Musk Email Lands in Italy
Elon Musk’s five-bullet-points email didn’t go over well in the U.S., but the reaction is worse in Italy, raising questions about intercultural communication for students to discuss. The email asks government workers to list five accomplishments in the past week.
With the subject, “What did you do last week?,” these emails were met with mixed reactions in the U.S., with some agencies instructing their employees not to respond. But when Italian workers at Aviano Air Base received the email, the negative reaction was stronger.
Students can explore cultural differences. One framework to explain the different reactions is Hofstede’s model, particularly the dimension of individualist / collectivist society. As one Italian union representative said, Italy “is not the Wild West like the U.S.” This country comparison tool website describes individualism as follows:
The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people's self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “W.” In Individualist societies, people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to “in groups” that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.
The differences, shown here according to the comparison tool, aren’t as great as we might think, but Italian unions represent a higher percentage of the population, are more highly centralized, and provide broader protections than U.S. unions do.
Students may find other differences driving these reactions. For example, this past week, Italian President Sergio Mattarella declined a meeting with Musk about a potential $1.5 billion deal for Starlink, the satellite internet service. The request raised concerns about a public institution negotiating with a private entity. All this might be intensified by Europe’s reaction to the U.S. political situation at the moment.
Using AI To Take Meeting Minutes
Lance Cummings, at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, provides guidance for using AI to summarize meetings. Students might find his tips useful for team and club meetings and in the workplace.
Lance’s blog is a treasure trove of AI guidance, and this recent post is particularly useful for saving time and allowing the facilitator/host to listen more attentively during meetings. If you know Lance’s work, you know he encourages prompts that include task, context, and content criteria.
For meeting notes, he suggests providing AI with the agenda, notes, and the transcript. He highlights content during the meeting (he calls them “breadcrumbs”) for AI to improve the output. For example, you might say, “That’s an important point. Let me repeat it.”
Read more, including his full prompt that defines the audience and other expectations.
The Debate and BCom Principles
The U.S. Presidential Debate is ripe with topics to discuss in class. Without getting into political alignments, students can analyze the following:
The initial greeting: VP Harris approached former President Trump to shake his hand. Was this a good choice? How did the greeting appear?
Voice: VP Harris’s voice was unsteady at the beginning but improved during the debate. How did that affect her message?
Presence and nonverbals: How did the candidates’ appearance affect their positions? Some commenters wondered how they would appear on stage because of their height difference—and cited evidence about past election winners. How did they compare?
VP Harris’s “baiting”: Analysts said VP Harris baited Trump, for example, by talking about people leaving his rallies. They said this was intentional to rattle him, and that it worked—he became more emotional and said things that hurt his position. Did students detect this strategy when it happened?
Gun ownership: VP Harris said that she and Governor Walz own guns. How would students verify this? What are they used for—and does that make a difference? What was the purpose of this statement?
CNN verification: A couple of times, reporters contradicted claims on the spot (e.g., about pets and abortion extended beyond birth). How did students perceive these moderator interruptions? Did they seem fair or biased?
Answering questions: VP Harris was asked about changing her positions, for example, on fracking. She evaded the question. How did her approach work?
Audience: The debate was held in Pennsylvania. How did that audience affect what the candidates said? Did they adapt their message? Was that appropriate, given that no audience response was allowed and the program was televised nationally?
Memes: What memes have students seen after the debate? How do they react to them? Are they funny? Do students believe they influence voters?
Taylor Switch endorsement: How do students perceive Taylor Swift’s endorsement? Why did she choose the timing, approach, and signature line? What could be the effect?
Winner: Who “won” the debate? What does it mean to win the debate? Will it matter for the voters who already have a preferred candidate—or for those who were undecided?
My hope is that these questions are neutral, but my own political views may have seeped in—and I understand this is a challenging class discussion. The Southeast region of the Association for Business Communication hosted a Teaching Circle for faculty to explore whether and how to discuss election communications in our classes. I presented with my Cornell colleague, David Lennox, and we’ll present at the Annual International Conference in October with Christy McDowell. More to come.
