Hyatt's Bad-News Message to BCom Faculty

Association for Business Communication members woke up to a cold shower during the annual conference and later received a note from the director of operations. Naturally, we analyzed this message against principles for delivering bad news. I admit to “geeking out” on this one.

Strengths

• The director of operations took responsibility for the issue and had a personal note delivered to every room. (I don’t know what time because I had left my room after getting what might have been the last warm shower at 6:20.)

• Dietel mentions the news up front (despite older advice of using the indirect approach and putting bad news at the end), which is appropriate for the audience and situation.

• He explains what happened (beyond the hotel’s control, so he won’t get blamed) and tells guests not to expect warm water for “several hours.”

• He apologizes, noting, “this is very inconvenient.” (What else could he say?)

• He provides staff contact information by phone and his direct email. He doesn’t shy away from customer complaints.

Areas for Improvement

• The first sentence is confusing: Who is notified? The city steam plant? No, guests—or “you.”

• To bring main points even more clearly up front, some version of the last sentence of the first paragraph—when guests can expect hot water—would work better.

• The reason includes more detail than guests might care to know. I would make it more concise: “a disruption at the city steam plant.”

• “Several hours” could be defined, but that might not be possible. Deitel says the disruption has been “restored,” and we’re waiting for “the necessary steam.”

• Correct punctuation and proofreading are always appreciated; commas, hyphens, and “The city” instead of “They city” would increase credibility.

• Maybe a text would have worked better to save paper and provide an easy way to notify people when the hot water returned. Otherwise, given the “several hours” prediction, guests would have to keep testing it. Don’t all guests provide a phone number when they check in? Or maybe the hotel favors paper for the appearance of more personalized service (like a handwritten thank-you note compared to an email).

Business communication faculty—including me—will dissect any message. But overall, the message is a good example of a director of operations leading: taking responsibility, communicating, and dealing with the repercussions. I hope no guests called or emailed. In a situation like this, the hotel staff can do very little.

Tools for Managing Through Interpersonal Conflict

As students protest across campuses, faculty can help them manage through conflict. Here are two tools from the text chapter, “Communicating Across Differences,” and a few thoughts about character.

This matrix, adapted from other sources (see below), shows students how to move from debate to dialogue—and through emotional involvement, my addition for more personal and community conflicts.

Students may practice reflection after presentations or activities, but reflecting “in action” is a way to zoom out and get perspective during an interaction that isn’t going well. Questions about emotional and physical reactions deepen students’ typical intellectual reflections in the classroom and encourage students to take action—even to support those who disagree with them.

Students also will learn from discussions about character. When they stand for their beliefs, they demonstrate courage, but changing their beliefs also takes courage (and humility). Protests also may veer from challenging injustice to self-righteousness, an extreme of courage that looks like moral superiority and absolute certainty.

Protesting demonstrates compassion for one side, but so does seeing the other side’s pain. In addition, students are vulnerable when they protest: they risk emotional exposure and being “doxxed,” identity exposure they might consider unbearable.

---

Figure 6 is adapted from “Creating Community Across Difference,” Intergroup Dialogue Project, Cornell University, 2018, which is adapted from University of Michigan Program on Intergroup Relations, 2008. Original source: Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). Adapted with Eric Clay, multi-faith and secular chaplain.

Visuals About SAT Disparities

Charts showing SAT scores by family income provide useful data visualization examples for students to analyze. A New York Times report concludes, “New data shows, for the first time at this level of detail, how much students’ standardized test scores rise with their parents’ incomes—and how disparities start years before students sit for tests.”

Progressive column charts show the increasing likelihood that a student will earn an SAT score of 1300 or higher as family income increases. The first chart shows students in the top 20% of income earners, and the second shows those in the top 1%, with dramatically higher chances of scoring 1300 or above.

One topic for discussion is the visual itself. Is a column chart the best representation for the data? It works well and is clear. Untraditionally, the X-axis labels are on the right side, but we don’t see much “chart junk,” although the horizontal lines seem superfluous. The X-axis is truncated (maxing out at 30%), so differences are exaggerated, but the data labels are clear. Data labels would be useful above all columns for consistency but would interfere with the text—and the author’s point of comparing the highest to the lowest. The chart shown here follows a previous one identifying the top 20%; this one “compares apples to oranges” (1% to 20%), but makes more sense with the earlier one for comparison. You’ll see more charts in the article, showing greater disparities still.

