Blame Game for United Airlines

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby apologized for blaming regulators for contributing to the airline’s flight delays. In a memo to employees, COO Jonathan Roitman, who has been removed from his role, indicated that FAA actions caused half of the delays:

“We estimate that over 50% of our delay minutes and 75% of our cancels in the past four months were because of FAA traffic management initiatives—those have been particularly acute in Newark and Florida. These ATC challenges can not only disrupt the schedule, but they also cause us to burn crew time throughout the month.”

The FAA responded by blaming the airline for mismanaging operations during weather conditions. After that, on an earnings call, Kirby said, “I apologized to [Transportation Secretary Pete] Buttigieg because that is not what we intended.”

All this comes after Buttigieg criticized the airlines for cancelling flights and not offering refunds. This is a complicated issue, likely caused by several factors, including staffing issues on both sides. Although Kirby didn’t take full responsibility, he demonstrated some humility and vulnerability in admitting that attacking regulators is not a useful argument, particularly when an internal memo goes public, which is always to be expected.

New Uber Document Leaks

Internal Uber documents from 2013 - 2017 prove what many have thought about the company under the leadership of founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick. More than 124,000 illustrate how Uber, according to a Guardian article, “louted laws, duped police, exploited violence against drivers and secretly lobbied governments during its aggressive global expansion.” Company executives admitted to acting like “pirates.” One wrote, “We’re just f—ing illegal.”

In Building Leadership Character, I profiled Kalanick’s leadership as a example of failing humility. As a dimension of character, humility is being “rightsized”—believing you’re neither below nor above others. Bragging about skirting the law is an obvious illustration of a lack of humility.

A spokesperson for Kalanick responded to what is called the “Uber files.” The message itself demonstrates failing humility, including an inability to learn from mistakes. (Of course Kalanick may face legal in addition to image challenges.) Instead of taking responsibility, the spokesperson questions the authenticity of the documents and tries to distance Kalanick from them:

In pressing its false agenda that Mr Kalanick directed illegal or improper conduct, the ICIJ [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] claims to have documents that Mr Kalanick was on or even authored, some of which are almost a decade old.

As a crisis communication strategy, distancing is often effective. Uber employs the same strategy in its statement, for example, “When we say Uber is a different company today, we mean it literally: 90 percent of current Uber employees joined after Dara became CEO.” The company admits mistakes and uses that fact as the impetus for change: “It’s also exactly why Uber hired a new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, who was tasked with transforming every aspect of how Uber operates.”

Business communication students can analyze both responses as crisis and persuasive communications. Which is more effective in restoring image?

Image source.

TikTok Tries to Reassure Senators

Two letters illustrate persuasive communication for students to analyze. The first is a letter from nine republican U.S. senators following a BuzzFeed article, “Leaked Audio From 80 Internal TikTok Meetings Shows That US User Data Has Been Repeatedly Accessed From China.”

The second is TikTok’s response. After a few introductory paragraphs (which say very little, in my opinion), CEO Shou Zi Chew tackles each question in sequence.

As we might expect, some responses are clearer than others. In a fairly obvious obfuscation, Chew doesn’t respond to sub-questions (a, b, c, etc.) individually. Question 9, about Beijing parent company ByteDance and a newly named subsidiary, is particularly confusing.

Despite company efforts, at least one senator believes TikTok should testify before Congress.

Image source.

More Documents Show McKinsey's Role in Promoting Drugs

McKinsey has already paid close to a $600 million settlement for its consulting work with Purdue Pharma that fueled the opioid crisis. Now, as part of that investigation, new evidence has emerged about its role with other companies.

For example, McKinsey worked with Endo, which ramped up sales as part of a “blitz” recommended by McKinsey. In some cases, McKinsey suggested focusing on more potent products and, as we saw with Purdue, targeting physicians and developing aggressive sales incentive programs.

Endo sold Opana, which became an injected street-drug and caused an HIV outbreak. Still, McKinsey suggested ways to increase sales. McKinsey also recommended ways to avoid taxes, which, although technically legal, President Obama called tax “abuse.”

McKinsey promoted itself as having “in-depth experience in narcotics.” In one document, McKinsey boasted, “We serve the majority of the leading players.” That persuasive language has come back to bite the company.

