Feedback Might Not Be Generational
A Wall Street Journal headline, “The 20-Something Employees Who Want Feedback to Be Gentle,” exaggerates generational differences. The article body explains feedback guidelines for every generation.
Employees want direct feedback given in a kind way. They want clear direction and to know where they stand. Nothing new here—for people of any age.
Generational differences continue to be overstated. They make compelling news headlines and help us make sense of our reactions to others. Authors of a 2020 article in Journal of Business and Psychology argue against “the ubiquity of generations despite a lack of evidence for their existence and impact.” Instead, they propose a social constructionist perspective: we create generational differences and then reinforce their existence. In addition, the authors recommend a lifespan development perspective, viewing aging as a continuous process rather than focusing on distinct groups with arbitrary cutoffs. From this perspective, some characteristics we ascribe to Gen Z may have applied to Baby Boomers when they were young and new to the workforce too.
A common narrative is that Gen Zers are too delicate to receive feedback. Perhaps we perpetuate this idea by being too “gentle” or avoiding feedback for young employees. This avoidance deprives them of the opportunity to develop workplace skills of listening openly, receiving feedback gracefully, and making meaningful changes. Maybe we can stop imagining Gen Zers as feedback resistant. No one likes being criticized. Presenting feedback in a constructive and supportive way is different from being “gentle” and is good practice for all employees.
A 20-year-old at an AI startup quoted in the article suggests “pointing out mistakes and then offering a solution.” Instead, managers could give the direct feedback, but then encourage employees to come up with their own solutions first. This way, employees identify that works for them and become more committed to change. Let’s increase all employees’ accountability.
Cornell Comms About Rape Allegations
The Cornell University response to a sexual assault case hits close to home, but the messages provide lessons in communicating sensitive information during a crisis. As always, care must be taken in the classroom when discussing such topics; faculty might consider letting students know in advance what will be covered or including message analysis as an optional part of a project or exam.
A 2024 incident at Chi Phi fraternity led to a civil lawsuit by “Jane Doe” against seven students, the university, and others. The fraternity was banned from campus and two students were expelled, but no criminal charges were sought by the district attorney. Social media and news reports reveal public outrage about a perceived lack of accountability and justice.
Students might analyze the following.
Cornell University Communications
September 28, Statement. The first statement, from university relations, is titled “District Attorney’s investigation of 2024 sexual assault allegations”—an early attempt to shift blame and focus to the DA. The statement explains steps the university took, corrects misinformation (that fraternity members only wrote essays), and defends actions taken. The last paragraph digs in perhaps too early, before more information, including the tenor and severity of the public response became clear:
Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault.
September 29, Resources. The next day, the university posted “Resources and support for sexual assault and misconduct.” The page links to previous statements, including one from November 2024 about the incident, which was well known on campus at the time. The page describes a task force, including links to the final report and recommendations. A cynic (like me, today) might find the recommendations focused more on communication, understanding, and training than on substantive change. For example, one bullet point is, “Improve understanding about the Title IX process.” This focus is reflected in the initial statement that described the Title IX purpose and process. A different approach, of course, is to rethink the current Title IX process.
FAQ. As expected, the FAQ is mostly explanatory.
Survivor Support Letter. Not a new resource, this message focuses on students’ well-being. It’s written by healthcare professionals and student advocates, and it shows. One improvement might be to acknowledge how the “narrative” they mention may evolve over time as survivors’ understanding and feelings about an event shift, which seems particularly relevant in this case. With some distance and outside perspectives, people who experience trauma may come to understand it in new ways. Also, the page links to a Decision Tree showing where to report an incident—through the Title IX office, campus police, local police, or the New York State Campus Sexual Assault State Trooper (more accurately, the reporting channel is the Campus Sexual Assault Victims Unit). Students may question whether the outcome would have been different if Jane Doe had chosen another avenue for reporting.
Other Communications
Students might also explore the following:
Ithaca Mayor’s Statement. He writes “brutal rape,” whereas the word “rape” is rare in these messages. Students might consider whether his direct language is appropriate given that the facts are still contested.
Fraternities. Students can compare communications from their own campus fraternities; several “We stand with Jane Doe” messages have appeared at other colleges.
Communication Pause
During a crisis, an organization should probably pause routine social media activity. For example, publicizing work, no matter how groundbreaking, invites criticism. This LinkedIn post and comments illustrate the risk. Donor appeals should also wait.
