Supreme Court Decision Rests on "a"

An extraordinary Supreme Court ruling was based on one of the smallest words in the English language: a. An immigration law requires that people who might be deported receive “a notice to appear.” Does that mean only one, or could the notice be divided into two?

Justices ruled that the law requires one and only one. The ruling is significant because Agusto Niz-Chavez, an immigrant from Guatamala who has been in the United States since 2005, received two notices, each requiring different documents.

Immigrants who have 10 consecutive years in the United States have an easier time staying. But a deportation document means that the clock stops. In Niz-Chavez’s case, because he received multiple notices, his attorney claimed that his clock didn’t stop—and most justices agreed.

This case is significant also because three conservative justices ruled with the liberal justices, who formed the majority.

Other legal cases have hinged on punctuation marks, but this is the first I remember that rested on such a small article of speech. Legal writers will heed the warning to craft regulations more carefully in the future.

Viral Spotify Resume

A college student created a resume that mirrors the Spotify app, and she got a lot of attention. Included in the more 300,000 views is a manager at Spotify who encouraged her to apply for a product manager internship.

Emily Vu’s creativity paid off: she got the job.

Emily was looking for a creative job. I’m not sure this same approach would work for, say, a data analyst position at a hedge fund. She also posted it with the “f” word (with an asterisk and redacted here). Not every employer would appreciate this either.

But Emily took a risk, which worked for Spotify—and for many others who admired her resume.

FedEx Statement About Shooting

After a shooting at an Indianapolis facility, FedEx posted a statement on its website. At the top of the home page is a notice: “We are deeply shocked and saddened by the loss of our team members following the tragic shooting at our FedEx Ground facility in Indianapolis. Read more.”

The company posted two additional statements on its website under “Newsroom”:

• “Honoring Our Team Members in Indianapolis” lists employees who were killed.

• “Frederick W. Smith Message to Team Members on Indianapolis Tragedy” is a message from the Chairman and CEO.

Each message is heartfelt and opposes violence with such phrases as “Violence of any kind has no place in our society or our workplace” and “senseless act of violence.” But the company is avoiding any mention of guns and the two longer messages don’t mention that the victims were shot. The only reference is in the title and body of the first statement: “shooting” is used twice.

The cause of death is important to include, particularly so that FedEx deflects responsibility. This is also an opportunity for CEO activism, as we have seen from other CEOs recently. However, FedEx is not entering this highly charged political conversation at this time.

Image source.

Amazon’s Statement About the Failed Union Attempt

Employees at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse voted against forming a union. Of 5,876 employees, 1,798 voted against and 783 for the union—not enough. The New York Times presents a simple, clear graphic of the vote.

Critics say that Amazon used aggressive tactics to deter workers from favoring the union. For example, union organizers approached employees at a traffic light, which the city changed based on a request from Amazon management. The change led to longer green lights and shorter red lights based on traffic. Before the vote, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that two employees were fired illegally for their union-organizing activity.

In messages to employees, the company used a slogan, “Do it without dues,” meaning employees should negotiate with their managers and not through a union, which charges fees. The slogan was also the URL for a website, which has since been removed.

Amazon posted a statement about the win. The company denies intimidation charges and reinforces its $15 wage and starting benefits. Although the statement indicates that 16% of employees at the facility voted for the union, a higher percentage of those who voted were favorable towards the union.

CEOs Speak Out

JPMorgan Chase published its Annual Report, leading with a letter from CEO Jamie Dimon. The introductory paragraph and corresponding callout quote reflect a leader’s and a company’s grappling with an extraordinary year.

Like many company leaders today, Dimon addresses societal issues directly. We’re seeing increasing employee and CEO activism, and this letter is a good example.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece questions when leaders are even more direct about political events, such as Black leaders in Georgia speaking out against the election law decision. The law restricts voting rights, which doesn’t affect the companies directly. The WSJ editorial board writes, “To wit, they are pitting themselves against the interests of their own shareholders.”

The open letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Black CEOs, former CEOs, and others of major U.S. companies.

In my view, the CEOs demonstrate leadership character, particularly authenticity, courage, and integrity. By definition, demonstrating character carries some personal risk.

AstraZeneca's Data Problems

AstraZeneca has been accused of presenting “outdated and potentially misleading” data about the vaccine that has suffered implementation trouble in Europe. In a press release and a CNBC interview with the president, the company reported a 79% effectiveness rate, despite later results between 69 and 75%.

