Smith's Apology

The 2022 Academy Awards ceremony was eventful, with Chris Rock referencing Jada Smith’s appearance and her husband, Will Smith, hitting Rock on stage. Jada Smith has spoken openly about having alopecia, a hair loss condition. Rock’s joke clearly hit a nerve with her husband.

From the audience, Smith cursed at Rock, who continued with his presentation. Later, Smith gave a tearful acceptance speech for Best Actor in a Leading Role, comparing himself to the character he played, Serena and Venus Williams’ father: they both protected their family. He apologized to his fellow nominees and the Academy but not to Rock. The next day, he posted a fuller apology on Instagram, mentioning Rock first.

The Academy tweeted a pat response, “The Academy does not condone violence of any form. Tonight we are delighted to celebrate our 94th Academy Awards winners, who deserve this moment of recognition from their peers and movie lovers around the world.” I don’t see any response from Rock yet.

The rest of the ceremony was awkward, and host Amy Schumer made a joke, “Did I miss something? There's like, a different vibe in here....” Her idea was probably to call out what was obvious.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the situation. Was Rock’s joke about “G.I. Jane 2” over the top? Was Smith’s response appropriate? Should he have been prevented from speaking after that point? Should the Academy do more?

The situation is complex and calls us to explore issues of character, for example, compassion, courage, authenticity, accountability, and vulnerability.

Company Responses to the Russian War on Ukraine

Whether and how companies respond to the Russian war on Ukraine presents a case study in leadership character and communication. A New York Times article describes a Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister’s messaging to persuade companies to take action. Mykhailo Fedorov is using social media to call out specific companies—sometimes complimenting their response, for example, closing stores or cutting off services to Russian citizens, and sometimes calling for them to do more.

Fedorov’s tweets, particularly, chronicle what companies are doing and what, in his opinion, is left to do. The NYT article summarizes Fedorov’s strategy:

“The work has made Mr. Fedorov one of Mr. Zelensky’s most visible lieutenants, deploying technology and finance as modern weapons of war. In effect, Mr. Fedorov is creating a new playbook for military conflicts that shows how an outgunned country can use the internet, crypto, digital activism and frequent posts on Twitter to help undercut a foreign aggressor.”

The Ukrainians are using every weapon they can. Technology and persuasive communication, including questioning leaders’ character, are now front and center.

For examples of how companies are supporting Ukraine, see Anthony Winslow’s LinkedIn article.

Arguments in the Joe Rogan, Spotify Situation

A few musicians and podcast creators are leaving Spotify over controversy about “The Joe Rogan Experience,” a popular show that has included misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations. Comparing messages from different points of view is an interesting look at persuasive arguments and raises issues of character. Here are a few to explore:

• Spotify’s stance is explained in this statement and may be summarized as follows from the chief executive and co-founder: “I think the important part here is that we don’t change our policies based on one creator nor do we change it based on any media cycle, or calls from anyone else.” Spotify also created a COVID information hub.

• Neil Young removed his music, which had hundreds of millions of views, and explained his rationale in a letter (since removed from his website): “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.”

• Crosby, Stills, and Nash followed suit and posted their reason on Twitter: “We support Neil and agree with him that there is dangerous disinformation being aired on Spotify’s Joe Rogan podcast. While we always value alternate points of view, knowingly spreading disinformation during this global pandemic has deadly consequences. Until real action is taken to show that a concern for humanity must be balanced with commerce, we don’t want our music—or the music we made together—to be on the same platform.”

• Roxane Gay explained her decision to remove “The Roxane Gay Agenda” in a New York Times opinion letter. In closing, she wrote, “I am not trying to impede anyone’s freedom to speak. Joe Rogan and others like him can continue to proudly encourage misinformation and bigotry to vast audiences. They will be well rewarded for their efforts. The platforms sharing these rewards can continue to look the other way. But today at least, I won’t.”

• Bréne Brown “paused” her two podcasts and wrote that she is waiting for more information: “I’ve enjoyed the creative collaboration with Spotify, and I appreciate how the leadership has shown up in our meetings over the past week. Now that Spotify has published its misinformation policy, and the policy itself appears to address the majority of my concerns, I’m in the process of learning how the policy will be applied. I’m hopeful that the podcasts will be back next week.” As you might expect, Brown demonstrates vulnerability, including negative, personal comments she has received about the issue.

• Joe Rogan apologized in a 10-minute Instagram video, promising to “balance out viewpoints with other people’s perspectives.”

UPDATE: A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur has emerged, and he apologized—again.

BlackRock CEO Defends Focus

Investment firm BlackRock has pushed companies to pursue a social purpose in addition to profits. The chief executive’s annual letter to investors defends this approach, which has been criticized as anti-business.

Up front in the title, “The Power of Capitalism,” Larry Fink addresses criticism head on and further explains in the letter:

“Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.”

Fink states his belief clearly in the last paragraph:

“…it is more important than ever that your company and its management be guided by its purpose. If you stay true to your company's purpose and focus on the long term, while adapting to this new world around us, you will deliver durable returns for shareholders and help realize the power of capitalism for all.”

The letter illustrates persuasive communication, focusing not on emotional appeal but logical arguments. For his audience, which he defines at the beginning as CEOs, he encourages a commitment to purpose—for leaders to let stakeholders “know where we stand on the societal issues intrinsic to our companies’ long-term success.” He writes “long-term” 18 times in the letter, using repetition to drive the point home. Fink illustrates a few leadership character dimensions, for example, authenticity, integrity, and courage.

