JetBlue and HP JetBlue Airways

JetBlue and HP JetBlue Airways The response to the JetBlue question regarding the wisdom of the CEO's appearance in the media following the crisis is generally good and follows the guidelines of the question. All three requirements are there, including the benefits, risks, and biblical integration. Each of these can be considered separately in this evaluation. In the "Benefits" section, the author seems to adequately list the potential benefits of appearing on television.

There is, however, a small issue with the construction of the sentences, which influences my clear understanding of what the author is trying to say. "The CEO should have appeared…," for example, indicates that he did not, but should have. Clearly, the CEO did appear on television; hence, his appearance was indeed beneficial. Generally, however, I find this section good in terms of the solid reasons given for each benefit.

These benefits are substantiated by sources such as Pattison (2008), who emphasizes the need for a company's open communication with its public. In the "Risks" section, each individual risk appears legitimate, although I do not really see the connection between the risk related to not saying what people want to hear and the potential damage caused by appearing to communicate for self-serving purposes. The two seem mutually exclusive to me. Perhaps a statement to the effect that these risks are not necessarily related to each other might help.

Also, because public communication is considered such an important part of company reputation (Business Consulting Buzz, 2009), the respondent might also add that the benefits of communication far outweighs its risks. As for the "Biblical Integration," the Bible quote seems a little abrupt. While it is a relevant quotation, it is perhaps a better idea to connect it directly with Neeleman's actions by means of a connecting word or sentence. In general, this response seems to meet its requirement.

Response 2: Hewlett-Packard This response also seems to address all the issues required by the question. There are, however, a couple of things that could be clarified. The author, for example, does not describe the "HP Way." Certainly, this is the essence of the question, as it is the heart of the company's corporate culture. What exactly is the HP Way? How do employees communicate with each other? If this is to be analyzed, there needs to be a clear description of the issues involved in this culture (HPPA, 2011).

Another issue is the discussion of "weaknesses" revealed by Carly Fiorina's involvement. Again, while the author quite clearly describes her shortcomings in terms of her actions and integration with the corporate culture, there is no focus on which elements of HP's culture itself were weak or inadequate to deal with this challenge. Why was the culture not strong enough to survive Ms.

Fiorina's lack of good management skills? Instead, the description here focuses rather upon the fact that Fiorina ultimately did not adhere to the corporate culture of the company, as indicated by Dobuzinskis (2010). The author could therefore give some attention to the reasons for Fiorina's ability to affect the company as badly as she did. Why did the employees forget the HP Way? What weakness in this culture caused it to crumble under the pressure? Also, the author could give some specific attention to describing the strengths.