YouTube video garners 10 million views after company explains departure of disgraced co-founder
They were four U.S. guys who have made it big thanks to videos showing them trying things, such as women’s underwear, Irish step dancing or swimming with sharks.
But recently the Try Guys were in the news for an unexpected reason: married co-founder Ned Fulmer was removed from the group because he had a romantic relationship with an employee.
In response, the three remaining leaders — Eugene Lee Yang, Zach Kornfeld and Keith Habersberger — put up a YouTube video to explain the situation.
“We want to give you a timeline of what's transpired and some transparency into our decision-making,” says Kornfeld at the start of the five-minute recording — which has since garnered more than 10 million views.
“We can't talk about the details of the review, but suffice to say we found that Ned had engaged in conduct unbecoming of our team, and we knew that we could not move forward with him. So, on Friday, Sept. 16, the three of us signed written consent of the members of Second Try LLC approving the removal of Ned as a manager and an employee,” says Habersberger.
The three go on to relate what transpired, how they’ve reacted, and plans for the future.
And while this is a company with only 20 employees, there are definite takeaways for employers of any size, and HR, says Dana Kiefer, an associate in the Labour, Employment and Human Rights Group at Lawson Lundell in Calgary.
“It's rare that we get an inside look, as the general public, into a workplace’s internal processes and crisis management system. So it's nice to see exactly how this company handled it, and how transparent they've been around it,” she says.
“It's quite impressive and a bit of a masterclass, I would say, in human resources crisis management. So I think it's a good opportunity for employers to see what can work.”
Immediate reaction
The co-founders first talk about the three-week process of engaging with employment lawyers, corporate lawyers, HR, PR and more “to make sure we were taking all necessary steps from the jump,” says Yang.
They also “immediately” removed Fulmer from work activities and engaged an HR professional to conduct a thorough review of the facts, says Kornfeld.
When the bad behaviour came to light, they took steps that every company should take, says Kiefer.
“They received a report, they investigated the allegations… they actually retained legal counsel and investigators, they communicated that they were investigating and they communicated the results of that investigation, which was the removal of the founder from the company.”
Read more: Why a bad investigation can cost $190,000
Time is the enemy of so many things in corporations and human resources in law, so it is always better to approach matters swiftly, she says.
“In this case, I think it's not only a matter of getting the information in a timely basis, it's ensuring the safety of your workforce. And it's ensuring that as a company, you're fulfilling your legal obligations.”
In Canada, there are various obligations under occupational health and safety laws, and human rights legislation, that place an onus on employers to promptly and thoroughly investigate allegations of misconduct, says Kiefer, “especially as it relates to either inappropriate workplace relationships, violence, harassment… and to fulfill that, it's better to act sooner rather than later.”
Focus on transparency
Transparency is a definite theme to the video, as the three co-founders relate their reaction to the revelations, and concerns — along with the impact on their company.
“[It] was obviously very shocking to us. And we just want you to know that we had no idea this was going on,” says Habersberger. “We imagine you have lots of questions, a lot more questions right now, and we're going to have more to say in the future.”
Kornfeld says the three of them are deeply hurt: “This is someone who we'd built a brand and a company with for eight years; we feel saddened, not just personally but on behalf of our staff and our fans who believed in us,” he says.
“What we hope is that, within this, there's also the opportunity for positive growth and better videos ahead. But it's going to be hard. This whole thing is going to be really fucking hard.”
Read more: 6 key questions about good leadership
Most leaders are unethical, with biases, so when leaders are engaged in ethical conduct and more aware of themselves, they will be seen as more effective leaders, says Yair Berson, professor of human resources and management at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University.
“Leaders who are more aware, more ethical, more transparent about those behaviours tend to be rare, and therefore have more impact. So, a crisis like this should be handled in a very authentic, transparent way — not hiding things, but sharing things with people in the organization in ways that demonstrate to them that you are not reluctant or afraid to deal with hardships, but rather you air those hardships.”
Obviously, they should also condemn the unethical behaviour and make sure that these events are not going to be accepted in the organization, he says.
Values emphasized
Also notable in the Try Guys video is the emphasis on company values.
“From the jump, we were acutely aware of just how contrary this was to the values of the company we've built, and those of everyone who works here. This is something we took very seriously; we refused to sweep things under the rug. That is not who we are, and is not what we stand for,” says Yang.
Fulmer is being removed from several videos, which will cost the company “lots of money,” says Kornfeld, “but it's a decision we stand by proudly.”
Habersberger also talks about the 20 employees who don't deserve the negative attention: “They're our family and they’re some of the most talented, creative minds in the world. And our primary focus right now is making sure they feel comfortable and proud coming to work… frankly, there’s no world in which we could have navigated all this without them.”
The three leaders communicate their values and demonstrate that they are going to apply these “consistently across the board without falling into a favouritism trap… just by virtue of Ned Fulmer’s role and position,” says Kiefer.
“It's a remarkable hit to employee morale when they see… different policy violations result in different levels of discipline, depending on who the perpetrator is. And that impacts employees’ feeling of safety, that impacts the employees’ feeling of allegiance towards their employer.”
Even if a certain act of misconduct is especially painful and involves a senior-level employee, where proceeding down a disciplinary path creates difficulties for succession planning or whatever else, “it's a good lesson for employers to proceed down that path anyway,” says Kiefer.
“That consistency is key and, in the long run, can foster a healthier work environment for your remaining workers.”
Legal considerations
This kind of crisis is also a good opportunity to make sure employees know what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and how to report such behaviour to management, says Kiefer.
“It's a good opportunity as well for management to understand and possibly be trained on how to investigate whether a company conducts their own investigations through HR, or whether the company retains external investigators such as legal counsel.”
Of course, the company is somewhat limited in how transparent it can be, as cited by Kornfeld: “There will be things that we want to say or go into further, but as I'm sure you're aware, there are some legal issues we have to consider as we go through everything.”
Read more: Why authenticity matters
In Canada, there are significant privacy implications across the board, both federally and provincially, that employers have to be concerned about, says Kiefer.
“The unnecessary disclosure of personal information, that is certainly not something that we recommend, but even a communication in the event of workplace misconduct, that an employee is no longer in the workforce, it sends a message — especially in the instance of the employee being a founder or a very senior member of a company — it's a measured amount of transparency that's appropriate in the circumstances.”
