You Can Run But You Can’t Hide

Friday’s Fiasco

When your stock price depends on customers you’ve offended

A former security analyst is suing Campbell’s Soup for employment discrimination and retaliation after allegedly being fired for reporting inappropriate conduct by a senior executive. The case centres on a secretly recorded tirade in which a senior vice president allegedly mocked the company’s products, its customers as “poor people,” and made derogatory comments about Indian employees. The whistleblower, Robert Garza, kept the recording private for several weeks before reporting it in January 2025. Campbell’s has placed the executive, J.D. Aupperle, on leave pending investigation, calling the comments (if legitimate) unacceptable and inconsistent with company values.

When one of your leaders is recorded slagging off both your customers and your colleagues, and the person who eventually reports it gets sacked, the employment tribunal probably should be the least of your worries.

If Campbell’s Soup Company asked for our advice, here’s what we’d recommend:

Understand that winning the legal case isn’t winning here. Even if you successfully defend the retaliation claim, you’ve still got a senior executive on record mocking the people who buy your products and discriminating against your workforce. Your customers now know what leadership really thinks of them. Your employees know what happens when you report wrongdoing. That damage doesn’t disappear with a legal victory.

Ask more questions. Why did Garza sit on the recording for weeks before reporting it? What made him wait? What signals convinced him that immediate reporting would be career-ending? What can you commit to to change that for other current employees?

Drop the “if the recording was legitimate” hedge. You’ve already put the executive on leave. That qualifier signals you’re still deciding whether to believe your own employee over your leader, which is exactly the problem that created this mess.

Map the real damage. A senior vice president doesn’t develop open contempt for customers and discriminatory attitudes in isolation. What signals has your leadership been sending? What behaviours have been tolerated or rewarded? And critically: how many other employees are sitting on evidence of wrongdoing because they’ve watched what happened to Garza?

Recognise the importance of repair. Your customers (publicly held in contempt) deserve to know this isn’t who you are. Your employees deserve to know they can report wrongdoing without career suicide. Your investors deserve to know you’re managing material cultural and legal risk. None of that gets fixed by winning in court.

The employment tribunal will end but the damage to trust, culture, and performance from the handling of this matter won’t, unless you actually take steps to put things right.

We're organisational repair specialists. We repair damage, rebuild trust, and restore performance after M&A, crises, disputes, or other disruptive change.

Fodder from the floor

We need your help! Why not vote for Leah’s fireside chat with Professor Kate Devlin, Professor of Artificial Intelligence & Society at Kings College London at SXSW London entitled:

Sorry, not sorry: AI and the death of genuine apologies.

If you’d like to vote, click the button below to:

• create an account / sign into your SXSW account

• cast your vote within five (!) minutes

• vote for as many sessions as you can within that time

Your voice has a huge impact on who takes the stage, so be sure to get involved. Have your say and influence the conversations that will shape the future. Voting closes on 23 December, so don’t miss your chance!

Dear Leah,

Our most promising investment is unravelling. Eighteen months ago, we led a Series A in a mission-driven startup with an exceptional founder and passionate team. We agreed to be "founder-friendly" and support their vision.

But as growth pressures mounted, we pushed for a "seasoned" COO and introduced "professional" management processes. The founder feels we've "taken over their company," the original team is demoralised, and three key engineers just left to start a competing venture. Our new COO keeps complaining the team is "resistant to growth" and "too emotionally attached to legacy ways of working."

Last week the founder asked if we'd consider letting them buy us out—they'd rather fail on their terms than succeed on ours. We've invested £5 million and our ownership stake is now threatening to destroy the investment. How do we support growth without killing what made this company investable?

— The cure is killing the patient

Dear the cure is killing the patient,

Your "professional management" destroyed what you paid £5 million for. The founder is correct: this was your deal, not theirs, and your seasoned COO is killing the company.

Book Leah to speak at your next corporate event about organisational repair: why unrepaired damage costs more than the crisis itself, how to spot the warning signs before trust collapses, and what repair looks like in practice.

Face the facts

We're organisational repair specialists. We repair damage, rebuild trust, and restore performance after crises, disputes, or disruptive change. Visit www.thewayfindersgroup.com for more information.