Letter Requesting an AI Pause

An open letter asking for a pause on training advanced AI systems serves as an example of persuasive communication. Signed by more than 2,300 leaders as of this writing, the message is a warning and a request. Students can analyze the letter structure and persuasive strategies, which are a mix of emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility.

The letter doesn’t follow organizational principles we teach in business communication classes. Although faculty encourage the main point up front, this message includes the “ask” in bold type at the beginning of the third paragraph: “Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” Another main point, also in bold, appears in the middle of the second paragraph: “Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.” Paragraph organization is mixed. Some follow a traditional topic sentence format, while one is a single sentence.

Evidence for the pause includes OpenAI’s own communication. The letter quotes the company and uses italics: “At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." Then the authors write, “We agree. That point is now,” good examples of short, punchy sentences.

The last paragraph sounds like an add-on, which is possible with a collaborative writing process. The signers ask for a “long AI summer,” a chance to “reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt.” “AI summer” is catchy and could be a better frame for the letter. Referring to the last paragraph, the last footnote lists examples of other tech pauses: “Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.” Repeating “society” in this sentence is curious, and I found myself wanting to read more about this—and earlier. The footnote reads, “Examples include human cloning, human germline modification, gain-of-function research, and eugenics.” An analogy of one of these examples could be a useful persuasive strategy earlier as well.

Citations are a mix of academic papers and books, popular media, and websites. The first footnote refers to several sources, which might reduce the credibility. Again, I envision multiple authors “tacking on” sources, including their own work.

Another topic for class discussion is how this news has been reported. Most of the articles I read, for example, Business Insider’s, lead with Elon Musk. But more than 2,000 distinguished leaders signed the letter, including Steve Wozniak, Andrew Yang, and AI researchers. I can’t be the only one tired of hearing about Elon Musk. The signers offer credibility, but Musk might diminish that approach.

If you’re looking for another written example for students to analyze, see the statement from OpenAI, which explains the benefits of AI but acknowledges “serious risk of misuse, drastic accidents, and societal disruption.”

Intel Honors Gordon Moore

Intel’s home page links to several communications about the co-founder’s death. Like all obituaries for older people, the articles about Gordon Moore, age 94, were clearly prepared ahead of time. The news is technically bad, but it was expected, so these communications are opportunities to demonstrate respect—and for company PR.

With the primary audience as members of the press, the webpage includes an obituary, downloadable photos, a tribute, and more. The obituary acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for the announcement and includes a link to the organization. This is a promotional opportunity for the foundation as well.

The tribute, titled, “He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans: Never the loudest guy in the room, Intel’s co-founder commanded huge respect,” is a more personal look at Moore’s life. Three interviews tell us more about Moore’s “character,” as the author writes.

A visual timeline shows his major accomplishments and recognitions. One of Moore’s most significant contributions is what came to be known as “Moore’s Law,” a prediction that the “number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years.” Intel’s tribute describes Moore as a humble man. He told his biographer that he was embarrassed to have the law named after him.

The press kit lists the following, including the three links above:

• Obituary: Gordon Moore, Intel Co-Founder, Dies at 94

• Tribute: Gordon Moore: He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans

• Visual Tribute: A Look Back at the Life of Intel's Co-Founder

• Timeline: Celebrating Gordon Moore

• More on Moore: Five Things to Know About Gordon Moore

• Video: The Gordon Moore Effect 

• Gordon Moore Park at Ronler Acres: Intel Marks Grand Opening of $3 Billion Factory Expansion in Oregon | Event Replay

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.

"Love Letters" to Home Sellers Are Out

Letters to home sellers illustrate problems with bias and insincere persuasive communication. Home buyers try to increase their chances of landing a house by writing letters to sellers, but they cause problems. These persuasive communications seemed like a good idea in a tight housing market. In addition to offering a high price, often above asking, buyers would make emotional appeals, for example, by telling sellers about themselves, how much they loved the house, and how they would care for it.

