Using "We" for Negative Feedback?

A Wall Street Journal article cites social psychology research about using “we” instead of “you” to increase receptivity to negative feedback. The title and subtitle of the article are “The Secret Power of Using ‘We’ During Difficult Conversations: Bosses who use ‘we’ instead of ‘you’ are more likely to get employees to listen to negative feedback, according to new research.” Based on the research, this conclusion is an overreach.

The authors, whose research was published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, acknowledge that using “you” can increase feelings of connection and relatability and facilitate persuasion, as we teach in business communication classes. However, they note that these uses are in non-adversarial situations. For adversarial situations, they explain the value of “we”: “If you seem like you’re an open-minded person yourself, people naturally want to reciprocate that. Changing the pronouns you use from ‘you’ to ‘we’ can make your audience more open to your message. It’s kind of a secret power.”

The research includes several wide-ranging studies, including Reddit comments, pitches, and political speeches. Only one of the studies dealt with negative feedback. Respondents were told they are part of a team reading feedback that one team member had written about another:

You Condition: Sam, you should have made more progress faster. Your timeline was too relaxed, and you kept making errors along the ways that delayed the project. You could have worked harder early on to ensure you had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, you should make sure that your timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

We Condition: Sam, we should have made more progress faster. Our timeline was too relaxed, and we kept making errors along the ways that delayed project. We could have worked harder early on to ensure we had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, we should make sure that our timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

This is quite a different situation from what the WSJ reporter implies in the article subtitle—which could include managers giving feedback to their direct reports. I can think of many situations in which using “we” would sound terribly condescending. True, in business communication classes, we teach that “you” should be avoided when criticizing, as the above example illustrates. But the “we condition” could sound patronizing coming from a manager who wasn’t part of the team. Doctors and teachers sound patronizing when they say, “How do we feel?” or “We don’t talk when others are talking.” Also, although the “you condition” is harsh, saying something like, “we kept making errors,” when it was only Sam who made the errors is also patronizing—and false. In addition, context always matters. This is a difficult study to extrapolate from when respondents don’t have a stake in the situation.

The danger is conveying the “royal we,” or nosism—using the plural to refer to ourselves. Here’s the history:

The practice has been associated with the English monarchy since the 12th-century rule of Henry II, who used the pronoun “we” to signify that because he ruled by divine right, he represented both himself and God simultaneously.

If managers use the term to speak for God, no wonder it comes across as patronizing.

An exception may be in languages that distinguish between formal and familiar pronouns, for example tu and vous in Spanish. This needs more evidence, but a Wikipedia entry refers to the “nonconfrontational we” and claims that “we” is often used in recipe instructions and to avoid the overly informal (for example, ¿Cómo estamos? which means, How are we?). Some consider this a sign of respect.

Still, in American work environments, managers should avoid “we” when they mean “you.” Without using any pronoun, managers will sound respectful and appropriately direct. They can focus on the work and express first-person observations to convey the impact of the behavior, for example, “I saw [the client] close the deck after she noticed the miscalculation on page 4,” or “I wonder how Noah will react to your question about other proposals. What do you think?” In the research example, a team member could say about Sam’s performance, “I noticed and fixed several errors that delayed the project.“

(More about the editorial we here from a near-classic NY Times editorial.)

Image source.

Shipping Note Shows Trek Light’s Personality

If a brand can have a personality, Trek Light shows it off in a shipping note. Hidden in the message is an explanation, if not an apology, for a long wait.

The email invites the customer into the world of running a small business—the joys, the excitement, and the challenges of keeping up when business is good. Compare the note at the end, “So, if your order took a bit longer to ship than you were hoping for, please accept our sincere thanks for being patient and cool and supporting our small business during this time and always,” with Delta’s stilted, cloying email closing this week: “Thank you for your patience and understanding, and we look forward to seeing you to your destination as smoothly as possible.”

Like a fun friend, Trek Light makes us want to engage with them more. With a Chris Farley gif at the bottom, this is a good example of a positive message to share with students who want to find a more natural, playful voice when it’s appropriate in business.

Delta Refuses to Use "You"

Students will easily rewrite this Delta Airlines message by applying business writing principles. Using “you,” tightening, clarifying information, and reorganizing would improve the email. Delta’s reputation suffered greatly during the outage, and emails like this one to customers don’t help.

Here are a few changes students might make:

• Clarify the main point. The email subject was “Important Information About Your Upcoming Flight,” but the message has no information about the upcoming flight. The focus is something like, “How to Get Flight Updates and Rebook if You Need To.”

