Musk Apologizes and Curses Advertisers

After losing major advertisers on X, Elon Musk illustrates communication lessons about apologies and rebuilding image. At least two parts of an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin are worthy of class discussion.

Starting Around 8:15
The first relates to Musk’s agreement with an X post about a antisemitic conspiracy theory. Musk tried to backtrack by posting explanations, which he said were “ignored by the media. And essentially, I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me and to those who are antisemitic, and for that I am quite sorry.” Entwined in his apology is Musk as victim, which typically doesn’t play well in rebuilding image. Apologies focus on those affected—not the actor.

Another good lesson for business communication students is Musk’s regret. He said he “should not have replied to that particular person, and I should have written in greater length as to what I meant.” A leader should know that even liking a post, no less writing, “You have said the actual truth,” carries tremendous weight. Perhaps X, with its entire founding based on short posts, is not the best medium to discuss theories of race. [Side note: Musk clarified during the interview that “tweets” were more appropriate when Twitter allowed only 140 characters. He prefers “posts” now.]

Musk visited Israel, a trip he said was planned before the X post incident. Still, the visit looked like, as Sorkin said, “an apology tour.” Musk denied the accusation, repeating the phrase “apology tour,” despite what crisis communicators might advise. Musk posted, “Actions speak louder than words." Yes, they do, so the post itself is odd. People can draw their own conclusions about his visit to Israel. The Washington Post reported that few advertisers have been positively moved by his visit.

Starting Around 11:15
When Sorkin started speaking about advertisers, Musk interrupted to say, “I hope they stop [advertising].” Understandably, Sorkin looked confused, but Musk continued, “Don’t advertise. . . . If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f—- yourself.” Sorkin was speechless at this point, and Musk repeated the command and asked, “Is that clear? I hope that it is.” We hear titters in the audience, a mix of shock and embarrassment.

Where’s the line between confidence and arrogance? Students certainly will have opinions on that topic. In fairness, Musk gets quite philosophical later in the interview. He comes across as authentic and somewhat vulnerable, revealing his personal struggles as well as his commitment to the environment and his business plans. He also expressed disappointment about OpenAI, having named the platform, which he said “should be renamed super-closed source for maximum profit AI.” That got a genuine laugh.

Emotions Drove a Football Manager's Comments

A football writer offers a lesson for all business communicators: “Maybe managers shouldn’t give interviews straight after games.” Similar to other business situations, emotions run high, and people need to take a beat before they speak or write. Student athletes and fans will be particularly interested in this story, but the example is for anyone who reacts before thinking through the consequences.

Arsenal Football Club (soccer to Americans) manager Mikel Arteta took an interview after a disappointing game. He disputed a goal call:

We have to talk about the result because you have to talk about how the hell this goal stands up and it’s incredible. I feel embarrassed, but I have to be the one now come here to try to defend the club and please ask for help, because it’s an absolute disgrace that this goal is allowed. . . .It’s an absolute disgrace. Again, I feel embarrassed having more than 20 years in this country, and this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world. I am sorry.

Critics called Arteta’s reaction “disproportionate.” Such language as “how the hell” and “absolute disgrace” reflect a far greater injustice. I’ll leave the analysis to sports enthusiasts, but it seems like a questionable call—not an outrage.

The trouble worsens when the Arsenal Football Club defends Arteta in a statement, which included unequivocal support: “Arsenal Football Club wholeheartedly supports Mikel Arteta’s post-match comments.” The Athletic describes what business communication faculty would conclude, comparing the response to a crisis situation:

But for a football club to release an “official statement,” once upon a time the sort of thing reserved for managerial dismissals and so forth, about a marginal refereeing decision they disagree with, is extraordinary.

Over-reactions are difficult to withdraw. Arsenal supported the manager, which generally is a good corporate practice, but doubling-down on exaggeration makes management look defensive and lacking humility, as if they know a wrong was committed but are stuck.