Examples from the McKinsey document trove are included in 11th edition of Business Communication and Character to illustrate persuasive communication, writing style, and a lack of integrity. Newly released documents illustrate internal debate; for example, one consultant wrote, “We may not have done anything wrong, but did we ask ourselves what the negative consequences of the work we were doing was, and how it could be minimized?”

McKinsey may have hoped that the large settlement and public email to staff at the time would have ended the company’s trouble. But more criticism and lawsuits may be looming.

Lizzo Apologizes for Ableist Slur

Singer and songwriter Lizzo apologized to fans and critics, many of them on TikTok, offended by the term “spaz” in her new song, “GRRRLS.” One tweet explained the controversy:

@lizzo please re-release “grrrls” without the ablist [sic] slur. That word is not kind to disabled people. Your music is global and you have a voice folks listen to. We are trusting and asking you to release it without the slur.

Others mentioned their surprise because the singer “champions women, plus size people and others whom society treats poorly, Lizzo preaches inclusivity and should do better.”

Lizzo responded with an apology that demonstrates accountability and authenticity. She admitted the mistake, announced a new version, and highlighted her own identity. The apology could have been improved by recognizing how the term is offensive and harmful. Regardless, fans seemed to appreciate the response and, overall, the apology was effective.

Airbnb Announces Party Ban

Airbnb’s message banning parties could be considered good news or bad, depending on your perspective. The company’s decision follows a temporary ban during the pandemic, when public gathering spots shut down and parties in rental homes increased. At the time, the rationale was to prevent COVID-19 spread and to reduce the negative impact on neighborhood, a common complaint about Airbnb even before the pandemic.

The decision is easier now—a continuation of the ban rather than a new announcement. As the company wrote in the statement, “It’s been working.” The rationale is clear, and the message is well organized with “Key Takeaways” at the beginning and message titles as headings. Points address concerns of three likely audiences: hosts, neighbors, and guests.

Whether you consider the news good or bad, the statement is an example of a persuasive message. The goal is to stop parties and to win favor of neighbors and municipalities frustrated with noise and other negative effects of short-term rentals, for example, diminished housing inventory and higher home prices. In this regard, the company is demonstrating accountability, although, of course, some would like Airbnb to do more.

Business Communication and Character Lessons from Jan. 6 Hearings

Not every faculty member will want to talk about the United States House Select Committee hearings about the January 6, 2021, attack on the capitol. At the time, some public school teachers were instructed not to “wade into” the events. But for faculty who are willing to take a degree of risk, the hearings serve as excellent illustrations of business communication principles and leadership character dimensions. Following are a few examples.

BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Media Choice: The committee chooses different media for different purposes. Students can evaluate why they might have chosen text, interviews, scripts, live or recorded witness testimony, video, etc. and how effective each is for the purpose.

Delivery Style: Committee representatives and witnesses demonstrate a variety of delivery styles. Some are more natural/conversational or scripted than others. What is the impact of William Barr’s use of a profanity (“b—s—”)?

Claims and Evidence: The committee uses a variety of evidence to prove their claims about former President Trump’s role in trying to overturn the election. For example, the fourth hearing describes voting data in Georgia and Arizona. Students could evaluate, for any of the seven claims, which evidence was strongest and weakest. We also see examples of balancing emotional appeal (for example, Ruby Freeman’s and Shaye Moss’s testimony in the fourth hearing), logical arguments (for example, the testimony in the second hearing about laws and constitutional restrictions on former Vice President Pence’s ability to refuse to certify votes), and credibility (for example, the committee shows a link for viewers to see witness bios online). See a summary of evidence here.

Organization: The committee is trying to prove that former President Trump had a seven-part plan (listed below) to overturn the election. The points are written using message titles (or talking headings) and serve as the committee’s claims. At the beginning of each hearing, committee leaders preview the claim and evidence.

Q&A: Although some of the questions are clearly scripted, students can analyze types of questions asked and how witnesses respond. They may find notable differences between recorded and live testimony.

Email Privacy: Once again, we learn the lesson that emails, text messages, and voicemails may be made public during legal investigations; any communication is discoverable.

CHARACTER

Vulnerability: Several witnesses demonstrate vulnerability; they risk emotional exposure in addition to the targeting and harassment they already experienced.

Humility: We see former President Trump’s lack of humility in his unwillingness to accept failure or defeat.

Compassion: Committee members are compassionate when interacting with witnesses, although we see minimal emotion.

