How well do leaders demonstrate character in their communications? Blog by Amy Newman, senior lecturer emerita, Cornell University; author of Business Communication and Character (11e) and Building Leadership Character
Jacinda Ardern’s announcement of her resignation as the prime minister of New Zealand is a good example for students to analyze. In addition to the obvious discussion about delivery skills and script writing, Ardern demonstrates several character dimensions, for example, humility, vulnerability, authenticity, and integrity. Her decision also raises issues of gender roles, as this opinion article explains.
In step with other tech companies, Microsoft is laying off 10,000 employees, and CEO Satya Nadella’s email is posted publicly. I’m surprised that Nadella didn’t learn more lessons from the 2014 Microsoft layoff email a NY Magazine writer called “hilariously bad.”
Nadella starts with the vague subject line, “Focusing on our short- and long-term opportunity,” and then writes two paragraphs about challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Mercifully, he gets to the news in the first sentence of the third paragraph. This is an improvement over the 2014 memo in which former exec Stephen Elop announced layoffs in the eleventh paragraph.
In Chapter 8 of Business Communication and Character, I write extensively about the value of putting bad news up front and the lack of research support for the “indirect style”—giving explanations first and then the bad news. In this case, I’m quite sure that employees knew what was coming, so a more direct style is more appropriate.
In these sentences, Nadella puts the 10,000 in perspective, as we teach in crisis communication. However, employees will wonder whether they are affected and when they will hear the news. Based on the industry and his first paragraphs, employees working on AI likely feel safe, but a clearer timeline for those who aren’t is always a good idea.
Today, we are making changes that will result in the reduction of our overall workforce by 10,000 jobs through the end of FY23 Q3. This represents less than 5 percent of our total employee base, with some notifications happening today. It’s important to note that while we are eliminating roles in some areas, we will continue to hire in key strategic areas.
Twice, with a paragraph in between, Nadella promises transparency:
. . . we will do so in the most thoughtful and transparent way possible.
. . . we will treat our people with dignity and respect, and act transparently.
Employees might prefer actual transparency to hearing about it.
Nadella does express compassion and explain benefits, which is useful for employees, but clearly designed for public viewing. Overall, the email reads like one always intended for a public blog.
Update: A Wall Street Journal article reported a concert Microsoft sponsored at Davos with Sting performing for about 50 people the night before layoffs were announced. The author describes it as a “bad look.” We could call it “bad optics”—or just insensitive, lacking integrity and compassion.
In case you didn’t see it, here’s the resume of now U.S. Representative George Santos. Although we’ve been hearing for weeks about his fake jobs at Goldman Sachs and Citi and his fake education at Baruch, it’s quite shocking to see it all in print.
Students might enjoy reviewing his resume, finding errors and other ways to improve his employment communication. For example, the summary and list of skills at the top are jargony and sound like boiler plate; I’m surprised to see so little tailoring to a political position. Students will find other issues, for example, unparallel bullets, an odd page break, misaligned spacing, a lower-case i, missing periods, a missing end parenthesis, and acronyms that readers might not know.
Another fun discussion with grammarians in your class: I’ve avoided writing “Santos’s resume” as did The New York Times. The paper titled the article, “The Résumé of George Santos.” I chose the modifier form instead. And I’ve given up on the accent marks in résumé because I rarely see them in business job descriptions.
Here’s a fun email—from a publishing company!—with obvious errors and other issues for students to fix. Also, I’m not an accounting professor. I’m guessing Wiley outsourced this research and the communication.
Dear Amy,
Due to the holiday's, we decided to extend the deadline of this survey to 1/15/23, for anyone interested to give us their feedback.
As an Accounting professor, we know you are constantly looking for ways to optimize your curriculum. We would love to get to know more about the resources you leverage to build your curriculum and your challenges and needs of teaching material for your Accounting courses. Your feedback would go a long way to help us create products and services to better support our Accounting instructors.
The survey should take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
Upon completing the survey, your email will be entered into a random drawing for 1 of 10, $50 Amazon.com gift cards. The random drawing will take place the week of 1/16/23, where winners will be contacted via email. You will also receive a code for 20% off one book on Wiley.com.