Zoom Leader Interview About Office Work
Zoom’s chief product officer supports meeting in person and shows how Zoom can help. The interview illustrates how company leaders keep their products relevant.
In a BBC interview, Smita Hashim explains that even Zoom employees work hybrid schedules. The article author explains the company’s goal:
According to the company, this means Zoom's business is about far more than video call. It wants to be regarded as a workplace company—and known for Zoom Workplace, its suite of collaborative tools.
Hashim knows she won’t convince people to WFH forever, so she needs to show the company’s adaptability. Her communication is best illustrated in the answer to this question:
How much is Zoom wanting to shake off the remote working tag? Do you want to be known more for hybrid working—or something else?
We love that Zoom is well known to so many, and they use us for connecting all the time. But we see the future of Zoom as really an AI-driven open collaboration platform that modernises the work experience. We've gone in this direction based on customer feedback. We've always had video calls, and built in phone infrastructure, chat capabilities and now Zoom AI Companion. Our AI works in the background to even recommend a desk for employees to sit near their teams for their office days.
That last sentence seems odd but is explained by Zoom’s new AI-enabled Intelligent Director. Cameras are placed around a room, so people sitting together at a table appear as though they’re on individual laptops. Seems weird. I’ve certainly been in meetings with people who are on laptops and Zoom, so the effect seems to be the same.
In addition to analyzing how well Hashim met her objectives, students might talk about how they have used Zoom in the office and how it could be used more effectively.
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.
Soccer Players "Walking Off" After Racist Comments
Not a sports watcher, I’m fascinated reading how soccer players handle racist comments during the game. Some players are walking off the field amid calls for greater penalties.
A writer for The Athletic explains what led to the AC Milan (the football team) to walk off:
[Mike] Maignan led his AC Milan teammates off the pitch at Udinese on Saturday after being racially abused twice from the stands. [Kasey] Palmer was racially abused by a Sheffield Wednesday fan towards the end of Coventry City’s 2-1 win at Hillsborough.
AC Milan posted support on X: “There is absolutely no place in our game for racism: we are appalled. We are with you, Mike. #WeRespAct”
Of his experience, Palmer said, “I’m black and proud, and I am raising my three kids to be the exact same. I’ll be honest, it feels like things will never change, no matter how hard we try,” and “Couple fans doing monkey chants don’t define a fanbase. I appreciate all the love and support I’ve received.”
Maignan called on authorities to do more. He also posted these thoughts on X:
It was not the player who was attacked. It's the man. He's the father of the family. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. And I'm not the first this has happened to. We issued press releases, advertising campaigns, protocols and nothing has changed. Today, an entire system must take responsibility. . . .
The FIFA president made a statement condemning racism, including, “No to racism! No to any form of discrimination!” But many are calling for harsher punishments in addition to the current process:
FIFA’s guidance follows a “three-step” policy: at the first incident of racism, the referee should report it to the “home club safety officer via the fourth official”; at the second, the referee may suspend the match “allowing the safety officer and police to deal with the perpetrators”; it’s only at the third incident that the referee is empowered to abandon the match.
As we can expect, not everyone agrees, with some calling for players to do the equivalent of “man up” but with more literal expressions I had to look up and won’t write. Students could weigh in on this situation, and a discussion could lead to, but doesn’t have to, what’s acceptable on college campuses.
This situation raises issues of integrity for the league. A writer for The Athletic says of FIFA’s president, “Now it’s time for him to follow up his words with action.” This is a call for words and deeds to match, or for consistency, a key component of integrity.
Communication Issues Around Harvard President Resignation
Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned after weeks of pressure and speculation. The communication issues around this situation are too weighty to properly cover in one blog post. But here are a few angles if faculty want to venture into the topic with students.
Bill Ackman’s calls for Gay’s resignation were the most fierce, and his antagonism started before October 7. His long, celebratory post provides his version of Harvard’s failings, including its DEI programs, and suggests that the entire Board resign. We see his business perspective, comparing university growth to business standards. He also writes, “I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president.” I don’t categorically disagree, but I wonder whether he has anyone in mind.
