Topics: Leadership, Whistle Blower, Crisis Leadership, Social Media In Politics, Social Media Policies

Summary: The day after former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen went public in October, the company's team in Washington started working the phones. To lawmakers and advocacy groups on the right, according to people familiar with the conversations, their message was that Ms. Haugen was trying to help Democrats. Within hours, several conservative news outlets published stories alleging Ms. Haugen was a Democratic activist. Later, Facebook lobbyists warned Democratic staffers that Republicans were focused on the company's decision to ban expressions of support for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who killed two people during unrest in Kenosha, Wis., and who was later acquitted of homicide and other charges. The company's goal, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the company's outreach, was to muddy the waters, divide lawmakers along partisan lines, and forestall a cross-party alliance that was emerging to enact tougher rules on social-media companies.

Questions:

• What information and/or leadership behaviors described in the article did you find to be the most ethically disturbing and why?
• According to the article, former executives said Mr. Zuckerberg told employees not to apologize. How would you draw the line on when and under what circumstance you would comply with this type of directive from a senior leader?