Another topic is data collection. The Times cites the original source, which includes more extensive reporting worth evaluating.

Of course, the Big Topic for discussion with students is the cause of this disparity. The article provides several reasons: kids attend preschool, attend better-resourced schools, etc. Asked for their opinions, students might identify the same reasons—or they might have different ideas that they should be prepared to support with evidence.

University-Related Communications and the War

If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.

Protests and Free Speech

In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.

• Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”

• Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)

• Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:

Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)

Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)

Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).

Donors Pulling Funding

Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?

Joint University Statement

Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.

Firms Denying Jobs

Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.

AI Peer Review Assignment

My colleague at Cornell University, Christy McDowell, and I created an assignment for students to practice using ChatGPT for peer feedback. We’ll present the results from her Persuasive Management Communication class at the Association for Business Communication Conference on October 26, 2023, in Denver. (Download the deck at right.)

Here’s the assignment if you would like to modify it for your class, and you may use it for any writing task.

The assignment included multiple parts:

Step 1: Submit Your Assignment 1 Draft Outline

Step 2: Review Two Students’ Outlines

Step 3: Ask ChatGPT for Feedback

Step 4: Reflect on Your Experience with ChatGPT

Step 5: Compare AI and Human Feedback

Step 6: Reflect on Peer Feedback

In written reflections and class discussions, most students:

• Were surprised at how skilled ChatGPT was in providing feedback (65%)

• Found the process more helpful than previous peer review activities (67%)

• Indicated that peer feedback and in-person discussion were more useful than the anonymous peer feedback (71 reflections)

• Confirmed they will use AI to structure and organize content for future assignments (in-class discussion)

If you use parts or all of the assignment in your class, let us know how it works for you and your students!

SBF's "Scoffing" Relates to Student Behavior

The Sam Bankman-Fried trial is getting dramatic, with the defendant’s behavior potentially affecting a witness. This situation raises questions about audience reactions during presentations.

Caroline Ellison, formerly the Alameda CEO and Bankman-Fried’s girlfriend, is testifying against him. Her attorney called out Bankman-Fried’s behavior while she was on the witness stand: “[T]he defendant has laughed, visibly shaken his head, and scoffed.” He claimed that this could have a negative effect on her, while Bankman-Fried’s attorney said his reactions are “for your honor and the jury to decide.” I can’t imagine his behavior reflects well on him.

I think about all those presentations I gave while working for companies and all those presentations I watched students deliver in class. The audience could certainly affect someone’s delivery—even if someone wasn’t involved romantically.

I also think of the “head-nodders”—those students, during presentations or regular class—who inspire the speaker (or the faculty member) to continue, believing the message is well received. At the same time, some students seem to nod reflexively (or maybe to keep themselves awake).

Students would benefit from a conversation about their nonverbals as audience members. What does a nod or a smile mean: support, encouragement, listening, or something else? To what extent are students aware of their behavior?

How do students giving presentations interpret behavior, for example, looking at the clock or writing notes? To what extent are students swayed by audience behavior? Students might reflect on their experiences during internships: have audiences affected their presentation delivery?

An interesting, but risky, question after a presentation would be to ask speakers what behaviors they observed and how, if at all, they were affected. As faculty, we need to be prepared to answer the same question about our observations and the affect on us. Are you highly sensitive, immune, or somewhere in between?

Image source.

Tax Credits: Persuasive Comm and Ethics Case

One company’s approach to the U.S. government Employee Refund Credit (ERC) serves as a case in communication ethics. Using communication frameworks, students will easily find ways Innovation Refunds persuaded customers. The website getrefunds.com redirects to this page, which students can analyze.

The classic rhetorical triangle of logical argument (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos) examples:

• Logos: “We make claiming the payroll tax refund easier.” (logical, step-by-step process for results)

• Pathos: “The ERC offers a welcome cash infusion as owners struggle.” (appeal to emotion)

• Ethos: Wall Street Journal quote and link to the IRS website. (credibility)

Robert Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion examples:

• Reciprocity: With “no upfront costs,” the company inspires business owners to apply in return.

