UV0010 Rev. Mar. 8, .docx

UV0010
Rev. Mar. 8, 2018
Nike, Inc.: Cost of Capital
On July 5, 2001, Kimi Ford, a portfolio manager at NorthPoint
Group, a mutual fund management
firm, pored over analysts’ write-ups of Nike, Inc., the athletic-
shoe manufacturer. Nike’s share price had
declined significantly from the beginning of the year. Ford was
considering buying some shares for the fund
she managed, the NorthPoint Large-Cap Fund, which invested

mostly in Fortune 500 companies, with an
emphasis on value investing. Its top holdings included
ExxonMobil, General Motors, McDonald’s, 3M, and
other large-cap, generally old-economy stocks. Although the
stock market had declined over the last 18
months, the NorthPoint Large-Cap Fund had performed
extremely well. In 2000, the fund earned a return of
20.7%, even as the S&P 500 fell 10.1%. At the end of June
2001, the fund’s year-to-date returns stood at
6.4% versus −7.3% for the S&P 500.
Only a week earlier, on June 28, 2001, Nike had held an
analysts’ meeting to disclose its fiscal-year 2001
results.1 The meeting, however, had another purpose: Nike
management wanted to communicate a strategy
for revitalizing the company. Since 1997, its revenues had
plateaued at around $9 billion, while net income
had fallen from almost $800 million to $580 million (see
Exhibit 1). Nike’s market share in U.S. athletic
shoes had fallen from 48%, in 1997, to 42% in 2000.2 In
addition, recent supply-chain issues and the adverse
effect of a strong dollar had negatively affected revenue.
At the meeting, management revealed plans to address both top-
line growth and operating performance.
To boost revenue, the company would develop more athletic-
shoe products in the mid-priced segment3—a
segment that Nike had overlooked in recent years. Nike also
planned to push its apparel line, which, under
the recent leadership of industry veteran Mindy Grossman,4 had
performed extremely well. On the cost side,
Nike would exert more effort on expense control. Finally,
company executives reiterated their long-term
revenue-growth targets of 8% to 10% and earnings-growth
targets of above 15%.

Analysts’ reactions were mixed. Some thought the financial
targets were too aggressive; others saw
significant growth opportunities in apparel and in Nike’s
international businesses.
Ford read all the analysts’ reports that she could find about the
June 28 meeting, but the reports gave her
no clear guidance: a Lehman Brothers report recommended a
strong buy, while UBS Warburg and CSFB
analysts expressed misgivings about the company and
recommended a hold. Ford decided instead to develop
her own discounted cash flow forecast to come to a clearer
conclusion.
1 Nike’s fiscal year ended in May.
2 Douglas Robson, “Just Do…Something: Nike’s Insularity and
Foot-Dragging Have It Running in Place,” BusinessWeek (2
July 2001).
3 Sneakers in this segment sold for $70 to $90 a pair.
4 Mindy Grossman joined Nike in September 2000. She was the
former president and chief executive of Jones Apparel Group’s
Polo Jeans division.
This case was prepared from publicly available information by
Jessica Chan, under the supervision of Robert F. Bruner and
with the assistance of Sean
D. Carr. The financial support of the Batten Institute is
gratefully acknowledged. It was written as a basis for class
discussion rather than to illustrate
effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.
f Virginia Darden School
Foundation,
Charlottesville, VA. All rights reserved. To order copies, send
an e-mail to [email protected] No part of this publication may
be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or

transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the
permission of the Darden School Foundation. Our goal is to
publish materials of the highest quality, so please submit any
errata to
[email protected]
For the exclusive use of I. LUGO, 2020.
This document is authorized for use only by IRIS LUGO in
Mergers and Acquisitions: Spring I Online taught by EDWARD
HARDING, Johns Hopkins University from Jan 2020 to Apr
2020.
Page 2 UV0010
Her forecast showed that, at a discount rate of 12%, Nike was
overvalued at its current share price of
$42.09 (Exhibit 2). She had done a quick sensitivity analysis,
however, which revealed Nike was undervalued at
discount rates below 11.17%. Because she was about to go into
a meeting, she asked her new assistant,
Joanna Cohen, to estimate Nike’s cost of capital.
Cohen immediately gathered all the data she thought she might
need (Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 4) and
began to work on her analysis. At the end of the day, Cohen
submitted her cost-of-capital estimate and a
memo (Exhibit 5) explaining her assumptions to Ford.