Gay’s resignation letter is short and polite. She shares “Personal News” and closes with a forward-looking sentiment:
“As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity—and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for—and to our capacity to serve the world.”
The Corporation’s letter is similarly diplomatic, thanking Gay for her “deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence.” They criticized her attackers:
“We do so with sorrow. While President Gay has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them, it is also true that she has shown remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks. While some of this has played out in the public domain, much of it has taken the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls. We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.”
Al Sharpton is one of many who also defended Gay and criticized Ackman directly, announcing a protest outside his office. He blamed racism: “This is an attack on every Black woman in this country who’s put a crack in the glass ceiling. It’s an assault on the health, strength, and future of diversity, equity, and inclusion . . .”
Gay’s opinion essay in the New York Times describes racist attacks against her and the bigger picture of her experience. She defends her scholarship, emphasizing that her research and the contribution of her work were never at question. She discusses courage, a character dimension worth talking with students about in their own communication.
Gay’s plagiarism might deserve class attention. Examples of minimally rewritten passages in her work could serve as a teaching tool about standards for business communication and other students. This might also serve as an opportunity to put the criticism in context, as she does herself in the NYT piece.
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.
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.
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.
Troublesome Article Headline About Women's Communication
A New York Times opinion piece by Adam Grant titled “Women Know Exactly What They’re Doing When They Use ‘Weak Language’” has been gnawing at me. What troubles me is not the advice but the headline, which sounds like women are purposely manipulating the situation—perhaps more so than any person would in a similar situation. I may be overly sensitive (disclaimer! weak language!), but “women know what they're doing" reminds me of a sexist throwback. Google the phrase and you’ll find references to leaning over a table for tips and other examples of how women dress and behave around men (for example, see this ESPN story).
Otherwise, Grant’s points are worth sharing with students. He summarizes:
Disclaimers (I might be wrong, but …), hedges (maybe, sort of), and tag questions (don’t you think?) can be a strategic advantage. So-called weak language is an unappreciated source of strength. Understanding why can explain a lot about the way women acquire power and influence — and how men do, too.
Grant offers good advice and cites several studies about hiring and promotion decisions:
By using a disclaimer (“I don’t know …”) and a hedge “(I hope …”), the women reinforced the supervisor’s authority and avoided the impression of arrogance. For the men who asked for a raise, however, weak language neither helped nor hurt. No one was fazed if they just came out and demanded more money.
I’m guessing that the headline-writer’s intention (not Adam Grant’s doing) was to capture attention—and perhaps the phrasing was harmless, complimenting women on using a strategy, whether purposeful or not, that works. But the phrase has a history, which is why I saved the article in a browser tab for more than a week.
One person who commented on the article pointed out inherent problems with the word “weak”:
I recommend we find an alternative to the phrase “weak language.” Weak language according to whom? A patriarchal world view? Let’s give it more dignity, the dignity it deserves. How about calling it “sensitivity to relationship” or “sensitivity to connection.” Something we need so much more of in our world today. (Anne Yeomans)
Others suggested “respectful” language. Some women lament being “between a rock and a hard place”—too weak or too assertive, nothing gets their voice heard.
Students will need to navigate these contradictions. Perhaps the best advice is to adapt to the industry, situation, and person—the same advice business communication faculty give to all students: to tailor to the context and audience as best they can.
Comms Related to the Supreme Court Decision
Business communication faculty brave enough to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to restrict affirmative action in college admissions will find many communication examples for students to analyze. Here are a few to consider, and each requires careful facilitation. The first two are probably the easiest to manage and the most relevant to our courses.
Corporate responses: This article provides a few examples for students to analyze, considering the industry, customer base, mission, and other factors driving the response.
University responses: Cornell University’s president published a statement, and I imagine other university leaders have done the same. Students can analyze and compare messages.
Full text of the decision: This 237-page document is a bit overwhelming, but the document, in its entirety, illustrates one persuasive genre for a professional group.
Dissenting opinions: For more manageable reads, these two dissenting opinions serve as good examples of persuasive arguments.
Opinion letters: The WSJ and NY Times editorial board opinions offer useful contrasts. Students might find their own opinion articles to analyze.