• Scarcity: “Time is running out!” and “don’t let your business miss its chance to make a claim” convey a limited timeframe during which to apply.

• Authority: “[O}ur team of independent tax attorneys and tax professionals” boasts the staff’s credentials.

• Consistency: Users who complete the “check your eligibility” form are more likely to follow through.

• Liking: The company presents its staff as likable and reliable—people business owners would want to work with: “Our team will guide you every step of the way, from eligibility to claiming and receiving refunds.”

• Social Proof: Testimonials and the scrolling list of amounts and company logos show how others have succeeded in getting refunds.

• Unity: I don’t see an example of unity, Cialdini’s additional principle, but maybe you or your students will.

Although the company denies wrongdoing, aggressive marketing tactics have resulted in far more claims—and much higher government costs—than expected.

Comparing University Statements About Israel

As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)

Statements

Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington

Questions for Discussion

• Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?

• What are the communication objectives?

• For each statement:

  • How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?

  • What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?

  • How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?

  • How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?

  • How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?

  • What resources are offered for students?

  • What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?

  • What, if any, action does the university promise?

  • How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?

  • What else distinguishes one statement from another?

• What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?

Image source.

Bruno Mars Is Quiet About Israel Concert Cancellation

Not surprisingly, a Bruno Mars concert scheduled for Tel Aviv was cancelled because of the Israel-Gaza Conflict that already left hundreds dead. In times of tragedy, celebrities are often at a loss. Mars seems to be keeping quiet.

Live Nation posted an announcement in Hebrew, which translates roughly as follows:

Dear Customers,
Bruno Mars concert scheduled to take place tonight is cancelled. All ticket purchases to the show will receive an automatic refund to the credit card through which the purchase was made.

The concert schedule on his website shows the next performance on October 8, in Qatar, with no explanation for October 7, although this is as of 9:45 pm on October 7. The website is bare-bones and out of date, with only one promotional “news” item dating back to 2021, so we wouldn’t expect more to be written here.

However, Mars is active on X, with posts on October 5 and 6. This would be a place to say something.

His Instagram also shows a picture from the October 6 concert, and some fans are asking for his support. One wrote, “Please share to all your fans what is happening in Israel right now. We love you.”

Mars might not want to weigh in on the political situation, but he could simply express regret for not performing as planned. The previous night was his first concert in Israel, and the Tel Aviv location would have been his second. Would a statement of regret raise questions about why he doesn’t support one side or the other?

Compassion seems warranted. Maybe fans would like to hear Mars’ disappointment and some version of “thoughts and prayers.” How about, “I’m as disappointed as fans that I can’t perform in Tel Aviv. I wish for peace for all.” Or would that cause a social media firestorm?

Of course, he could express his opinion if he feels strongly about the situation. That would take courage—taking action despite the risks, in this case possible backlash and, eventually, loss of fans or endorsement agreements. Students will have opinions on this topic.

Small Talk Phrases

Matt Abrahams promotes his new book in an attention-grabbing CNBC headline: “The No. 1 phrase people who are good at small talk always use, says Stanford public speaking expert.” Of course, I was curious about the phrase, and it is . . . “Tell me more.”

Although the headline is hyperbolic (“No. 1” and “always”), Abrahams is encouraging what any business communication faculty member would encourage: use open-ended questions and phrases. He also recommends, “What excited you about that?” or “Wow, what happened next?” or “How did you feel when that happened?” Abrahams’ point is to avoid “shifting” the conversation to yourself. However, sometimes it’s useful to relate to a speaker by sharing your own experience. Also, these phrases are useful when, at times, you’re not sure what to say in response.

Students might choose phrases that feel more natural to them, for example, “I’d like to hear more about __,” “Say more about that,” or, simply, “Really?” I recently heard, “Can you take that thinking further along the track for me?” I liked that approach given the situation (a complex political idea). In similar situations, I’ve heard others offer a noncommittal “Interesting,” which felt like a polite, “Please stop talking now.”