• Sharpen the first paragraph. This is a slog to read, partly because of the language but mostly because it’s giving mixed messages. Maybe change to something like, “Your flight is scheduled as planned. But outages have caused cancellations, and here’s what you need to do if your flight is cancelled.” Maybe move the bit about the app to a separate line with bold type. That’s the first thing customers should do.

• Use conversational language. Change “The operation of your flight” to “Your flight.” We know it’s operating—or not.

• Use “you.” The writer seems to avoid speaking directly to the audience. Change “When rebooked travel occurs” to “If you rebook your travel,” and “customers may cancel their reservation” to “you may cancel your reservation.”

• Eliminate bullets. Single bullets are not logical; bullets, like subheadings, divide something into multiple parts. A different visual design might be more appealing and more easily read.

• Eliminate numbering. Numbers indicate a hierarchy or sequence. Again, a different visual design might help.

• Clarify fares. That last bullet refers to “end of ticket validity,” which sounds confusing. Some tightening might help here too: Do we need “applicable fare difference”? Maybe better language for #3 is something like, “If you can’t rebook [why introduce “reschedule” here? Or is that something different?] within __ [define], don’t worry. You have up to one year to use whatever part of a ticket you don’t use for this trip.”

• Skip the false politeness. Thanking customers for being patient or understanding assumes that they will be, which is unlikely in this situation. Maybe a sincere apology or an acknowledgement of the inconvenience (havoc!) would be better.

---

UPDATE: Contrast this message with a LinkedIn post from Shane Goronkin. He focuses on teamwork, sounds natural and sincere, and demonstrates compassion in the last two paragraphs (and defines IROP earlier):

Know that many of you have been impacted by this IROP and I am truly sorry. I heard countless heartbreaking stories over the weekend 😢. Really, really terrible.

We still have more work to do, but we will get back on track soon.

Resignation Statements

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned after the assassination attempt of former President Trump, and President Biden decided not to run again for office. Students can compare both statements.

Despite the dramatic, marching-band resignations students might see on TikTok, job resignation letters should focus on goodwill. What’s different about these political messages is that the reasons are provided—sometimes.

Cheatle ended her term in a message to staff that became public. After a grueling hearing with lawmakers about the agency’s failure to protect former President Trump from a shooter, she may have had little choice in the decision. In her email, she wrote, “As your Director, I take full responsibility for the security lapse.” Her main objectives are to reassure staff and boost their confidence. She does this by praising their work and encouraging them to stay focused. Her resignation decision—the main point—is at the end instead of up front, as we teach for messages, including bad news, particularly when it’s obvious or expected.

President Biden’s (some would say long-awaited) decision to decline the Democratic party’s nomination came on X. Unlike Cheatle, he doesn’t give a reason. He makes no mention of the criticism about his debate performance and concerns about his mental and physical health, which is to be expected. He simply says, “I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term.” More significantly, he endorses Vice President Harris and includes a photo of them walking together, impeding other candidates’ chances of nomination.

President Biden’s comment about Cheatle’s resignation is notable: “As a leader, it takes honor, courage and incredible integrity to take full responsibility for an organization tasked with one of the most challenging jobs in public service.” Modifier issue aside, he compliments the character dimensions many hoped he would have demonstrated since the debate debacle.

I’m categorizing these examples under “bad-news message,” although many see both as good news, which is often the case.

U.S. Committee Report About Amazon

Few people think about the impact of Amazon Prime Days on employees, but the U.S. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee produced a report worth reviewing in class.

Although the report format doesn’t follow all business communication principles, students will see several they could include in their own reports:

• Clear title and subtitle: With repetition and strong language, the titles conveys the main point: “PEAK SEASONS, PEAK INJURIES: Amazon Warehouses Are Especially Dangerous During Prime Day and the Holiday Season—and the Company Knows It.”

• Message titles (or “talking headings”): The authors create a clear argument with full-sentence subheadings.

• Executive summary: Although not labeled, the first four paragraphs function as an executive summary. This part explains the complaint well.

• Data and stories: The report mixes data and employee quotes to balance a logical argument with emotional appeal.

• OSHA warnings: The second paragraph of page 5 and top of page 6 are particularly strong, giving evidence from OSHA reports about inaccurate and missing reports. To me, these are stronger than the first paragraph on page 5, which accuses Amazon of treating minor cuts and bruises and not reporting them as injuries—which isn’t required.

