“Care and Connection” Webinar
My friend and colleague, Christy McDowell, and I will present, “Care and Connection” through eCornell. The webinar is scheduled for this Wednesday, November 5, and more than 800 people registered so far!
Here’s our focus:
How to approach everyday communication interactions with care for yourself and for others
Practical strategies to build meaningful connections and meet work challenges with ease
How greater calm keeps us agile and open to possibilities, yet grounded enough to avoid extreme reactions
You’re welcome to join! Register here.
Neurodiversity in the Classroom
I’m just back from the Association for Business Communication conference, where I presented “Supporting the Neurodiversity Represented in Our Students” with colleagues:
Lance Cummings, University of North Carolina Wilmington
David Lennox, Walla Walla University
Ashley Patriarca, West Chester University
Phillip Wagner, College of William & Mary
As you can read in the slides, our focus is on all cognitive and learning differences in our classes. We suggested ways to adjust grading rubrics, practice ungrading, use AI tools to improve executive functioning, and decide whether to disclose a disability or difference.
A QR code at the end brings you to more materials, including two video presentations from Lance, who couldn’t join us live.
Gen Z Doesn’t Say “Hello” When They Answer the Phone
Our students still need help with phone etiquette. The latest issue is their silence after answering a call.
A 2024 U.K. survey found that most young people don’t answer the phone at all, with scammers the prevailing reason. If they do answer, more call receivers are waiting three seconds to say anything for similar reasons: a bot will disconnect if they don’t hear a voice immediately, and AI could replicate their voice for hackers.
Still, some young people seem to believe the onus is on the caller. One wrote, “Isn’t it a universal law that the person who’s doing the calling should be the one to say hello?” and another explained, “You called me? Say what you want and I’ll answer.”
This is new thinking. My generation, and a couple after mine, expect the person answering the phone to, well, answer the phone, which means more than simply pushing the green button. I would draw an analogy to knocking on someone’s door, but this, too, doesn’t happen much these days.
Practice aside, the point for a class discussion is about recruiters’ expectations. If it’s awkward for recruiters to “hear their breathing,” then the responder, who is looking for a job and wants to make a good impression, might choose to say, “Hello.”
Early in my career, I taught phone etiquette. We gave training participants small mirrors with the company (Canon) logo and suggested they smile into the mirror, and then pick up the phone. Clearly, things have changed.
For many years, I included a voicemail as part of an employment communication assignment. In response to a recruiter’s call, students would leave a voicemail on my phone that I would grade along with their resume, cover letter, and LinkedIn profile.
Earlier this year, recruiters complained about the “Gen Z stare.” When they expected a response to a statement or an interview question, the applicant would look at them blankly. Theories abound: poor social skills from too much screen time, living through a pandemic, disrespect of elders (or any others), or taking a moment of self-reflection.
With Fewer Bosses, Employees Can Be More Accountable
I’m troubled by a Wall Street Journal article that warns about flattening organizations and implies that “servant leaders” will cease to exist. Instead, this may be an opportunity for managers to lead and for employees to be more accountable and to rely on AI and teammates for support.
Management jobs are declining, so managers have more direct reports—like the old days, when jobs were more task than skill/knowledge oriented. Although the authors stress a lack of management attention (“Your Boss Doesn’t Have Time to Talk to You”), a Bain study identified 10-15 direct reports for “best-in-class” organizations. Typically, knowledge workers and executives are on the lower end.
When I worked at Reuters and MCI, I had between one and three direct reports. Many of us did, partly to appease those who wanted inflated titles to put on our resumes. With more direct reports, managers can actually lead, rather than be “working managers.”
The WSJ writers worry that managers don’t have the skills to lead large teams, but these skills can be developed. Managers can learn to be leaders—delegating and supporting rather than monitoring.
As leaders set reasonable expectations, employees may learn to have greater self-accountability and take more ownership. Managers can encourage project team work, as software companies have been doing for years. When employees feel more autonomy and control over their jobs (foundational research) and control over their time, they feel more satisfied at work. Organizations also might develop a better succession plan for leadership positions, with employees taking on management functions earlier in their careers. In addition, particularly in a tight job market, employers can hire for initiative and motivation.
This continuum, adapted from Craig Redding, identifies ways to increase self- and other accountability. Managers will continue to use different styles (Situational Leadership) depending on each employee’s needs, but unfortunately, larger spans could lead to more command-and-control styles, with managers relying on coercion as a short-cut. Styles will be interesting to track over time.
Something the article doesn’t mention is that today’s knowledge worker has AI as coach, supporter, and problem solver. When used well, AI should relieve some traditional management responsibilities.
The writers state,
Bosses touted themselves as “servant leaders,” guiding a company through collaboration and humility, and creating an environment where younger employees felt comfortable to be their true selves. Many millennials expected bosses to know their birth dates and to make time to hear a recap of their weekends.
To me, that last bit has little to do with servant leaders. (Disclosure: I have online professional courses as part of an eCornell certificate on the topic.) Yes, bosses encourage and model collaboration and humility, but employees can get the rest from their coworkers, from themselves, or from outside of work. Servant leaders inspire employees to do their best work, which means taking responsibility and relying on their teammates and available resources.
Source: Craig Redding, “Increasing Accountability,” Organization Development Journal 22 (2004): 65.
Advice for Taking Time Off
A Financial Times article offers advice for those hesitant about taking time away from work, particularly time away from email. The suggestions from company executives may be useful to new graduates and others starting a career.
Here’s my summary with character dimensions that may be illustrated by each action:
Set clear expectations with friends and family about work commitments. (accountability, courage)
Empower people to respond for you and have a plan for emergencies. (humility)
Model vacationing without email for coworkers. (accountability)
Respond only during set times during the day, for example, in the morning, if you must. (integrity/consistency)
Write an OOO message that discourages emails waiting for your return. (integrity/transparency)
Resist the temptation to check email! (courage, integrity)
Walmart Exec Criticizes “Debbie Downers”
A Walmart executive’s claim that “Nobody wants [to hire] a Debbie Downer” may be misleading and is worth a more nuanced discussion with our students.
Executive Vice President and Chief People Officer Donna Morris cautions against being “constantly negative.” She says, “You know they’re going to show up [and] they’re going to bring the problem, never the solution. I like people who bring the problem and a suggestion for how they might resolve [it.]” Fair enough: Age-old advice to any working professional is to offer a solution along with a problem. Morris also distinguishes between being a “downer” and “toxic optimism,” but students may demonstrate a wide range of personality traits and communication practices in between.
One question is whether people with more negative Big Five personality traits could be valuable to an organization. Could those of us who tend towards neuroticism (🙋🏻♀️) or disagreeableness offer a service to the organization? For example, the many dismissed economists and silenced financial industry employees who warned about the 2008 Great Recession were characterized as “Debbie Downers” and worse.
Perhaps Morris illustrates a management issue. Could leaders be more receptive to hearing bad news? Could they do a better job coaching employees to present bad news persuasively and with possible solutions? This is what business communication faculty teach and organizational leaders could learn.
In addition to their delivery, the lesson for students may be to get perspective on their thinking. They might talk with others to be sure their ideas merit review. Are they selective in presenting bad news, or are they nitpicking? Do they present good news, point out benefits, and support others with positive feedback to balance out their keen insight about problems?
I presented character dimensions and virtues along a continuum in the book Recovery at Work. For example, hope rests somewhere between despair and optimism, which may exist at the same time. A despairing person at work may also feel optimistic that the organization will accept new ideas and take action for a more positive future.
Let’s accept and guide rather than belittle our employees who may be struggling at work.
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?