In addition to “small talk” situations, students could practice these phrases during presentation Q&As.

Image source.

"Booster" Vaccine Communications

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended simplifying COVID-19 vaccine use, including nixing the term booster. The change is an uphill climb and offers lessons in change communication.

The FDA’s deck from January 2023 explains the rationale. The goal is “harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster.” In other words, to eliminate the need for and complications of multiple shots. Instead, the FDA and Center for Disease Control (CDC) want people to think of the COVID vaccine like a flu vaccine and to get a new one each year. The push to avoid the term booster started even earlier, when Stanley Plotkin, renowned physician who developed the Rubella vaccine, suggested the change:

My point, basically, was that calling them boosters implies that the first doses were failures.

Calling the third dose a booster is immunologically incorrect and also gives the wrong impression that somehow the vaccines failed when they could not really have been expected to give a long-lasting immunity from the first doses.

(Here’s an Atlantic article for a fuller linguistic discussion.)

Last month, CDC vaccine advisor Keipp Talbot said, "Bye bye, booster. We are no longer giving boosters, and it's going to be very difficult to stop using that word because that word has become pervasive.” The CDC’s and FDA’s latest webpages about COVID-19 vaccines don’t mention boosters but refer to “updated vaccines.” On New York’s site, we’re instructed to “Make an appointment for an updated COVID-19 vaccine,” but a page titled, “Booster Doses” still exists, likely for people searching for the old term. As Talbot warned, the change will take some time.

PwC Report for Students to Analyze

If you’re looking for a sample report with mixed text and graphics, “PwC’s 26th Annual Global CEO Survey: Winning today’s race while running tomorrow’s” is a good one for students to analyze. With open access, the report is designed as a webpage built around survey questions. Here are a few points to explore with business communication students:

Audience Analysis and Communication Objectives: As a public document, the report provides information for business leaders, but the primary objective is to market PwC’s work. The report starts with a hook: “Evolve or die, say 4,410 chief executives in our 2023 CEO Survey. But are they spending enough time on business reinvention? Many tell us no.” In other words, hire PwC to help you survive.

Organization: The introductory paragraph follows classic business writing principles: convey the main point (the conclusion or recommendation) and preview up front. The organization is clear in the last paragraph: “We’ve organised this year’s survey summary into nine tough questions—which naturally fall into three groups—about what it takes to operate in our dual-imperative world.” However, the sequence of groups and questions within them don’t follow a logic I can follow.

Writing Style: As expected for this type of report, the tone reflects a strong sense of urgency (“The race for the future”). Still, I find myself tripping over some sentences, like this one:

Last year’s optimism, reflecting hope that economic conditions would continue improving as the global pandemic eased, was dashed in 2022 by shocks such as Europe’s largest land war since World War II, knock-on effects like surging energy and commodity prices, and accelerating general wage and price inflation.

“Dashed,” “shocks,” “knock-on effects,” “surging,” “accelerating”—that’s a lot to take. Students also might have fun omitting extraneous words, for example, “Last year’s optimism, reflecting hope . . .”

Graphics: Of about 15 charts in the report, only one is a line chart. The other are rather traditional versions of bar and column charts but offer lessons in choosing stacked and other formats—ways to incorporate multiple data points.

Site Functionality: Report navigation is clear with the organizational structure in table format, shown above, and right-side mouse-over links. You might consider a report assignment that includes bookmarks within Word documents or PDFs that students can create easily. The downloadable graphics are a nice touch. Users get pages—with the PwC logo, of course—they can slip into any deck.

You’ll find other lessons in the report. Overall, it’s a good example of clear content, but, for me, the marketing purpose overshadows the message.

Fake Fetterman and Intellectual Humility

Psychology research suggests that susceptibility to conspiracy theories is caused by a failure of analytical thinking—and intellectual humility. To some, Senator John Fetterman’s improved speech, altered facial hair, and concealed tattoo can mean only one thing: he has a body double (despite his hard-to-match six-foot-eight frame). The research behind conspiracy theories relates to business communication learning objectives about how people decide to believe or deny evidence.