Integrity: The committee contrasts integrity of witnesses with that of former President Trump.

Courage: By participating on the committee, Republican members risk backlash from colleagues and constituents; witnesses demonstrate courage by contradicting former President Trump’s claims and, in some cases, his demands.

Accountability: Witnesses stand by their decisions, for example, in refusing to overturn election results.

Authenticity: Some witnesses and committee members come across as more “genuine” than others.

---

Here are the committee’s main claims:

Trump attempted to convince Americans that significant levels of fraud had stolen the election from him despite knowing that he had, in fact, lost the 2020 election:

1. Trump had knowledge that he lost the 2020 election, but spread misinformation to the American public and made false statements claiming significant voter fraud led to his defeat;

2. Trump planned to remove and replace the Attorney General and Justice Department officials in an effort to force the DOJ to support false allegations of election fraud;

3. Trump pressured Vice President Pence to refuse certified electoral votes in the official count on January 6th, in violation of the U.S. Constitution;

4. Trump pressured state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results in his favor;

5. Trump’s legal team and associates directed Republicans in seven states to produce and send fake "alternate" electoral slates to Congress and the National Archives;

6. Trump summoned and assembled a destructive mob in Washington and sent them to march on the U.S. Capitol; and

7. Trump ignored multiple requests to speak out in real-time against the mob violence, refused to instruct his supporters to disband and failed to take any immediate actions to halt attacks on the Capitol.

Comms About Disney Leadership Changes

When companies announce leadership changes, they typically include quotes from outgoing executives, but a Disney press release mentions the head of TV only in passing. The focus of the release is on Dana Walden’s promotion to Chairman of Disney General Entertainment Content. The 817-word statement mentions Tim Rice near the end of the first paragraph:

She will have oversight of ABC Entertainment, ABC News, Disney Branded Television, Disney Television Studios, Freeform, FX, Hulu Originals, National Geographic Content, and Onyx Collective. Walden previously served as Chairman, Entertainment, Walt Disney Television and succeeds Peter Rice, who is leaving the Company. Her appointment is effective immediately, and she will report directly to Chapek.

News reports explains that Rice was fired for differences over creative decisions, compensation, etc. The company statement could have acknowledged a bit more and demonstrated integrity and accountability for the decision; otherwise, the press carries the message.

In Walden’s email to employees, she mentions Rice in the 14th of 16 paragraphs:

In reflecting on my own professional journey, I am very fortunate to have worked alongside Peter Rice for a long time. We have been friends for almost three decades and he was my boss for eight years. He is a gifted executive, and I learned a lot from him. I know you all join me in wishing him the best in whatever he chooses to do next.

Of course, this is the right thing to do—and important for employees who may have loyalties to Rice. I respect that she didn’t sugarcoat his departure (and at least Disney isn’t claiming the weasley “mutual agreement” reason for leaving).

As always, leaders communicate by what they say and what they omit. This situation also illustrates a question for business communication students: is this bad news, good news, or a persuasive message? I would argue that it’s all three, depending on your perspective.

"Rainbow Washing" and Burger King Ad

Almost every company seems to have some recognition of Pride Month, a celebration of the LGBTQ+ community during the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan. But skeptics complain that June has become a time for “rainbow washing,” which Urban Dictionary defines as “The act of using or adding rainbow colors and/or imagery to advertising, apparel, accessories, landmarks, et cetera, in order to indicate progressive support for LGBTQ equality (and earn consumer credibility)—but with a minimum of effort or pragmatic result. (Akin to ‘green-washing’ with environmental issues and ‘pink-washing’ with breast cancer.)”

Burger King has done worse. To promote a Whopper in Austria, the company’s ad agency suggested selling "two equal buns"—either two tops or two bottoms. Some found the sexual reference funny, but others were offended, particularly because Burger King used the joke only for financial gain. Unlike other brands, the company didn’t include, for example, a donation to an LGBTQ+ organization.

The agency sent an apology to AdAge: “We at Jung von Matt Donau are proud of our queer community within our agency. Unfortunately, we still messed up and didn’t check well enough with community members on different interpretations of the ‘Pride Whopper.’ That’s on us.” The group also said, “we’ve learned our lessons and will include experts on communicating with the LGBTQ community for future work as promoting equal love and equal rights will still be a priority for us.”