These letters teach lessons about communication ethics, particularly integrity. One buyer lied by omission, failing to mention a pending divorce that would change the buyer’s ability to get a mortgage. Other problems include revealing race, religion, and other facts that a seller can use—consciously or unconsciously—to discriminate against a buyer, which violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act.

This “Barbie House” letter, written to sellers of a pink house, may have landed the deal (although the buyers also offered $25,000, so who knows). Maybe not in this case, but in others, letters appeal so much to emotions that vulnerable sellers are duped into taking lower offers.

The California Association of Realtors has since published these guidelines for letters, which discourage them entirely.

Zuckerberg Frames Layoffs in the “Year of Efficiency”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s note to employees is a study in bad-news messages. In a 2,188-word message note posted on Meta’s news site and his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg explained his strategy for the “Year of Efficiency.” This frame for operational changes is good for investors, who are concerned with financials, but not for employees who will be laid off.

In the first paragraph, Zuckerberg reiterates Facebook’s initial mission of “building the future of human connection,” and he identifies two broad goals: becoming a better technology company and improving financial performance. He doesn’t wait too long—the third paragraph—to confirm layoffs, which are obvious from the start. With some compassion, he acknowledges “uncertainty“ and “stress” and identifies the timeline, so people know what to expect. In the fourth and sixth paragraphs, he writes:

This will be tough and there's no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success. They've dedicated themselves to our mission and I'm personally grateful for all their efforts. We will support people in the same ways we have before and treat everyone with the gratitude they deserve. . . .

I understand that this update may still feel surprising, so I'd like to lay out some broader context on our vision, our culture, and our operating philosophy.

Zuckerberg outlines additional changes, including hiring freezes, technology investments, and more in-person time, which may not be popular either. Students could analyze evidence Zuckerberg provides for his claims, for example, “leaner is better,” “flatter is faster,” and working in-person improves performance. For the in-person claim, he does acknowledge, “This requires further study, but our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.” Still, this could be a contentious issue, and he could offer external research to support his points. But perhaps academic research would have less credibility than the internal data, which he uses for his other claims.

Zuckerberg demonstrates some humility and highlights changes based on employee feedback:

I recognize that sharing plans for restructuring and layoffs months in advance creates a challenging period. But last fall, we heard feedback that you wanted more transparency sooner into any restructuring plans, so that's what I'm trying to provide here. I hope that giving you a timeline and principles for what to expect will help us get through the next couple of months and then move forward as we implement these changes that I believe will have a very positive impact on how we work.

The post illustrates a CEO’s difficult decisions and how he communicates them to employees. These changes are in addition to last year’s layoffs—13% of the workforce—which Zuckerberg mentions towards the end of the long post. Despite his communication efforts, uncertainty prevails—not only in employees’ wondering who will have a job in a few months but in whether the metaverse vision will be as successful as Zuckerberg hopes.

Allbirds Admits Mistakes

Allbirds provides a good example of accountability and humility. No executive likes to discuss disappointing quarterly results, but Joey Zwillinger, co-founder and co-CEO, admitted mistakes, which could improve his credibility for future plans.

On the Q4 2022 earnings call, Zwillinger acknowledged “missteps”:

However, in this journey, we also made some missteps:

1) We overemphasized products that extended beyond our core DNA, and as a result, some products and colors have had narrower appeal than expected.

2) Because we were spending significant time and resources on these new products that did not resonate well, we under-invested in our core consumers’ favorite products.

3) Finally we did not increase our brand awareness to the level that we anticipated.

These communications aren’t quite “bad-news message” because they aren’t announcements, which is why Zwillinger is smart to discuss problems openly: they are already quite obvious to investors. One of my favorite lines is, “As we made those adjacent product development decisions, we unfortunately lost a bit of sight of what our core consumer fell in love with us for in the first place and what they continue to want from us.”