When sending other messages, leaders need to be sensitive to the situation. An internal email about organizational changes starts, “While I recognize that this message comes in the midst of heightened communications across the university and in our college, we have important work to continue. . . .” This introduction acknowledges the timing and attempts to move forward as the crisis continues to unfold.
Comms Around Emailed Morgan Stanley Deal List
Morgan Stanley’s mistakenly emailed document listing financial sponsors and pipeline deals offers three business communication lessons for students: crisis communication messaging, communication planning, and email safeguards.
A senior-level banker accidentally sent an attachment revealing financial sponsors (mostly private equity firms) and more than 100 deals, including IPOs and mergers and acquisitions. Some deals were not yet public; some were marked “pitching” or “on hold.”
To be fair, as a Bloomberg analyst says, “This could have happened to anyone,” reminding us that we have all sent misdirected emails. His focus is on compassion for the banker. At the same time, he and his interviewers acknowledge serious consequences, and they joke, “This is bad for insider traders.”
Crisis Communication Messaging
Morgan Stanley issued a brief statement for news reports:
Morgan Stanley takes client confidentiality extremely seriously. We promptly took steps to address this inadvertent sharing of information and we continue to engage with relevant parties.
The statement could be improved. The formal tone and clichéd first sentence fail to recognize the impact of the error, which is quite serious. “Engaging” with relevant parties says nothing about the company’s accountability. “Promptly” sounds self-congratulatory and is expected.
The company confirmed personal messaging that the public wouldn’t see, which tells us a bit more about actions taken:
The banker later retracted the email and apologised for the mishap, urging recipients to delete copies of the attachment and refrain from circulating the document.
Morgan Stanley uses a familiar crisis communication strategy: blaming one employee. In this case, unlike the Volkswagen and Boeing cases, the error was one employee’s, so the strategy may be appropriate (although later we’ll discuss safeguards, which are the company’s responsibility). In similar situations, a company might say the employee was terminated (which clients may demand). But that probably wouldn’t restore public confidence or improve the situation for clients. The focus, as it should be, is on damage control.
No public statements are on the Morgan Stanley website or social media accounts, which makes sense for an error limited to relatively few clients and for a company not wanting to publicize the error further.
Communication Planning
Students may complete a communication plan for this situation. Who are the audiences? What is important to them? How might each react? Who is the best messenger? What are the communication objectives, message points, medium, and timing?
Each company affected by the leak likely has its own communication plan to manage the fallout.
Email Safeguards
The Bloomberg analyst may be correct that emails are often sent to unintended recipients, but safeguards should be in place. In this situation, the banker attached the wrong file to a client email list.
Claude offered the following safeguards. The two most relevant in this situation may be automatic scanning for confidential files and sharing links instead of attachments. Scanning would have prevented sending the file, and sending a link could have limited the damage significantly. If Morgan Stanley didn’t have these safeguards in place, then the company might take more responsibility.
Stop the mistake before it goes out
Label sensitive files. Internal documents like a deal list should be tagged "Confidential – Internal Only." Email software can then refuse to send a tagged file to outside addresses, or at least demand a second confirmation.
Data loss prevention (DLP) scanning. These tools check outgoing mail and attachments for things like client names, deal code names, or "internal only" markings. They can block or quarantine a suspicious email before it leaves.
Warnings for external recipients. A pop-up such as "You're sending an attachment to 40 external recipients. Continue?" makes the sender stop and look.
A short send delay. Holding outgoing external mail for a minute or two gives the sender time to catch the error. Once an email reaches an outside company, "recall" rarely works.
Change how client emails are sent
Keep regular client mailings off personal inboxes. Recurring updates like the weekly one in this case should go through an approved template or mailing platform where only pre-approved content can be attached.
A second reviewer for mass client emails. A colleague or compliance officer checks anything going to many clients before it's sent.
Share links instead of attachments. A link to a secure file can be switched off after a mistake. A sent attachment is out of the company's control for good.
Limit the damage when something slips through
Protect the files themselves. Rights-management encryption means a confidential document only opens for authorized employees, even if it's forwarded outside.
Limit who can access sensitive files. The fewer people who can download a full deal list, the fewer chances there are to mis-send it.
Have a response plan ready. Know in advance who contacts recipients, who notifies regulators and affected clients, and what the company says publicly. Morgan Stanley's quick public statement suggests it had some version of this.
