Based on the information below create a memo to either Johnathan or Dale (both will get them, but it is your choice who to address it to) that tells them that they are to stop saying negative things about the company in public and on social media in an aggressive and threatening manner. Their participation in the conversation has inflamed tensions and made matters worse for everyone. While firing them isnt really an option because of the circumstances and how much additional attention it would focus on the company, they could be further demoted or fined. You need to use the traits of the negative letter here to make this work. Get the nod, stay positive, explain how things are being handled internally (make up details as you see fit), and close with a positive, but make sure they understand how serious this is.

Your company has been doing well from a profit standpoint, but it has come under fire for a lack of diversity on the governing board (all but one member presented as white). To counter the lack of diversity on the board, five voting members have been removed and replaced by people who are from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. While this is seen as a positive move by members of the board and by the public, there have been communication problems in the company.

A memo should have been released to say thank you to the board members being replaced, but it did not go out. The memo that did go out went to the board only and announced the new members before advising current board members they had been replaced (this is how the existing members of the board found out they had been fired).

This has caused serious blowback on social media, as two of the fired members (Johnathan and Dale) have taken to social media to express that after many years of working with the company, they found out they were replaced on the board by being asked to congratulate and welcome new people. Since they were well known and liked by other people in the company (and friends with multiple employees on social media), many people have responded saying how unfair it is and vowing to get to the bottom of what happened. This is compounded by Dale and Jonathan being friends with members of the media (news), and the social media posts have both generated negative public sentiment toward what should be a net positive for the company (increasing the presence of diverse voices as part of the governing board) into a negative (focusing the spotlight on those board members who were removed).

Complicating the situation is the fact that one of the new board members (Isabel) is the daughter of an existing board member (Alexandra). This has led to calls of nepotism in social media and has made her a focus of the attacks on the company by people both by employees and others. The parent was present during discussions and interviews regarding whether her daughter would be given a position on the board, and this has run into very complicated legal and ethical territory. While her actions were legal in the United States (they would be illegal in Europe), the question of whether they are ethical is one for your group to determine. Based on meeting minutes, she clearly advocated for her own daughter over candidates that people on social media are calling more qualified, and an employee (Marie) who initially commented on (Dale or Jonathans depends on how you design your letter) status update has learned of this situation and called it unethical and created a narrative that may or may not be true (you dont know how involved the person was and are not privy to the board discussions).