2020.
Page 3 UV0010
Exhibit 1
Consolidated Income Statements
Year Ended May 31 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
(in millions of dollars except per-share data)
Revenues $ 4,760.8 $ 6,470.6 $ 9,186.5 $ 9,553.1 $ 8,776.9 $

8,995.1 $ 9,488.8
Cost of goods sold 2,865.3 3,906.7 5,503.0 6,065.5 5,493.5
5,403.8 5,784.9
Gross profit 1,895.6 2,563.9 3,683.5 3,487.6 3,283.4 3,591.3
3,703.9
Selling and administrative 1,209.8 1,588.6 2,303.7 2,623.8
2,426.6 2,606.4 2,689.7
Operating income 685.8 975.3 1,379.8 863.8 856.8 984.9
1,014.2
Interest expense 24.2 39.5 52.3 60.0 44.1 45.0 58.7
Other expense, net 11.7 36.7 32.3 20.9 21.5 23.2 34.1
Restructuring charge, net - - - 129.9 45.1 (2.5) -
Income before income taxes 649.9 899.1 1,295.2 653.0 746.1
919.2 921.4
Income taxes 250.2 345.9 499.4 253.4 294.7 340.1 331.7
Net income $ 399.7 $ 553.2 $ 795.8 $ 399.6 $ 451.4 $ 579.1 $
589.7
Diluted earnings per common share
Average shares outstanding (diluted)
$ 1.36 $ 1.88 $ 2.68 $ 1.35 $
294.0 293.6 297.0 296.0
1.57
287.5
$ 2.07
279.8
$ 2.16
273.3
Growth (%)
Revenue
Operating income

Net income
35.9
42.2
38.4
42.0
41.5
43.9
4.0
(37.4)
(49.8)
(8.1)
(0.8)
13.0
2.5
15.0
28.3
5.5
3.0
1.8
Margins (%)
Gross margin
Operating margin
Net margin
39.6
15.1
8.5
40.1

15.0
8.7
36.5
9.0
4.2
37.4
9.8
5.1
39.9
10.9
6.4
39.0
10.7
6.2
Effective tax rate (%)* 38.5 38.6 38.8 39.5 37.0 36.0
*The U.S. statutory tax rate was 35%. The state tax varied
yearly from 2.5% to 3.5%.
Sources of data: Company filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), UBS Warburg.
2020.

UV0010
Exhibit 2
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Assumptions:
Revenue growth (%) 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
COGS/sales (%) 60.0 60.0 59.5 59.5 59.0 59.0 58.5 58.5 58.0
58.0
SG&A/sales (%) 28.0 27.5 27.0 26.5 26.0 25.5 25.0 25.0 25.0
25.0
Tax rate (%) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Current assets/sales (%) 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0

38.0 38.0
Current liabilities/sales (%) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
11.5 11.5 11.5
Yearly depreciation and capex equal each other.
Cost of capital (%) 12.00
Terminal growth rate (%) 3.00
Discounted Cash Flow
(in millions of dollars except per-share data)
Operating income $ 1,218.4 $ 1,351.6 $ 1,554.6 $ 1,717.0 $
1,950.0 $ 2,135.9 $ 2,410.2 $ 2,554.8 $ 2,790.1 $ 2,957.5
Taxes 463.0 513.6 590.8 652.5 741.0 811.7 915.9 970.8 1,060.2
1,123.9
NOPAT
Capex, net of depreciation
Change in NWC
Free cash flow
Terminal value
Total flows
Present value of flows
755.4
-
8.8
764.1
764.1
$ 682.3 $
838.0 963.9 1,064.5 1,209.0 1,324.3 1,494.3 1,584.0 1,729.9
1,833.7
- - - - - - - - -
(174.9) (186.3) (198.4) (195.0) (206.7) (219.1) (232.3) (246.2)
(261.0)

663.1 777.6 866.2 1,014.0 1,117.6 1,275.2 1,351.7 1,483.7
1,572.7
17,998.3
663.1 777.6 866.2 1,014.0 1,117.6 1,275.2 1,351.7 1,483.7
19,571.0
528.6 $ 553.5 $ 550.5 $ 575.4 $ 566.2 $ 576.8 $ 545.9 $ 535.0 $
6,301.2
Enterprise value
Less: current outstanding debt
Equity value
Current shares outstanding
Equity value per share
$
$
$
11,415.4
1,296.6
10,118.8
271.5
37.27 Current share price: $ 42.09
Sensitivity of equity value to discount rate:
Discount rate Equity value
8.00% $ 75.80
8.50% 67.85
9.00% 61.25
9.50% 55.68

