Spotify CEO's New Statement

Following new allegations against Joe Rogan, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek apologized to staff, yet reinforced his commitment to the podcast host. A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur caused new criticism and calls for Spotify to take action. Rogan apologized, explaining that some recordings were from many years ago and were taken out of context.

Ek’s statement is addressed to Spotify employees, but of course, the secondary audience is intended to be the public. The message includes Rogan’s decision, apparently in consultation with the Spotify team, to remove 113 episodes. Although Ek writes that the choice was Rogan’s, we don’t know how much pressure he received.

Ek’s note is a good example of a persuasive communication that tries to balance the needs of many stakeholders. He demonstrates compassion to employees, vulnerabiiity in how the situation affects the company, and integrity in his $100 million commitment to artists and in holding firm to what he sees as a core value of the platform. We could see more personal vulnerabiity and authenticity. Unfortunately, leader will never satisfy all parties in this type of situation.

Spotify Team,

There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you. Not only are some of Joe Rogan’s comments incredibly hurtful – I want to make clear that they do not represent the values of this company. I know this situation leaves many of you feeling drained, frustrated and unheard.

I think it’s important you’re aware that we’ve had conversations with Joe and his team about some of the content in his show, including his history of using some racially insensitive language. Following these discussions and his own reflections, he chose to remove a number of episodes from Spotify. He also issued his own apology over the weekend.

While I strongly condemn what Joe has said and I agree with his decision to remove past episodes from our platform, I realize some will want more. And I want to make one point very clear – I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope. Looking at the issue more broadly, it’s critical thinking and open debate that powers real and necessary progress.

Another criticism that I continue to hear from many of you is that it’s not just about The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify; it comes down to our direct relationship with him. In last week’s Town Hall, I outlined to you that we are not the publisher of JRE. But perception due to our exclusive license implies otherwise. So I’ve been wrestling with how this perception squares with our values.

If we believe in having an open platform as a core value of the company, then we must also believe in elevating all types of creators, including those from underrepresented communities and a diversity of backgrounds. We’ve been doing a great deal of work in this area already but I think we can do even more. So I am committing to an incremental investment of $100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups. This will dramatically increase our efforts in these areas. While some might want us to pursue a different path, I believe that more speech on more issues can be highly effective in improving the status quo and enhancing the conversation altogether.

I deeply regret that you are carrying so much of this burden. I also want to be transparent in setting the expectation that in order to achieve our goal of becoming the global audio platform, these kinds of disputes will be inevitable. For me, I come back to centering on our mission of unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators. That mission makes these clashes worth the effort.

I’ve told you several times over the last week, but I think it’s critical we listen carefully to one another and consider how we can and should do better. I’ve spent this time having lots of conversations with people inside and outside of Spotify – some have been supportive while others have been incredibly hard, but all of them have made me think.

One of the things I am thinking about is what additional steps we can take to further balance creator expression with user safety. I’ve asked our teams to expand the number of outside experts we consult with on these efforts and look forward to sharing more details.

Your passion for this company and our mission has made a difference in the lives of so many listeners and creators around the world. I hope you won’t lose sight of that. It’s that ability to focus and improve Spotify even on some of our toughest days that has helped us build the platform we have. We have a clear opportunity to learn and grow together from this challenge and I am ready to meet it head on.

I know it is difficult to have these conversations play out so publicly, and I continue to encourage you to reach out to your leaders, your HR partners or me directly if you need support or resources for yourself or your team.

Daniel

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.

Apology for Meatloaf Recipe

The folks at Weber Grill didn’t realize that singer Meat Loaf died on the day they published a meatloaf recipe. Had the company used the rock star’s death as a way to promote its products, that would have been in poor taste, but the email with a BBQ recipe was an unfortunate coincidence.

After some predicable backlash, the company quickly apologized for the mistake. Fortunately, just as the initial email made the rounds, so did the company’s apology.

The apology is simple and works well. The company didn’t need to apologize for insensitivity because the mistake was unintentional. In these situations, customers typically are more forgiving, and in this case, demonstrating compassion and humility was enough.