Build the right culture
Train staff with realistic examples of near-misses.
Encourage people to report their own mistakes right away. A sender who flags an error within minutes can prevent far more damage than one who hopes nobody noticed.
Students may discuss strategies they have seen at school or work and assess the effectiveness of each.
Confusing Cyclospora Lettuce Comms
Confusion abounds from both Taylor Farms and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about lettuce contaminated by Cyclospora, which has sickened thousands of people. Students can analyze communications and identify failures of accountability.
The FDA and CDC traced the illness back to Taylor Farms de Mexico, but lab tests created what the FDA refers to as a “false positive.” Although one test came back positive, that didn’t prove the source of outbreak. However, the false positive didn’t change the epidemiological conclusion.
Here’s one opportunity for students to revise communications. The statement could be clearer, perhaps explaining terms like false positive and epidemiological.
Students also might question why the FDA communicated results before obtaining more evidence. That would avoid the agency’s need to backtrack with a statement like this:
Due to the complexity in detection of Cyclospora, FDA laboratory experts re-reviewed the sample results and have concluded that the finding does not represent true amplification and should be considered a false positive.
Otherwise, the recall is typical, stating which lettuce people should avoid eating, what symptoms to watch for, and how to get refunds.
Taylor Farms Statements
The company has a dedicated page with a notice and link on the homepage. It also posted a typical recall message, mirroring the FDA’s, but it includes more information.
Most recent as of today is the “Summary of Facts”:
We understand that there is significant confusion over outbreak communication. We want to provide a summary of the critical facts for your health:
On July 17 we voluntarily recalled all iceberg lettuce grown in central Mexico that was identified as the potential source of the Cyclospora outbreak.
This recall has been completed with products removed from the marketplace.
No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.
We are no longer sourcing iceberg lettuce grown in central Mexico for the remainder of the growing season.
We currently have experts on site in central Mexico investigating all potential sources of contamination.
We are committed to working closely with health officials during this ongoing investigation.
We remain deeply concerned for the health of those who are ill and will provide any updates relevant for your health.
Of course, the company employs the crisis communication strategy of distancing itself as much as possible, emphasizing products “grown in Mexico.”
This part is confusing and matters primarily to the company: “No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.” Students might flag this statement as a failure to take responsibility, and it is unlikely to inspire consumer confidence in any Taylor Farms products. A clearer approach might be to show pictures or list products unaffected.
Company leaders probably took great pleasure in these statements:
Yesterday, FDA informed Taylor Fresh Foods that one of its iceberg lettuce products from central Mexico tested positive for cyclospora. Today, we were informed that FDA made a mistake, and this was a false positive. To be clear, at this moment, FDA has not identified a single positive product test result for Cyclospora.
Based on initial information provided by health officials, in an abundance of caution, we completed a voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce from central Mexico. Recalled product was limited to iceberg lettuce grown and processed in central Mexico.
That statement leans into the FDA error and fails to convey the full picture. Company representatives also tried to delay the recall by appealing to the White House through a lobbyist. The executives wanted more evidence, which is somewhat understandable given the FDA’s missteps, but still demonstrates the company’s failure to take responsibility.
As we would expect, this “apology” is nowhere to be found in FDA communications. Also notable: Taylor fails to mention the epidemiological work; all roads led to Taylor’s lettuce.
Meanwhile, videos and memes on social media are hilarious, promoting diets of only processed foods for health and safety.
Comms Around Dad with Daughters in Bathroom
A viral video and the response illustrate the challenges of parenting and demonstrate how a “girl dad” handled a confrontation with grace.
A father was traveling from Florida to Oklahoma with his two daughters. Tyler Brodsky chose the women’s room at a QuikTrip in Alabama over the men’s room, which he said was dirty. (Police later said bringing the girls into the men’s room would have been equally problematic.)
The video, now with more than 4 million views, shows Brodsky incredibly calm while a man is yelling at them and threatening to call the police. Melissa, the store manager, is kind to the girls, but students might wonder why she didn’t do more to deter the man or call the police herself to deescalate the situation and protect the family.
In a follow-up video, Brodsky explains what happened at the time and raises bigger issues. He talks about the difficulty for parents and grandparents in this situation and says the he doesn’t condone harassment of anyone involved. He also expresses gratitude to Melissa, the police who said he did nothing wrong, and others who have reached out.