Employees Protest RTO Policies
As companies push for employees to return to the office after working remotely during the pandemic, employees are pushing back. In their arguments, we see different approaches—some more effective than others.
Here are a few employee messages against return to office (RTO) plans:
Apple: This powerful message directly argues against points the executive team made to inspire people back to work. It’s a compelling persuasive example. One of the strongest arguments is that the RTO policy “will make Apple younger, whiter, more male dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied, in short, it will lead to privileges deciding who can work for Apple, not who’d be the best fit.” Although the writers don’t provide a lot of evidence, the potential impact reflects reasons employees give for refusing to go back to an office. Less diversity as a result of RTO is clearly inconsistent with Apple’s inclusion and diversity mission, but the employees don’t mention that. This is a good lesson for our students who cite a company’s mission in their presentations; this approach may be too obvious and pedantic for internal arguments.
Starbucks: This message also disputes claims made by senior management and more explicitly identifies contradictions with the company mission, “One cup, one person, and one neighborhood at a time.” The logic is loose, and it sounds shallow. Later, employees hit hard: “Morale is at an all-time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk.” Those are big, bold statements that might cause executives to be less, instead or more, sympathetic.
Black & Veatch: Writers of this petition for a construction engineering company use survey data as their primary source of evidence. The message cites the “Working in New Ways” policy that allowed for remote work. Employees use criteria reasoning (and question the executives’ integrity): “Positions were advertised and professionals hired with the expectation their positions would remain permanently virtual.” Sadly, this message highlights the dangers of an employee survey: the data could be used against the company.
I can’t find an employee statement, but Amazon made news this week when they resisted CEO Andy Jassey’s RTO message. Jassey makes the usual arguments about culture, collaboration, learning, and connection, relying on what he and the rest of the “s-team” (senior management team) has observed. Students can analyze his argument and may find weak evidence.
At Amazon, employee walkouts may or may not influence the decision, but solidarity among corporate and warehouse employees is refreshing. Although warehouse employees never had remote work options, they seem to support the corporate staff’s flexibility, with one explaining, “It’s just showing us that Amazon has a problem with workers and listening to us.”
Companies Reconsider Alcohol
Companies are finding alternatives to alcohol at social gatherings. The news raises issues of inclusion, and students who live on campus may find this topic relevant to their own experience.
U.K. organization Chartered Management Institute (CMI) is warning companies about the dangers of alcohol at work parties. The group’s recent survey of 1,000 managers shows that people often experience alcohol-fueled inappropriate behavior and harassment. Although work events are important for team building, particularly since the pandemic and the rise of remote work, 42% of respondents said parties “should be organised around activities that don't involve alcohol.” Companies that serve alcohol at events also open themselves up to liability because of drunk driving in addition to behavioral transgressions.
In addition to these issues, some employees don’t drink, and events designed around alcohol can be awkward. Some people choose not to drink, while others can’t because of medications, addictions, or other issues. Some people find it difficult to be around alcohol at all. What is management’s responsibility to these employees? If a company touts DEI values and belonging at work, then shouldn’t all employees be considered when planning parties?
A few companies have banned alcohol entirely. For example, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff wrote to employees, “Alcohol is a drug, and having alcohol on a Salesforce premise is simply unfair to the Ohana [employees] who either do not want it or are intolerant of it.” He included drinking during work hours, which was more common at tech companies in the past.
Students may have a lot of opinions on this topic. Some universities are increasing “late-night programming,” alternatives for students looking for something to do without alcohol. How do students believe alcohol affects feelings of belonging on campus?
Comms About Dilbert Cancellation
A class discussion about Dilbert creator Scott Adams’s “racist rant” in a YouTube video can take many directions, including whether what he said was truly racist and whether media outlets did the right thing. Putting making the decision aside, a safer approach is to compare statements communicating the decision. Here are three examples for students to analyze:
Cleveland.com. In a letter announcing the change in The Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper, the editor wrote, “This is not a difficult decision.” The editor incudes excerpts from the video to get ahead of criticism: “I hate to quote him at all, but I do so to dissuade responses that this is a ‘cancel culture’ decision.” For context, the editor also cites an article noting that 77 other outlets cancelled Dilbert in September after he introduced the first Black character, as critics said, "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."