British PM Responds to Criticism

During the height of 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns in England, Prime Minister Boris Johnson hosted a party. An email (below) from his private secretary invited more than 100 staff members to "bring your own booze!" to the lawn party held at Johnson’s residence. Between 30 and 40 people gathered, despite restrictions until a week and a half later, when only six people were allowed to gather. This wasn’t the only party: another was held in December during lockdowns.

A video of the House of Commons shows political leaders criticizing Johnson; some are calling for his resignation. Johnson says he considered the party a work event. The culture of this setting is so different from U.S. government meetings, where it would be inappropriate to respond to speeches.

Here is Johnson’s response to the criticism. He uses several persuasive tactics: apologizing (with a British “s”), empathizing, and taking responsibility. He tries to demonstrate several character dimensions: compassion, humility, and accountability, particularly. We’ll see what happens next.

I want to apologise. I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months.

I know the anguish they have been through—unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives as they want or to do the things they love.

I know the rage they feel with me and with the government I lead when they think in Downing Street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules.

And though I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, I have learned enough to know there were things we simply did not get right and I must take responsibility.

No 10 is a big department with a garden as an extension of the office which has been in constant use because of the role of fresh air in stopping the virus.

When I went into that garden just after six on 20 May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event.

With hindsight I should have sent everyone back inside. I should have found some other way to thank them.

I should have recognised that even if it could be said technically to fall within the guidance, there are millions and millions of people who simply would not see it that way, people who have suffered terribly, people who were forbidden from meeting loved ones at all inside or outside, and to them and to this house I offer my heartfelt apologies.

All I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others so that the full facts can be established.

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

Persuading People to Get Vaccinated

Physicians at Harvard Medical College weigh in on what does not—and what might—encourage people to get a coronavirus vaccine. In a New York Times opinion letter, they write, “providing more, frightening information intended to change their beliefs is ineffective for many or may even cause further entrenchment against vaccination.” In other words, data, or a logical argument, doesn’t work.

They consider a recent study about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (HPV). Surprisingly, women who had cervical cancer were no more likely to get their children vaccinated, and women who had a cancer “scare” were only slightly more likely than those who didn’t have cancer to get their children vaccinated.

From this study, the authors conclude that knowing someone who had COVID-19 or hearing stories about people who had the disease won’t convince people to get vaccinated. Although the doctors refer to this as “more information,” I would consider this an emotional appeal, depending on how “stories” are described.

Regardless, the authors suggest relying on methods that seem to work: negative incentives. Offering lottery tickets and other types of payments hasn’t influenced large numbers of people. Only threats—for example, if you don’t get vaccinated, you can’t come to work (a type of incentive) may be the best approach for now.

In his book Think Again, Adam Grant has other ideas, but they require more time and personal relationships—asking questions and giving people a choice.

Chris Noth and Peloton Respond to Sexual Assault Accusations

Peloton can’t seem to catch a break. Chris Noth, who played Mr. Big on the Sex in the City revival, first died on the show after using the bike, and then, after appearing in what seemed like a victorious response commercial, was accused by three women of sexual assault.

In a statement, Noth vehemently denied the claims:

"The accusations against me made by individuals I met years, even decades, ago are categorically false. These stories could've been from 30 years ago or 30 days ago—no always means no—that is a line I did not cross,” and

"The encounters were consensual. It's difficult not to question the timing of these stories coming out. I don't know for certain why they are surfacing now, but I do know this: I did not assault these women.”

Peloton removed the ad, and a spokesperson said, "Every single sexual assault accusation must be taken seriously. We were unaware of these allegations when we featured Chris Noth in our response to HBO's reboot. As we seek to learn more, we have stopped promoting this video and archived related social posts.”

I’m guessing that HBO is glad the writers killed off Noth’s character. For Peloton, the news is probably more attention than the company wants. It’s certainly more than Chris Noth wants.

Image source.