With Zwillinger’s humility—his willingness to admit and learn from mistakes—he inspires confidence that Allbirds can get back to its core products and customers. Zwillinger makes the mistakes sound fixable; they sound like an over-reach that didn’t work out, a bad color choice that can be painted over. Other brands might have a tougher time communicating failure if problems are insurmountable or decisions are irreversible.

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.

Comms About Dilbert Cancellation

A class discussion about Dilbert creator Scott Adams’s “racist rant” in a YouTube video can take many directions, including whether what he said was truly racist and whether media outlets did the right thing. Putting making the decision aside, a safer approach is to compare statements communicating the decision. Here are three examples for students to analyze:

• Cleveland.com. In a letter announcing the change in The Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper, the editor wrote, “This is not a difficult decision.” The editor incudes excerpts from the video to get ahead of criticism: “I hate to quote him at all, but I do so to dissuade responses that this is a ‘cancel culture’ decision.” For context, the editor also cites an article noting that 77 other outlets cancelled Dilbert in September after he introduced the first Black character, as critics said, "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."

• USA Today. The newspaper, with the largest circulation in the United States, kept it simple with this tweet.

• Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Between these two examples, is a short statement that includes a caveat: “While we acknowledge his right to free speech and expression, he does not have a right to the AJC’s financial support or our platform.”

Students might also analyze Adams’s response in a tweet and video in which he said, "Most of my income will be gone by next week . . . My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed. You can't come back from this, am I right?” This warrants another class discussion: can people redeem themselves after a crisis? I would argue that the first step is vulnerability, but that’s for another post.

Greenwashing Gets Sophisticated

Greenwashing—making false or exaggerated claims about sustainability or positive impacts on the environment—is nothing new, but companies may be getting more subtle. A recent CNBC article warns consumers, “For a company to say they’re ‘100% sustainable’ or they’re ‘eco-conscious’ . . . doesn’t mean anything.” Those seem to be obvious empty statements.

But a Euronews article offers six more sophisticated ways companies greenwash. The article gives examples of each, and students can find their own:

• Greencrowding: hiding within a group or being the slowest adopter within a group.

• Greenlighting: emphasizing a green aspect of the company to detract from negative impacts.

• Greenshifting: blaming the customer for environmental problems (example shown here).

• Greenlabelling: calling something green or sustainable that isn’t really

• Greenrinsing: changing goals before they’re achieved.

• Greenhushing: downplaying or hiding green activities to avoid attention.

Both articles suggest investigating companies’ credentials; the CNBC article also suggests looking at metrics and the company’s history. But let’s face it: that requires work. We’re easily swayed by labels and soundbites. Perhaps students can identify what affects their purchase decisions, which of course, is what drives greenwashing in the first place.

Toyota's Messages as Intercultural Comm Examples

Toyota’s messages about executive changes are good examples of how these announcements vary by culture. CEO and President Akio Toyoda (the family name spelling) has served in the position for 13 years. Unlike Reed Hastings, who served for 25 years at Netflix and also announced his move to chairman this week, Toyoda wasn’t a company founder, but his grandfather was, so his tenure is important. And yet, we see what looks like fanfare compared to the Netflix announcement. Here are the communications, and I’ll comment below:

• TMC Announces Changes to Executive Structure. A webpage includes links to other communications and handy “current” and “new” tables showing changes.

• Toyota Times News Special Live Broadcast. For more than an hour and a half, outgoing and incoming executives discuss the decision.

• Passing Toyota's Presidency Baton from Akio Toyoda to Koji Sato. Another page includes remarks from the incoming and outcoming CEOs, transcribed from the video.

Here are a few ways the remarks differ from typical U.S. messages, and I’m sure that students will find more:

• In the introduction and in his remarks, Akio Toyoda says the decision was “triggered by Chairman Uchiyamada’s resignation.” This is a way for the outgoing CEO to save face—as though his removal is based on a board opening.