USA Today. The newspaper, with the largest circulation in the United States, kept it simple with this tweet.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Between these two examples, is a short statement that includes a caveat: “While we acknowledge his right to free speech and expression, he does not have a right to the AJC’s financial support or our platform.”
Students might also analyze Adams’s response in a tweet and video in which he said, "Most of my income will be gone by next week . . . My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed. You can't come back from this, am I right?” This warrants another class discussion: can people redeem themselves after a crisis? I would argue that the first step is vulnerability, but that’s for another post.
Should a Bot Interrupt Native English Speakers?
A new study used a bot to cut off native English speakers during meetings, allowing more time for non-native speakers to participate. The study might spark good class discussion about cultural communication differences and the practice of humility, particularly making space for others.
Two native and one Japanese speaker worked on a “survival” task over video. After a non-native speaker spoke six times in a row, the “conversational agent” interrupted, which increased the Japanese speakers’ contributions from “12% to 17% of all words spoken.”
That result seems rather small to me, so I wouldn’t see this as a great solution to imbalanced class discussions or work meetings. Also, the authors are considering whether other means could be more effective. The bot put pressure on the non-native speakers, who didn’t necessarily have something to contribute at that time, so one option is for speakers to signal when they want to jump in. I also wonder whether the results would be different for speakers from other countries.
Another outcome, which as we might expect, is how the native speakers felt. As the authors conclude, they “perceived the agent's interruption as unfair because they thought all members were speaking equally, which was not the case.” This alone is a good learning outcome for students. But authors are exploring more subtle cues, for example, private messages when someone is taking a lot of air time.
Toyota's Messages as Intercultural Comm Examples
Toyota’s messages about executive changes are good examples of how these announcements vary by culture. CEO and President Akio Toyoda (the family name spelling) has served in the position for 13 years. Unlike Reed Hastings, who served for 25 years at Netflix and also announced his move to chairman this week, Toyoda wasn’t a company founder, but his grandfather was, so his tenure is important. And yet, we see what looks like fanfare compared to the Netflix announcement. Here are the communications, and I’ll comment below:
TMC Announces Changes to Executive Structure. A webpage includes links to other communications and handy “current” and “new” tables showing changes.
Toyota Times News Special Live Broadcast. For more than an hour and a half, outgoing and incoming executives discuss the decision.
Passing Toyota's Presidency Baton from Akio Toyoda to Koji Sato. Another page includes remarks from the incoming and outcoming CEOs, transcribed from the video.
Here are a few ways the remarks differ from typical U.S. messages, and I’m sure that students will find more:
In the introduction and in his remarks, Akio Toyoda says the decision was “triggered by Chairman Uchiyamada’s resignation.” This is a way for the outgoing CEO to save face—as though his removal is based on a board opening.
He also demonstrates humility and vulnerability in ways we don’t typically see from an outgoing U.S. CEO. He mentions, “I was appointed president immediately after our company’s fall into the red due to the global financial crisis,” and “Following that, our company faced a series of crises that threatened our survival, such as the global recall crisis and the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Although the financial crisis and earthquake were out of the company’s control, the recalls were self-inflicted, and I’m surprised to hear him remind the press. At the same time, that crisis was early in his tenure and rather unforgettable, including testimony on Capitol Hill.
Toyoda also says, ”There was a time when Mr. Sato was struggling with what he should convey at a Lexus dealer convention.” Toyoda advised, “Rather than try to be like me, I want you to value your individuality.” Toyoda tells the story to illustrate Sato’s “love” for company products. Still, I wonder whether a U.S. CEO would reveal such a vulnerability—”struggling” was the translation—of an incoming executive.
Twice in his short speech, Toyoda mentions Sato’s “youth,” and he says, “Being young is itself a key attribute.” This comment would be highly unlikely in the U.S., where age discrimination laws might cause older executives to immediately call their lawyers. (Also surprising: Toyoda is 66, while Sato is 53.)
