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.

Companies Navigate Comms After Roe v. Wade

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, women’s constitutional right to have an abortion, companies are faced with thorny decisions about whether and how to communicate. Leaders have become more vocal on social issues, for example, gay marriage and Black Lives Matter, but this situation may be more complicated.

Several companies have expanded their health care coverage to include travel for medical procedures, but they avoid the word “abortion.” For example, Disney sent an email to staff:

“We have processes in place so that an employee who may be unable to access care in one location has affordable coverage for receiving similar levels of care in another location,” including, “family planning (including pregnancy-related decisions).”

Other companies were more direct. Back in April, after the Texas ruling that limited abortions, Yelp’s chief diversity officer said, “We want to be able to recruit and retain employees wherever they might be living,” She raised the issue of equity—access for employees who may not have the funds to travel. She also said, “The ability to control your reproductive health, and whether or when you want to extend your family, is absolutely fundamental to being able to be successful in the workplace,”

Starbucks, facing unionization efforts and staffing issues, sent three letters to partners during the past few months and posted them publicly. Each uses the word “abortion” and acknowledges different views on the subject and that some may feel “disheartened or in shock.”

How companies approach these communications reflects their business, employee base, location, and culture. We might expect Starbucks, whose founder and current interim CEO Howard Schultz has consistently been vocal on controversial issues. Starbucks leaders demonstrated courage, vulnerability, compassion, and integrity—standing up for what they believe is right, despite strong feelings on the other side.

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.

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.

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.

Starbucks CEO Letter to Partners

After his first month back as CEO, Howard Schultz posted a letter to employees, promising changes. As Starbucks faces labor shortages and more unionized stores, Schultz is doing his best to quell further unrest—and to return to the HR practices, such as benefits for part-time employees back in 1988, that gave the company the reputation as a good employer.

I wonder how this letter “lands” with employees. Is it specific enough? Does it address their bottom-line needs, like enough pay to buy gas and keep up with rent? For example, what does a $1 billion investment mean for the average worker? Also, although not explicit here, reports say that pay increases will apply only to nonunion stores, which has raised legal questions.

These questions also raise issues of leadership character. Is Schultz demonstrating integrity, particularly transparency, in his letter? Otherwise, this is a typical positive-news letter. He demonstrates compassion and empathy and conveys hope. A feel-good video shows Schultz with partners and their ideas for the future.

---

Dear Partners:

Over the past month, I’ve traveled the country and met with thousands of you from our retail stores and all five roasting plants as we embark on co-creating the future of Starbucks.

The conversations we had were both humbling and inspiring. I heard about the challenges and frustrations you have faced. I heard how hard it has been during the pandemic, and the strain caused by accelerating demand and customer behaviors that have changed. I heard how your experience doesn’t always feel like the Starbucks you used to know or thought it would be.

You also voiced a great deal of hope: hope that meaningful change is possible; hope that Starbucks will restore our leadership in offering new and innovative investments that truly make a difference in your lives; and hope that we will reintroduce joy and connection back into the partner experience and make you proud.

The most important thing we must do in this moment is affirm unequivocally that to be a partner means:

• You have the pay, benefits, and stability you need, so you can focus on your aspirations

• You have everything you need to have the best shift, every shift

• You are recognized and celebrated for who you are

• You are part of co-creating the future of Starbucks. You have a voice, you feel heard, you can make a difference

As a direct result of your feedback, we are now making additional investments to lift up Starbucks partners and the store experience, contributing to the $1 billion in investments we are committing to the partner and store experience this year alone. Some of the new and more immediate changes you can expect are:

• Doubling training hours in our stores

• Pay increases that will apply to all U.S. store partners while recognizing and rewarding tenure

• Reintroduction of the Black Aprons, Coffee Master program and Leadership in Origin trips to our coffee farm at Hacienda Alsacia

• New collaboration tools and programs, including a new partner app for easier access to communication, information and resources

That’s just the start. We are also prioritizing and accelerating investments in equipment and technology, enhancements to digital tipping, a financial stability toolkit benefit, and recognition and career development, all with your input. Our history shows that working together is always the best way to transform and elevate the experience we deliver to you, to our customers and to the communities we serve.

As I shared with you last month, love and responsibility are what brought me back to Starbucks: my love of the company and my deep responsibility to our partners and shareholders. Hearing from so many of you since my return has only deepened my commitment and affirmed the need to take bold action to restore your trust and belief in Starbucks. I could not be more optimistic or confident in our next chapter that is now underway.