10.00% 50.92
10.50% 46.81
11.00% 43.22
11.17% 42.09
11.50% 40.07
12.00% 37.27 Source: Case writer's analysis.
2020.
Page 5 UV0010

Exhibit 3
Consolidated Balance Sheets
As of May 31,
(in millions of dollars) 2000 2001
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and equivalents $ 254.3 $ 304.0
Accounts receivable 1,569.4 1,621.4
Inventories 1,446.0 1,424.1
Deferred income taxes 111.5 113.3
Prepaid expenses 215.2 162.5
Total current assets 3,596.4 3,625.3
Property, plant and equipment, net 1,583.4 1,618.8
Identifiable intangible assets and goodwill, net 410.9 397.3
Deferred income taxes and other assets 266.2 178.2
Total assets $ 5,856.9 $ 5,819.6
Liabilities and shareholders' equity
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt $ 50.1 $ 5.4
Notes payable 924.2 855.3
Accounts payable 543.8 432.0
Accrued liabilities 621.9 472.1
Income taxes payable - 21.9
Total current liabilities 2,140.0 1,786.7
Long-term debt 470.3 435.9
Deferred income taxes and other liabilities 110.3 102.2
Redeemable preferred stock 0.3 0.3
Shareholders' equity:

Common stock, par 2.8 2.8
Capital in excess of stated value 369.0 459.4
Unearned stock compensation (11.7) (9.9)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (111.1) (152.1)
Retained earnings 2,887.0 3,194.3
Total shareholders' equity 3,136.0 3,494.5
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity $ 5,856.9 $ 5,819.6
Source of data: Company filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).
2020.
Page 6 UV0010
Exhibit 4

Capital-Market and Financial Information on or around July 5,
2001
Current Yields on U.S. Treasuries Nike Share Price
Performance Relative to S&P 500:
January 2000 to July 5, 2001
3-month 3.59%
6-month 3.59%
1-year 3.59%
5-year 4.88%
10-year 5.39%
20-year 5.74%
Historical Equity Risk Premiums (1926-1999)
Geometric mean 5.90%
Arithmetic mean 7.50%
Current Yield on Publicly Traded Nike Debt*
Coupon 6.75% paid semi-annually
Issued 07/15/96
Maturity 07/15/21
Current Price $ 95.60
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Ja
n
-0
0
M
ar
-0
0
M
ay
-0
0
Ju
l-
0
0
S
ep

-0
0
N
o
v
-0
0
Ja
n
-0
1
M
ar
-0
1
M
ay
-0
1
Ju
l-
0
1

Nike S&P 500
Nike Historic Betas
1996 0.98
1997 0.84 Nike share price on July 5, 2001: $ 42.09
1998 0.84
1999 0.63 Dividend History and Forecasts
2000 0.83 Paymt Dates 31-Mar 30-Jun 30-Sep 31-Dec Total
YTD 6/30/01 0.69 1997 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40
1998 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.48
Average 0.80 1999 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.48
2000 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.48
2001 0.12 0.12
Consensus EPS estimates:
FY 2002 FY 2003 Value Line Forecast of Dividend Growth
from '98-'00 to '04-'06:
$ 2.32 $ 2.67 5.50%
* Data have been modified for teaching purposes.
Sources of data: Bloomberg Financial Services, Ibbotson
Associates Yearbook 1999, Value Line Investment Survey,
IBES.
2020.

UV0010
Exhibit 5
Joanna Cohen’s Analysis
TO: Kimi Ford
FROM: Joanna Cohen
DATE: July 6, 2001
SUBJECT: Nike’s cost of capital
Based on the following assumptions, my estimate of Nike’s cost
of capital is 8.4%:
I. Single or Multiple Costs of Capital?

The first question I considered was whether to use single or
multiple costs of capital, given that Nike
has multiple business segments. Aside from footwear, which
makes up 62% of its revenue, Nike also
sells apparel (30% of revenue) that complements its footwear
products. In addition, Nike sells sport
balls, timepieces, eyewear, skates, bats, and other equipment
designed for sports activities.
Equipment products account for 3.6% of its revenue. Finally,
Nike also sells some non-Nike-
branded products such as Cole Haan dress and casual footwear,
and ice skates, skate blades, hockey
sticks, hockey jerseys, and other products under the Bauer
trademark. Non-Nike brands accounted
for 4.5% of revenue.
I asked myself whether Nike’s business segments had different
enough risks from each other to
warrant different costs of capital. Were their profiles really
different? I concluded that it was only the
Cole Haan line that was somewhat different; the rest were all
sports-related businesses. Since Cole
Haan makes up only a tiny fraction of revenues, however, I did
not think that it was necessary to
compute a separate cost of capital. As for the apparel and
footwear lines, they are sold through the
same marketing and distribution channels and are often
marketed in other collections of similar
designs. Since I believe they face the same risk factors, I
decided to compute only one cost of capital
for the whole company.
II. Methodology for Calculating the Cost of Capital: WACC
Since Nike is funded with both debt and equity, I used the

