LinkedIn Gives Options for Employment Gaps

In a new feature, LinkedIn gives users 13 ways to describe reasons for employment gaps. In a blog post, a senior product manager at LinkedIn explained the rationale:

“According to a recent survey, more than half of professionals have taken a career break. Yet for far too long, the possibility of embarking on a career break has been overshadowed by stigma, which 60% of people believe still exists. . . . 46% of hiring managers believe candidates with career breaks are an untapped talent pool.”

Recruiters have business reasons to be more open-minded about time away from work. The “Great Resignation” and tight labor market left openings that employers need to fill.

LinkedIn’s survey found that 51% of employers are more likely to contact candidates who “provides context” about a gap. Of course, what LinkedIn doesn’t say is that 49% may be less likely or just as likely to follow up. Still, we may be seeing more compassion about personal challenges, including breaks for mental health reasons, family responsibilities, and illness.

If this feature is used widely, it could normalize work breaks and reduce the stigma of taking time off. Personal reasons are personal, but revealing them may encourage applicants to be more vulnerable and authentic—to trust that employers won’t judge them harshly and to present themselves genuinely, “warts and all.”

To explain a gap is to take a risk but so is not explaining a gap. In this case, an employer may think the worst, and applicants have no chance to include their own voice.

Advice for Resignation Emails

A Wall Street Journal article suggests ways to resign from your job gracefully. With a wave of post-pandemic departures, we’re seeing all sorts of resignation messages, some more appropriate than others. The string of emails can be disheartening for people who decide to stay, and leavers should be mindful of burning bridges they may want to walk across in the future.

A law career coach advises that people “Let it rip. Let everything out”—in a document that you don’t send. Then, send an email that respects the workplace and the people you’ll leave behind:

“For the real deal, be gracious and express gratitude. Include up to three career highlights. (Any more and you risk being seen as a braggart.) And skip the passive-aggressive jabs.”

I hadn’t thought about including career highlights, and I wonder whether coworkers would appreciate reading them. Instead, I suggest observing what other resignation emails include and following suit. Every workplace has its own norms around these types of messages.

I do agree with this advice:

“By giving your notice, ‘the power dynamic has been leveled.’ Use that new sense of control and confidence to share more authentically about yourself, not torpedo your relationships on the way out the door.”

The coach is right: you made your decision and are burdening your manager and coworkers who will pick up the slack. Now’s the time to demonstrate humility instead of rubbing it in and causing more hurt feelings.

Deception in the Hiring Process

A New York Times article surprised me. During a video job interview, someone else answered “technical questions while the job candidate moved his lips onscreen.”

All applicants present themselves in the best light. We describe our accomplishments and may push the limits of our expertise. We also “cover” parts of ourselves that we fear may be undesirable to an employer.

But having a friend interview for a candidate is out of bounds. In this example, the interviewer wondered, “What did he think was going to happen when he moved across the country and realized he couldn’t do the job?” The article concludes with a quote from a deceptive candidate who felt relieved when she didn’t get the job. Of course, that’s a better outcome than suffering the embarrassment of failure.

This situation is a clear example of integrity—misrepresenting oneself, claiming to be someone they (intentional plural) are not. Today, we have a particularly strong job market; I would hope that candidates can find a job for which they’re qualified.

Image source.

Encouraging Humility

David Axelrod, a New York Times opinion writer, weighs in on President Biden’s first State of the Union address, scheduled for March 1. The article, “Mr. President, It’s Time for a Little Humility,” criticizes the president’s previous news conference in which he “energetically sold a litany of achievements” without acknowledging “grinding concerns that have soured the mood of the country.”

In addition to humility, which is defined at recognizing one’s own and others’ limitations, Alexrod is encouraging compassion—caring for yourself and others. He makes good arguments for being positive, while avoiding a “doom and gloom” speech like one of President Carter’s.

Getting the balance right will be difficult. The president needs to remind people of his successes to inspire reelection, while being honest about COVID deaths, the decline of mental health, and economic challenges. As Alexrod says, “Now, he needs to find that voice by telling the story of the ordeal so many Americans have shared, honoring their resilience and painting a credible, realistic picture of how we can all reclaim control of our lives.”

We’ll see how President Biden does. Multiple speech writers will wordsmith his address. But as business communicators know, how the speech is received depends on the president’s delivery as well as his words. I’m curious how much of the president’s genuine self we’ll see—his authenticity.

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.

Candidates for U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Speculation abounds on the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, but something we know for sure: it will be a Black woman. President Biden promised to fill the spot with a Black woman should a position open up during his presidency.