The company takes responsibility, but a good apology includes a bit more, for example, an understanding of the impact and reparations or compensation. AdAge didn’t publish the apology in full, but business communication students could rewrite the response to demonstrate more vulnerability, humility, and compassion. In addition, Burger King has remained quiet while the ad agency took all the blame.

PGA Commissioner Sends Letter to Suspend Golfers

After a new golf tour has wooed Professional Golfers’ Association players, the association announced that they are no longer eligible to play in the PGA. The commissioner’s letter is an example of bad news for those who accepted the opportunity from the LIV Golf Invitational Series, a Saudi-backed organization, and it’s an example of persuasive communication for those who might consider doing the same.

In his letter, Commissioner Jay Monahan justifies the decision, using the word “regulations” several times. He mentions that players didn’t get proper releases for the conflict and blames players for making a “choice for their own financial-based reasons.” Monahan also appeals to a wide audience when he writes, “But they can’t demand the same PGA Tour membership benefits, considerations, opportunities and platform as you. That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners.”

Monahan uses strong language throughout and calls out specific players at the end of the letter, which players received while they were in the middle of a tournament. He demonstrates courage by facing some backlash, and he demonstrates some vulnerability by acknowledging, “What’s next? Can these players come back?”

The PGA is also holding players accountable, although not everyone agrees. In a statement, LIV Golf calls the decision “vindictive” and promises further action. The brief tweet is a notable counterweight to the PGA’s two-page letter. Students may analyze both in terms of tone, audience focus, content choices, and organization.

A Different Approach to Customer Replies

Squarespace is trying to reduce the volume of customer requests to handle, and I like the approach. I received this email three days after I submitted a ticket on the website.

From: Squarespace Customer Care <customercare@squarespace.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Amy Newman <amynewman@cornell.edu>
Subject: [Support] Re: Automatic weekly?

##- Please type your reply above this line -##

Hello, this is Squarespace Customer Support. We're writing to confirm that we received your email a few days ago and are still working to respond as soon as possible.

We're currently experiencing a high volume of requests, so it's taking us longer than usual to respond. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes.

If you've resolved your issue since contacting us, please reply with the word "solved" to let us know and we'll close the case on your behalf. You can reopen a closed case at any time by replying to the thread.

If you want to speak to someone directly about your issue, contact us via live chat. Live chat is available Monday - Friday from 4:00 AM to 8:00 PM ET. To start a chat, visit this link, choose a topic, then select Live Chat:

https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/requests/new#choose-topic

I wonder what percentage of customers resolve their own issue before the company can respond. Either way, this message gives customers some control over their fate and may reduce frustration. It worked for me, partly because the declining customer experience is well known and not unique to Squarespace.

It might not work for customers with a serious issue, but they can follow options in the last paragraph. In this sense, the message is a bad-news reply and, like most, it’s also persuasive. Students can analyze how well the writing style and organization work for the audience and purpose.

Argument Linking Marijuana to Violence

A Wall Street Journal opinion is a good example of a persuasive argument for business communication students to analyze. The articles uses logical arguments, emotional appeal, and credibility; evidence is stronger for some points than for others.

The author provides research to support increased marijuana use in young people and to link marijuana use to mental illness and hospital visits. Is the evidence linking use to violence strong enough to convince students? The first study referenced studies of teenagers with mood disorders; the second is a meta-study that concludes, “cannabis use appears to be a contributing factor in the perpetration of violence.” Both are from credible sources and illustrate data analysis principles from Chapter 9 in the text.

I find the article title, “Cannabis and the Violent Crime Surge,” a misleading stretch. Coming just days after an elementary school school shooting—and when gun violence is a news mainstay—the WSJ implies a conclusion that I don’t see in the evidence. The author uses an example as evidence: the Uvalde, Texas, shooter apparently had a history of smoking marijuana. In addition, the argument is complicated by the claim that the shooter was NOT smoking at the time. Yet, he could have been experiencing detox, which may include anger and irritability. The author doesn’t include these points.

The author ends with, “Maybe it’s time that lawmakers and voters rethink their pot-legalization experiment before more young lives are damaged.” Do students agree?

Image source.

Elon Musk's Harsh Emails

Elon Musk wants employees to work in the office, and he doesn’t waste words in getting his message across. In two emails, below, to Tesla and SpaceX employees, Musk requires at least 40 hours of work in a company main office.