To meet business communication standards, the report could be improved:

• The report could be more visually interesting. The underlined heading, to start, is a 1990s throwback.

• This line chart is a mess. Purple highlighting is helpful, but students would find better ways to present this data.

• The argument seems to be simply about volume. Yes, Amazon’s injury rate on Prime Days is far above industry averages, but so is its volume. What about on other days? Before Prime Day, when volume is lower, injuries are lower. Perhaps they average out? This doesn’t excuse high rates, but it does explain them. Prime Day is an example of cherry picking data and is employed as a marketing frame for the argument—not the problem itself.

• The inflammatory language may detract from the report. “But Amazon does not stop there” is unnecessary to make the argument and might harm the writers’ credibility.

• The company’s admission of staffing issues may be inappropriately raised in the report. Using an Amazon safety training video that includes an example of an injury caused partly by lack of staffing seems unfair.

• An entire section is dedicated to staffing, but other solutions might be more realistic. More of the report could be dedicated to actions Amazon might take. The few listed on page 8 could be expanded.

• I’m never convinced by arguments like this one: “But those investments over four years are less than 3 percent of the company’s $36.9 billion in profits in 2023 alone.” I have often seen these calculations—percentages of revenue or profit—in students’ presentations, and they mean little. What do similar companies spend, or what is the industry average? Without a target, this is not a compelling reason to spend more.

This is an interesting report with good reasons for Amazon to reduce workplace injuries. A consultancy’s report, which students might write instead, could make a more useful, convincing argument.

Ingrid Andress's Apology

Country singer Ingrid Andress promises to go to rehab after her off-key national anthem rendition at a Major League Baseball event. Are her apology and commitment enough?

Andress’s statement came quickly on Instagram. Looking at the criteria for apologies, students will see that Andress hit many of them—briefly: showing remorse (for example, saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” instead of “I regret”), accepting responsibility (for example, saying, “It’s my fault,” or “I failed to”), saying what you did wrong, explaining what happened, acknowledging the impact, offering to fix it, saying what you’ll do differently, and requesting forgiveness.

She uses conversational language, which is probably appropriate in this situation. A legalistic statement never goes over well, and Andress sounds authentic. However, “that wasn’t me” isn’t typically well received. In a sense, this is the classic crisis communication strategy of distancing oneself, as we saw Microsoft do in the CrowdStrike situation this week. We could say that someone inebriated “isn’t herself,” but this part weakens her apology.

In response to Andress’s post, we see the expected, mean comments questioning her singing ability without alcohol and criticizing her quip about rehab being fun. Does the joke at the end diminish the seriousness of her message? I don’t think so, but students may have a different view.

Crisis Comms After CrowdStrike Failure

Tech outages affected businesses worldwide, and students can analyze responses by CrowdStrike, which caused the issue.

CrowdStrike begins its statement by including what has not been affected:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This was not a cyberattack.

The message is designed to be helpful and reduce worries—and to limit the scope of the crisis. Using a similar crisis communication strategy, Microsoft limits its role in the crisis by blaming the third party and mentioning its name twice:

We are aware of a scenario in which customers experience issues with their machines causing a bug check (blue screen) due to a recent CrowdStrike update. We recommend customers to follow guidance provided by CrowdStrike.

The “blue screen of death” that people saw during this outage evokes bad memories from early Microsoft days. Although Microsoft isn’t to blame, the software and the company are likely taking a reputational hit.

CrowdStrike President and CEO George Kurtz posted on X:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This is not a security incident or cyberattack. The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed. We refer customers to the support portal for the latest updates and will continue to provide complete and continuous updates on our website. We further recommend organizations ensure they’re communicating with CrowdStrike representatives through official channels. Our team is fully mobilized to ensure the security and stability of CrowdStrike customers.

Users responded by asking, “Where’s the apology to users, George?” and by calling it “corporate speak.” They have a point, and Kurtz got the memo later, appearing on the Today Show and immediately saying, “We are deeply sorry.” At that time, later in the day, his main purpose was to assure people that they fixed the problem and that systems are coming back.

Kurtz emphasized the importance of CrowdStrike’s work, focusing on how updates like the one that caused the outage are essential to safety—to prevent cyberattacks. Still, how a bug in a minor update wreak such havoc? He doesn’t quite quell concerns about future issues, although he does take responsibility for the outage. Then again, he has little choice.

Costco Comms About Increasing Membership Fees

In a news release, Costco announced plans to increase membership fees in September but hasn’t yet notified customers directly. Writing an email to customers or posting information on the website would be a useful class activity or assignment.