weighted-average cost of capital (WACC)
method. Based on the latest available balance sheet, debt as a
proportion of total capital makes up
27.0% and equity accounts for 73.0%:
2020.
Page 8 UV0010
Exhibit 5 (continued)
Capital Sources Book Values (in millions)
Debt

Current portion of long-term debt $ 5.4
Notes payable 855.3
Long-term debt 435.9
E
III. Cost of Debt
My estimate of Nike’s cost of debt is 4.3%. I arrived at this
estimate by taking total interest expense
for the year 2001 and dividing it by the company’s average debt
balance.1 The rate is lower than
Treasury yields, but that is because Nike raised a portion of its
funding needs through Japanese yen
notes, which carry rates between 2.0% and 4.3%.
After adjusting for tax, the cost of debt comes out to 2.7%. I
used a tax rate of 38%, which I
obtained by adding state taxes of 3% to the U.S. statutory tax
rate. Historically, Nike’s state taxes
have ranged from 2.5% to 3.5%.
IV. Cost of Equity
I estimated the cost of equity using the capital-asset-pricing
model (CAPM). Other methods, such as
the dividend-discount model (DDM) and the earnings-
capitalization ratio, can be used to estimate
the cost of equity. In my opinion, however, the CAPM is the
superior method.
My estimate of Nike’s cost of equity is 10.5%. I used the
current yield on 20-year Treasury bonds as
my risk-free rate, and the compound average premium of the

market over Treasury bonds (5.9%) as
my risk premium. For beta, I took the average of Nike’s betas
from 1996 to the present.
Putting It All Together
After entering all my assumptions into the WACC formula, my
estimate of Nike’s cost of capital is 8.4%.
WACC = Kd(1 − t) × D/(D + E) + Ke × E/(D + E)
= 2.7% × 27.0% + 10.5% × 73.0%
= 8.4%
1 Debt balances as of May 31, 2000 and 2001, were $1,444.6
million and $1,296.6 million, respectively.
2020.
Individual Assignment - Nike Case Write-Up
Mergers & Acquisitions
I. Introduction (Objective of the Assignment)
The Nike Case Study is intended to serve as an introduction to
the calculation of the
Weighted-Average Cost of Capital (WACC) of the firm.

The case provides a WACC calculation that contains errors
based on conceptual
misunderstandings. Students will identify and explain the
mistakes in the analysis. The
case assumes that students have been exposed to the WACC,
CAPM, the dividend
discount model, and the earnings capitalization model.
II. Assignment Requirements
Complete the Nike Case Study reading (found in the Readings
and Course Materials
folder).
Put yourself in the role of one of the stakeholders in the case,
and reflect on the
information in the document. Make sure to address the
following items:
1. What is the WACC and why is it important to estimate a
firm’s cost of capital? [2
to 3 sentences max.]
2. Calculate your own WACC for Nike. Note the following
requirements:
a. Calculate the Cost of Debt based on the information provided
in the case.
[Fill in the highlighted Excel cells; explain your calculation
briefly]
b. When you are calculating the Cost of Equity, do it under
three different

scenarios:
i. CAPM [Fill in Excel file]
ii. Dividend Discount Model [Fill in Excel file]
iii. Earnings Capitalization method [Fill in Excel file]
c. Summarize what the WACC would be in 3 different
scenarios: using the
Cost of Debt and three different Cost of Equity percentages.
3. Highlight/note any differences versus Joanna Cohen’s
calculation.
4. Which of your three WACC calculations (based on the 3
different Costs of Equity)
do you think makes the most sense and why?
You should have the following section in your final submission.
They should look
something like this:
1. What is your WACC and Why is it Important?
Your answer…
2. WACC Calculations
A Summary of your findings. You will submit the Excel file
separately.
3. Differences vs. Joanna Cohen
Your answer…