Although people who tend to believe conspiracy theories pride themselves on being “unique” or “too special to be duped,” new research cited in an MSNBC article paints a different picture. From studies published last fall, authors conclude, “[P]eople may believe conspiracies partly because they fail to engage in analytic thinking and rely too much on their intuition.” More recent studies, yet to be published, from a Cornell University psychology lab, conclude:

[C]onspiracy believers not only relied more intuition, but also overestimated their performance on numeracy and perception tests (i.e. were overconfident in their own abilities).

When students scroll through their social feeds, do they generally believe what they read? This question also raises the idea of intellectual humility, a topic I discuss in Building Leadership Character. Psychologists developed this scale, which could be useful to share with students:

• I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong.

• I reconsider my opinions when presented with new evidence.

• I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own.

• I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong.

• In the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.

• I like finding out new information that differs from what I already think is true.

The paradox is that conspiracy theorists believe they are going against conventional thinking—for example, disbelieving mainstream media reports. But partly because of arrogance, they too quickly and without enough evidence accept other ideas.

Murdoch's Email to Employees

In his email to employees, Rupert Murdoch announces his “transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News,” but he fails to mention what he’s leaving: both Boards of Directors.

His message confirms what news reports say: he’s going nowhere and will continue to wield influence. A Guardian columnist focuses on Murdoch’s “toxic legacy” and the political overtones of his note in which he criticizes “elites” “in cahoots” with the media. (Cahoots strikes me as an outdated term along the lines of no-goodnik. Both might be new to students.) With more defamation lawsuits pending against Fox, Murdoch also, again, defends the company’s reporting.

A New York Times article chronicles his successor’s “On-Again, Off-Again Relationship With the Family Business.” Unusual for these types of announcements, Murdoch says only about his third child, Lachlan, “[We] have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan” and that Lachlan “is absolutely committed to the cause [of freedom].”

Murdoch writes, “Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities.” Yet real humility is an admirable quality—and required for a leader to step aside and let others lead. Instead, like Logan Roy in HBO’s Succession, Murdoch will hover until he dies.

Image source.

---

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to let you all know that I have decided to transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News. For my entire professional life, I have been engaged daily with news and ideas, and that will not change. But the time is right for me to take on different roles, knowing that we have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan who will become sole Chairman of both companies.

Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities. But I am truly proud of what we have achieved collectively through the decades, and I owe much to my colleagues, whose contributions to our success have sometimes been unseen outside the company but are deeply appreciated by me. Whether the truck drivers distributing our papers, the cleaners who toil when we have left the office, the assistants who support us or the skilled operators behind the cameras or the computer code, we would be less successful and have less positive impact on society without your day-after-day dedication.

Our companies are in robust health, as am I. Our opportunities far exceed our commercial challenges. We have every reason to be optimistic about the coming years - I certainly am, and plan to be here to participate in them. But the battle for the freedom of speech and, ultimately, the freedom of thought, has never been more intense.

My father firmly believed in freedom, and Lachlan is absolutely committed to the cause. Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.

In my new role, I can guarantee you that I will be involved every day in the contest of ideas. Our companies are communities, and I will be an active member of our community. I will be watching our broadcasts with a critical eye, reading our newspapers and websites and books with much interest, and reaching out to you with thoughts, ideas, and advice. When I visit your countries and companies, you can expect to see me in the office late on a Friday afternoon.

I look forward to seeing you wherever you work and whatever your responsibility. And I urge you to make the most of this great opportunity to improve the world we live in.

Lawsuits About Writing Used for AI Training

The list of authors suing AI companies for copyright infringement is growing, and students should understand the implications. One of the latest to file suit is George RR Martin, who might interest students because his novels inspired Game of Thrones.

An earlier petition, addressed to the heads of OpenAI, Meta, Alphabet, Stability AI, Microsoft, and IBM, explains writers’ position. In this open letter, hundreds of members of the Authors Guild call out the “inherent injustice in exploiting our works as part of your AI systems without our consent, credit, or compensation.” Similar to the striking screenwriters, this group is concerned about compensation and job loss.