Company Responses to Tornado

An Amazon warehouse in Illinois and a candle factory in Kentucky seem to be the companies hardest hit by a devastating tornado. Although an easy target for critics, Amazon, and particularly CEO Jeff Bezos, probably could do more. Twitter comments called out his response as a “template” and “corporate line.” One wrote, “Literally a day late and a dollar short.” Further damaging his reputation as a compassionate leader, and by unfortunate coincidence, Blue Origin, Bezos’s company, launched six paying passengers into space on the day of the tornado.

Perhaps nothing Bezos said would have been right, or enough. In a news conference, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker said he “implored” Amazon “to stand up for this community to make sure that the families get whatever they need in this community, and they’ve offered to do so.” I have not found statements from Amazon about what that support might include.

The Kentucky factory, Mayfield Consumer Products, was “destroyed,” according to the website landing page. The CEO posted a brief statement, promising more information once known and promoting a victims’ fund. We see character and culture in both company responses.

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.

Skewed Chart Example

Dopesick on Hulu includes a great example of a compressed chart scale. The show is about the opioid crisis and features the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma’s role in convincing doctors that OxyContin is not addictive. To prove the point, Purdue shared this graph, showing that the “time release” capsules don’t cause mood spikes (“fewer peaks and valleys”). The trouble, as business communication students can observe, is the Y axis.

In Episode 6 (around 21 minutes), we hear the explanation: “But see what Purdue did? They dramatically compressed the scale.” On the chart, we see that 30 looks to be the midpoint. They used a logarithmic instead of a linear scale to homogenize or “smooth out” the data. (Here’s a good explanation of logarithmic scales.)

In the show, an FDA official says they instructed Purdue Pharma not to use the chart, but the company did anyway. Of course, I’m not sure what happened, exactly, and I didn’t get the court filings to verify the chart.

The show offers many other examples of the company’s persuasive communications and the tragic effect on people’s lives. For more research about Purdue’s misleading communications, see this LA Times article. Also read a fascinating trove of Purdue emails here.

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.”

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.

Grubhub's Goodwill Message

Grubhub is demonstrating gratitude with an ad directed primarily toward restaurants. The company benefitted greatly during a tough year for restaurants. During COVID restrictions, food delivery services did well, raising prices and cutting into restaurants’ margins. Grubhub and others have been criticized for hefty commissions and for listing restaurants on their sites when they weren’t affiliated with the service.

Now that restrictions are lifting, analysts predict that delivery services will continue to thrive. Still, an AdAge author notes that Grubhub needs to “remain relevant as in-person dining comes back.”

In the commercial, Grubhub speaks to restaurant workers:

“Here’s to you, restaurant. Thank you, from the bottom of our stomach. . . . Without you, we wouldn’t be Grubhub. We’d just be ‘hub.’”

Will the commercial ring false? Will it feel to restaurant owners and staff that Grubhub is manipulative or insincere? I don’t know. Obviously, the secondary audience is diners.

Senders of true goodwill messages, for example, messages of appreciation, don’t expect anything in return. Thank-you messages may bring about favor, but they are not intended for future reciprocation.

FedEx Statement About Shooting

After a shooting at an Indianapolis facility, FedEx posted a statement on its website. At the top of the home page is a notice: “We are deeply shocked and saddened by the loss of our team members following the tragic shooting at our FedEx Ground facility in Indianapolis. Read more.”

The company posted two additional statements on its website under “Newsroom”:

• “Honoring Our Team Members in Indianapolis” lists employees who were killed.

• “Frederick W. Smith Message to Team Members on Indianapolis Tragedy” is a message from the Chairman and CEO.

Each message is heartfelt and opposes violence with such phrases as “Violence of any kind has no place in our society or our workplace” and “senseless act of violence.” But the company is avoiding any mention of guns and the two longer messages don’t mention that the victims were shot. The only reference is in the title and body of the first statement: “shooting” is used twice.

The cause of death is important to include, particularly so that FedEx deflects responsibility. This is also an opportunity for CEO activism, as we have seen from other CEOs recently. However, FedEx is not entering this highly charged political conversation at this time.

Image source.

Amazon’s Statement About the Failed Union Attempt

Employees at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse voted against forming a union. Of 5,876 employees, 1,798 voted against and 783 for the union—not enough. The New York Times presents a simple, clear graphic of the vote.