The news came in a short release that includes June sales data and dividend plans. With investors as the primary audience, the message is straightforward:

The Company also announced that, effective September 1, 2024, it will increase annual membership fees by $5 for U.S. and Canada Gold Star (individual), Business, and Business add-on members. With this increase, all U.S. and Canada Gold Star, Business and Business add-on members will pay an annual fee of $65. Also effective September 1, annual fees for Executive Memberships in the U.S. and Canada will increase from $120 to $130 (Primary membership of $65, plus the Executive upgrade of $65), and the maximum annual 2% Reward associated with the Executive Membership will increase from $1,000 to $1,250. The fee increases will impact around 52 million memberships, a little over half of which are Executive.

A pre-recorded message with slides will be posted on July 17 for students to see another example of how the message is conveyed to investors. For investors, the news could be good (although the stock price still fell on the sales and membership fee news), but for customers, it’s certainly bad news.

Nothing is mentioned yet on the Costco membership page, and customers haven’t received direct notice. How would students announce the news to members? They might consider how other companies announce increased fees. In Chapter 8 of the textbook, students read how Netflix shared the news of increasing subscription prices with investors and customers. For customers, Netflix focused on more programming and other benefits. Students can find ways to take this same approach for the Costco message.

To guide their messaging for customers, students can read context from Yahoo! Finance and other general news outlets. They’ll read about rising inflation and membership fee increases by Sam’s Club and BJ’s in 2022. Costco waited a bit longer—seven years since its last price increase in 2017. But none of this likely matters to Costco customers. In addition, students might argue this is only $5, but of course, that’s significant to a lot of families, particularly on top of other increases.

Students can also consider message timing. We typically teach that customers should be informed first rather than find out bad news from the media.

Image source

AI Tools Help (a Lot) During Interviews

A Business Insider article says we shouldn’t call it “cheating,” but using these interview AI tools seems like cheating to me.

Final Round AI will revise a resume, generate a cover letter, and run mock interviews. After an interview, it will summarize, follow up, and somehow—coming later this year—negotiate a salary. But wait, there’s more: Its Copilot product (no relation to Microsoft’s) will transcribe the interview and, in real time, provide sample answers to questions. Cofounder and CEO Michael Guan says, "It can prompt the candidates with the right thing to say at the right time. Like a magical teleprompter, using AI."

Although intended only as a meeting transcription service, Otter.AI is being used as a "proxy interview" tool. This could involve the candidate lip-syncing as someone else answers questions for them. Other tools, like Interview Buddy, provide sample responses or bullet points for the candidate, but Interview Buddy stops short of technical questions, which the CEO says would be "kind of crossing the line, where it's not actually in the interest of the candidate or the employer if they're getting information that they don't actually know."

Students should consider ethical issues of using these types of tools. Where does AI assistance cross a line so that students are no longer representing themselves, which raises questions of integrity and authenticity? How would students answer questions from the Framework for Ethical Decision Making (Chapter 1 of Business Communication and Character, Figure 7)?

From a practical perspective, are students setting themselves up for failure in a job? Guan says using AI reflects a candidate’s “ingenuity,” and he isn’t concerned about results on the job: "If they can use AI to crush an interview, they can for sure continue using AI to become the top performer in their daily jobs.” Can they? Any job? Maybe they can perform only the type of job that is increasingly rare because AI is already doing the lower-end work.

PNC Bets on "Boring”

PNC Bank is betting on boring to attract customers. The campaign illustrates persuasive strategies, and a CEO interview is on-brand.

With an ad labeled “Boring Is Essential,” PNC is appealing to customers living in turbulent times. Given the recent inflation, tight housing market, political uncertainty, and climate change, it’s a compelling message.

During a Bloomberg interview, Chairman and CEO Bill Demchak said, “Banking shouldn’t be drama for our clients. It ought to be predictable, consistent, stuff works, their money’s safe. . . .” Although he also says, “I don’t necessarily like to think of myself as a boring person,” his office setting and demeanor might communicate otherwise—and maybe that’s not a bad thing these days.

PNC is not alone. During the interview, we see a chart showing the number of times bank management used the word “boring” during calls in the past couple of years.

Students will draw connections with business communication course concepts, for example, credibility and trust. PNC is selling its history and stability, ensuring customers that their money will be safe.