Several women are in the running, including Judge Ketanji Brown, shown here. Many candidates have degrees from Harvard and Yale, serve as judges, and have experience as law clerks for past and current justices.

The selection process will be interesting to watch. Like any employment situation, the candidates will be interviewed, but unlike business employment situations, they will be vetted under a microscope. After the president nominates a candidate, the Senate votes, by majority, whether to confirm the nomination. We’ll see to what extent race and gender come into the conversations.

The Supreme Court website describes the job qualifications:

The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

Today, it would be quite unusual for a justice to lack a law degree, and the selection process favors certain schools. Of the nine current justices, four graduated from Harvard Law School and four from Yale. Amy Coney Barrett, the most recent addition, graduated from Notre Dame.

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

American Airlines Leadership Announcement

In a video and website statement, American Airlines announced a new CEO. President Robert Isom will succeed Doug Parker, who served as CEO for two decades. Parker will become the board chair.

The company statement is typical, with glowing quotes to be easily lifted into news articles. A two-and-a-half-minute video of Isom and Parker is upbeat, with each executive complimenting the other. The primary audience is employees, although the video is posted on YouTube, clearly intended for the press and public as well.

Obviously scripted, the video includes some staid language, for example, “I’m confident that now is the right time,” “with change, comes opportunity,” and “together, we will achieve great things.” What a great example to analyze with class. I wonder how students would describe the communication objectives and assess the delivery style and how well the executives achieved their purpose.

Dorsey’s Resignation Email

After co-founding and leading the company, Jack Dorsey has resigned from Twitter. He was with Twitter for 16 years and says now is the right time to create some distance from the company founders. In a email to employees, which he tweeted for transparency, Dorsey describes his confidence in the new CEO, Parag Agrawal, and board chair.

The email reminds me of “One Last Time” in Hamilton, in which George Washington explains that he won’t run again for president. Dorsey seems to know that his time is up, and he is making space for others.

He may be tired of the pressure on tech companies, including an activist investor. Dorsey also continues to serve as CEO of Square.

His email lacks some more common features of CEO resignations. I expected to see a recount of Twitter’s successes going back to the early days, but we read none of that. Perhaps Jack is, as he says, ready to move on.

Language Choices

A new report has been criticized from both sides of the political aisle. Published by the American Medical Association and the Center for Health Justice, “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative, and Concepts,” is described as an “equity document.” Its purpose is to provide guidance to physicians and healthcare workers.

Some recommendations seem appropriate, while others seem impractical or, as a New York Times opinion writer called them, “absurd.” Michelle Goldberg gives an example:

“The guide suggests replacing ‘vulnerable’ with ‘oppressed,’ even though they’re not synonymous: it’s not oppression that makes the elderly vulnerable to Covid.”

Key principles include avoiding using stigmatizing and dehumanizing adjectives, avoiding generalizations, avoiding language with violent connotations, and avoiding unintentional blaming. The report suggests “people-first" language, which I suggest in the textbook—when appropriate.

I wonder how students feel about the more specific recommendations in the report: Which would they follow, and which seem silly or unnatural?

Research About Groupthink

Groupthink causes poor decision making because members come to the same conclusions, failing to see alternatives. You might think the trouble is with homogeneous teams, but a Wall Street Journal article clarifies the types of teams most susceptible to this limited thinking.

The faculty authors describe three sets of teams and ask which is “the most likely to fall prey to the pathologies of groupthink”?

• A friendly team of long-term colleagues or a new collection of co-workers who haven’t had time to form close personal bonds?

• A team composed of the usual suspects or that same team where an outsider has been brought in to provide a fresh perspective?

• A group with a confident leader who has a clear vision of how to do things or a relatively unstructured group without a strong authority figure?

In each, the second team is more vulnerable. Concepts like group identity and psychological safety are at play. Although paradoxical in some ways, a close group of friends who feel comfortable with each other are more likely to offer divergent ideas.

Throughout my career, I have tried different approaches to assigning student teams. This article makes me feel good about the times I’ve let students choose their own teams. Of course, that causes other problems, but groupthink was not likely one of them.

Language Choices

A New York Times writer explores language “on the left,” meaning political liberals. The article also helps us understand choices for business communicators and my challenges revising Business Communication and Character (11e).

The first sentence of the article includes the word “freshman,” and already I have questions. At Cornell, we have been using “first-year” as a gender-neutral term for some time. Of course, this only exemplifies the Amy Harmon’s point about changing language.

Harmon describes frustration on all political sides, including needing to adapt to changing language, skepticism about “wokeness,” and choosing semantics over action

I fear that my book, revised but not yet published, is already out of date. Did I give “BIPOC” and “Latinx” too much attention and “LGBTQIA+” too little? Should I have addressed “wokeness”? I’ll wrestle with all this in the 12th edition.