What’s relevant to students is how their own work is used and where it might end up. A conversation about posting online isn’t new to students, but AI raises new questions about copyright and privacy issues. Students probably don’t need to worry about a investment report or customer-service letter developed for class, but they might think twice about uploading creative work that could be copied or a resume or cover letter that could be misused.

As the makers of ChatGPT, OpenAI leaders seem to be sympathetic to authors’ concerns. A spokesperson said, "We're having productive conversations with many creators around the world, including the Authors Guild, and have been working co-operatively to understand and discuss their concerns about AI. We're optimistic we will continue to find mutually beneficial ways to work together." We’ll see.

Adidas CEO Inflames a Crisis

Illustrating how not to handle a crisis situation, Adidas CEO Bjorn Gulden might regret his comments about Kanye West (aka Ye). He renewed a conversation that could have been left behind and, instead, left the company to contain the damage.

During an interview on a Norwegian investment bank podcast, Gulden, appointed CEO in January, reflected on Ye’s antisemitic remarks, which caused the company to cancel its Yeezy partnership, along with several other brands, in October 2022. Gulden said the following about the situation and Ye:

“This is before my time,” Gulden told Tangen. “I think Kanye West is one of the most creative people in the world, both in music and what I’d call street culture. . . . And then, as creative people, you know, he did some statements that wasn’t that good and that caused Adi[das] to break the contract and withdraw the product.”

This was “unfortunate,” the CEO continued. “I don’t think he meant what he said, and I don’t think he’s a bad person. It just came across that way and that meant we lost that business, one of the most successful collaborations in the history. Very sad. But when you work with third parties it can happen, and it’s part of the game.”

Why did Gulden respond in this way? The interviewer had merely nudged: “But sometimes, um, the disadvantage of going with the big names is that they become very dominant, and you kind of had this issue with Kanye West. So, what happened there?”

Gulden could have spoken more generally about the dissolved partnership. But he defends Ye’s statements as something that “creative people” do. The interviewer agrees that these things happen in other industries, too, and Gulden laughs. The more appropriate response would be to support, not disagree with, the company decision—even though it was before his tenure. Otherwise, he raises questions of integrity, or consistency, with company values.

He could have said something like, “That was a terrible loss for the company and for customers. Kanye West is such a creative guy. But the company can’t tolerate inflammatory comments that conflict with the brand and values.” Of course, I would have preferred that he acknowledge the comments for what they are: antisemitic. But he could have said that much.

Gulden might also do more research about Ye’s comments, particularly what they mean for the Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee explains five of them, including the worst, about, “going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.”

Adidas responded well. With a concise statement, communicators reiterated the company’s decision: “Our position has not changed. Ending the partnership was appropriate.” News outlets won’t let this pass so quickly, but Gulden would do best to stay out of it at this point.

Image source

UAW Video Promotes UAW

Once again, I’m confused by United Auto Workers (UAW) communications. With the strike against three automakers in effect, a new video, posted on the website home page, is worth analyzing for audience and communication objectives.

As I wrote about last month, UAW president Shawn Fain is a prominent figure in these union messages. He’s on screen during much of the video, titled “What Is the Stand Up Strike?” and narrates for the entire four minutes, with dramatic background music throughout.

The actors and audience are unclear. Fain starts, “Everything working people have ever won, we’ve won together.” Who’s “we”? What “working people”? All working people? If so, that’s a stretch. He continues, “Today, America’s autoworkers are in the fight of our lives.” By using “our,” he includes himself. In the next few sentences, with accompanying images, he lists autoworkers’ broad goals around pay, benefits, and job security. But he transitions, loosely: “Winning these demands will take all of us. It will take a return to our roots.”

In the next segment, which lasts about one minute, Fain describes the UAW’s history. We see black and white images dating back to 1936, when Fain says the union confronted “company thugs, spies, and antiunion laws.” Promoting the value of the UAW—and unions, in general—this part seems to address a broader audience. Similarly, for about another minute, Fain then explains the union’s strategy of striking “The Big Three,” presenting the approach as an innovative model.

Not until 3:17 in the 4-minute video does Fain address autoworkers directly. He says, “UAW family, be ready,” and then encourages people to strike if their “local” is called up, stand on the picket line, and participate in other organizing activities. Business communication students will recognize the anaphora towards the end: “Stand up for ourselves and the working class. Let’s stand up for future generations. Let’s stand up for economic and social justice. Let’s stand up and, once again, make history together.”