First email:

Subject: Remote work is no longer acceptble [sic]

Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers.

If there are particularly exceptional contributors for whom this is impossible, I will review and approve those exceptions directly.

Moreover, the “office” must be a main Tesla office, not a remote branch office unrelated to the job duties, for example being responsible for Fremont factory human relations, but having your office be in another state.

Thanks,
Elon

Second email:

Subject: To be super clear

Everyone at Tesla is required to spend a minimum of 40 hours in the office per week. Moreover, the office must be where your actual colleagues are located, not some remote pseudo office. If you don’t show up, we will assume you have resigned.

The more senior you are, the more visible must be your presence. That is why I lived in the factory so much – so that those on the line could see me working alongside them. If I had not done that, Tesla would long ago have gone bankrupt.

There are of course companies that don’t require this, but when was the last time they shipped a great new product? It’s been a while.

Tesla has and will create and actually manufacture the most exciting and meaningful products of any company on Earth. This will not happen by phoning it in.

Thanks,
Elon///

In case it wasn’t clear, Musk tweeted consequences for employees who fail to follow his rules: “They should pretend to work somewhere else.” Musk is known for being demanding and direct. I refer to his emails as “harsh,” but not everyone will agree.

Musk has reasons for his decision, but he doesn’t include them. His strategy is coercion (implied, and then explicit in his tweet). He will get compliance, but I wonder how motivated and satisfied employees will be to work long hours in an office after having the flexibility to work from home.

Image source.

Walmart Apologizes for Commercializing Juneteenth

Walmart is facing backlash for using the Juneteenth holiday to market its products. The new U.S. federal holiday on June 19 commemorates the emancipation of enslaved African-Americans. Walmart took the opportunity to promote clothing, books, and food.

A particularly painful example is a container of red-velvet ice cream showing the Pan-African flag with the text, “Share and celebrate African-American culture, emancipation, and enduring hope.” Twitter users point to a similar ice cream at the Black-owned company Creamalicious. As one Twitter user wrote, “Walmart could have used this opportunity to highlight this brand instead of making a cheap copycat for OUR Independence Day.”

Walmart published a statement to several news organizations:

"Juneteenth holiday marks a commemoration and celebration of freedom and independence. However, we received feedback that a few items caused concern for some of our customers and we sincerely apologize. We are reviewing our assortment and will remove items as appropriate."

Does the statement meet criteria for a “good” apology: express regret, explain what went wrong, acknowledge responsibility, declare repentance, offer reparation, and request forgiveness? I would say only minimally. It does use the word “apologize,” acknowledge what went wrong, and promise to take action, but the statement doesn’t identify why the promotion might “cause concern.” Notice a glaring logical leap between the first and second sentences. Leaders could demonstrate more humility and accountability by explaining how the decision fell short and what damage it caused.

Argument for Public Health Approach to Reduce Shootings

After the tragic shooting at a Texas elementary school, pundits are proposing ways to finally reduce gun deaths. A New York Times opinion article, with graphics, describes a public health approach, which is different from what Nicholas Kristof calls the “liberal approach” of gun control.

The article is a good example of persuasive communication with descriptive message titles and infographics to illustrate each main point. Kristof summarizes his ideas in a 3 X 3 matrix.

In addition to his mix of text of graphics, Kristof uses strong language throughout, including the ending: “So let’s not just shed tears for the dead, give somber speeches and lower flags. Let’s get started and save lives.” I find the balance of logical argument, emotional appeal, credibility (logos, pathos, ethos) appropriate, but others might disagree.

Questions for business communication students might be, does Kristof demonstrate both courage and compassion, and how well do the graphics illustrate the main points of Kristof’s argument?

Spirit Airlines Appeals to Shareholders

Spirit Airlines is trying to persuade shareholders to approve a merger with Frontier Airlines (and reject a hostile takeover bid from JetBlue). Communications on the website, evenmoreultralowfares.com, don’t mention JetBlue’s bid at all:

• Website

• Slide deck

• FAQs

• Infographic

These messages illustrate adapting information to different genres. As we read each, we see clear, repeated main points—more cost savings for customers and value for shareholders. The company also promises promises more career opportunities and greater job stability for team members. In short, “Everyone wins.” The slide deck is a particularly good example for business communication students to analyze.