• He also demonstrates humility and vulnerability in ways we don’t typically see from an outgoing U.S. CEO. He mentions, “I was appointed president immediately after our company’s fall into the red due to the global financial crisis,” and “Following that, our company faced a series of crises that threatened our survival, such as the global recall crisis and the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Although the financial crisis and earthquake were out of the company’s control, the recalls were self-inflicted, and I’m surprised to hear him remind the press. At the same time, that crisis was early in his tenure and rather unforgettable, including testimony on Capitol Hill.

• Toyoda also says, ”There was a time when Mr. Sato was struggling with what he should convey at a Lexus dealer convention.” Toyoda advised, “Rather than try to be like me, I want you to value your individuality.” Toyoda tells the story to illustrate Sato’s “love” for company products. Still, I wonder whether a U.S. CEO would reveal such a vulnerability—”struggling” was the translation—of an incoming executive.

• Twice in his short speech, Toyoda mentions Sato’s “youth,” and he says, “Being young is itself a key attribute.” This comment would be highly unlikely in the U.S., where age discrimination laws might cause older executives to immediately call their lawyers. (Also surprising: Toyoda is 66, while Sato is 53.)

• Only once do either of the executives mention EV, which is arguably the real reason Akio Toyoda is stepping down. He has resisted the move to EV and, as a result, Toyota is behind other car companies. In his closing remarks, Sato refers to “accelerating the shift to electrification”—a funny, but translated and probably unintentional car reference.

Boeing CEO Explains Quarterly Results

In a message to employees posted on the company website, Boeing CEO David Calhoun wrote, “We delivered a solid fourth quarter,” but the numbers say something different. According to a Wall Street Journal article, “The aerospace company’s fourth-quarter profit and sales both fell short of analysts’ expectations,” although they improved from the third quarter.

Calhoun is doing what any good CEO would do: spin the news, convey confidence, and keep employees motivated. Focusing on the future, the subtitle sums up the message, “Steadily building momentum.” Calhoun starts by thanking employees, and a short video shows fourth quarter achievements. The message doesn’t mention the $663 million quarterly loss or the $5.01 billion loss in 2022 but instead focuses on “more than $3 billion in free cash flow.”

Calhoun acknowledges, “we have more work ahead to drive stability in our operations and within the supply chain.” But, overall, the bad-news message sounds positive. And maybe it is good news, considering the 737 Max history and that the stock lost nearly 39% in the past 5 years.

The full message is below. Side note: The Wall Street Journal reports, at some point in his communications, Calhoun said he expects operating margins to be “bouncy” this year, an odd term for a plane manufacturer. Will they be turbulent?

Boeing CEO Updates Employees on 4th-Quarter Results

• Steadily building momentum

CHICAGO, Jan. 25, 2023 —Boeing President and CEO Dave Calhoun shared the following message with employees today addressing the company’s fourth-quarter results:

Team,

We delivered a solid fourth quarter. As we report our financial results today, I want to start by saying thank you. Together, we’re making important strides and steadily improving performance. Your resilience and hard work are building momentum, and we’re well on our way to restoring the operational strength we expect of ourselves at Boeing.

We generated more than $3 billion in free cash flow in the fourth quarter, driven by progress in our performance and strong demand. This helped us generate positive full-year free cash flow for the first time since 2018, an important metric in our recovery.

Our teams across the enterprise delivered on several key milestones and I encourage you to watch some of our fourth-quarter highlights in the video below. [omitted]

While we have made meaningful progress, challenges remain and we have more work ahead to drive stability in our operations and within the supply chain.

This will be another important year for us as we look to steadily increase our production rates, further improve performance, progress in our development programs and deliver on our commitments. Through it all, we will keep safety, quality and transparency at the forefront.

We’re proud of how we closed out 2022, and despite the hurdles in front of us, we’re confident in our path ahead. Demand is strong and our portfolio is well positioned. We have a robust pipeline of development programs, we’re innovating for the future and we’re increasing investments to prepare for our next generation of products.