My skepticism is about autoworkers’ interest in those ideals. Do people strike, which causes at least short-term economic loss, to make history? For future generations? This is why I miss the voice of the autoworker. How do people describe their struggles? What do they see as unfair? What would they like to see changed? Where’s the peer-to-peer influence if workers are the intended audience?

Here’s the video YouTube description, with another dose of anaphora:

The Stand Up Strike is our generation’s answer to the movement that built our union, the Sit-Down Strikes of 1937. Then as now, we face massive inequality across our society. Then as now, our industry is rapidly changing and workers are being left behind. Then as now, our labor movement is redefining itself. This is a strike that grows over time, giving our national negotiators maximum leverage and maximum flexibility to win a record contract.

New Euphemism for "Feedback"

A WSJ article reports that “feedback” causes anxiety, so companies are using “feedforward” instead. The latest in corporate euphemisms, feedforward could soften comments on students’ writing and presentations, but I’m skeptical.

Attempts for gentler language for “negative” feedback are nothing new. Managers (and business communication faculty) typically use “areas for improvement,” “development areas,” or “constructive feedback.” Now, apparently, “feedback” is itself causing problems.

Other terms are emerging. Microsoft is using “perspectives” instead of “feedback,” “performance development” is replacing “performance management,” and “connect” session is replacing a “review.” How long before the patina of these terms wears off and they, too, become anxiety producing?

What’s the problem companies are trying to solve with new terms? On the surface, ”feedforward” is more accurate, emphasizing changes for the future, so I get it. But I have to question whether the term is the issue. Aren’t the real issues that people have difficulty facing what needs to change and that managers continue to struggle with delivering feedback? I’m a fan of Kim Scott’s work and book, Radical Candor, which encourages a supportive environment that makes difficult feedback easier to swallow.

For now, I think our student “tutorials” or “coaching sessions” are safe.

Image source

Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement

BP’s communicators addressed sensitive “relationship” issues in the company’s announcement about the CEO resignation. I’ve analyzed the British energy company’s message by paragraph.

BP plc announces that Bernard Looney has notified the Company that he has resigned as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect. 

Murray Auchincloss, the Company’s CFO, will act as CEO on an interim basis. 

The message—some might call it “bad news,” others “positive”—is intended to be persuasive, with the goal of convincing audiences (likely investors primarily and the press/employees secondarily) that BP is an ethical company that stands by its values. The news is right up front, with an interesting few extra words.: “BP plc announces that” seems superfluous, and yet, the company intentionally leads with its own action, if only “announcing.” This reflects an attempt to demonstrate accountability, a subtle way of saying that the “resignation” is more of a technicality and likely was demanded.

The CEO replacement, even an interim one, is announced immediately to convey confidence and smooth operations.

In May 2022, the Board received and reviewed allegations, with the support of external legal counsel, relating to Mr Looney’s conduct in respect of personal relationships with company colleagues. The information came from an anonymous source.

A little history is good, but this seems misplaced. At first, I misread that it took the Board more than a year to take action. A short statement about the recent situation, which led to the resignation, before this part would be clearer. Also, “personal relationships with company colleagues” sounds icky, but I can’t think of anything better. It is icky. Stating “anonymous source” is relevant because the report didn’t come from Looney, increasing the ethical questions about his behavior and supporting the Board’s actions.

During that review, Mr Looney disclosed a small number of historical relationships with colleagues prior to becoming CEO. No breach of the Company’s Code of Conduct was found. However, the Board sought and was given assurances by Mr Looney regarding disclosure of past personal relationships, as well as his future behaviour.

“A small number” raises more questions than it answers. Whatever the number is, I’m thinking of something higher. “Historical” is an attempt to create greater distance than “prior to becoming CEO” implies. Mentioning the Code of Conduct is important—both that the company has one and that Looney didn’t, for example, have a relationship with someone who reported to him (which is what this implies). The last sentence uses “the Board” again as the actor, emphasizing its due diligence. But “However” seems misplaced after the previous sentence, and “given assurances . . . regarding . . .” is vague. More precise wording would convey that he said he had disclosed ALL past relationships (but hadn’t) and committed not to pursue additional relationships (which is odd and could probably be omitted).