Of course, a better approach for Arteta is to have waited a bit, as the writer suggests. It’s the same for business communicators. Write an email while angry but don’t send it until a day or so later. During a difficult interaction, pause and step away if you need to. Most often, an immediate response, as this situation shows, isn’t needed.

"Open to Work" and Other Desperations

Although LinkedIn offers an “open to work” option, at least one recruiter says it’s the “biggest red flag" for employers. This reminds me of other ways students inadvertently appear desperate to recruiters.

LinkedIn explains the feature, which offers the option to show the banner to all LinkedIn members or only to recruiters. Users might select all members, thinking about networking strategies, but this might increase the look of desperation. LinkedIn also explains, “[W]e can’t guarantee complete privacy” because, if someone is still employed, recruiters at the company might find out from other recruiters that they’re on the market.

One recruiter compares job seeking to dating and encourages “exclusivity.” Business communication faculty may refer to Cialdini’s scarcity principle: people want what they can’t have.

We coach students to be more selective in their search. When a recruiter or hiring manager asks, “What’s your ideal job?,” students should have one in mind—not too narrow, but not too broad either. “I’ll do anything. I just want to work for xx” likely won’t inspire an offer. This reminds me of reading applications for the Cornell Nolan School of Hotel Administration. Many students would write that they applied because “it’s the best” program. That answer says little about the applicant’s decision process—or maybe the answer says it all.

On the other hand, students who lie about multiple job offers are playing a dangerous game. In addition to the obvious issues of integrity, college recruiters talk.

Networking requires more effort than a banner. Years of curating a network, which develops from supporting and being helpful to others, results in people who care about an applicant and want to see that person succeed. For students, this is more challenging but starts during school.

John Oliver Blasts McKinsey

Last Week Tonight produced a 26-minute segment criticizing management consultancy McKinsey. Students can decide whether John Oliver was fair in his conclusion that, “McKinsey’s advice can be expensive but obvious, its predictions can be deeply flawed, and it’s arguably supercharged inequality in this country.” He contrasts these conclusions with the CEO saying, “Our purpose is to create positive, enduring change in the world.”

Here are a few areas to explore, or you can just show the fake recruiting ad starting at 23:00, which is pretty funny.

Timing

I’m curious why Oliver created this segment now. McKinsey’s role in the opioid crisis, which he covers at around 12:00, was most highly litigated back in 2021 - 2022. He doesn’t point to anything specific since then.

Evidence

To make his points, Oliver uses a variety of evidence but mostly examples in the form of stories. If this were a serious rebuke of McKinsey, students might expect more data. I also question the many references to a 1999 film. Maybe things have changed since then? The inexplicable timing contributes to the segment feeling like the attack that it is, rather than a balanced piece. But I forget: This is “late-night news,” not actual news.

The Example of Eliminating Signatures

The example of identifying cost savings for an energy client is just silly (at 7:30). I wonder whether this is just a terrible example—or whether more information about the situation, or more examples in the original video, would make it less embarrassing. We don’t see the context.

Oliver’s Indignance

Oliver jokes about his British accent sounding “smug” (6:33), but his style is part of the reason I don’t watch him or other talk-show hosts. I’m guessing a lot of students find him funny because of his style. This might start an interesting discussion about delivery styles.

McKinsey’s Response

I don’t see any response from McKinsey, and I don’t think it would be wise. But it’s a worthy discussion point with students. Why wouldn’t the company respond? What are the arguments for responding? What, if anything, could the company say or do?

Other Perspectives

Business communication faculty—and journalism faculty—teach students to offer multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives. At around 21:00, Oliver does present other sides. He acknowledges that other consulting firms sometimes act unethically or have questionable client relationships, which (sort-of) addresses criticism that he’s singling out McKinsey. Oliver also describes how McKinsey responded to an inquiry from the show a few days before airing and admits that he’s presenting examples, which McKinsey would say don’t represent their work. But he argues against these claims by saying that the harm McKinsey has done outweighs the good.

Character

Starting at around 22:30, Oliver calls out the character dimensions students will associate with this story. He calls for greater accountability and transparency, which I describe as part of integrity. That cues up the parody McKinsey recruiting video, which starts at 23:00 for students’ enjoyment.