A group of independent experts wrote a letter to U.S. government officials to express their concern, as The Washington Post reports:

The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. The data “they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The company promised a review: “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” But damage is already done.

The Washington Post explains, “But it appears to be the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds from the team behind the vaccine, which has had months of stumbles involving messy science and bungled communication.”

This latest misstep only complicates a possible U.S. rollout and breeds more skepticism in those who fear the vaccine. Fears in some populations, such as Black Americans, are based on understandable mistrust of the healthcare system, and this news will not likely inspire more participation in plans for herd immunity.

As an issue of credibility, AstraZeneca is caught in a public quagmire. What might have been a small misstep is now viewed as part of a larger, potentially intentional plan to deceive, whether or not that is true. The company’s integrity is in question because they have not been fully transparent about the vaccine results.

Image source.

Comparing News Reporting About Shooting

How the media reports news reveals their political leanings and inherent biases. Compare the home pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal from screenshots taken the evening of March 17, 2021.

---

The New York Times led with the news and posted five stories at the top of the page. Stories focus on “Anti-Asian Hate in the U.S.” The Wall Street Journal posted one small article, and the headline makes no reference to the victims—six of the eight were Asian women.

I’m struck by the surrounding articles on the WSJ home page. The business and economy focus makes sense for the paper’s mission, but several other articles imply negative messages about Asians or Asian countries.

The headline about the Tokyo Olympics official, particularly, is quite inflammatory (or as a student in class said, “clickbait”). Although the news is notable given that this is the second official to resign for negative comments about women, the photo and headline, below news of the shooting is, as my partner said, “insensitive.” Do we need the actual negative statement?

Also in fairness to the WSJ, the shooter had not (and as of this writing, has still not) been charged with a hate crime, and he denies the association of bias. Perhaps the NYT is fueling the flames of xenophobia?

And yet, discrimination, bias, and violence against Asians and Asian Americans has been increasing in the U.S. Shouldn’t that be a significant part of any reporting about this terrible shooting?

Royal Family Responds to Racism Allegations

In an interview with Oprah, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused the British royal family of racism, and the fallout is severe. Markle talked about having suicidal thoughts and how she had been treated by the family, including plans for the couple’s baby. She said he wouldn’t have a title or security, and that the family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”

Prince Harry said that he a discussion with his grandmother and two with his father about the couple’s concerns until his father “stopped taking my calls.”

Victoria Murphy, a writer for Town & Country magazine, describes the family’s reaction:

So far, the royal family has remained tight-lipped. There have been no statements and, it seems, very little guidance offered. Perhaps they are retreating into a default “no comment” stance, or perhaps they are sensibly waiting to see what sticks before deciding whether to add fuel to the fire. In this war of words, there is a sense that we could go on and on.

Buckingham Palace did release a short statement, and the Queen took some time before signing off:

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

Of course, the issue is that the royal family is a public organization, with several public figures, whether they wish to be or not.

Two days later, Prince William gave an interview and said, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

Murphy sums up the situation: “Make no mistake, this is an interview that will go down in history as having rocked the British royal family to its core.”

Beware of Overtalking During Zoom Interviews

People seem to be talking too much during video interviews. A Chronicle of Higher Education article describes two possible reasons.

One is that job candidates want to build relationships and may overtalk in a somewhat desperate attempt to connect. After a year without intimacy, we might be overcompensating. I can imagine this applying to other types of meetings and presentations as well.

Second, visual cues are tough to see on video. The void isn’t quite as cavernous as during phone interviews, but still, it’s difficult to see subtle gestures. Imagine that an interviewer is leaning forward, changing a facial expression, or raising a hand slightly. These could be missed, particularly if a candidate is meeting with a group of people.

Next time you have an interview, try to pay attention to cues and allow people to interrupt you. You might also keep your answers a bit shorter—just in case. Allow time for follow-up questions.

Image source.

Governor Cuomo Address Sexual Harassment Allegations

In a video statement, Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed sexual harassment allegations made by three women. He begins well, explaining his decision to speak directly to the public on the topic, although lawyers advised him to wait. To preserve his image, this is a good call: research shows that his apology is unlikely to negatively affect lawsuit outcomes—and may even have a positive effect.