Zuckerberg's July 4 Video

On July 4, Mark Zuckerberg posted the perfect video of himself as a proud American, a reprise of one from 2022. Hydrofoiling, holding an American flag, and wearing a tux, he set the video to Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA.” The video has it all. In 2022, he was in shorts, without the beer, and the song was John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads.”

Instagram comments look positive. Apparently, “Bro is the coolest billionaire CEO ever,” a “badass,” and “gangsta.” Some question whether AI generated the video, but others scoff at the idea.

Maybe Zuckerberg is shoring up his image after the many government hearings and social media criticism, or maybe the videos illustrate his political aspirations. Rumors around 2017 and 2020 had Zuckerberg running for president. He is decades younger and certainly more fit than our current candidates. Business communication students can guess his goals, but I’m filing this under Chapter 7 of the textbook, “persuasive messages.”

Learning From Ghosting During Job Selection

Ghosting while dating raises ethical questions that apply to the job search. In both cases, students learn compassion and resilience.

Psychologists say the uncertainty of not hearing anything can be more painful than rejection. One therapist said the consequence is that people “start to question their reality.” They doubt their interpretation of a “good” date or an interview, wondering how their perceptions were off.

Of course, this might not be the case. A date or an interviewer may have felt just as connected at the time, but other candidates were better matches. Some interviewers also seem positive and encouraging during the selection process just to be nice—to make candidates feel comfortable, to allow candidates to represent themselves well, and to represent the company well. The opposite also happens: A candidate thinks an interview went horribly because the hiring manager was inexpressive, but that could be their personality, or they may fear implying an job offer, a questionable approach I’ve heard from several managers.

This Forbes article posits several reasons an employer might ghost a candidate, including hiring an internal candidate, changing budgets or hiring priorities, or discomfort with giving bad news. None are valid reasons when a candidate is left hanging. Discomfort in conveying bad news is the most illogical because no news is worse than a rejection that allows students to move on emotionally as well as practically.

Our job as faculty is to help students take ghosting in stride. As the Forbes article states, “The reality is that ghosting has become unofficial standard operating procedures.” Redditors describe the emotional toll, but unfortunately, it’s expected, so students should do their best to brush it off and not take it personally.

We can coach students to follow up a couple of times with enthusiastic-sounding emails and voicemails, and then they have to practice letting it go. They certainly shouldn’t hold up their search waiting for a response. Resilience has its limits; knowing when to quit is also an important skill. Ruminating about what they did wrong could lead to losing hope or feeling resentments that could sour their search. Instead, reframing ghosting as an unfortunate but expected part of the selection process could help.

Image source.

What to Do When Not Speaking

The 2024 Presidential Debate is a treasure trove of presentation lessons for students. One (safer) topic for class is what to do when a presenter is not speaking.

The debate illustrated how “on” the candidates were when it wasn’t their turn. The same is true for business presentations: before people speak, as they pause to look at notes or change visuals, when they listen to questions, and after they finish. Students are also “on” as audience members—how they are perceived by presenters and classmates.

I have watched students in team presentations when others are speaking looking at their notes, moving their lips as they plan what to say or what they hope the presenter will say, looking disappointed by sneering or tilting their heads, and exchanging nonverbal messages with other team members. I haven’t quite seen the slaw-jawed look we saw during the debate, but all facial expressions are up for interpretation.

As faculty members, we ask students to be particularly attentive to how they appear. We encourage them to look open and supportive—smiling and nodding, as appropriate—when others speak and ask questions. Most important, they should look alert and engaged, whether on or off camera.

New Debate Rules With Mic Shutoff

Rules for the upcoming presidential debate have been announced, and the mic shutoff will be particularly interesting to watch.

CNN, which will host the debate, announced rules for the 90-minutes to which both candidates agreed to comply. Candidates will not make opening statements, must not confer with staff during the two commercial breaks, and may not bring notes with them (although they’ll receive a pen and paper). They’ll stand behind podiums and will speak into mics that will be on only when it’s their turn to speak. No live audience will be present to avoid what a Guardian writer called “the theatrical gladiatorial bloodsport element” of other debates.

I like the rules. They are, dare I say, more controlled (avoiding “professional”)—or maybe the better description is less circus-like and cringy. I was frustrated watching candidates speak over each other (recall “Will you shut up, man?”) and walking and standing too close in past debates. This seems to be a more equitable and civil way to focus on the issues—if that’s possible during any presidential debate and, particularly, this one.