4. WACC Recommendation
Your answer….
III. Assignment Format
Students will submit the filled out provided Excel file
(answering the highlighted cells),
and their write-up by the due date. The write-up should be brief
and organized to answer
the questions listed in section II. It should be 2 pages maximum,
double-spaced, with
Calibri (12 pt).
This assignment should also have a cover page with:
• Your name
• The course number/name
• Your instructor’s name
IV. Rubric
This is an individual assignment and accounts for 5% of your
overall grade. You will be
assessed according to the following rubric.
Superior

High
Quality
Average Below
Average
Poor
Formatting and Creativity - Student
correctly incorporates all formatting
requirements. Student identifies a role in
the case and analyzes the case from that
perspective; i.e. the student “owns” the
case.
10 – 9 pts 8 pts 7 pts 6 pts 5 – 0 pts
Part A - Student defines WACC and
effectively communicates its importance in
estimating a firm’s cost of capital.
5 pts 4 pts 3 pts 2 pts 1 pt
Part B - Calculates correct answer for part 1
and includes all supporting calculations;
calculates answers for part 2 and includes
all supporting calculations.
Part C - Identify obvious errors and explain. 5 pts 4 pts 3 pts 2
pts 1 pt

Part D - Justifies selection of WACC
calculation and provides rational analysis
Clarity and Mechanics - Writing is free of
grammatical and spelling errors.
Writing style communicates ideas clearly.
Frequent mass shootings are leading many employers to revisit
their policies involving guns.
Most offices ban firearms, but the debate about whether to arm
teachers, as pushed by
President Donald Trump, is now spilling over into the
workplace.
Josh Blake, a county commissioner in Lake County, Fla., about
225 miles northwest of Parkland,
Fla. where 17 people were gunned down Feb. 14, spent his first
board meeting after the shooting
proposing changes to the county’s employee handbook.
Mr. Blake decided employers needed to take the lead in
protecting workers by allowing more
guns. By unanimous vote, county commissioners repealed rules
that barred brass knuckles and
ammunition and added language to allow people with
concealed-carry permits to bring their

guns to work. The move covers 776 county employees, from
librarians to laborers who fill
potholes.
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To
order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your
colleagues, clients or customers visit
https://www.djreprints.com.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gun-issue-comes-to-the-
office-1521633601
MANAGEMENT & CAREERS
The Gun Issue Comes to the Office
Some employers say their workers should be allowed to carry,
but most stick with no-tolerance policies
Students attending Stuyvesant High School in New York City
were among those across the U.S. who walked out March 14 to
advocate for stricter gun laws. PHOTO: DAVE COLE�THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Updated March 21, 2018 9�47 am ET
By Rachel Feintzeig
https://www.wsj.com/news/types/management-
careers?mod=breadcrumb
“I don’t want my life, my family’s lives or my employees’ lives
dependent on someone else’s
response time,” said Mr. Blake, who noted that tips to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation

about the Parkland suspect had fallen through the cracks.
Some business leaders who want to ban guns entirely on their
sites are constrained by so-called
parking-lot laws. The laws, in more than 20 states, stop
companies from declaring their parking
lots and garages as gun-free zones, according to Giffords Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a
gun- control advocacy group based in San Francisco.
In Ohio, where such a law went into effect last year, many
employers worry about the safety
implications, including at plants where there are dangerous
chemicals, said Don Boyd, the
director of labor and legal affairs for the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce. Other firms see the new
requirements as an infringement on their property rights.
“There’s an enormous amount of anxiety,” Larry Barton, a
workplace violence consultant who
helps Fortune 500 companies create gun policies, said of the
current mood in American
corporations.
In the days after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Barton said he
fielded 40 phone calls from
employers in retail and financial services asking for help talking
to employees. Workers wanted
to know if their colleagues were armed and if guards could
carry guns.
Mr. Barton said he believes workers are safer when
organizations have a clear policy banning
firearms. Many firms are reminding workers of their zero-
tolerance policies. Others are adding
new screening measures, said Jonathan Wackrow, a managing

director with advisory firm
Teneo.
Jasmine Brown, a manager at a regional chain restaurant in
Seattle, Wash., spotted a pistol
holstered on the hip of one of her workers earlier this month.
She felt uncomfortable and
reminded him he wasn’t supposed to bring the firearm to work.
He took the gun home on a break, but when Ms. Brown’s boss
got wind of the incident, he
threatened to fire the employee.
Ms. Brown hopes it doesn’t come to that. “I didn’t feel
threatened at all,” she said. Still, she
added, “I wasn’t okay with it.”
Mike Kahoe, the president of Group Management Services Inc.,
a human- resources outsourcing
company in Richfield, Ohio, prohibits his 300 employees from
bringing guns inside. The
company’s office sports a “no weapons allowed” sticker on the
front door. An employee was
fired last year after carrying a gun in a company vehicle.
But Mr. Kahoe has tweaked the company’s gun policy to allow
an exception: People with
permission of the president can bring a weapon to work. So far,
the only person afforded this
special dispensation is him.
Mr. Kahoe brings a handgun to the office when he anticipates
situations with clients or
employees could get violent. For instance, when firing a burly