The survey will remain open until 1/15/23.
Follow this link to the Survey, if you are interested to give us feedback:
Take the Survey
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://wiley.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5oSZeObx6LcRbAq?Q_DL=Z28LxciSPjK2660_5oSZeObx6LcRbAq_CGC_3xI24GCcnaZf9jE&Q_CHL=email
Send an email to [omitted]@wiley.com if you have any questions.
Thank you and sincere regards,
The Wiley Accounting Team
We get a window into executive decision making with Internal Tech Emails. This 2005 thread starts with Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin telling his team that Steve Jobs called, angry about Google “recruiting from the safari team.” Without ever hitting the caps key, Brin described Jobs as “agitated” about at least one potential hire away from Apple. In addition to losing staff, Jobs was concerned about Google developing a search engine to compete with Safari, but Brin assured Jobs that this wasn’t in the works.
The email thread includes other Google execs jumping in to explain that they were, in fact, trying to recruit a high-profile employee from the search team—and that the hire might bring additional employees as well. At some point, an HR leader, Arnnon Geshuri, weighs in: “We are careful to adhere to non-compete agreements if we have established these with any company. However, it is the staffing organization's practice to aggressively pursue leads that come from our employees and bring the best talent onboard.”
But, as the conversation continued (and after few more calls from Jobs), we see the team shift. They agree not to pursue more candidates without pre-approval from Apple if the prized employee came on board.
On a recent “No Mercy, No Malice” podcast episode (NSFW), Scott Galloway compares Meta’s spend on Reality Labs—$1 billion per month—to what he considers better investments.
In Business Communication and Character, I suggest that students compare data to concrete objects to help people understand the magnitude. Galloway offers several suggestions to put the expense into context—and to show how Mark Zuckerberg might put the money to better use than building a doomed Metaverse. One is to “pay the entire cost of attendance for every undergrad in the University of Texas and California systems.”
Of course, his point is how much money is being wasted. For students, it’s a good example of making numbers more relevant to an audience.
New York Representative-elect George Santos misrepresented himself during his campaign for Congress and is facing calls to resign. The story is relevant for students finding the line between “putting their best self forward” and lying during a job search.
Santos now says, “My sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry.” But his claims are clear fabrications in several cases. What’s interesting about the situation is how easily his claims could be verified. The New York Times simply contacted Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Baruch College, and none could verify his employment and graduation claims.
In his position paper, he claimed to be “a proud American Jew.” He also said he is “half Jewish” and a “Latino Jew” and claimed that he has Holocaust and Ukrainian heritage, which has not been supported. Now he clarifies: "I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background, I said I was Jew-ish.”
Santos also defended himself during an interview. He said, “I didn’t outright lie,” but he did admit that he used “a poor use of words” and included “a little bit of fluff.” He blamed “elitist” outlets like The New York Times for referring to his customer service experience as “odd jobs,” which forced him to inflate his experience.
His justification raises an issue about how students can handle their own vulnerability. Business communication faculty encourage students to explain how their experience relates to a prospective job. Some students downplay their experience, so we ask them to highlight the relevance to an employer. But none of us would encourage students to include experiences they didn’t have.
We’ll see whether his colleagues vote for him to stay or leave.
After almost two years of investigative work, the U.S. House committee complete its report about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. As we might expect, the report has some features we teach in business communication classes.
The 845-page report starts with a list of contributors and a “letter of transmittal”—language I saw in old textbooks when I started teaching in 2004. Next, we see a few “forward” statements from elected officials, which seem like political posturing, until we get to the six-page table of contents. Students will recognize that the headings are descriptive but aren’t quite parallel: some are full sentences, while others are phrases. Bias—or persuasion—is clear in the heading choice, for example, “The Big Lie,” and an all-caps quote, “JUST CALL IT CORRUPT AND LEAVE THE REST TO ME.”