Of course, the entire segment raises questions about Oliver’s own integrity. Then, again, the show is what it is intended to be: entertaining.

SBF's "Scoffing" Relates to Student Behavior

The Sam Bankman-Fried trial is getting dramatic, with the defendant’s behavior potentially affecting a witness. This situation raises questions about audience reactions during presentations.

Caroline Ellison, formerly the Alameda CEO and Bankman-Fried’s girlfriend, is testifying against him. Her attorney called out Bankman-Fried’s behavior while she was on the witness stand: “[T]he defendant has laughed, visibly shaken his head, and scoffed.” He claimed that this could have a negative effect on her, while Bankman-Fried’s attorney said his reactions are “for your honor and the jury to decide.” I can’t imagine his behavior reflects well on him.

I think about all those presentations I gave while working for companies and all those presentations I watched students deliver in class. The audience could certainly affect someone’s delivery—even if someone wasn’t involved romantically.

I also think of the “head-nodders”—those students, during presentations or regular class—who inspire the speaker (or the faculty member) to continue, believing the message is well received. At the same time, some students seem to nod reflexively (or maybe to keep themselves awake).

Students would benefit from a conversation about their nonverbals as audience members. What does a nod or a smile mean: support, encouragement, listening, or something else? To what extent are students aware of their behavior?

How do students giving presentations interpret behavior, for example, looking at the clock or writing notes? To what extent are students swayed by audience behavior? Students might reflect on their experiences during internships: have audiences affected their presentation delivery?

An interesting, but risky, question after a presentation would be to ask speakers what behaviors they observed and how, if at all, they were affected. As faculty, we need to be prepared to answer the same question about our observations and the affect on us. Are you highly sensitive, immune, or somewhere in between?

Image source.

Small Talk Phrases

Matt Abrahams promotes his new book in an attention-grabbing CNBC headline: “The No. 1 phrase people who are good at small talk always use, says Stanford public speaking expert.” Of course, I was curious about the phrase, and it is . . . “Tell me more.”

Although the headline is hyperbolic (“No. 1” and “always”), Abrahams is encouraging what any business communication faculty member would encourage: use open-ended questions and phrases. He also recommends, “What excited you about that?” or “Wow, what happened next?” or “How did you feel when that happened?” Abrahams’ point is to avoid “shifting” the conversation to yourself. However, sometimes it’s useful to relate to a speaker by sharing your own experience. Also, these phrases are useful when, at times, you’re not sure what to say in response.

Students might choose phrases that feel more natural to them, for example, “I’d like to hear more about __,” “Say more about that,” or, simply, “Really?” I recently heard, “Can you take that thinking further along the track for me?” I liked that approach given the situation (a complex political idea). In similar situations, I’ve heard others offer a noncommittal “Interesting,” which felt like a polite, “Please stop talking now.”

In addition to “small talk” situations, students could practice these phrases during presentation Q&As.

Image source.

UAW Video Promotes UAW

Once again, I’m confused by United Auto Workers (UAW) communications. With the strike against three automakers in effect, a new video, posted on the website home page, is worth analyzing for audience and communication objectives.

As I wrote about last month, UAW president Shawn Fain is a prominent figure in these union messages. He’s on screen during much of the video, titled “What Is the Stand Up Strike?” and narrates for the entire four minutes, with dramatic background music throughout.

The actors and audience are unclear. Fain starts, “Everything working people have ever won, we’ve won together.” Who’s “we”? What “working people”? All working people? If so, that’s a stretch. He continues, “Today, America’s autoworkers are in the fight of our lives.” By using “our,” he includes himself. In the next few sentences, with accompanying images, he lists autoworkers’ broad goals around pay, benefits, and job security. But he transitions, loosely: “Winning these demands will take all of us. It will take a return to our roots.”