Overstreet Properties, which owns the QuikTrip, posted a statement. The language is fairly generic (“does not reflect the values” and “quality service”). The leaders could have said more, for example, to apologize more explicitly and acknowledge the challenge for families. (A family bathroom would solve the problem, but that might be too much to ask for this company and property.) They did admit that the man was affiliated with Overstreet and took action by cutting ties with him. Students might rewrite the statement to demonstrate more accountability and compassion.
Business Communication Lessons from Meta/Google Trial
Business communication students can learn from the KGM v. Meta and Google case for their own presentations and messages. Three examples are emotional appeal/storytelling, concrete visualization, and document discovery.
Considered a landmark case that opens paths for other suits, KGM v. Meta and Google (Instagram and YouTube) found companies negligent, citing defective product design causing addiction. The plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, has a reputation of theatrics in the courtroom, which we see in these first two examples. Students need to balance ethics/credibility and effectiveness for their own presentations.
Emotional Appeal/Storytelling
At the heart of this case is how kids are affected by social media, and storytelling was key. Families brought photos and a large banner with names and ages of children who died, blaming social media companies. Plaintiff attorneys also showed a large poster with hundreds of selfies KGM posted of her when she was a child.
These strategies humanized the plaintiff and contrasted Mark Zuckerberg’s stoicism. As NPR reported:
At one point, the family's lawyer brought out an internal document about how Meta's staff has pushed Zuckerberg to be more empathic and relatable and more human in public appearances and, you know, not to be fake and corporate and cheesy—these are their words—you know, during events like court appearance. And Zuckerberg responded by, you know, showing some human vulnerability. He said, quote, "I think I'm actually well known to be very bad at this."
Concrete Visualization
In legal terms, “demonstrative evidence” or a “demonstrative exhibit” “explains or illustrates” testimony; it’s not direct evidence. In persuasion communication, we might call this type of evidence examples rather than, for example, data. We also encourage students to make large numbers concrete.
Lanier illustrated these strategies:
As the punitive-damages phase of the trial got under way in court on Wednesday, the plaintiff’s attorney, Lanier, revealed a jar of M&Ms—415 of them. Each one represented $1 billion of the $415 billion in total stockholders’ equity of Alphabet Inc., he said. As he removed M&Ms one by one, Lanier noted how the jar barely registered a change, symbolizing how inconsequential even a ruling of $1 billion in damages would be to a company of Alphabet’s value.
This type of illustration gets attention and does clarify points but might seem cheesy in business presentations.
Discovery
Once again, this is a good opportunity to talk with students about the legal discovery process, which makes any internal emails, texts, reports, Teams content, etc. public. Perhaps the plaintiff’s strongest evidence was Meta’s own documentation that demonstrated how leaders exploited—actually, built—platform features to increase addiction.
Instead of a lesson warning students about what they put in writing, we might teach them to act with integrity. If social media executives hadn’t build systems that are now proven to be addictive, they wouldn’t have had to censor what they put in writing.
Both Meta and Google are appealing the case. They will not accept responsibility. Together, the companies will pay $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages. That’s .6% of one M&M. How could students visualize that?
Tom Pritzker Resigns After Epstein Discovery
The list of executives resigning or losing positions after more Jeffrey Epstein files become public is growing. Students can read emails related to the latest: Tom Pritzer, Hyatt’s executive chairman.
Pritzer’s resignation letter to the board includes the following:
My job and responsibility is to provide good stewardship. That is important to me. Good stewardship includes ensuring a proper transition at Hyatt. Following discussions with my fellow Board members, I have decided, after serving as Executive Chairman since 2004, and with the company in a strong position, that now is the right time for me to retire from Hyatt.
Good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt, particularly in the context of my association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell which I deeply regret.
I exercised terrible judgment in maintaining contact with them, and there is no excuse for failing to distance myself sooner.
I condemn the actions and the harm caused by Epstein and Maxwell, and I feel deep sorrow for the pain they inflicted on their victims.
The first line is performative and was omitted from most news reports. As an issue of integrity, good stewardship requires good behavior while serving in a role, not just when resigning.
Students might read the first and second lines as a push from the board rather than a true resignation. Either way, it explains what students often wonder about executive resignations for personal improprieties: they affect the company. At the same time, Pritzker’s were related to Hyatt business, with emails showing him facilitating travel and arranging an interview for “the girl from Romania.”
The second bullet illustrates classic crisis communication strategies of distancing and downplaying, as though “contact” were his only crime. We see a similar theme in all statements related to Epstein—little true accountability.