Thank you for all you do to support our customers, our company and each other. I am proud of our team and excited about our future.

Dave

FDA Suggests Less Lead in Baby Food

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance for baby food manufacturers, and the messages serve as good examples of reports and persuasion:

• Action Levels for Lead in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children: Draft Guidance for Industry. This is a text report that students could analyze for organization, writing style, evidence, data visualization (or lack there of), etc.

• Federal Register Notice. This legal-sounding document explains how to submit comments, either by “electronic submission” or “written/paper submission,” an archaic-sounding process. People also can order paper copies of the draft guidance, something you might do in 1970: “Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request.”

Several times, on the website and within in each document, the agency reminds us, “Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Draft-Not for Implementation.” The agency further describes the “guidance”:

In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe FDA’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in FDA guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.

The approach attempts to involve industry and consumer groups, who likely have a lot to say about the FDA’s data and recommendations. In the introductory website text, the agency says it considers the goals “achievable by industry when control measures are taken to minimize the presence of lead.” We’ll see whether others agree. Already, one consumer group weighed in, saying the guidance “doesn’t go far enough,” while Gerber and other companies are “reviewing” the proposal.

Southwest Communications

This week’s debacle will make a great case study. As other airlines recovered from the storms, Southwest lagged. Here are a few communications for students to analyze and compare. For an assignment, students could act as consultants advising the company on their messaging or assessing the ethics and character issues demonstrated throughout this time.

CEO Bob Jordan’s video message. Students have a lot to analyze in this example: the apology, explanation of what went wrong, audience perspective, communication objectives, plans for the future, delivery style, etc. The persuasive video raises questions of accountability, compassion, humility, vulnerability, and other character dimensions. Students can identify which Jordan demonstrates and which are lacking.

Southwest webpage. A link to this page is prominent on the Southwest homepage. Customer can find “Travel disruption information,” including how to request a refund and locate baggage. Students can analyze how well the site is organized and how easily users can find what they need.

Employee interview on Democracy Now! What are the character and ethical issues associated with an employee defending staff yet speaking out against the company? The interviewed employee blames Southwest’s technology and says union employees have been asking for changes for years. This raises integrity issues for airline management.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg interview. Buttigieg gave several interviews distinguishing Southwest’s performance from other airlines that struggled but recovered. He defended the Department of Transportation’s recent push for airlines to do right by customers. Critics say the secretary is using the moment for political gain.

Integrity Issues in Musk and Twitter Comms

Two Elon Musk/Twitter-related gems this week illustrate issues of integrity. I’m posting these in case you’re not entirely bored with Musk news and teach winter classes or are already planning for next semester.

Musk’s Poll: Musk posted a poll asking whether he should “step down as head of Twitter,” and the results are clear. The next day, he blamed bots for the results. Two days later, Musk tweeted, “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job! After that, I will just run the software & servers teams.” We might call this a lack of integrity—both questioning a poll he ostensibly runs and not doing what he says he will do. In addition, Musk still owns the company, so he remains the leader until he sells, and he has no successor, particularly given the recent exodus.

Banned Accounts: Twitter banned @ElonJet, which posted Musk’s use of his private plane. Journalists and others reporting on the account, who say the data is public, had their accounts suspended. One journalist explains that, although his account no longer indicates suspension, he cannot post until he removes offending tweets. Mastodon, a Twitter competitor that’s gaining traction, also had an account suspended and explains how the platform is superior to Twitter’s. The Mastodon message illustrates persuasion—and not-so-subtle sales tactics that would be interesting to explore with students.

ChatGPT Got a D on My Writing Prompt

I submitted to ChatGPT, “Write an argument to convince a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, to pay a living wage.” I received this response in about 3 seconds. See my notes at the bottom—and a prompt for a longer response.

There are several compelling arguments that a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, should consider when deciding whether to pay a living wage to its employees.