I’m curious how well candidates will handle the mic cutoff. Will it reflect better on Trump, who might otherwise show his inability to reign in his reactivity? Or will it hurt Trump because supporters (and those on the fence) see his reactivity as a sign of strength and proof of his passion and commitment? Will both candidates continue talking without the mic, as if speaking into a void, and how will that appear? Will the silence temper their emotions—or visibly frustrate them? We’ll see.

Image source.

Boeing CEO's Rough Senate Hearing and Safety Plan

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun faced lawmakers during the senate committee hearing bluntly titled, “Boeing’s Broken Safety Culture.” The investigation offers lessons in answering difficult questions and demonstrating compassion, humility, integrity, and accountability. In addition, students can see a sample report: “Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan.”

Taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s impromptu facing of families during the senate hearing about social media harm, Calhoun began his opening statement by turning around and addressing families who lost people in Boeing plane crashes dating back to 2018. Like Zuckerberg, who was prompted by Senator Hawley, Calhoun had little choice. He was in room full of people holding photos of lost loved ones, with several shouting as we see and hear cameras flash. The pain is palpable, and Calhoun is visibly shaken, playing with his glasses, until the hearing is called into session.

Senator Richard Blumenthal begins by acknowledging families and asking them, by name, to stand with their photographs. He also acknowledges the family of the Boeing whistleblower who died by suicide. I cried. I believe we’re seeing a more compassionate approach to these hearings, keeping the focus on the impact of wrongdoing and on the responsibilities of our corporate and political leaders. But I wonder whether the face-the-victims’-families apology will become routine in these types of hearings and at what point—maybe already—it feels perfunctory.

Blumenthal had harsh words for Boeing, saying the “once iconic” company has “lost its way,” having put “stock price over people.” He said he’s pursuing prosecution and that Calhoun hasn’t kept the company’s promises. Predictable questions were about Calhoun’s salary and his decision not to resign. Throughout the hearing, Calhoun tried his best to convince lawmakers (and families, investors, airlines, and passengers) that they are making changes. Lawmakers didn’t seem to buy it.

Character was on display throughout the hearing. For example, demonstrating an issue with integrity, or inconsistency, at around 26:00, Blumenthal challenged Boeing’s nonretaliation policy with recent charges of threats and harassment against several whistleblowers. Calhoun said that he listens to people and that “something went wrong” [in these cases]. Without specific action on specific cases, his response sounded hollow. The follow-up question about firings based on retaliation elicits no specific information. Calhoun might have prepared this information, knowing it would be a major line of questioning.

Blumenthal’s criticism of Boeing’s data submission and Calhoun’s response, starting around 30:30, are worth watching. He asks whether Calhoun can make sense of the information—a page without any formatting—and he says, “No, sir,” and agrees when the senator says, “complete gobbledygook.” It’s shocking that Calhoun didn’t review what was sent. At first, he said not “line by line,” but it wasn’t clear he reviewed any of the documentation. One explanation is the stress and challenge of preparing for such a hearing, and I acknowledge that. But business communicators, both those preparing the documents and those standing up for them, can do better.

Analyzing the U.S. Surgeon General's Argument

Business communication students might be interested in analyzing the U.S. surgeon general’s argument for putting warning labels on social media platforms. His persuasive message uses several strategies faculty teach, and students can assess whether his approach and the proposal will achieve his goals.

Vivek H. Murthy conveyed his ideas in an opinion letter in The New York Times, also posted on X and explained during a PBS NewsHour interview (starting around 7:52). The audience is the public, and he has ideas for parents, schools, tech companies—and mostly congress, whose approval is required for his proposed warning label. His frustration is evident, as he points to recommendations made “a year ago.”

Murthy begins with a caveat up front, warding off criticism about the harm of social media, with Jonathan Haidt’s research at the current center. Murthy calls the moment an “emergency,” allowing for decisive action despite imperfect information. We could view Murthy’s proposal as a demonstration of accountability. As the surgeon general, he is responsible for the health and well-being of U.S. citizens, and in this sense, he must act, even as he acknowledges the controversy.

As part of his logical argument, he provides data with links to supporting research: “Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the average daily use in this age group, as of the summer of 2023, was 4.8 hours. Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.”

He offers analogies, which is where the PBS interview starts. When Amna Nawaz asks why he thinks a warning will work, he draws on tobacco labels, which he also writes in his article: “Evidence from tobacco studies show that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior.” He conjures another analogy in the article: “There is no seatbelt for parents to click, no helmet to snap in place, no assurance that trusted experts have investigated and ensured that these platforms are safe for our kids.” In the last two paragraphs, Murthy asks biggest questions about society and morality: “Why is it that we have failed to respond to the harms of social media when they are no less urgent or widespread than those posed by unsafe cars, planes or food?” Here, too, he draws on analogies for common agreement.