Onward with gratitude,

Howard

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.

Editable Tweets

News about Elon Musk’s proposed Twitter takeover has died down, but a new feature to edit tweets, which Musk encourages, is in progress. The feature would allow users to change tweets without deleting them and reposting.

Proponents point to other platforms—Reddit, Facebook, Instagram—that allow text changes. The ability to edit would fix typos (remember “covfefe”?) and allow people to change their minds after sending, say, offensive tweets.

When Jack Dorsey was CEO, he resisted the idea, and Twitter made this joke about wearing masks. After all, the platform was designed like a text messaging service, and texts cannot be changed. The company viewed editing as an issue of integrity.

The company will keep a history of tweets, so editing creates a new one without deleting the original. This seems to be a good compromise and still meets users’ many requests for the feature.

Schultz Is Explicit About Share Price

As he returns as CEO to the company he founded, Howard Schultz is clear about short-term trade-offs in order to invest more in Starbucks employees. Hired back partly to manage growing union activity, Schultz told employees, “I am not in business, as a shareholder of Starbucks, to make every single decision based on the stock price for the quarter,” and “Those days, ladies and gentlemen, are over.”

To manage expectations, Schultz also said, “For all of you following the stock price today and that the stock is going down, that’s a short-term thing.” He knows that messages to employees will be made public.

His communication is direct and sounds harsh, but it’s rather expected. Primary issues facing the company are about staffing—the tight labor market, rising wages, and union activity. He demonstrates integrity by being transparent. In this case, reinforcing what people already know.

Image source.

Starbucks Announces CEO Transition

After 13 years at Starbucks, including five as CEO and president, Kevin Johnson will retire. Company founder Howard Schultz will serve as interim executive as the search for a replacement begins.

The company statement includes the typical quotes: the board chair complimenting Johnson’s accomplishments, Johnson expressing pride and gratitude, and Schultz providing a vision. Of course, the company doesn’t explicitly address two of the biggest challenges Schultz will face, which a Wall Street Journal article calls out in the headline, “Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to Return as Chain Faces Union Push, Rising Costs.”

Shares declined 24% in the past year, and it’s been a rough time for the company, as for all restaurants trying to regain their footing after the pandemic amidst rising prices, staffing shortages, and wage increases. In the statement, Johnson says that he notified the board a year ago of his plan to leave, and the WSJ article confirms the story with a quote from the board chair, “His decision to leave was his own, not the result of any board or outside push, she said.”

We’ll never know the truth, and expecting full transparency in these situations isn’t realistic. Perhaps it’s a mix, anyway. The board may want a leadership change to address difficult issues, including improving relations with employees and unions, and Johnson felt internal and external pressure to leave.

Image source.

Data in Domino's TV Commercial

To fill work hours, companies are getting creative about recruiting. Domino’s, FedEx, and other companies are running commercials on TV and using social social media influencers to drum up applications.

The Domino’s ad features an employee who rose through the company ranks to become a franchise owner. She seems “relatable,” we say these days, so viewers can picture themselves working at Domino’s and maybe having the same success. Surprisingly, she is only 27 years old.

The company touts data: “95 of our franchisees started out as delivery drives or store employees.” That sounds impressive and potentially inspiring. But I want to know what percentage of drivers and store employees have become franchisees? Also, the commercial omits important information about the investment costs. Fees vary by store, but could range from $145,000 to $500,000, and a net worth of $250,000 may be required. Still, maybe the ad works to recruit new employees? I wonder.

Advice for Resignation Emails

A Wall Street Journal article suggests ways to resign from your job gracefully. With a wave of post-pandemic departures, we’re seeing all sorts of resignation messages, some more appropriate than others. The string of emails can be disheartening for people who decide to stay, and leavers should be mindful of burning bridges they may want to walk across in the future.

A law career coach advises that people “Let it rip. Let everything out”—in a document that you don’t send. Then, send an email that respects the workplace and the people you’ll leave behind:

“For the real deal, be gracious and express gratitude. Include up to three career highlights. (Any more and you risk being seen as a braggart.) And skip the passive-aggressive jabs.”

I hadn’t thought about including career highlights, and I wonder whether coworkers would appreciate reading them. Instead, I suggest observing what other resignation emails include and following suit. Every workplace has its own norms around these types of messages.

I do agree with this advice:

“By giving your notice, ‘the power dynamic has been leveled.’ Use that new sense of control and confidence to share more authentically about yourself, not torpedo your relationships on the way out the door.”