sales rep who slammed a chair
down during the uncomfortable conversation, his gun was in a
nearby drawer.
“It made me feel a little better,” he said.
Some company policies go ignored. Sharp Communication Inc.,
a security firm that sells radios
and body armor, bars employees from bringing guns into its
three Alabama locations. Even so,
an employee brought his gun to work to sell to a colleague and
it accidentally fired, injuring
both workers.
Sharp fired the two employees and now makes workers sign its
no-weapons policy. Rex
Reynolds, Sharp’s president and a former law-enforcement
officer, keeps his own handgun in a
lockbox in the middle console of his car.
If there was ever a threat of violence at the office, “I would
certainly return to my car and
retrieve my weapon,” he said.
—John Simons contributed to this article.
Write to Rachel Feintzeig at [email protected]
Copyright © 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjssguaD

Jnu_Hdg4XOGqkVDSLRuAAzSPwpcZbdyceHHeHFCzrh4r3y95
-6zTdQ0X-
GGltthOXiWgcBprtpA9Uc1h26aISw8Th7bUh8DBOTdJTJ1RuF
F5J_L5Il03eccspN1Mj1y_0shGqt1EnqHDSjJlSFo6rmUtKO5Ezs
82LjvM8uM8blzE-
PqX_kuZD6ZT0qnU7RoQoS1AZBtWCf2wQcuZYBBGvsRPoBc
cwiKGV2e_zcekwECz6BIHAU6uc-4-
7jojKcFofzw&sig=Cg0ArKJSzMJ__CnySu7_&adurl=http://wsj.
com
mailto:[email protected]
You have sick days. Can you use them?
The Wall Street Journal’s story on sick-shaming—in which
healthy colleagues scold their sick
peers for showing up to work—inspired hundreds of reader
emails, comments and posts on
social media.
Plenty of readers divulged their own strategies for giving under-
the-weather colleagues the
hint to go home, including one worker whose colleague left a
hand-drawn sign on a boss’s office
door that read: “HEY PHLEGM-BOY! GO HOME!”
Many reactions, though, zeroed in on a larger point: Even in
workplaces that offer an
abundance of paid sick leave, the spread of the always-on work
culture makes it difficult for
many to take time off. Sometimes it’s the boss who pressures
staff to show up no matter what.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-you-really-take-that-sick-day-
readers-react-to-office-sick-shaming-11548864000
Can You Really Take That Sick Day? Readers
React to Office Sick-Shaming
Many argue the presence of hacking, sneezing and sniffling
colleagues at work highlights a bigger issue:
It’s often not easy to stay home
ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER
Jan. 30, 2019 11�00 am ET
By Chip Cutter
https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-sneezed-go-home-
11548346062?mod=article_inline
Others said they inflict the pressure themselves, convinced that
only a crippling stomach bug or
ambulance ride to the emergency room warrants a true sick day.
“Someone has to be on their deathbed” before they realize they
can’t come to work, said
Stephen Schofield, a 28-year-old digital associate at a Chicago
public-relations firm, of the
mind-set of some of his colleagues.

Cecilia Chang, a managed-care contract specialist near
Philadelphia, said that in some previous
jobs, she felt she couldn’t step away from work while sick,
despite company policies allowing
sick time. Some bosses still expected her to respond to emails
while home or to complete
projects on pre-established timelines. Those who disconnected
entirely were seen as inferior,
unable to cope with the pressure of the job, or “less than,” she
said.
“For people to call out sick, they’ve got to feel safe and
supported,” she said.
Nationally, 71% percent of private-sector workers have some
paid sick leave, Labor Department
figures show. Yet, in a recent survey of more than 2,000 adults
by Pittsburgh-based market-
research firm CivicScience, 54% reported coming to work even
while sick. Many workers who
responded to the Journal’s story said their ability to take leave
depended almost entirely on
their relationship with a manager.
Tammy Cooley, a human-resources consultant in Boise, Idaho,
said she has worked for bosses
who expected her to answer the phone every time they called,
regardless of whether she felt
lousy. She also has experienced bosses who proactively asked:
What help do you need so you
can take the day off?
“It starts at the top,” Ms. Cooley said. Managers
who call into conference calls while sick or email
repeatedly on vacation build a culture of “if I’m
not seen, I’m forgotten.”