First, paying a living wage can help to attract and retain top talent. Employees who are paid a fair wage are more likely to be motivated and engaged in their work, which can lead to improved customer service and a better overall experience for diners. In addition, a living wage can help to reduce turnover and the costs associated with training new employees, which can ultimately save the restaurant money in the long run.

Second, paying a living wage can help to build a positive company culture and reputation. Customers and community members are increasingly looking for businesses that prioritize the well-being and fair treatment of their employees, and a restaurant that pays a living wage can differentiate itself in this regard. This can lead to increased customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth marketing, which can help to drive business.

Finally, paying a living wage can have broader social and economic benefits for the community. When employees are paid a fair wage, they are more likely to be able to afford basic necessities such as housing, food, and healthcare, which can contribute to a stronger and more stable local economy. In addition, paying a living wage can help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice, which can have a positive impact on the overall well-being of the community.

In summary, there are numerous reasons why a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, should pay a living wage to its employees. Doing so can help to attract and retain top talent, build a positive company culture and reputation, and contribute to the overall well-being of the community.

I hit “Regenerate response” and got this:

Paying a living wage has numerous benefits for both the restaurant and its employees.

First, paying a living wage can improve employee morale and satisfaction, leading to a more positive work environment and lower turnover rate. When employees feel financially secure and valued, they are more likely to be motivated and committed to their work, which can result in better service and customer satisfaction.

Second, paying a living wage can also improve the restaurant's reputation and attract top talent. Customers and potential employees are increasingly considering a company's commitment to social and environmental responsibility when making purchasing and career decisions. By paying a living wage, the restaurant can differentiate itself from competitors and appeal to a socially conscious customer base.

Finally, paying a living wage can have a positive impact on the local community. When employees are paid a wage that allows them to meet their basic needs, they are more likely to spend their income locally, supporting other businesses and boosting the local economy.

Overall, paying a living wage is a win-win for both the restaurant and its employees. It can lead to improved employee satisfaction and retention, a positive reputation, and a positive impact on the local community.

Once again, “Regenerate response”:

Paying a living wage is good for businesses, employees, and the community.

First, businesses that pay a living wage tend to have lower employee turnover and higher levels of employee satisfaction, which can lead to improved customer service and increased customer loyalty. This can ultimately lead to increased profits for the business.

Second, paying a living wage allows employees to support themselves and their families without relying on government assistance programs. This not only helps to reduce poverty in the community, but it also helps to stimulate the local economy as employees have more disposable income to spend at local businesses.

Finally, paying a living wage is simply the right thing to do. It ensures that all employees are fairly compensated for their hard work and enables them to live with dignity and respect.

In conclusion, paying a living wage is a win-win situation for businesses, employees, and the community. It can improve profits, reduce poverty, and promote economic growth, while also promoting fairness and dignity for all.

My notes

• Bottom line: D, a generous grade if the assignment asked for citations, which most would. I can see how the 5-paragraph essay drives ChatGPT, and this is exactly what business communication faculty try to get students to stop doing.

• And yet, I’m surprised how good these are from a computer, and they illustrate how multiple students can enter the same prompt and receive different versions. However, they don’t meet our business writing standards.

• Overall, the arguments are sound. The main points are probably best for convincing a restaurant owner.

• Although simplistic, the organization is easy to follow. In all versions, arguments are grouped appropriately (and differently), and paragraph organization is acceptable. However, we would encourage an introductory paragraph that includes some version of the purpose, prompt, main points, and a preview, and a more varied closing paragraph with some forward-looking nod back to the audience.

• The writing style is clear and varied, but wordy and lacks stronger subjects and verbs (there is, it is). We see several extraneous words and phrases.

• Where I would deduct the most points on a rubric would be for argument/evidence and audience analysis:

  • No citations! These responses need references to be credible arguments. I’m curious about ChatGPT because this information comes from somewhere—where?

  • No depth. Partly because they lack citations, these arguments lack depth. We see big statements without nuance or extrapolation.