But his apology goes awry. He uses language that is classic in non-apologies, for example, “It was not my intention” and “I certainly never meant to….” In sexual harassment law, intent does not matter—only the impact. Further, this type of language typically doesn’t land well. People don’t care. Instead, he should focus on the impact on these women and perhaps on the office.

He also says, “I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable.” This is problematic because first, as he says at the beginning, he is a lawyer. As a lawyer and as a political leader, he should know better. Such language is reminiscent of “I’m sorry if you were offended,” implying that it’s the receiver’s problem. A couple of days earlier, after the second allegation, the governor said, “To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

To his credit, he says, “I apologize” and “I’m sorry,” which people do want to hear in these types of statements.

We will see what results from these allegations, in the midst of calls for his resignation. Governor Cuomo also is embroiled in charges that he lied about the number of Covid deaths in nursing homes. So far, he says that he will not resign.

School Board Apologizes for Mocking Parents and Resigns

The Board of an elementary school in California resigned over embarrassing comments on a video call. Board members didn’t realize that they were public when they made disparaging comments about parents wanting schools to reopen. They mentioned that parents miss teachers as “babysitters” and want to be able to use marijuana again.

In response, several board members resigned, and the school district wrote a statement. Within the larger statement is a message from the board members who resigned:

We deeply regret the comments that were made in the meeting of the Board of Education earlier this week. As trustees, we realize it is our responsibility to model the conduct that we expect of our students and staff and it is our obligation to build confidence in District leadership; our comments failed you in both regards, and for this we offer our sincerest apology.

We love our students, our teachers and our community, and we want to be part of the remedy to help the District move forward, returning its full focus to students' needs. To help facilitate the healing process, we will be resigning our positions as Trustees of the Oakley Union Elementary School District, effective immediately. The Superintendent will be working with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to address the vacancies on the Board of Education.

This was a difficult decision, but we hear the community's concerns, and we believe yielding to your request that we step down will allow the District to move forward. Please do not let our failure in judgment cast a shadow on the exceptional work that our teachers, administrators and hard-working employees are doing for the students of this District. They deserve and will need your support as you move forward.

Business communication students will find ways to improve this message. The authors use passive voice in the first statement and weak subjects twice in the first paragraph (“it is”). As an apology, the statement also could do better. Sincere apologies include more about the impact of the act—the damage done. I don’t see that recognition clearly.

Image source.

Questions Are Different for Women in Economics

A working paper shows that women in economics receive more and tougher questions than do their male counterparts. Researchers analyzed data from 462 presentations at seminars and job talks, when candidates present their research to prospective faculty colleagues.

Controlling for fields, types of seminars, and other factors, the researchers found that women receive 12% more questions and more “hostile” or “patronizing” questions. One concern is that woman might be discouraged from presenting their work or applying for positions, which hurts the field of economics.

The authors note that less than one percent of presenters were Black or Hispanic, so no conclusions could be drawn about how these groups are treated.

The authors acknowledge that these questions may not result from ill intent but may be a result of implicit bias or part of a more systemic male-dominated culture. Sadly, the authors say that some comments are “demoralizing,” and again, they warn of the negative impact on the field:

“Many of us have heard stories of friends and colleagues whose bad experiences in seminars have led them to re-evaluate whether a career in economics is really the best choice for them.”

Lincoln Project Statement

Frank Bruni is right his article, ”When You Don’t Have Trump to Hide Behind: There’s now space for other scandals. Witness the Lincoln Project.” I’ve been missing hearing about improprieties with the shadow of Trump for the past four years. Now trouble at the Lincoln Project, a political group started in 2018 by Republicans to prevent the re-election of the former president, has come to light.

The issue raises questions of integrity. As the organization criticized the former president for his actions, 21 young men accused one founder of sexual harassment, while organization leaders knew of but did nothing about their complaints. In addition, questions linger about whether group leaders misused funds for personal gain.

The one leader accused of “grooming young men online” responded in a statement:

I am so disheartened and sad that I may have brought discomfort to anyone in what I thought at the time were mutually consensual discussions. In living a deeply closeted life, I allowed my pain to cause pain for others. For that I am truly sorry to these men and everyone and for letting so many people down.