In the next segment, which lasts about one minute, Fain describes the UAW’s history. We see black and white images dating back to 1936, when Fain says the union confronted “company thugs, spies, and antiunion laws.” Promoting the value of the UAW—and unions, in general—this part seems to address a broader audience. Similarly, for about another minute, Fain then explains the union’s strategy of striking “The Big Three,” presenting the approach as an innovative model.

Not until 3:17 in the 4-minute video does Fain address autoworkers directly. He says, “UAW family, be ready,” and then encourages people to strike if their “local” is called up, stand on the picket line, and participate in other organizing activities. Business communication students will recognize the anaphora towards the end: “Stand up for ourselves and the working class. Let’s stand up for future generations. Let’s stand up for economic and social justice. Let’s stand up and, once again, make history together.”

My skepticism is about autoworkers’ interest in those ideals. Do people strike, which causes at least short-term economic loss, to make history? For future generations? This is why I miss the voice of the autoworker. How do people describe their struggles? What do they see as unfair? What would they like to see changed? Where’s the peer-to-peer influence if workers are the intended audience?

Here’s the video YouTube description, with another dose of anaphora:

The Stand Up Strike is our generation’s answer to the movement that built our union, the Sit-Down Strikes of 1937. Then as now, we face massive inequality across our society. Then as now, our industry is rapidly changing and workers are being left behind. Then as now, our labor movement is redefining itself. This is a strike that grows over time, giving our national negotiators maximum leverage and maximum flexibility to win a record contract.

A Staff Member Handles Mitch McConnell Skillfully

Although news reports (and mean memes) focus on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “freezing” during another news conference, I want to focus on the aide who handled the incident with kindness and grace. I can’t find information about who she is, but she serves as a good example of what to do in an uncomfortable presentation situation.

In the video, we see the woman by Senator McConnell’s side to support him while he is silent after receiving a question. She waited a few seconds to see whether McConnell would recover his words, and then was next to him quickly, touching his arm, and asking in a clear voice, “Did you hear the question, Senator? Running for election in 2026?” Framing the lapse as a hearing problem helped maintain McConnell’s dignity. When he didn’t respond, she addressed the group colloquially, as a colleague might: “OK, I’m sorry, y’all. We’re gonna need a minute.” She winked at them, as though she were taking them into her confidence. Then, she called the security officer up in case the senator needed to be removed from the podium. Fortunately, he did not.

After McConnell said he was fine, the woman stayed by his side for just a bit more. Then, again implying that it might have been a hearing problem (and the reporter’s fault), said, “Somebody else have a question? Please speak up.” She also made a good choice in seeking a new question in case the previous loaded one contributed to the lapse.

Her handling of the situation was much better than what happened last month, when the senator was silent and unmoving for about 20 seconds. At that time, a gaggle of people stood behind him looking anxious until a colleague asked him, “Hey Mitch. Anything else you want to say, or should we just go back to your office.” Then he was escorted away. To be fair, he recovered last time, so this aide thought that was possible again—and he did.

McConnell didn’t help ward off questions about his age and health when he avoided reporters’ questions about the incident last month. He said, “I’m fine” when he’s clearly not. The reporter asked if the moment was related to his injury, and he could have used that as a reason. For example, he could have said that it was probably a remnant of his concussion, which his doctor wrote in a letter recently, or he could have made a joke or conveyed agility and inspired confidence in some other way.

This time, the staff member helped preserve his dignity, but questions about his ability to continue in his role linger.

The Art of the Business Leader Interview

David Rubenstein’s Peer to Peer show on Bloomberg TV is a window into business and political leaders’ lives—and how to approach such an interview. The website, also a YouTube channel, has dozens of interviews. I wish the representation were better, but students can watch someone who interests them and analyze the questions and answers.

In one recent clip, Galaxy Digital Founder and CEO Mike Novogratz refers to Sam Bankman-Fried as a “sociopath.” This segment illustrates how a leader admits his own failings: although he didn’t invest with with SBF, Novogratz acknowledges doing business with him and losing money. Then again, he says, “I just never assumed I’m dealing with a sociopath. It’s hard to risk-manage against that.”