Critics say that Amazon used aggressive tactics to deter workers from favoring the union. For example, union organizers approached employees at a traffic light, which the city changed based on a request from Amazon management. The change led to longer green lights and shorter red lights based on traffic. Before the vote, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that two employees were fired illegally for their union-organizing activity.

In messages to employees, the company used a slogan, “Do it without dues,” meaning employees should negotiate with their managers and not through a union, which charges fees. The slogan was also the URL for a website, which has since been removed.

Amazon posted a statement about the win. The company denies intimidation charges and reinforces its $15 wage and starting benefits. Although the statement indicates that 16% of employees at the facility voted for the union, a higher percentage of those who voted were favorable towards the union.

Royal Family Responds to Racism Allegations

In an interview with Oprah, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused the British royal family of racism, and the fallout is severe. Markle talked about having suicidal thoughts and how she had been treated by the family, including plans for the couple’s baby. She said he wouldn’t have a title or security, and that the family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”

Prince Harry said that he a discussion with his grandmother and two with his father about the couple’s concerns until his father “stopped taking my calls.”

Victoria Murphy, a writer for Town & Country magazine, describes the family’s reaction:

So far, the royal family has remained tight-lipped. There have been no statements and, it seems, very little guidance offered. Perhaps they are retreating into a default “no comment” stance, or perhaps they are sensibly waiting to see what sticks before deciding whether to add fuel to the fire. In this war of words, there is a sense that we could go on and on.

Buckingham Palace did release a short statement, and the Queen took some time before signing off:

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

Of course, the issue is that the royal family is a public organization, with several public figures, whether they wish to be or not.

Two days later, Prince William gave an interview and said, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

Murphy sums up the situation: “Make no mistake, this is an interview that will go down in history as having rocked the British royal family to its core.”

Governor Cuomo Address Sexual Harassment Allegations

In a video statement, Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed sexual harassment allegations made by three women. He begins well, explaining his decision to speak directly to the public on the topic, although lawyers advised him to wait. To preserve his image, this is a good call: research shows that his apology is unlikely to negatively affect lawsuit outcomes—and may even have a positive effect.

But his apology goes awry. He uses language that is classic in non-apologies, for example, “It was not my intention” and “I certainly never meant to….” In sexual harassment law, intent does not matter—only the impact. Further, this type of language typically doesn’t land well. People don’t care. Instead, he should focus on the impact on these women and perhaps on the office.

He also says, “I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable.” This is problematic because first, as he says at the beginning, he is a lawyer. As a lawyer and as a political leader, he should know better. Such language is reminiscent of “I’m sorry if you were offended,” implying that it’s the receiver’s problem. A couple of days earlier, after the second allegation, the governor said, “To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

To his credit, he says, “I apologize” and “I’m sorry,” which people do want to hear in these types of statements.

We will see what results from these allegations, in the midst of calls for his resignation. Governor Cuomo also is embroiled in charges that he lied about the number of Covid deaths in nursing homes. So far, he says that he will not resign.

School Board Apologizes for Mocking Parents and Resigns

The Board of an elementary school in California resigned over embarrassing comments on a video call. Board members didn’t realize that they were public when they made disparaging comments about parents wanting schools to reopen. They mentioned that parents miss teachers as “babysitters” and want to be able to use marijuana again.

In response, several board members resigned, and the school district wrote a statement. Within the larger statement is a message from the board members who resigned:

We deeply regret the comments that were made in the meeting of the Board of Education earlier this week. As trustees, we realize it is our responsibility to model the conduct that we expect of our students and staff and it is our obligation to build confidence in District leadership; our comments failed you in both regards, and for this we offer our sincerest apology.

We love our students, our teachers and our community, and we want to be part of the remedy to help the District move forward, returning its full focus to students' needs. To help facilitate the healing process, we will be resigning our positions as Trustees of the Oakley Union Elementary School District, effective immediately. The Superintendent will be working with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to address the vacancies on the Board of Education.