If you’re brave enough to discuss the report in class, other report features are worth reviewing. The 193-page executive summary is unusual for a business report, which is usually about 10% of a total report. The portrait layoff and footnotes are typical for a more formal report, but the photos, used primarily for emotional appeal, are not. Depending on your perspective, the writing style is vivid, inflammatory, or something else. The report on documentcloud.org is navigable by page numbers and a clunky search, but it could be more interactive, for example, with hyperlinks from the table of contents. This is a public document, so students could analyze the audiences and communication objectives.
Justin Bieber claimed—on Instagram—that H&M created and was selling products without his approval. In addition to the post shown here, he wrote, “The H&M merch they made of me is trash and I didn’t approve it,” and “Don’t buy it.”
H&M pulled the products and explained the decision in a statement: “H&M has followed all proper approval procedures, as we have done in this case, but out of respect for the collaboration and Justin Bieber, we have removed the garments from selling.”
This story raises questions about integrity: what exactly was the process, and was it followed as agreed? I also question Bieber’s medium choice. Why did he make such a public statement? Did he already reach out to H&M privately and not get the response he wanted? We might question both parties’ accountability: how did they agree to resolve differences?
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.
As fraud and conspiracy charges roll in for FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) so do the graphics. Yahoo has a doozy—a worthy visual showing where $5 billion was spent (and lost), unbeknownst to investors.
As we expect, this bubble chart packs in a lot of data, and the interactivity explains why some bubbles show cut-off or no text at all. Mouse-over text is clear, but it’s hard to pinpoint some small bubbles. By small, I mean those amassing a mere $5 million or less—or “Flourishing Humanity,” which, sadly, received only $80,000. Zooming in solves the text problem, but it’s not intuitive (at least to me) on a laptop. I almost want another level of detail. Another click could tell me what the Pangea Cayman Fund is.
Color contrast is an obvious issue in this chart, with large swaths of black that prevent the at-a-glance value of a good chart on a laptop. Some of the brighter colors make the white text hard to read, but it’s better when zoomed in.
If you share this chart with students to analyze, I hope they’ll find the comma splice in the title.
Deloitte CTO Leo Alexandru offered interview advice in a Twitter thread. Most of it is common sense, but the examples could inspire a good class discussion, including why tech has trouble attracting more women. Here are his (non-parallel) main points in bold, with some commentary:
Honesty. Of course, but he recommended admitting concepts that you “never heard of, haven't used in a while, and want to learn more about.” Students would do well to prepare for the last two.
The right attitude, which Alexandru describes as “positive, trustworthy, and solution-oriented.”
Don't talk s**t about their previous job. This is a good one, and students should prepare for questions about their internships. Even if they were disappointed, how can they describe the experience in a balanced way?
Chemistry. This one worries me and reminds me of other assessments about “fit.” Sometimes, this is a veil for “just like me” and leads to a homogenous team.
Communication skills. Alexandru writes, “So I am very interested in how well you express a point of view. Without being aggressive.” His perspective could be a difficult balance for women, who, in one study of performance reviews, were far more likely than men to be criticized for being “too aggressive.”
Don’t be a “yes man.” See above!
Preparation. This is always a good reminder for students: know the job description and research the company ahead of time. The bigger challenge might be integrating what they know into the conversation.
Asking questions. Alexandru suggests asking about challenges in the job, what success looks like, and why a previous person left. A colleague told me that she starts an interview by asking what questions the candidate has. Other hiring managers prefer most of the interview to be led by the candidate. An interactive discussion is usually best, and students need to be on their toes.
Passion. This is a good reminder for students to show enthusiasm and prepare reasons for wanting the job other than, “Apple is the best company in the world.”
Proven track record. Alexandru wants candidates to “show” not just “tell” results. An ePortfolio or other documented work will help.
This story could be a challenging class discussion, but it gets at where we draw the line with “jokes.” Apple’s VP of procurement quoted an old movie line and got himself fired.
At a car show, a TikTok creator asked Tony Blevins what he does for a living. With his wife laughing, he quoted Arthur as he got out of his Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren: “I have rich cars, play golf, and fondle big-breasted women. But I take weekends and holidays off.” The video went viral, and Apple terminated the 22-year company veteran.