Instructors might ask students to identify ways in which leaders demonstrates character dimensions, for example, authenticity, humility, integrity, and vulnerability.

Press Conference About School Shooting

This may be too raw to share with students, but this video serves as a good example of a crisis communication press conference. Officials from Richmond, VA, describe a shooting after a high school graduation that killed two and left five injured. The conference is just hours after the incident, so little is known at this point, but authorities say, with confidence, that a suspect is in custody.

In the video, we see principles for a crisis communication news conference. Some of the following are out of order or are covered by different speakers: the police chief, Mayor Levar Marcus Stoney, and the school superintendent. The Q&A also illustrates these principles, despite a pending investigation:

• Introduce yourself

• After brief context, give condolences first if people are affected

• Provide a preview (list of topics you’ll cover)

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

• Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)

• Provide investigation process/status

• Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Mayor Stoney’s section is a particularly good example of an inspiring speech. He demonstrates courage with his stand about guns, which is controversial. I don’t have good evidence for this opinion, but I remember, years ago, officials avoiding criticism of guns immediately after shooting incidents because it was “too soon.” That seems to have shifted.

Untimely "Welcome to Hell" Ad

As orange haze was filling New York, a billboard appeared in the foreground: “Welcome to Hell, New York.” Creators of the “Diablo IV” video game ad didn’t realize the poor timing, and the coincidence may have worked in their favor. The launch date on the billboard is 6.6.23, the same day air quality alerts began. Of course, if marketers used the news of smoke from Canadian wildfires to promote the ad, that would have been in poor taste.

On Twitter, the EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO, Activision Blizzard, responded to questions:

I would like to clarify that Blizzard has no affiliation or partnership with the wildfires in Canada. In fact we are firmly against wildfires and condemn them in the strongest terms.

Funny? Maybe they could have done better. Some humor is acceptable in this situation because the smoke was eerie and could be harmful but didn’t cause widespread devastation, at least in New York. If that had been the case, for example, if the ad appeared in Quebec, the company response would need to be quite different.

This story reminds me of the adage (P. T. Barnum), no publicity is bad publicity, which is no longer true. But in this case, Activision Blizzard got recognition beyond the billboard.

OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone

In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.

In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:

"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”

Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”

Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.

In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:

"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."

In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.

The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.

Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”

Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.

Tense NBA Player Interview About "Failure"

A reporter asked NBA Milwaukee Bucks pro Giannis Antetokounmpo whether he considers the season a “failure,” and his response offers lessons for business presentations. First, Antetokounmpo said the reporter asked the same “odd question” the previous year. He pushed back, asking the reporter whether he gets a promotion every year and drawing an analogy to Michael Jordan’s success: “Michael Jordan played 15 years, won six championships. The other nine years was a failure?” Antetokounmpo put the losses in greater context, as crisis communicators do.

Reactions to his response are generally positive, and some are debating whether the question, also asked of another player, was “fair.” Generally, public reaction approved of the question, although some viewed it as “unprofessional” or a “gotcha.” This raises a good discussion topic for class: what is an “unfair” question?

Students might think about questions for business presentations. What questions do they consider out of bounds for their own topics, and what would they avoid asking of others? At the same time, how can they prepare for the inevitable “unfair” question? For bad-news presentations, I have planted and encouraged a few from class. Although difficult to address, students gained confidence with more practice.

Antetokounmpo’s response is also emotional, and students will have opinions on what’s “appropriate” for business presentations. When I Googled to find his interview, this video appeared from 2019, titled, “Giannis Antetokounmpo EMOTIONAL SPEECH.”

Comms About TikTok Testimony

TikTok CEO Shou Chew’s testimony provides examples of persuasive communication. U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee members called on Chew to address concerns about safety and security, but lawmakers were not convinced by his answers and are taking steps against the company.

The Committee webpage lists members’ comments under non-parallel, but descriptive headings. The page is self-promotional: congressional members are proud of grilling the CEO, and we see only pithy, unattributed statements—none of Chew’s responses.