A Good Apology

Sorry Watch assessors gave rave reviews to an apology from DisCon III, a science fiction convention. Sorry Watch identifies the following criteria for a good apology:

1. Use the word “sorry” or “apologize.”

2. Name the offense. (Not “what happened.”)

3. Take responsibility.

4. Show you understand the impact.

5. How will you ensure this doesn’t recur?

6. Make amends.

These suggestions align with academic research on apologies described in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character. (For example, see Roy J. Lewicki, Beth Polin, and Robert B. Lount Jr., "An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies," Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 9 (2016): pp. 177–196).

DisCon accepted sponsorship from Raytheon, a defense contractor, and not everyone agreed with the choice. In addition to conference organizers, award recipients, who were unaware of the sponsorship, suffered harsh criticism.

The conference chair stepped up, describing what happened, acknowledging the impact, taking responsibility, and identifying future actions. Other than apologizing, amends or reparations are difficult to imagine in this situation. Mary Robinette Kowal did what she could and demonstrated several character dimensions, for example, accountability, humility, vulnerability, compassion, and courage.

---

I am Mary Robinette Kowal, and I was the chair for DisCon III. I take full responsibility for accepting Raytheon Intelligence and Space as a sponsor, and I apologize for doing so.

The decision tree that led us to this point is filled with branches that sound like excuses for my own culpability. At the root of it is simply that in accepting funding from Raytheon Intelligence and Space and partnering with them for the members’ red carpet event, I was wrong.

That choice has caused harm and damage to people: the finalists, who were unaware; the people in our communities; the members and staff of Worldcon, who trusted me to make good choices.

I am sorry that I let you all down.

DisCon III is making an anonymous contribution to an organization dedicated to peace, equal to the amount we received from Raytheon. I am also personally contributing to the same organization.

The delay in responding added to the distress that we caused. For this, I ask your forgiveness. We needed to have conversations that were slowed by post-convention travel.

For the past several days, we have read your comments in email and on social media. Thank you for sharing them with us and trusting that you would be heard and taken seriously. Your honesty and sincerity are what make our community a better place.

Future conrunners can avoid our mistakes by:

• Developing a sponsorship policy for your organization that reflects the values and concerns of our community.

• Creating a robust plan for doing due diligence on potential sponsors.

• Creating a mission and value statement against which to measure actions.

We did none of those. Our Code of Conduct says that DisCon III aims to build an inclusive community for all fans. This sponsorship did not achieve that goal.

I cannot erase the harm that my actions caused. This happened on my watch. It is my fault, and I am deeply sorry for the pain I caused.

Signed,

Mary Robinette Kowal

Layoffs by Zoom Call + Updates

The CEO of U.S. mortgage company Better.com announced via Zoom that 900 employees, about 15% of the company, were being laid off. Vishal Garg invited people in the exiting group to the call and then dropped the news: “If you’re on this call, you are part of the unlucky group being laid off. Your employment is terminated effective immediately.” In a way, the Zoom call replaces an email typically sent to all employees before they meet individually with an HR representative.

The video is circulating on YouTube, and we hear one employee’s reaction as she watches: “You’ve gotta be kidding me. After all we did for the company! . . . I can’t believe this. This is not real.”

Certainly, this doesn’t reflect well on the company, particularly because it’s right before year-end holidays. News articles also question Garg’s management style and financial dealings. After the layoffs, he was quoted accusing employees of “stealing” from their coworkers by being unproductive. Reports also mention an email sent to staff, including, "You are TOO DAMN SLOW. You are a bunch of DUMB DOLPHINS... SO STOP IT. STOP IT. STOP IT RIGHT NOW. YOU ARE EMBARRASSING ME.” In addition, Garg faces lawsuits claiming fraudulent activity and misappropriation of funds.

History aside, CNN describes the Zoom call as “short and emotionless.” At times, Garg focuses more on himself than on employees. He said, “This is the second time in my career I'm doing this, and I do not want to do this. The last time I did it, I cried.”

I will give him credit for taking responsibility during the call, saying it was his decision. He also scheduled a call instead of, say, sending an email. He demonstrated accountability and some courage, but Garg lacked compassion. Overall, I’ve seen worse, for example, layoff by text message.

UPDATES: Garg wrote an apology about how he handled the situation. Although he uses the words “I apologize” and describes some of the impact on employees, the audience doesn’t seem quite right. He writes about the future, which includes employees who are staying but not the 900 who were on the Zoom call.

The Better.com board of directors announced that Garg will take some time off. Perhaps his worst crime is that the video went viral; he should have predicted that.

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.

Lego: "Everyone Is Awesome"

Lego is celebrating the LGBTQIA+ community with a new rainbow-colored set. The set will be available on June 1—the start of Pride Month. The designer explains the decision for the “Everyone Is Awesome” product:

“I am fortunate to be a part of a proud, supportive and passionate community of colleagues and fans. We share love for creativity and self-expression through Lego bricks and this set is a way to show my gratitude for all the love and inspiration that is constantly shared.”

The designer also explained that the characters intentionally have no specified gender.

In a press release, the company describes the purpose:

“Everyone is unique, and with a little more love, acceptance and understanding in the world, we can all feel more free to be our true AWESOME selves! This model shows that we care, and that we truly believe ‘Everyone is awesome’!”

The product is a good example of company leaders taking a stand. They might alienate some customers, but they are holding true to their values, stated at the bottom of the release:

“The LEGO Group is committed to building a diverse and inclusive workplace. It partners with Workplace Pride, Stonewall and Open for Business to help shape strategies to support employees who identify as LGBTQIA+ and allies across the company. It also supports UK-based charity, Diversity Role Models which works to educate children about inclusivity and empathy in order to build supportive and inclusive future generations.”