The Lincoln Project also issued an official statement. One, dated January 30, isn’t available because of a broken link on the homepage. But another, dated February 14, is below:

The Lincoln Project has retained the law firm of Paul Hastings to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by John Weaver as part of a comprehensive review of our operations and culture. The review process is currently underway.

We are committed to creating a positive, diverse, and inclusive workplace environment at The Lincoln Project and inappropriate behavior by anyone associated with the organization will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We have already taken decisive action to address internal concerns. Additionally, we are releasing staff and former staff from the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to discuss their workplace environment. Based on the findings of this review we will take all necessary action to correct any issues or deficiencies that are identified.

Concurrently, we are also working with outside counsel and professional consultants to strengthen our corporate governance, finance and operational structure, human resources, and leadership to position The Lincoln Project to further maximize our impact and lean into our important mission advancing democracy.

The Lincoln Project was founded to combat political forces who seek to undermine our democracy. We revolutionized how political action committees operate and spent $81 million last cycle to create and place more than 300 advertisements, host national town halls, conduct voter outreach, and launch a podcast and streaming video network that engaged millions of voters. Eighty percent of our funds went to voter contact and content production. Our historic results speak for themselves.

Moving forward, we have important work ahead of us and we have created a nationwide movement of Americans who support our objectives.

In order to continue fulfilling our promise to our millions of supporters and contributors, we must address any and all internal organizational issues immediately and put in place a governance and diverse leadership structure that reflects our core values and ensures we will continue to attract the best talent available.

The Lincoln Project will continue producing and distributing our popular content and commentary while these reviews are being conducted and we are operating at full capacity.

The statement start is unfortunate and squirrely. Perhaps an apology might be more appropriate? As an apology, if this is the intent, the statement doesn’t work very well. Apologies admit specific wrongdoing, acknowledge the impact, and describe positive steps planning for the future. I don’t see that here.

Tokyo Olympics Head Resigns Over Sexist Comments

Former Japanese Prime Minister and president of the Tokyo Olympics made sexist comments about women and has resigned. This turmoil further complicates the games, which are already delayed because of COVID-19.

Yoshiro Mori said, “On boards with a lot of women, the board meetings take so much time,” “Women are competitive. When someone raises his or her hand and speaks, they probably think they should speak too. That is why they all end up making comments,” and “You have to regulate speaking time to some extent, or else we’ll never be able to finish.”

Several Japanese leaders spoke against Mori, and it’s interesting to compare their statements, particularly from companies that typically avoid public controversy. Few board members called for his resignation, but pressure was too great, including that from about 100 volunteers who quit.

In response to criticism, Mori said, “I didn’t mean it in that way, although it was said to be discrimination against women,” he said. “I have been praising women, promoting them to speak out more.” Mori also spoke of age discrimination. He is 83 years old. He said, “Old people are also doing well for the sake of Japan and the world. I feel extremely unhappy that older people are said to be bad. But it may go nowhere if I complain.”

An ABC writer calls the press conference “hastily prepared.” His apology wasn’t good enough to stave off the criticism, and he was forced to resign.

McKinsey Pays Settlement for Work with Purdue Pharma

Management consulting company McKinsey will pay almost $600 million to settle several lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis, including offering marketing advice to Purdue Pharma. The largest settlement is for $573 million, which Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey describes in a video.

Healey’s presentation and delivery are interesting because she represents families and is speaking for 47 attorneys general in several U.S. states. Her anger is evident, but her audience is small: only 53 views one week after it’s posted, and at least three of those are me. What are the communication objectives? This will make a good class discussion.

McKinsey’s response is also interesting for students studying business communication and character. In an email to staff, Global Managing Partner Kevin Sneader describes “setting a higher standard.” Whereas the governors consider McKinsey’s actions unlawful, Sneader does not agree:

“Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.”

The Massachusetts court filing explains the legal argument.

At some point in 2019, two McKinsey executives debated in emails “eliminating all our documents and emails.” These executives have been terminated. (See McKinsey communications.)

Rhetorical Devices in Super Bowl Ads

The Michelob ULTRA Super Bowl commercial demonstrates two rhetorical devices well. One is anaphora: “After the…., “After the…,” “After the…”

Chiasmus is also illustrated by “Are you happy because you win, or do you win because you’re happy?” This is an ABBA construction.

Rhetorical devices can be overused and hokey, but in ads they’re memorable, and these are good examples.