Chew’s opening statement is his attempt to convince the committee that TikTok is sufficiently American and will become more so. To establish credibility—and to distance himself from the Chinese government—Chew starts with his brief background: born in Singapore, attended college in the U.K. and business school in the States, and married a Virginian. Chew describes “Project Texas,” the company’s plan to move data to the United States where it will be fully controlled by Americans. Students can analyze his persuasive strategies and delivery skills. He is clear but nods quite a bit.

During the five-hour testimony, as these hearings go, some representatives invested more in their questions than in wanting legitimate answers, while others never got their questions answered. Some sticking points were around 55 minutes into the video and then around the one-hour mark, when Chew evaded questions repeatedly. What made headlines is Chew’s admission that the Chinese government may be able to access some data—or he wasn’t clear enough: “After Project Texas is done, the answer is no,” and “Today, there is still some data that we need to delete.” Several times, Chew tried to put TikTok in context of the tech industry, saying the company is no worse than any others and may be doing more, for example, to protect kids and reduce misinformation.

After the testimony, a TikTok spokesperson tweeted: "Shou came prepared to answer questions from Congress, but, unfortunately, the day was dominated by political grandstanding that failed to acknowledge the real solutions already underway through Project Texas or productively address industry-wide issues of youth safety. Also not mentioned today by members of the Committee: the livelihoods of the 5 million businesses on TikTok or the First Amendment implications of banning a platform loved by 150 million Americans.”

Regardless, Chew’s testimony didn’t seem to impress lawmakers. We’ll see what happens next.

Image source.

Miami Beach Tries to Curtail Spring Break

Students might be interested in analyzing a video of the mayor of Miami Beach instituting a midnight curfew. Dan Gelber’s message comes after two fatal shootings, which he puts into broader context: “As is the case with most serious crime in our city, both shootings were between visitors to Miami Beach and did not involve residents.” Using anaphora as a rhetorical device, he also said, “We don’t ask for Spring Break in our city. We don’t want Spring Break in our city.”

The mayor describes the rapid police response but says police action would never be enough considering “the volume [sic] of people in our city, the unruly nature of too many, and the presence of guns.” He demonstrates accountability and courage with a clear plan despite the risks: a midnight curfew on South Beach within a defined area. The rules are clear, and the mayor refers to the city website for more details.

Mayor Gelber wards off criticism by saying they are within their legal rights. He apologizes for the “disruption and inconvenience” but could acknowledge more specifically the potential negative impact on businesses and residents.

Students may find his delivery interesting, for example, his impassioned speech, word emphasis, and gestures. The setting, his attire, and his choosing to reach a script also reflect on the mayor’s credibility and are worthy discussion topics.

Salesforce CEO Addresses McConaughey Controversy

The Salesforce CEO responded to criticism about paying actor Matthew McConaughey (“a friend,” according to a WSJ report) more than $10 million while laying off 8,000 employees. In a video interview, Marc Benioff uses persuasive strategies to convince the audience that this is appropriate and not an ethical issue or, as the Barron’s interviewer asks, “Is that fair?”

Benioff started with a joke, which is surprising considering the situation. He interrupts the interviewer to say, “alright, alright, alright,” a classic line from McConaughey’s 1993 movie Dazed and Confused. By not taking the issue seriously, Benioff might have reduced his credibility.

But Benioff then used an effective crisis communication strategy of distancing the current time: “Years ago, we signed a contract with Matthew . . . ” A better choice might have been to avoid using only his first name, which stresses his personal relationship. But the time period does separate the decision from the recent cost-cutting.

Directly addressing the question, Benioff said, “Putting those two things together, I don’t think is fair,” and “it’s not related to our layoffs.” Another strategy Benioff used was providing context. First, he explained that the company ramped up and then faced currency and inflation issues that required reductions. Next, he said, “Do we have to take an employment action [layoffs]? Well, I think every company is.” Acting in line with other companies makes the layoffs sound reasonable—even necessary—without requiring other cuts, such as marketing.