Only once do either of the executives mention EV, which is arguably the real reason Akio Toyoda is stepping down. He has resisted the move to EV and, as a result, Toyota is behind other car companies. In his closing remarks, Sato refers to “accelerating the shift to electrification”—a funny, but translated and probably unintentional car reference.
Steve Jobs Email Blast from the Past
We get a window into executive decision making with Internal Tech Emails. This 2005 thread starts with Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin telling his team that Steve Jobs called, angry about Google “recruiting from the safari team.” Without ever hitting the caps key, Brin described Jobs as “agitated” about at least one potential hire away from Apple. In addition to losing staff, Jobs was concerned about Google developing a search engine to compete with Safari, but Brin assured Jobs that this wasn’t in the works.
The email thread includes other Google execs jumping in to explain that they were, in fact, trying to recruit a high-profile employee from the search team—and that the hire might bring additional employees as well. At some point, an HR leader, Arnnon Geshuri, weighs in: “We are careful to adhere to non-compete agreements if we have established these with any company. However, it is the staffing organization's practice to aggressively pursue leads that come from our employees and bring the best talent onboard.”
But, as the conversation continued (and after few more calls from Jobs), we see the team shift. They agree not to pursue more candidates without pre-approval from Apple if the prized employee came on board.
Problems with Medical Jargon
A new study identified specific phrases that patients would likely misunderstand from their healthcare provider. Students probably know that medical jargon causes problems, and they might be interested in analyzing their own provider’s communication.
The survey asked respondents to interpret these phrases, listed in the article supplement. In most cases, respondents were asked whether the news is good or bad. I can see how some could go either way. What does progressive, unremarkable, or impressive mean in a medical diagnosis? We could consider this issue a problem with humility in the medical profession.
Understanding didn’t improve with either age or education. In the demographic section, survey authors did provide non-binary options for gender: female, male, non-binary, other. A related article this week describes data scientists’ challenges when asking about gender. Although researchers found no significant differences in this study, in other studies, gender matters greatly, and students should consider this question carefully in their own primary research.
Research About "Low-Response" People
Research about persuading people to pay NYC parking tickets has implications for business communicators—and raises questions of character. The study, published in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, found that reminder letters get more people to pay fines, but this approach doesn’t work for everyone.
People who respond least to the “nudges,” including notices about greater fines, happen to be those least likely to pay in the first place. Referred to as “low-response” types, these folks need sterner warnings. As one author says, “It’s only when they get this legal-looking letter that says, ‘We are in default judgment against you; you may get towed.’” Most interesting, people in the “low-response” groups tend to be from historically “disadvantaged populations—lower income, less education, and higher proportions of Black or other racial groups.”
The authors acknowledge that their recommendations ”would not be based on individual characteristics (e.g., income, race, neighborhood) but only on past behavior–while statistically helping traditionally underserved populations to avoid penalties with a nonintrusive nudge. We further note that, in proposing this policy, we are not assuming that the low baseline response rates of the LRs are suboptimal. Rather, we are pointing out a lower-cost policy that could induce more timely payments from the LRs without imposing larger penalties on them.”
Still, this study raises questions about character, for example, compassion, integrity, and accountability. Am I the only one cringing at the term “low-response type” and use of “LRs”? Is it right to threaten one group but not another, even if it’s based on past behavior? True, people should pay fines, but we have deeper societal issues and inequities to consider. How do people in these groups view rules and law enforcement? Are people in lower-income neighborhoods or with cars in greater disrepair more likely to get tickets in the first place?
If, as the authors say, their proposed policy is helpful to avoid “imposing larger penalties,” why not simply eliminate fines that some people can’t afford to pay? Our local library has stopped charging late fees so they don’t discourage reading and cause a disparate impact. The authors do propose eliminating later, greater fines that have little impact and most affect people in historically disadvantaged populations. Theoretically, data can also be used for a sliding fee scale according to income level—or perhaps the value of one’s car.
The simpler takeaway for business communication students is the relevance of knowing your audience. As study authors say, NYC already has the data and can customize approaches. We do teach analyzing an audience and tailoring a message. But students may discuss the ethics of using data and taking different approaches in these types of situations.