This was a difficult decision, but we hear the community's concerns, and we believe yielding to your request that we step down will allow the District to move forward. Please do not let our failure in judgment cast a shadow on the exceptional work that our teachers, administrators and hard-working employees are doing for the students of this District. They deserve and will need your support as you move forward.

Business communication students will find ways to improve this message. The authors use passive voice in the first statement and weak subjects twice in the first paragraph (“it is”). As an apology, the statement also could do better. Sincere apologies include more about the impact of the act—the damage done. I don’t see that recognition clearly.

Image source.

Lincoln Project Statement

Frank Bruni is right his article, ”When You Don’t Have Trump to Hide Behind: There’s now space for other scandals. Witness the Lincoln Project.” I’ve been missing hearing about improprieties with the shadow of Trump for the past four years. Now trouble at the Lincoln Project, a political group started in 2018 by Republicans to prevent the re-election of the former president, has come to light.

The issue raises questions of integrity. As the organization criticized the former president for his actions, 21 young men accused one founder of sexual harassment, while organization leaders knew of but did nothing about their complaints. In addition, questions linger about whether group leaders misused funds for personal gain.

The one leader accused of “grooming young men online” responded in a statement:

I am so disheartened and sad that I may have brought discomfort to anyone in what I thought at the time were mutually consensual discussions. In living a deeply closeted life, I allowed my pain to cause pain for others. For that I am truly sorry to these men and everyone and for letting so many people down.

The Lincoln Project also issued an official statement. One, dated January 30, isn’t available because of a broken link on the homepage. But another, dated February 14, is below:

The Lincoln Project has retained the law firm of Paul Hastings to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by John Weaver as part of a comprehensive review of our operations and culture. The review process is currently underway.

We are committed to creating a positive, diverse, and inclusive workplace environment at The Lincoln Project and inappropriate behavior by anyone associated with the organization will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We have already taken decisive action to address internal concerns. Additionally, we are releasing staff and former staff from the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to discuss their workplace environment. Based on the findings of this review we will take all necessary action to correct any issues or deficiencies that are identified.

Concurrently, we are also working with outside counsel and professional consultants to strengthen our corporate governance, finance and operational structure, human resources, and leadership to position The Lincoln Project to further maximize our impact and lean into our important mission advancing democracy.

The Lincoln Project was founded to combat political forces who seek to undermine our democracy. We revolutionized how political action committees operate and spent $81 million last cycle to create and place more than 300 advertisements, host national town halls, conduct voter outreach, and launch a podcast and streaming video network that engaged millions of voters. Eighty percent of our funds went to voter contact and content production. Our historic results speak for themselves.

Moving forward, we have important work ahead of us and we have created a nationwide movement of Americans who support our objectives.

In order to continue fulfilling our promise to our millions of supporters and contributors, we must address any and all internal organizational issues immediately and put in place a governance and diverse leadership structure that reflects our core values and ensures we will continue to attract the best talent available.

The Lincoln Project will continue producing and distributing our popular content and commentary while these reviews are being conducted and we are operating at full capacity.

The statement start is unfortunate and squirrely. Perhaps an apology might be more appropriate? As an apology, if this is the intent, the statement doesn’t work very well. Apologies admit specific wrongdoing, acknowledge the impact, and describe positive steps planning for the future. I don’t see that here.

Wishing Someone Well

News outlets are reporting that President Trump wishes Ghislaine Maxwell “well.” An associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell is charged with child sex-trafficking and has pleaded not guilty.

President Trump knew Epstein and Maxwell and met them “numerous times over the years.” according to his interview with Axios. When an Axios interviewer questioned the president’s previous statement that he wishes her well, he explained what he meant:

"Her boyfriend died in jail, and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen. Was it suicide, was he killed? And I do wish her well.”

“I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad [sic] for anybody.”

“I do. I wish her well.”

“I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well.”

Discussion:

• What does it mean to “wish” someone “well”?

• What's your view of President Trump’s comments? Appropriately empathic towards Maxwell, compassionate, insensitive towards victims of sexual abuse, polite, or something else?

• The president defended his initial comments. Should he have done so or changed his approach? Why?