  • Limited argument. Similarly, this is a logical argument, as we would expect from a computer. Although we see references to fairness, we don’t see a balance of credibility, logic, and emotional appeals. Our students would likely include a story or two to illustrate arguments about income inequality and meeting “basic needs.”

  • No tailoring to the audience. To be fair, my prompt is sloppy, asking for an argument to a “restaurant,” but restaurant owner is assumed. My prompt does specify St. Paul, Minnesota, but only the first response even mentions the location. Data specific to the region would strengthen the argument. How much? What would be the average cost increase? What are the current regulations about a living wage? Experience of other restaurants in St. Paul or similar regions would also strengthen the argument and quell concerns about businesses closing because they can’t afford to pay a living wage—or a student might provide conditions under which restaurants are more successful in how they implement a living wage.

  • No opposing arguments. For persuasive communication, we ask students to acknowledge opposing arguments to challenge their own thinking, to present a comprehensive view, and to consider the audience’s perspective and address possible resistance.

• Could students use ChatGPT as a starting point, as some use Wikipedia as a starting point for research? This idea is worth exploring, and a colleague and I may test this approach in the spring.

---

I wondered whether the length was an issue and asked ChatGPT to “Write a three-page argument to convince a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, to pay a living wage.” The result is about the same but includes more acknowledgement of the audience and possible challenges. But, in my view, this confirms ChatGPT’s limitations.

Introduction:

As a restaurant owner in St. Paul, Minnesota, you are no doubt constantly facing challenges and making difficult decisions. One of the most important choices you can make is how much to pay your employees. While it may be tempting to keep labor costs as low as possible, there are many compelling reasons to consider paying a living wage to your employees. In this argument, we will outline the benefits of paying a living wage, both for your business and for your employees, and explain why it is the right decision for your restaurant.

Body:

Paying a living wage has numerous benefits for your business. First and foremost, it can lead to increased productivity and morale among your employees. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are more likely to be focused, motivated, and engaged in their work. This can translate into higher levels of customer satisfaction and ultimately, increased profits for your restaurant.

Paying a living wage can also help to reduce turnover, which can be costly and disruptive to your business. When employees are paid a wage that allows them to support themselves and their families, they are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and less likely to leave. This can save you the time and expense of constantly training new hires and can lead to a more stable and experienced workforce.

In addition to the benefits for your business, paying a living wage has numerous positive impacts on your employees and the community at large. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are less likely to struggle with financial stress and insecurity. This can lead to improved physical and mental health, which can benefit not only your employees, but also their families and the community as a whole.

Paying a living wage can also help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are able to participate more fully in their communities and contribute to the local economy. This can help to build stronger, more vibrant communities, which can benefit everyone.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, paying a living wage is the right decision for your restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota. It can lead to increased productivity and morale among your employees, reduced turnover, and improved physical and mental health for your workers and their families. It can also help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice in the community. While it may require some adjustments to your business model, the long-term benefits are well worth the investment.

FTX Founder Plays the Innocent

Sam Bankman-Fried’s interview about the collapse of FTX tells us a lot about him, about investors, and about regulation. Bankman-Fried chose to tell his story to New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin via video from the Bahamas. (See transcript.) Starting with a discussion of the many people were “hurt” by the business failing, Sorkin tried to hold Bankman-Fried responsible for billions of losses. He offers two divergent views of what happened to the company: that Bankman-Fried is a “young man who made series of terrible, terrible, very bad decisions,” or that he “committed a massive fraud—that this is a ponzi scheme, a manipulation of the system.”

Business communication students might see this as a false dichotomy. Bankman-Fried claimed that his goal was to “do right” by people and that he made mistakes. He said, “Look, I screwed up. I was C.E.O. I was the C.E.O. of FTX. And I say this again and again that it means I had a responsibility, and I was responsible ultimately for us doing the right things and didn’t. We messed up big.” But he denied setting out to commit fraud. Ross read a letter from someone who says he lost $2 million—his life savings—and that Bankman-Fried used his money to fund his hedge fund. Maybe both narratives are true, and Bankman-Fried isn’t seeing or admitting it.