Further allegations of a similar nature were received recently, and the Company immediately began investigating with the support of external legal counsel. That process is ongoing.  

Here’s the real reason for his “resignation.” Using passive voice for the first independent clause of the sentence, the company downplays the Board. With active voice in the second independent clause, the Company springs into action. But despite an “ongoing” investigation, they have apparently, finally, had enough.

Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures.  He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.

In other words, he lied by omission. The language choices are odd here too: he “informed” the Company that he “accepts” (twice) that did not fully disclose information. In case it wasn’t clear earlier, at this point, we might conclude that his resignation was, indeed, forced. Or, in today’s parlance, he was “released.”

The Company has strong values and the Board expects everyone at the Company to behave in accordance with those values.  All leaders in particular are expected to act as role models and to exercise good judgement in a way that earns the trust of others.

Well, of course. But without this assurance, the statement would be incomplete. This is the kind of boilerplate we expect to see in these situations.

No decisions have yet been made in respect of any remuneration payments to be made to Mr Looney.  In accordance with section 430(2B) of the Companies Act 2006, particulars of any such decisions will be disclosed at such times as, and to the extent that, any such decisions are made.

This legalese is likely for investors who want to understand the financial impact. Or maybe it’s for people like me, shaking my head as I think about the millions in compensation that might accompany his departure.

This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 (MAR) as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Ditto about the legalese. This would be an unusual ending for an American company’s statement, which might end on a more forward-looking, positive note.

---

This crisis communication example raises issues of integrity (honesty and transparency in communication) and humility (learning from mistakes). Maybe this story offers a lesson for others, as a university communication professional once told my Corporate Communication class: “The truth will come out.” As these cases often go, covering up unethical behavior is often worse than the behavior itself.

Airbnb Shifts Communication About NYC

A NYC law that dramatically limits the number of short-term rentals has taken effect, and Airbnb is left to communicate requirements to hosts. The news is bad, but the communication focuses on action because the decision was made back in June. Here’s the gist:

Hosts (whether owners or tenants) cannot rent out an entire apartment or home to visitors for fewer than 30 days, even if the host owns or lives in the building.

The Sept. 5 deadline came after years of complaints and litigation, which the company explained to hosts and to the public. Now, messaging has turned to action: Airbnb is taking responsibility for getting hosts to follow registration guidelines now that the law is being enforced.

When the legal case was decided in June, messages expressed Airbnb’s disappointment and the effect. Theo Yedinsky, global policy director for Airbnb, provided this statement to the press, focusing on hosts: "New York City's short-term rental rules are a blow to its tourism economy and the thousands of New Yorkers and small businesses in the outer boroughs who rely on home sharing and tourism dollars to help make ends meet." He also explained the effect on NYC visitors: “The city is sending a clear message to millions of potential visitors who will now have fewer accommodation options when they visit New York City: ‘You are not welcome.’”

In a recent message to hosts, who are now Airbnb’s primary audience, the company explained what hosts need to do. The message is under “Help Center” and, appropriately, reads like a checklist. Unfortunately, the time to fight is over, and now hosts need to follow the law. Of course, Airbnb takes the opportunity to include a short introduction about how hard the company tried to avoid this situation—and how the decision rests with the city.

Instructions are clear and, significantly, the message starts with this ominous statement, implying that similar rules may come to other regions:

When deciding whether to become an Airbnb host, it is important for you to understand the laws in your region or city. As a platform and online marketplace we do not provide legal advice, but we want to provide resources that may help you better understand applicable laws and regulations. This list is not exhaustive, but it may give you a good start in understanding your local laws. If you have questions, visit the short-term rental homepage or other government agencies directly, or consult a local lawyer or tax professional.

As expected, the number of short-term rentals has taken a nosedive. Wired reports that the number of Airbnb properties dropped 70%—and that doesn’t include laggards who still need to either register or delist, and other short-term rental properties such as those on VRBO.

Image source.