Students will have opinions, of course. Some will believe, as a New York Post writer believes, “Beyond the gross overreaction, canning top talent over a harmless pop culture reference is a bizarre path to innovation for the world’s top tech company.” Others will find the comment offensive and say that Apple had to act when employees complained to HR. In this sense, the video is an integrity issue for the company.
Either way, it’s a reminder that what students say can end up anywhere and have an impact they don’t intend.
A lively class discussion is almost guaranteed if you introduce the topic of college financial aid letters. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 91% of colleges either underestimate net prices or fail to include the net price entirely.
In their offer letters, the GAO recommends that colleges subtract only grants and scholarships that students will receive but include ancillary costs like “tuition, fees, housing and meals, books, and living expenses.” Any parent with a college-age student—or any student paying their own way—know that these expenses add up.
The GAO report is also a good example for students to analyze. It follows some principles we teach in business communication classes: a clear structure and detailed table of contents (with hyperlinks); a mix of text, tables, and other graphics (with callouts); and an executive summary. Some design features are a bit curious, for example, left-column headings and squiggly lines around tables.
Overall, best practices are clear, and I hope that colleges take the GAO’s advice. The news raises issues of integrity and accountability. I find it interesting that the GAO was renamed the Government Accountability Office from the Government Accounting Office in 2004. The name does seem to better fit the organization’s mission.
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?
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
Perhaps the best example of a bad-news message is a layoff memo (below), and Elon Musk’s Twitter email doesn’t disappoint. Just days after the purchase went through and after a deafening silence, the new CEO sent a short message confirming what employees expected.
The email is classic Musk: direct and decisive, without a lot of compassion. He makes the news extra painful by expressing his distrust: cutting people off from offices and systems and reminding people not to share confidential information (which at least one person did by sharing the internal email).
Layoff messages are typically softer, with more specific reasons for the decision, a rationale for who goes and who stays, more gratitude to those leaving, more information about what people can expect, and more optimism about the future of the company. They are also a chance for leaders to demonstrate their own humility and vulnerability. But that’s not Elon Musk. (That describes Brian Chesky, whose Airbnb layoff message—posted publicly—is still one of my favorites.)
The actual layoffs the next day didn’t go much better. “Confusion” prevailed as 50% were laid off, some losing access in the middle of meetings. Now Musk is left with what he called a “massive drop in revenue” and class-action lawsuits from employees.
Team,
In an effort to place Twitter on a healthy path, we will go through the difficult process of reducing our global workforce on Friday. We recognize that this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is unfortunately necessary to ensure the company's success moving forward.
Given the nature of our distributed workforce and our desire to inform impacted individuals as quickly as possible, communications for this process will take place via email. By 9AM PST on Friday Nov. 4th, everyone will receive an individual email with the subject line: Your Role at Twitter. Please check your email, including your spam folder.
If your employment is not impacted, you will receive a notification via your Twitter email.
If your employment is impacted, you will receive a notification with next steps via your personal email.
If you do not receive an email from twitter-hr@ by 5PM PST on Friday Nov. 4th, please email xxxxxxxx.
To help ensure the safety of each employee as well as Twitter systems and customer data, our offices will be temporarily closed and all badge access will be suspended. If you are in an office or on your way to an office, please return home.
We acknowledge this is an incredibly challenging experience to go through, whether or not you are impacted. Thank you for continuing to adhere to Twitter policies that prohibit you from discussing confidential company information on social media, with the press or elsewhere.
We are grateful for your contributions to Twitter and for your patience as we move through this process.
Thank you.
Research about persuading people to pay NYC parking tickets has implications for business communicators—and raises questions of character. The study, published in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, found that reminder letters get more people to pay fines, but this approach doesn’t work for everyone.