That puts the onus on colleagues to keep sick
colleagues at bay—one reason some act as sick-
shamers. Clyde Romero, who retired in 2015 as a
captain at American Airlines Group Inc., flying
the A330 on long-haul international routes, said
he had a no-tolerance policy for sick co-pilots in
his cockpit, fearing they could infect others or not
properly perform their in-flight duties.
Newsletter Sign-up
When crew members showed up ill before a trip, he would tell
them, “No, you’re not coming
with me,” he recalled. There was no shaming, but a question:
“What the hell are you doing
here?”
“In the airline industry, when lives are at stake, and you have to
be at your best performance,
there’s none of this” political correctness, he said. “If you make
a mistake, you’re going to be in
trouble.”
Some companies do go to lengths to remind workers to steer
clear of the office while
contagious. In November, Rosana Cerna, vice president of
people and business operations at
Great Place to Work, a people analytics and research firm,
emailed the company’s roughly 80
U.S. employees with the subject line, “Winter Colds... Not for
the Office.” She told sick
colleagues to avoid the temptation of coming into work while
ill: “If you ever come into the

office coughing, sneezing or feeling like you want to crawl into
bed....Go home!” In case her
words didn’t drive home the message, she also included an
emoji with a thermometer in its
mouth.
Ms. Cerna said many employees later thanked her for sending
the reminder.
The existence of workplace shaming, though, suggest many
managers aren’t doing enough,
readers said. “What’s happening now is you’re seeing this from
the bottom-up because it’s not
happening at the top,” said Karyn Detje, a founder of FABRIC,
a people and human-resources
consulting practice based in Washington, Conn.
Ms. Detje advises managers to think of their sick staff members
like family members. If the
boss’s son or daughter became sick, that manager would likely
recommend the child stay home
from work, she reasoned. “That’s exactly how you should be
treating your employees,” Ms.
Detje said.
Write to Chip Cutter at [email protected]
Reserved
http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjsu-
rx8kRq-r58F0F_M2epg-LU2e-l8y5OREayrYxSUYHfws1Lb6d--

dfQie_y4cXFZDKjmJ5V-
jfDLn97d_p4HzoTkjFvmzkLeRMbx9sQoWS1QWBUgklr6-
VhcMsPoDxeSiGXOAgdolhuMtfH8pz0WcWGVDphZRJwXJPO
yBDd4ypiwJEza8yzkfvivyhJh-9qtm1c5-yJd6f4h9ct-
JuE7GBS3OWlSgQxro9HN3n-e-
KAExvksZQFCjBjjpp3ODJlEATasHwQ&sig=Cg0ArKJSzHGZe
n9zGzqM&adurl=http://wsj.com
Two thousand six hundred seventeen times a day. That is how
often the average person taps,
pokes, pinches or swipes their personal phone.
It all adds up to about 2 hours and 25 minutes, according to a
study by mobile app research firm
Dscout Inc. And a good chunk of that time comes during work
hours.
Jason Brown had had enough of it. Two years ago, the chief
executive of Brown, Parker &
DeMarinis Advertising paused for a moment to look across the
meeting room as he delivered a
presentation. The majority of those gathered were fiddling with
their phones.
“I lost it,” says Mr. Brown.
In his anger, he issued a companywide edict: “Don’t show up at
a meeting with me with your
phone. If someone shows up with their phone, it’ll be their last
meeting.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-you-handle-it-bosses-ban-
cellphones-from-meetings-1526470250
‘I Lost It’: The Boss Who Banned Phones,
and What Came Next
Employers limit cellphone use to regain attentiveness. Workers
use watches and laptops instead.
ILLUSTRATION: OTTO STEININGER
May 16, 2018 7�30 am ET
By John Simons
Many managers are conflicted about how—or even whether—to
limit smartphone use in the
workplace. Smartphones enable people to get work done
remotely, stay on top of rapid business
developments and keep up with clients and colleagues. But the
devices are also the leading
productivity killers in the workplace, according to a 2016
survey of more than 2,000 executives
and human-resource managers conducted by CareerBuilder, an
HR software and services
company.
There is also some evidence that productivity suffers in the