Amazon Announces New CEO

In a news release, Amazon announced that CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos will be stepping down, transitioning to role of Executive Chair of the board. He will be succeeded by Andy Jassy, currently CEO of Amazon Web Services. The change won’t take place until the third quarter of 2021.

The news is announced in two short paragraphs within the company’s fourth quarter results:

Amazon is also announcing today that Jeff Bezos will transition to the role of Executive Chair in the third quarter of 2021 and Andy Jassy will become Chief Executive Officer at that time.

“Amazon is what it is because of invention. We do crazy things together and then make them normal. We pioneered customer reviews, 1-Click, personalized recommendations, Prime’s insanely-fast shipping, Just Walk Out shopping, the Climate Pledge, Kindle, Alexa, marketplace, infrastructure cloud computing, Career Choice, and much more,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “If you do it right, a few years after a surprising invention, the new thing has become normal. People yawn. That yawn is the greatest compliment an inventor can receive. When you look at our financial results, what you’re actually seeing are the long-run cumulative results of invention. Right now I see Amazon at its most inventive ever, making it an optimal time for this transition.”

In a longer message to employees, Bezos writes in the same conversational style, but he is more inspirational. The email is also posted on the Amazon public site.

The change is big news and garnered the lead Wall Street Journal story today with the headline, “Amazon CEO Change to Come Amid Regulatory Scrutiny.” The article cites Amazon’s 44% profit increase in the fourth quarter of 2000 as well as the challenges ahead:

“But Amazon also faces the biggest regulatory challenges in its history, with multiple federal investigations into its competitive practices and lawmakers drafting legislation that could force Amazon to restructure its business. Tension with regulators and lawmakers has directly embroiled Mr. Bezos, who was called to testify in front of Congress last summer for the first time.”

Bezos also was in the news recently because his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, donated $5.9 billion in the past year. A New York Times article contrasts her philanthropy with criticism about Bezos’s extraordinary wealth and lack of attention to environmental issues and employees’ concerns. A Vanity Fair author writes, “She got even [for his having a public affair] by doing what he does not: sharing his unbelievable, unconscionable, indescribable wealth with those he makes his money off of, i.e. everyone else in the world.”

Image source.

Robinhood CEO Defends Decision to Block Trading

It’s been a wild week of investing in GameStop, AMC, and other companies, with amateur investors driving up prices. Investment app Robinhood decided to halt trading and was highly criticized. Robinhood was accused of not having enough liquidity to cover trades, succumbing to pressure from hedge funds, and trying to protect investors, yet interfering with their trading decisions and opportunities to gain high returns.

In a CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin, CEO Vlad Tenev defends the company’s decision to block trading. He denies the accusations but does mention the liquidity and responsibility. How clear is his explanation?

His video is a good one to analyze for his delivery skills and appearance. His skin and wall colors are rather pink, and although he sounds confident, he could move his upper body more to seem relaxed. Fillers signal a conversational style, which is appropriate here, but he overuses “um,” and I find it distracting.

GM CEO's Letters to Environmental Leaders

General Motors has changed its position on climate change. The company, led by CEO Mary Barra, had supported President Trump’s efforts to eliminate California’s ability to set its own strict environmental standards.

With a new incoming president, Barra communicated that the auto industry will likely support President Biden’s environmental policies. The news came in the form of a letter to environmental leaders and encouraged “customer adoption of electric vehicles.” Barra also touted GM’s ability to meet the demand. She ends on a positive note: “This effort is critical to addressing climate change, and we look forward to working together.”

A New York Times writer calls the move a “maneuvering” and “a public humiliation to Mr. Trump” since he was still in office at the time. A public policy professor noted, “This is about as bold as it gets. This huge pivot, so closely following an election result, particularly from a firm like General Motors, is a big, big deal.”

Rhetorical Devices and More in Amanda Gorman's Inaugural Poem

Amanda Gorman, a highly accomplished young poet, gave a riveting presentation at President Joe Biden’s inauguration ceremony. Her precise, engaging delivery—gestures, eye contact, pacing, modulation, etc.—is a lesson for communication students planning business presentations.

The poem demonstrates an extraordinary number of rhetorical devices: alliteration, assonance, anaphora, metaphors, allusions, and more. Whether or not you agree with her remarks in “The Hill We Climb,” the poem has all the marks of a speech that engages the audience and brings them along on a journey.