People who respond least to the “nudges,” including notices about greater fines, happen to be those least likely to pay in the first place. Referred to as “low-response” types, these folks need sterner warnings. As one author says, “It’s only when they get this legal-looking letter that says, ‘We are in default judgment against you; you may get towed.’” Most interesting, people in the “low-response” groups tend to be from historically “disadvantaged populations—lower income, less education, and higher proportions of Black or other racial groups.”
The authors acknowledge that their recommendations ”would not be based on individual characteristics (e.g., income, race, neighborhood) but only on past behavior–while statistically helping traditionally underserved populations to avoid penalties with a nonintrusive nudge. We further note that, in proposing this policy, we are not assuming that the low baseline response rates of the LRs are suboptimal. Rather, we are pointing out a lower-cost policy that could induce more timely payments from the LRs without imposing larger penalties on them.”
Still, this study raises questions about character, for example, compassion, integrity, and accountability. Am I the only one cringing at the term “low-response type” and use of “LRs”? Is it right to threaten one group but not another, even if it’s based on past behavior? True, people should pay fines, but we have deeper societal issues and inequities to consider. How do people in these groups view rules and law enforcement? Are people in lower-income neighborhoods or with cars in greater disrepair more likely to get tickets in the first place?
If, as the authors say, their proposed policy is helpful to avoid “imposing larger penalties,” why not simply eliminate fines that some people can’t afford to pay? Our local library has stopped charging late fees so they don’t discourage reading and cause a disparate impact. The authors do propose eliminating later, greater fines that have little impact and most affect people in historically disadvantaged populations. Theoretically, data can also be used for a sliding fee scale according to income level—or perhaps the value of one’s car.
The simpler takeaway for business communication students is the relevance of knowing your audience. As study authors say, NYC already has the data and can customize approaches. We do teach analyzing an audience and tailoring a message. But students may discuss the ethics of using data and taking different approaches in these types of situations.
The Pennsylvania Senate Debate between John Fetterman and Dr. Mehmet Oz illustrates several interesting points for business communication students. One is the art of not answering questions, perhaps best illustrated by the first question, an opportunity to describe the candidates’ own qualifications, which they spent criticizing their opponent.
Another example is how the debate was structured to accommodate John Fetterman’s auditory processing issues, five months after he suffered a stroke. Fetterman kicked off the debate by admitting his illness and saying, “I had a stroke. He’s never let me forget that.” His speech was sometimes halting and repetitive, and he confused a few words. Repeating his doctor’s clearance, he tried to persuade voters that he is fit to serve.
Hot topics about abortion and fracking were discussed at length, with candidates balancing their party affiliations and ideals. At some point, Dr. Oz said, “I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.” This inspired jokes and “Inside Amy Schumer” segments that I won’t link (because they’re NSFW).
Students will find more to discuss about the candidates’ presentation skills, responses to questions, and persuasive communication.
NYU professor, author, and podcast host Scott Galloway has a new book, Adrift: America in 100 Charts, with good examples for students to analyze. His newsletter also describes charts, for example, a few that illustrate the U.S. incarceration problem. He uses data to conclude that our extraordinary incarceration rates do little to reduce crime.
On one page, he uses a bubble, a column, a paired column, a people graph, and a line chart. Each is chosen well for the purpose, although he doesn’t use message/descriptive titles, as business communication faculty would advise. Students will find other improvements, for example, maybe adding data labels to the first chart (despite the Y axis) and better distinguishing “All Men” in the people chart.
Galloway’s posts regularly offer examples to engage students in current political, tech, and business topics.
Not about charts, but this podcast episode (posted here) made me laugh out loud. Galloway describes text messages between Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, Jack Dorsey, and others. Turns out, they struggle with technology just like the rest of us. This is Musk’s response to Dorsey, who is waiting for him to join a meeting.
Leadership Character and Communication, Amy Newman, Cornell University
Chapter 1: Business Communication and Character
Chapters 2 and 3: Team and Interpersonal Communication; Communicating Across Differences
Chapters 4 and 5: Writing, Design, and Style
Chapter 6: Neutral and Positive Messages
Chapter 7: Persuasive Messages
Chapters 9 and 10: Data, Visuals, and Reports
Powered by Squarespace.