The coach is right: you made your decision and are burdening your manager and coworkers who will pick up the slack. Now’s the time to demonstrate humility instead of rubbing it in and causing more hurt feelings.

Deception in the Hiring Process

A New York Times article surprised me. During a video job interview, someone else answered “technical questions while the job candidate moved his lips onscreen.”

All applicants present themselves in the best light. We describe our accomplishments and may push the limits of our expertise. We also “cover” parts of ourselves that we fear may be undesirable to an employer.

But having a friend interview for a candidate is out of bounds. In this example, the interviewer wondered, “What did he think was going to happen when he moved across the country and realized he couldn’t do the job?” The article concludes with a quote from a deceptive candidate who felt relieved when she didn’t get the job. Of course, that’s a better outcome than suffering the embarrassment of failure.

This situation is a clear example of integrity—misrepresenting oneself, claiming to be someone they (intentional plural) are not. Today, we have a particularly strong job market; I would hope that candidates can find a job for which they’re qualified.

Image source.

Spotify CEO's New Statement

Following new allegations against Joe Rogan, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek apologized to staff, yet reinforced his commitment to the podcast host. A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur caused new criticism and calls for Spotify to take action. Rogan apologized, explaining that some recordings were from many years ago and were taken out of context.

Ek’s statement is addressed to Spotify employees, but of course, the secondary audience is intended to be the public. The message includes Rogan’s decision, apparently in consultation with the Spotify team, to remove 113 episodes. Although Ek writes that the choice was Rogan’s, we don’t know how much pressure he received.

Ek’s note is a good example of a persuasive communication that tries to balance the needs of many stakeholders. He demonstrates compassion to employees, vulnerabiiity in how the situation affects the company, and integrity in his $100 million commitment to artists and in holding firm to what he sees as a core value of the platform. We could see more personal vulnerabiity and authenticity. Unfortunately, leader will never satisfy all parties in this type of situation.

Spotify Team,

There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you. Not only are some of Joe Rogan’s comments incredibly hurtful – I want to make clear that they do not represent the values of this company. I know this situation leaves many of you feeling drained, frustrated and unheard.

I think it’s important you’re aware that we’ve had conversations with Joe and his team about some of the content in his show, including his history of using some racially insensitive language. Following these discussions and his own reflections, he chose to remove a number of episodes from Spotify. He also issued his own apology over the weekend.

While I strongly condemn what Joe has said and I agree with his decision to remove past episodes from our platform, I realize some will want more. And I want to make one point very clear – I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope. Looking at the issue more broadly, it’s critical thinking and open debate that powers real and necessary progress.

Another criticism that I continue to hear from many of you is that it’s not just about The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify; it comes down to our direct relationship with him. In last week’s Town Hall, I outlined to you that we are not the publisher of JRE. But perception due to our exclusive license implies otherwise. So I’ve been wrestling with how this perception squares with our values.

If we believe in having an open platform as a core value of the company, then we must also believe in elevating all types of creators, including those from underrepresented communities and a diversity of backgrounds. We’ve been doing a great deal of work in this area already but I think we can do even more. So I am committing to an incremental investment of $100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups. This will dramatically increase our efforts in these areas. While some might want us to pursue a different path, I believe that more speech on more issues can be highly effective in improving the status quo and enhancing the conversation altogether.

I deeply regret that you are carrying so much of this burden. I also want to be transparent in setting the expectation that in order to achieve our goal of becoming the global audio platform, these kinds of disputes will be inevitable. For me, I come back to centering on our mission of unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators. That mission makes these clashes worth the effort.

I’ve told you several times over the last week, but I think it’s critical we listen carefully to one another and consider how we can and should do better. I’ve spent this time having lots of conversations with people inside and outside of Spotify – some have been supportive while others have been incredibly hard, but all of them have made me think.

One of the things I am thinking about is what additional steps we can take to further balance creator expression with user safety. I’ve asked our teams to expand the number of outside experts we consult with on these efforts and look forward to sharing more details.

Your passion for this company and our mission has made a difference in the lives of so many listeners and creators around the world. I hope you won’t lose sight of that. It’s that ability to focus and improve Spotify even on some of our toughest days that has helped us build the platform we have. We have a clear opportunity to learn and grow together from this challenge and I am ready to meet it head on.

I know it is difficult to have these conversations play out so publicly, and I continue to encourage you to reach out to your leaders, your HR partners or me directly if you need support or resources for yourself or your team.