Facebook Becomes “Meta”

In the midst of controversy after internal documents were made public, Facebook is trying to reinvent itself with a new name: Meta. The company promises that “the metaverse will be social. 3D spaces in the metaverse will let you socialize, learn, collaborate and play in ways that go beyond what we can imagine.” After staying behind the scenes for the past few weeks, as the press cited internal strife as evidence of the company’s wrongdoing, Facebook’s CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg is out in front.

In a 1 hour and 17 minute video, Zuckerberg focuses on the “immersive experience” we’ll enjoy in the future. He emphasizes connection, which has been the company vision since around 2017.

Perhaps in a nod to the ongoing criticism of apps’ negative influence and relentless draw through algorithms, Zuckerberg says, “This isn’t about spending more time on screens. It’s about making that time we already spend better.” Of course, some of us still want to spend less time and want the same for our children. Zuckerberg also acknowledged, “The last few years have been humbling for me and my company in a lot of ways.”

Reactions to the name change are mixed but seem mostly skeptical. A Washington Post article points to a tweet: “Don’t forget that when Phillip Morris changed it’s name to Altria it was still selling cigarettes that caused cancer.”

Zuckerberg’s video is a good example of a scripted presentation with a (somewhat) conversational style. As he moves about, we see, as the Post describes, “a dizzying array of scenes that showcased the company’s vision for the metaverse. It included Zuckerberg doing his favorite water sport, hydrofoiling, with friends in a virtual environment, and then jumping into work meetings from a virtual home office, boxing with virtual avatars and working out on a virtual lily pad.” All this certainly would make me spend more time online and give me more reasons to never leave my house.

Business communication students can also analyze Zuckerberg’s “letter,” referring to a formal public message—not, of course, something mailed. I would say the same for the “keynote,” which is unlike any I’ve ever seen.

Congressman's "Bizarre" Video

Jeff Fortenberry, U.S. representative for Nebraska, was facing indictment for falsifying and concealing information and for lying to investigators about 2016 campaign contributions. In a video called “unusual” and “bizarre,” Fortenberry speaks to the camera from his truck with his wife and dog in the background. He says they are “out for a drive” in his 1963 Ford pick-up.

The video is an interesting attempt at authenticity to sway public opinion. Fortenberry wants us to believe that he is a trustworthy, everyday man—a victim rather than a criminal. He tells the story of FBI agents coming to his house “on a weekend” after a cyclone hit. With an incredulous tone, Fortenberry says, “We’re shocked. We’re stunned. I feel so personally betrayed.”

I wonder what counsel Fortenberry received or whether it was his own idea to create the video. Either way, based on the news reports and the indictment, which came later that day, Fortenberry’s message did not favorably affect the outcome for him. His arraignment is planned for later this week.

Bad-News Message: Hasbro CEO

Toy company Hasbro announced the death of Chairman and CEO Brian Goldner. The press release is typical, quoting leaders and touting Goldner’s contributions to the company. Goldner was with Hasbro for more than 20 years and served as CEO for more than 13, so his death is significant.

Interestingly, the company statement doesn’t include a cause of death. A Wall Street Journal article mentions Goldner’s prostate cancer diagnosis in 2014 and his recent leave of absence.

Visionary CEO Transformed Hasbro into a Global Play & Entertainment Leader

PAWTUCKET, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 12, 2021-- It is with deep and profound sadness that Hasbro announces the passing of beloved leader and longtime Chairman and CEO Brian D. Goldner.

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211012006149/en/

Brian D. Goldner (Photo: Business Wire)

Rich Stoddart, Interim CEO, said “Since joining the Company more than two decades ago, Brian has been the heart and soul of Hasbro. As a charismatic and passionate leader in both the play and entertainment industries, Brian’s work brought joy and laughter to children and families around the world. His visionary leadership, kindness, and generosity made him beloved by the Hasbro community and everyone he touched. On behalf of the Hasbro family, we extend our deepest, heartfelt condolences to his wife, daughter, and entire family.”

Mr. Goldner, 58, joined Hasbro in 2000 and was quickly recognized as a visionary in the industry. He was appointed CEO in 2008 and became Chairman of the Board in 2015. He was instrumental in transforming the Company into a global play and entertainment leader, architecting a strategic Brand Blueprint to create the world’s best play and storytelling experiences. Through his tireless work ethic and unwavering focus, he expanded the Company beyond toys and games into television, movies, digital gaming and beyond, to ensure Hasbro’s iconic brands reached every consumer. The culmination of his pioneering strategy was the 2019 acquisition of independent entertainment studio eOne. Mr. Goldner served on the Board of Directors of ViacomCBS and was the Chair of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Goldner and his wife Barbara were passionate advocates for improving systems of care for vulnerable members of society.