Students can assess the validity of these comparisons. For example, a print label is quite different from a pop-up, box, or other type of website display, and like seatbelts, parents do control their kids’ physical devices, at least theoretically.

He provides personal information, demonstrating his own investment and using emotional appeals. He writes, “As a father of a 6- and a 7-year-old who have already asked about social media, I worry about how my wife and I will know when to let them have accounts.” A short story about a mother whose daughter “took her life after being bullied on social media” also elicits emotion.

Is Murthy’s idea practical? He provides no specifics about how warnings might work and no evidence other than his analogies. But he might inspire congress to do something after years of tech company hearings and little movement.

Image source.

Data and Visuals Illustrate Tyson's Water Impact

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ report and related visuals show how Tyson Poultry pollutes U.S. waterways and offer teaching tools for class.

The online report is a good example of an interactive report. Unlike the traditional reports we typically teach, this one lacks organizational features that could be useful to a reader; we don’t see an executive summary or table of contents. A hyperlinked list early on could be useful to find, for example, the acknowledgments or references, which account for about one-third of the report. Oversized tables are clear but could convey more meaning with visuals and comparisons. Given the first sentence of the report, “If you have ever purchased meat or poultry from the grocery store or enjoyed chicken nuggets from a fast food restaurant, chances are you are a consumer of Tyson Foods (Miller 2018),” the audience seems to be the general public, but most people don’t know the significance of, for example, 138 million pounds of chloride (although I know it’s not good).

Still, the message is clear in the first paragraph, and the group doesn’t mince words with the report title, “Waste Deep.” After describing the scope of the company, the punchline is at the end of that paragraph: “However, that prosperity comes at a high price—especially for communities burdened by water pollution from Tyson processing plants.”

A Guardian article translates data for the public to better understand. As discussed in Chapter 9 of Business Communication and Character, comparing data to something the audience can picture provides context and relevance. The article includes images of Olympic-sized pools and Manhattan and provides an infographic of all meatpacking plants to show the scope of Tyson’s wastewater.

Later in the article, we see the pollutants grouped. A few major categories with brief descriptions are much easier to understand than the laundry list of pollutants in the Scientists’ report. Students will find other ways the Guardian helps us make sense of the Tyson data.

Harvard's New Stance

In a short report, Harvard has clarified when it will, and will not, speak out about world events. One question is what neutrality means in practice.

With this report, a faculty working group provides guidance to university administration. Other universities, such as Northwestern and Stanford, have taken similar positions—that is, to avoid having one. The Harvard group steers clear of condoning “institutional neutrality,” but their stance is similar to the others’: to weigh in only on matters related to the “core functions” of the university, for example, affirmative action and education taxation. This seems a bit obvious but may be important to specify.

The report is uncharacteristically short for an academic paper—a mere three pages including more than a half-page of credits. The main point is in the fifth paragraph: “The university and its leaders should not, however, issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.” At the center of the decision is the integrity of the university: speaking up in accordance with its values and mission. Otherwise, as administrators have learned the hard way, an administration can never represent all views; they don’t, and shouldn’t, speak for everyone. Students might analyze the report and interview responses from the faculty who chaired the committee.

As we might expect, the policy provides cover for administrators. The report authors are explicit about this benefit: “When pressure builds on the university to make an official statement, as will sometimes happen, the university should refer publicly to its policy.”

This quieter approach follows the practice of corporations and nonprofit organizations, who learned their lessons sooner and less publicly than universities did. Today, we hear little about world events from company leaders. During an interview this week with Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, the interviewer observed, “corporate activism is on its way out.”

Vatican Press Emphasizes "Closed Door" in Apology

Pope Francis apologized for using an offensive term to refer to gay men. The statement sounds defensive.

Some say the pope misunderstood and misused the term, but others recall this isn’t the first time he used derogatory language to describe gay people—and, although he was raised in Argentina, Italian was spoken in his home.

Pope Francis apologized in a statement translated by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Matteo Bruni:

Pope Francis is aware of the recent articles regarding a closed-door conversation with the bishops of the CEI [Italian Bishops' Conference]. As he has stated on many occasions, “There is room for everyone in the Church, for everyone! No one is useless; no one is superfluous; there is room for everyone. Just as we are, everyone.” The Pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others.