Daniel

Arguments in the Joe Rogan, Spotify Situation

A few musicians and podcast creators are leaving Spotify over controversy about “The Joe Rogan Experience,” a popular show that has included misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations. Comparing messages from different points of view is an interesting look at persuasive arguments and raises issues of character. Here are a few to explore:

• Spotify’s stance is explained in this statement and may be summarized as follows from the chief executive and co-founder: “I think the important part here is that we don’t change our policies based on one creator nor do we change it based on any media cycle, or calls from anyone else.” Spotify also created a COVID information hub.

• Neil Young removed his music, which had hundreds of millions of views, and explained his rationale in a letter (since removed from his website): “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.”

• Crosby, Stills, and Nash followed suit and posted their reason on Twitter: “We support Neil and agree with him that there is dangerous disinformation being aired on Spotify’s Joe Rogan podcast. While we always value alternate points of view, knowingly spreading disinformation during this global pandemic has deadly consequences. Until real action is taken to show that a concern for humanity must be balanced with commerce, we don’t want our music—or the music we made together—to be on the same platform.”

• Roxane Gay explained her decision to remove “The Roxane Gay Agenda” in a New York Times opinion letter. In closing, she wrote, “I am not trying to impede anyone’s freedom to speak. Joe Rogan and others like him can continue to proudly encourage misinformation and bigotry to vast audiences. They will be well rewarded for their efforts. The platforms sharing these rewards can continue to look the other way. But today at least, I won’t.”

• Bréne Brown “paused” her two podcasts and wrote that she is waiting for more information: “I’ve enjoyed the creative collaboration with Spotify, and I appreciate how the leadership has shown up in our meetings over the past week. Now that Spotify has published its misinformation policy, and the policy itself appears to address the majority of my concerns, I’m in the process of learning how the policy will be applied. I’m hopeful that the podcasts will be back next week.” As you might expect, Brown demonstrates vulnerability, including negative, personal comments she has received about the issue.

• Joe Rogan apologized in a 10-minute Instagram video, promising to “balance out viewpoints with other people’s perspectives.”

UPDATE: A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur has emerged, and he apologized—again.

BlackRock CEO Defends Focus

Investment firm BlackRock has pushed companies to pursue a social purpose in addition to profits. The chief executive’s annual letter to investors defends this approach, which has been criticized as anti-business.

Up front in the title, “The Power of Capitalism,” Larry Fink addresses criticism head on and further explains in the letter:

“Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.”

Fink states his belief clearly in the last paragraph:

“…it is more important than ever that your company and its management be guided by its purpose. If you stay true to your company's purpose and focus on the long term, while adapting to this new world around us, you will deliver durable returns for shareholders and help realize the power of capitalism for all.”

The letter illustrates persuasive communication, focusing not on emotional appeal but logical arguments. For his audience, which he defines at the beginning as CEOs, he encourages a commitment to purpose—for leaders to let stakeholders “know where we stand on the societal issues intrinsic to our companies’ long-term success.” He writes “long-term” 18 times in the letter, using repetition to drive the point home. Fink illustrates a few leadership character dimensions, for example, authenticity, integrity, and courage.

Justice Breyer's Resignation Letter

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer signaled his resignation from the highest court and followed up with a formal letter. The letter is typical for anyone who quits a job. The first paragraph confirms the news and timing, and the second paragraph is a brief, positive reflection about the job.

Strong Tone in Activist Investor Letters

Two recent letters illustrate strong language in persuasive messages to boards of directors:

• Blackwells, which owns less than 5% of Peloton, is calling for the board to remove CEO John Foley and to sell the company. A Fortune article provides background, but the letter, as are most activist investor letters, is quite explicit. Jason Aintabi, chief investment officer for Blackwells, cites “multiple leadership failures,” blaming Foley for the company’s decline. With strong language throughout, Aintabi ends the letter with a pun intended, “The ride for Mr. Foley is over. This Board must now independently chart a new path for Peloton.”

• Engine Capital wants the Kohl’s board of directors to evaluate the ecommerce business separately and to consider selling the company. The letter comes after a Starboard Value bid to buy the company. The tone of this letter is just as strong as the Blackwells letter about Peloton, but it’s less personal about the CEO. Still, Engine implores the board, “As we will show, there is no excuse for the Board to cling to the status quo.”

Both letters are good examples of tone in context. Of course, investors are not required to be so blatant, but the language is typical—and likely expected—for such demands to be considered credible and to be taken seriously.