Edward M. Philip, Lead Independent Director of Hasbro’s Board of Directors, said “Brian’s passing is a tremendous loss for Hasbro and the world. Brian was universally admired and respected in the industry, and throughout his over twenty years at Hasbro, his inspiring leadership and exuberance left an indelible mark on everything and everyone he touched. A mentor and friend to so many, his passion and creativity took Hasbro to new heights. Our love and thoughts are with his wife, daughter, and family during this extraordinarily sad time.”

New Research About Remote Work

A new study identifies advantages and challenges of working from home (WFH). A New York Times article cites little research in the area, but a recent paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics provides insights for companies and employees considering WFH arrangements.

The study was at Ctrip, a Chinese travel agency. The abstract follows:

Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned either to work from home or in the office for nine months. Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter and more convenient working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction, and their attrition rate halved, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell. Due to the success of the experiment, Ctrip rolled out the option to WFH to the whole firm and allowed the experimental employees to reselect between the home and office. Interestingly, over half of them switched, which led to the gains from WFH almost doubling to 22%. This highlights the benefits of learning and selection effects when adopting modern management practices like WFH.

Remote employees seem to suffer bias. A study author put it simply, “They can get forgotten.” Informal conversations and other face-to-face interactions increase belonging—they create “in groups” and “out groups.” As a result, some people are better known and trusted, particularly by senior leaders, who are more likely to be in the office. These relationships lead to more mentoring, sponsorship, and promotion opportunities. With more women wanting to WFH than men, this issue could increase gender inequality at work.

WFH employees should aim to increase their social presence—reducing the perceived physical distance. A Forbes writer offers good advice for building relationships from afar:

• Share openly.

• Assume goodwill of others.

• Stay in close proximity.

• Be predictable.

• Be easy to read.

• Support others.

• Be selective about your relationships.

• Hold others accountable.

• Demonstrate integrity and tell the truth.

In the coming years, as more companies offer the option and more employees choose to WFH, we'll learn more about how to successfully WFH.

Image source.

Report Details Governor Cuomo's Pattern of Sexual Harassment

The New York State attorney general published a 165-page report detailing how Governor Andrew Cuomo has sexually harassed women for years and how a culture of “fear and intimidation” allowed his behavior to continue.

In addition to the report, other communications about the situation are interesting examples, particularly of persuasion:

• Governor Cuomo’s video response

• NY Times opinion calling for his resignation

• WSJ opinion calling on democrats to impeach

What makes each of these messages credible—or not—is a rich topic of discussion. The report and other messages use details and examples to prove their points. In his video message, the governor intersperses images of him hugging and kissing many people. His strategy is to “normalize” and de-sexualize his behavior. However, the report describes incidents that go beyond these displays and concludes that the governor violated federal and New York State sexual harassment law.

Update: Governor Cuomo resigns. In a video, he explains his decision, which seemed inevitable.

Free Speech Case

In an 8-to-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a high school cheerleader could use F-bombs on social media. The student was suspended from the team after posting a video and disparaging the team and the school. But the court upheld her right to free speech.

The justices did say that the school has the right to take action when a student’s behavior in person—or online—is disruptive to the classroom, but they didn’t believe that this case warranted the school’s decision.

This was an important decision but left the door open to other cases. As one attorney said, the decision was “common sense,” but others might be greyer and more complex.

Image source.

Resume Gaps

A Wall Street Journal columnist tells us, “Don’t Sweat Your Pandemic Résumé Gap.” High school students have gotten a reprieve from taking some standardized tests for college applications, and that generosity seems to have extended to prospective employees. People faced all sorts of challenges during the pandemic, and this reporter argues that employers will let it slide.

A survey of recruiters found that 49% believe a gap is now acceptable instead of a red flag. Recruiters say you don’t need to over-explain a gap, which could be due to family obligations. Instead, have a concise statement prepared such as, “I was glad to spend time with my family, and now I’m excited to get back to work.”

It will look good if you attended classes or earned a certificate during your time off, but that isn’t essential. At the same time, the optimistic article offers a warning: more than two years out of the workforce makes it difficult to re-enter.

I’m glad to see this article and hope the sentiment extends beyond pandemic times. I am a bit concerned about the survey response. If 49% of recruiters will make allowances for time off, what about the other 51%? Of course, the news affects women more than men because women were more likely to be home during the pandemic.

Image source.