mere presence of smartphones.
When workers in a recent study by the University of Texas and
University of California had
their personal phones placed on their desks—untouched—their
cognitive performance was
lower than when their devices were in another location, such as
in a handbag or the pocket of a
coat hanging near their workspace.
“I firmly believe that multitasking is a myth,” says Bill Hoopes,
an IT project manager at L3
Technologies Inc.
Mr. Hoopes put his convictions into practice at group gatherings
when he took over a team of
about 25 people at the aerospace defense company three years
ago. “Every time someone’s
phone went off, they had to stand for the rest of the meeting,”
he says. Before long, he asked the
group to leave their phones at their desks when two or more
people got together.
Over time, he says, he has noticed not only an improvement in
the quality of conversation and
ideas in meetings, but also that his people seem to show more
respect and appreciation for one
another’s work.
Mat Ishbia, CEO of United Wholesale Mortgage, banned
technology from meetings about two
years ago and recently asked that his executive team and other
managers not check their
phones as they walk to and from meetings.
“Don’t act like we’re too important to say hello,” he says he
told them. “Make eye contact with

people.”
Mr. Ishbia is now piloting another solution to phone addiction.
A group of about 250 workers
are part of an experiment in which they refrain from all personal
phone use at their desks. If
they want to use their devices they must go to a common area
designated for phone use and
socializing. Forty-five days into the trial run, workers are
checking their phones a lot less, he
said.
Bryan Lee, a product manager at enterprise software company
Docker Inc., suspected that his
daily phone use was a problem, so last month he installed an
app called Moment on his iPhone
https://quotes.wsj.com/LLL
that tracks the total amount of daily time he spent on his phone.
His first measurement revealed
four hours in a day. Since early April, he’s reduced that to
roughly an hour.
At work, Mr. Lee persuaded his team of eight to download the
app and post their daily phone
hours on a whiteboard. The team member with the lowest time
gets bragging rights.
“We’re thinking of having a trophy we can pass around—or
maybe just shaming the loser,” he
says.
Handheld devices can be a valuable source of information
during office gatherings. Shane

Wooten, CEO of enterprise video platform company Vidplat
LLC, recently surprised a group of
corporate clients with a request that they leave their electronic
devices outside. “They didn’t
like it,” he says.
Since January, Mr. Wooten has limited personal devices at
meetings with his employees and
faced some resistance. Workers argue their phones are vital for
staying in touch with a sick
child or researching information relevant to the meeting.
“I told them we’re not in middle school,” he says. “I’m not
collecting phones in a bucket. Just
don’t have it out faceup on the table.”
Google Inc. announced last week that the next version of its
operating system for Android
phones will include a feature that is meant to help people who
feel tethered to their devices. It
will let users see how much time they spend on their phones,
show which apps they use the
most and display how often the phone gets unlocked.
Software may be the key, because not all workplace solutions
work. The no-phones-at-meetings
rule at Mr. Brown’s ad agency lasted about two months, because
it wasn’t all that effective.
Instead of phones, staffers wore smartwatches to meetings or
brought their laptops, which
were just as distracting, he says, adding that workers said they
were worried about missing
calls and emails from clients.
Now, he tells his 40 employees not to attend meetings unless

they really have to be there and
strongly advises they fully engage.
Mr. Brown missed his phone too and likened the experience to
outlawing alcohol during the
Prohibition era: “A theoretical state that almost no one wants to
live in, including those making
the rules,” he says.
Write to John Simons at [email protected]
Appeared in the May 17, 2018, print edition as 'Eye on the Ball,
Not on the Phone.'
http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjss_98B
_UyIOCZap0GN0K09hCECBJB_3BCzwvJJpGSfRwnvPD-
gLmHRgadiSCTQoHobhqPhul1BnGl3W9j-
GtVc8zQnjykorWPv8SL9zL0GaNTsFs3uuS_-
I9BpKYtVPqDGRy50UtpIqZoB3snW_kGSJfRwJO8rpNQZIfuO
QevV-xdL-
9mcKY7E9jeC4a8wxCa9mYthgoiyvnNCZK5VsHKfSRsuvSGdD
1_tCpacB7rKU3fWq5jipbr0q_eggvRGiAzJmZhgvTg&sig=Cg0A
rKJSzHAqYcRGGyGv&adurl=http://wsj.com
Reserved

UV0010 Rev. Mar. 8, .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to UV0010 Rev. Mar. 8, .docx

Similar to UV0010 Rev. Mar. 8, .docx (20)

More from jessiehampson

More from jessiehampson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

UV0010 Rev. Mar. 8, .docx