In a press release, Spirit confirms the plan with Frontier and encourages shareholders to reject JetBlue’s bid. But the messages on the website, above, remain unchanged. I was expecting to see a clearer comparison, but Spirit’s approach seems to be offensive rather than defensive.

JetBlue's Persuasive Appeal to Spirit Shareholders

Having lost bids to purchase Spirit Airlines, JetBlue is trying a hostile takeover, which includes appealing directly to Spirit shareholders. The letter and website, JetBlueOffersMore.com, are examples of persuasive messages.

On the website, the company uses a simple visual to compare, side-by-side, JetBlue’s offer and Spirit’s plan, which is to merge with Frontier Airlines. A fact sheet promotes the “JetBlue Effect,” which the company describes as lowering fares. In another document, JetBlue counters Spirit’s claim that the takeover would face regulatory challenges.

JetBlue uses strong language and message titles to present its main arguments, for example, “JetBlue’s All-Cash Superior Proposal Offers Greater Value and Closing Certainty.” Business communication students will find more examples of how the company uses persuasive communication principles in these messages.

McKinsey Testifies About Role in Opioid Crisis

McKinsey’s managing partner testified about what the U.S. Oversight Committee considers a conflict of interest and issue of integrity: consultants worked for drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma while working for the federal government. Several communication examples illustrate business communication principles:

The Committee’s full report, a 53-page analysis of the situation

The Committee’s press release about the hearing, which includes a summary of the report

Both persuasive communication examples use descriptive message titles throughout the report and provide evidence under each claim. The claims (main points) focus on McKinsey’s questionable actions, particularly how its private and public work may have influenced the other and how the company may have failed to disclose conflicts of interest.

Testimony during the hearing also illustrates persuasion communication. Here are two examples:

• Jessica Tillipman, Assistant Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies, George Washington University Law School    

• Bob Sternfels, Global Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company    

In addition to integrity, as Carolyn B. Maloney said in her opening, this situation is also about accountability and humility. Of course, compassion is a subcurrent throughout, with several impassioned comments about the toll of opioids, including Fentanyl.

Messages About Twitter Purchase

After a month-long saga, Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, has an accepted offer to buy Twitter. The news release illustrates a positive message, which, like most, is also persuasive. I’ll also acknowledge that the news is not viewed positively by all.

Twitter’s news release includes the following quotes:

Bret Taylor, Twitter's Independent Board Chair, said, "The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon's proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing. The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter's stockholders."

Parag Agrawal, Twitter's CEO, said, "Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world. Deeply proud of our teams and inspired by the work that has never been more important."

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," said Mr. Musk. "I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."

Some users promise to leave Twitter, concerned that losing controls the company implemented over the past several years will create an unsafe environment. More conservative groups tout the move. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that “it will be fascinating to watch Mr. Musk try to break Silicon Valley’s culture of progressive conformity.”

Musk’s early moves will be particularly interesting to watch. Will he reinstate former President Trump’s account? The president said he won’t return to Twitter regardless. Will employees leave in droves, which could be a problem in a tight labor labor? CEO Parag Agrawal tried to quell fears in an all-hands meeting:

This is indeed a period of uncertainty. All of you have different feelings and views about this news, many of you are concerned, some of you are excited, many people here are waiting to understand how this goes and have an open mind ... If we work with each other, we will not have to worry about losing the core of what makes Twitter powerful, which is all of us working together in the interest of our customers every day.

These messages illustrate the uncertainty Agrawal acknowledges. Unlike Musk, he demonstrates compassion and humility. How the news affects Twitter’s culture—both for employees and its users—remains to be seen.

Image source.

New Messaging About COVID-19 Protection

U.S. health officials are changing course on COVID-19 messaging. At first, groups like the CDC and experts like Dr. Fauci persuaded all citizens to isolate, wear masks, and get vaccinated. Now that infection and hospitalization rates have declined, messaging is focusing more on individual choice. Those who favor less government intervention have been encouraging a more personal approach from the start.

This strategy complicates communication for doctors, who might now ask patients about their personal goals and risk tolerance before recommending actions. For example, a second booster shot may not be best for everyone. I wonder whether doctors have the skills and will take the time for these conversations. I also wonder whether friends, family, and community members will engage with each other in new ways to support different choices. I’m hopeful but weary.

Image source.