Of course, Benioff doesn’t address the possibility of cancelling McConaughey’s contract, and he doesn’t provide evidence of McConaughey’s “great work” that would warrant maintaining the expense. But overall, Benioff does a good job pushing back on the criticism.

"Intense" Google All-Hands Meeting

A window into a Google employee meeting reveals strife within the company and how executives are responding by redefining/clarifying strategy and downplaying problems. Employees are still frustrated about the embarrassing introduction of Bard, Google’s AI competitor to ChatGPT. In the exchange, below, Bard product lead Jack Krawczyk tried to distinguish the engine from search, which employees say differs from the initial strategy. A new feature, “Search It,” is newly built for internal use for this purpose.

[Employee Question] “Bard and ChatGPT are large language models, not knowledge models. They are great at generating human-sounding text, they are not good at ensuring their text is fact-based. Why do we think the big first application should be Search, which at its heart is about finding true information?”

Krawczyk responded by immediately saying, “I just want to be very clear: Bard is not search.”

“It’s an experiment that’s a collaborative AI service that we talked about,” Krawczyk said. “The magic that we’re finding in using the product is really around being this creative companion to helping you be the sparkplug for imagination, explore your curiosity, etc.”

But Krawczyk was quick to follow up by saying, “we can’t stop users from trying to use it like search.”

CEO Sundar Pichai stressed improvements over time, downplaying Bard’s factual error, which overshadowed the rollout and caused Alphabet’s 9% stock decline. He said, “It’s important to acknowledge that it’s experimental, and “Products like this get better the more the people who use them. It’s a virtuous cycle.”

At some point, Pichai acknowledged, “It’s an intense time.” The meeting sounded rough, showing us the difficulty of facing employees in real time. All-hands meetings like this take leaders’ patience and sometimes call for vulnerability, which isn’t apparent from these quotes. From the reported excerpts, it’s difficult to gauge how employees responded, but the intensity, as Pichai said, is clear.

Campus Communications About a Shooting

In the most recent gun violence tragedy, a man shot and killed three Michigan State University students, injured five more, and then shot himself. Although this may be a difficult class discussion, students can learn about crisis communications from the incident.

MSU Communications

The day after the shooting, Interim President Teresa K. Woodruff posted a video to the “Spartan” community. In some ways, her presentation is classic crisis communication with the typical sympathy to the families and friends; gratitude to locals, colleagues, and President Biden; encouragement for everyone to feel and to heal; and information about classes, counseling, and events. The presentation is also classic academic with metaphors and a Henry Wadsworth Longfellow quote. Woodruff sounds formal and scripted, starting with “Dear Spartans and Friends.” She plays it safe, giving no comment about the political controversy about guns.

A Chronicle article is titled, “‘We Have a National Crisis’: How Michigan State Responded to a Mass Shooting,” but it’s misleading. The article quotes an associate professor of education; the quote is not an official university stance and illustrates the problem with individuals speaking to the press. Students can debate whether the university should take a stand and whether now is the appropriate or effective time.

From at least Tuesday at 9:30 p.m. until Wednesday at 9 a.m. ET, the entire MSU home page is an “alert” shown here.

On the "emergency” page, we see a series of messages from the “Shelter-in-place order” to “Property assistance information.”

Other University Communications

Emails like this one from Cornell University central administration and this one from a dean are typical. In these types of situations, universities tend to reach out to their own students. Students may have friends at MSU and, even if they don’t know someone affected, a shooting incident, understandably, makes people in similar situations feel unsafe. Campus security is always questioned. Perhaps students can compare Cornell’s message to ones they may have received.

Press Conference

Local leaders and police officials held a press conference, which serves as an example of crisis communication and handling public questions. Of course, students will have comments about delivery, style, and other aspects of presentations skills.

New Zealand PM Resignation

Jacinda Ardern’s announcement of her resignation as the prime minister of New Zealand is a good example for students to analyze. In addition to the obvious discussion about delivery skills and script writing, Ardern demonstrates several character dimensions, for example, humility, vulnerability, authenticity, and integrity. Her decision also raises issues of gender roles, as this opinion article explains.