Students might benefit from a class discussion or assignment about the investor perspective. Not to the blame the victim, but what accountability do investors have in this situation? What were they hoping to achieve compared to other investors—or compared to the general public who do not have $2 million to invest? Depending on how far you want to take this story, a discussion about regulation is certainly relevant, and students, particularly if they or they families have benefitted from crypto investments, might have a lot to say about it.

Otherwise, the video serves as a good example to analyze for delivery, persuasion, character, and interview skills. How is Bankman-Fried as a presenter? How does he balance logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility? What character dimensions are at play? Was it the best decision, going against his lawyers’ advice, to do this interview—and from his penthouse in the Bahamas? How well did he respond to questions? Overall, are students more—or less—favorable about Bankman-Fried after watching the interview?

Raphael Warnock Is My New Bestie

So far, I’ve tracked 56 emails from Reverend Raphael Warnock since November 10 (average = 5.6 per day). I’ve saved all of them, so contact me if you would like to read them—or assign them to students to analyze.

The sheer volume is fascinating. I could have stopped the flow by unsubscribing if had I opened any of them and seen this grey box. I retrieved them from my trash after talking to a friend and deciding they would make an interesting blog post and repository.

The subject lines alone are worth a class discussion. I’m old fashioned and still use title case, but the Warnock team rarely hits the shift key at all. He also calls me “friend” more than feels comfortable. Clearly, he’s striving for authenticity, but it feels forced, along with his many family photos.

Research shows that emails are effective for political campaigns, partly because they’re so inexpensive, as authors of this 2011 Journal of Political Marketing article explain:

Given the very low cost associated with using email to communicate with supporters, it appears to be an effective means for harvesting small contributions and of providing opportunities for large numbers of voters to elevate their level of participation in the electoral process.

The approach didn’t work for me, but maybe others responded well.

Musk's Ultimatum Email

Elon Musk continues to spread love and joy across his new company. The latest missive is an email asking employees to “click yes” to affirm that they still want to be part of Twitter, which he describes as “hardcore” and requiring “working long hours at high intensity.” Apparently, hundreds of employees refused and opted for three months of severance pay instead.

I see this email as an embarrassment, but I’m guessing that Musk doesn’t care or feels proud of it. He must have known that the message, like all of his, would be made public. How funny to read this in light of all the “quiet quitting” news, although I suspect that that wave has passed since the massive tech layoffs started. Still, no one wants to work for a jerk.

The email is a good example for students to analyze for tone and character. Of course, some students will defend Musk who, for them, can do no wrong.

From: Elon Musk

To: Team [at Twitter]

Subj. A Fork in the Road

Date: Nov. 16, 2022 [time stamp removed]

Going forward, to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.

Twitter will also be much more engineering-driven. Design and product management will still be very important and report to me, but those writing great code will constitute the majority of our team and have the greatest sway.

At its heart, Twitter is a software and servers company, so l think this makes sense.

If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below:

[Link removed]

Anyone who has not done so by 5pm ET tomorrow (Thursday) will receive three months of severance.

Whatever decision you make, thank you for your efforts to make Twitter successful.

Elon

An Argument to Abolish the Greek System

An Insider Higher Ed opinion letter might interest students as an example of a persuasive argument. Cornell faculty member Daniel Schwartz argues that fraternities and sororities do more harm than good.

Schwartz includes a few opposing reasons, as we teach students to do. For example, he writes, “To be sure, one can find alumni and students who believe fraternities and sororities do enrich the lives of young adults.” He also acknowledges that the system contributes housing and that pressure from alumni makes the decision difficult. But, of course, he counters these points.

Students can identify examples of logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility in the letter. I’m sure they will offer their own evidence, including examples from their experience.