Business communicators might identify at least two issues with this apology. First, the squirrely language focuses on the intent rather than the impact, failing to acknowledge the harm caused and apologizing to “those who felt offended,” as though “those” people might just be super-sensitive.

Second, twice this statement references the private meeting: “a closed-door conversation with the bishops” and “as reported by others,” as though the real offense is the press leak. But, in some ways, the exclusive nature of the meeting makes the comment worse, leading us to believe it represents the pope’s true feelings despite more generous comments he has made in public—illustrating a lack of integrity, or consistency. In addition, although the news may have been leaked by one person, news agencies cite “numerous sources,” perhaps a swell of people within the walls who felt it was wrong.

Slur aside, this report may align with the pope’s views about gay men: They are welcomed at church but not in seminary to train for the priesthood.

Image source.

OpenAI CTO's Video Introducing ChatGPT 4o

On a small living-room stage, Mira Murati, OpenAI’s chief technology officer, describes the company’s latest products. Students can analyze the video, “Spring Update,” against principles for business presentations.

We see no sign of Sam Altman, which is probably a good choice given his more political presence. This presentation is about the technology and allows Murati to shine.

Structure

Murati starts right in with her main points: “Today, I’m going to talk about three things. That’s it.” A few people laugh nervously, and I’m not sure why. Maybe she usually talks about a lot more and for longer than this 26-minute video? Or maybe it’s just the way she said it. She could have restarted because it feels awkward. Regardless, for the life of me, I cannot list what her three things are.

Visuals

The slides look odd to me. They are black and white, which is a fine choice, but they are so bare. Also, the alignment on the first slide, shown above, causes me to read down: Mira Chief, Murati Officer. Then, as Murati reviews her three points, we see five items on the slide, at left, which could cause the confusion in her structure.

Other slides are tech-cool minimalist, but the eye GIF looks creepy, and others seem unnecessary. Instead, visuals should support the message. Also, when I pause the video, I’m hoping to see a screenshot, but the video reverts to two guys sitting at a table. Around 5:15, a full-screen slide appears—entirely unnecessary because we see it clearly enough on the visuals to Murati’s side. Maybe this covers something to edit out? Did Murati sneeze? Trip? It doesn’t appear so.

The setting looks nice: tan with plants. It’s appropriate as a background that doesn’t detract from the speaker. In addition, the audience serves as cheer team, with only the back of their heads showing at times. Again, the focus is on Murati.

Content

Murati reinforces key points throughout her presentation: easier, more natural, free, collaborative. She repeats these words several times throughout. She also repeats the “big news” of releasing ChatGPT 4o to cheers among the crowd, who already heard this during the agenda, so obviously, the team was sitcom-audience prompted (“APPLAUSE!”).

At times, I want to see more, for example, when, for the first and only time, we see actual content and color on slides. Murati gives a couple of examples of using GPT for custom solutions, and apps scroll by quickly.

At about 8:15, Murati discusses the challenges of safety and how they’re working with partners. It sounds like a throwaway couple of lines, a mere nod, before the live demo starts next. Now we see the guys from the video-still table. Mark Chen starts by addressing a potential question, as we teach students to do: the wire is for “consistent internet”—easily understood.

Scarlett Johansson (or someone else) interacts with Chen during a conversation demo. The voice cuts in and out, which no one addresses, hoping, I guess, that it will even out since it’s impossible not to notice. At this point, Murati purses her lips, possibly a sign of nervousness. Fortunately, the voice does smooth out, and the demo achieves the purpose, which Chen explains as, for example, the ability to interrupt.

The next demo is math help, obviously to disprove the common thinking that GPT is bad at math. The beginning is a bit awkward, with another audio cut, GPT ready without seeing the equation, and Murati touching her knees. Berret Zoph handles this well, joking that he hasn’t written anything yet. The demo is simple but works well, showing GPT’s ability to tutor math students. A more complex coding example illustrates GPT’s advanced abilities, including vision, for example, seeing charts. GPT 4o can create charts, which isn’t covered, but would interest our students.

The demo also illustrates interpreting facial expressions as emotion and language translation—an Italian example, which Murati speaks.

Delivery

Murati’s delivery style is natural. She doesn’t appear to be working off a script and neither do the two researchers. We don’t know how many times their presentations were rehearsed or whether the video was edited, but they seem comfortable, using an appropriate style for the company, product, and purpose.

Overall, the video is a good example of a business presentation with a demo. The company certainly achieved its objective of conveying significant updates for GPT. Comparing this to Apple and Facebook demos from years ago could inspire a useful class discussion.