The third bullet reflects a false show of sympathy few would believe after reading emails like these, which were sent ten years after Epstein plead guilty for sex crimes in Florida and as accusations piled up throughout the next decade.
Students might discuss the best approach for these leaders. Another strategy is Lee Wexler’s. The billionaire and former CEO of Victoria's Secret said he “was duped by a world-class con man,” a tough claim to support.
Maybe this is one of those rare times when it’s better to say nothing at all.
The New York Times is tracking resignations and other fallout from the Epstein files.
Trump “Didn’t Make a Mistake”
I can’t let this go without comment. President Trump refuses to apologize or even acknowledge an egregiously racist post on his Truth Social account.
Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the U.S. Senate, put it well: “it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House.” The video of ape bodies with the faces of President Obama and Michelle Obama to the song, “The Lion Sleeps Tonight,” is despicable and outrageous.
At first, the White House tried to downplay the post, a classic crisis communication strategy. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public,” as though Americans don’t care about racism. Trump said, “I guess during the end of it, there was some kind of picture people don't like. I wouldn't like it either, but I didn't see it. I just, I looked at the first part, and it was really about voter fraud."
But downplaying doesn’t work when the outrage is real and justified. Trump, or someone on his staff, did take the video down. But he did not do what we expect of leaders with strong character: take responsibility and apologize. Instead, he said, “I didn’t make a mistake,” because he will never admit it.
Ye’s Apology
Once again, let’s talk with students about a sincere apology. Ye’s doesn’t cut it.
Students might remember that rapper Ye (Kanye West) sold clothing with swastikas, released the song "Heil Hitler,” and went on a few antisemitic rants, causing Adidas and Gap to cancel their partnerships. Students also might remember his apology back in 2023 before he released a new album (after which he wrote on X, about “my new sound called antisemitic”).
This week, he took out a full-page Wall Street Journal ad to apologize—again, before releasing a new album. Criteria for sincere apologies are explained in chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character. In addition to the promotional timing, students might point out how long his antisemitic actions lasted, despite his crisis communication attempts to contain them.
Ye blames a brain injury and mania for his actions. But of course, not all people who have bipolar disorder write Nazi songs and sell Nazi t-shirts. This is an example of his not taking responsibility—not apologizing at all—and possibly causing harm by stigmatizing others.
By far, the most questionable line is, “I love Jewish people.” He doesn’t say it, but we know what follows: “Some of my best friends are Jewish.”
A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League put it well:
[The apology] doesn’t automatically undo his long history of antisemitism and all of the feelings of hurt and betrayal it caused. The truest apology would be for him to not engage in antisemitic behavior in the future.
Yes, changed behavior is one criterion of a sincere apology. We’ll see.
The “Ningnong” Who Wants Replacement Parts
This customer communication from a model train company would make a fun class discussion or activity. The company focuses more on what they won’t do than how they can help.
In the “Limited Warranty” section of product documentation, they try to be funny, and I admire that, but it doesn’t land well. Projecting 44 years into the future when a customer might want to get repairs covered under warranty, the writer suggests that the customer should retreat to a bunker instead. Are we at that point where a pending apocalypse is funny?
I also understand that a company can get whacky requests. This one apparently has customers seeking replacement parts for lesser quality items purchased elsewhere. But are these “ningnongs” likely to read the company’s warranty information? They seem confused about their audience—and calling them ningnongs might not inspire them to become customers.
By far the overarching issue with this section is the company’s focus on the negative rather than the positive—the situations in which you can’t get your train fixed instead of what they can do for you. Even the bit about parts coming loose in shipping is strange. Why not help customers out by telling them the simple fix and apologizing because products really shouldn’t fall apart in transit. This situation seems like a good opportunity for a customer to call, make a connection, and perhaps order more parts.
Students may rewrite this section and compare their revisions. Obvious changes like removing ALL CAPS will immediately improve this missive. Students might want to rephrase “Limited Warranty,” but this is standard language that protects the company. Still, the rest of it doesn’t need to sound like a bad-news message.
Sondor Displaces Guests Without Warning
A hotel’s abrupt closure left guests stranded and offers communication planning lessons for students.
Short-term rental and boutique hotel company Sonder by Marriott Bonvoy filed for bankruptcy after Marriott pulled out of the agreement. Sonder communicated news by placing printed messages under hotel guests’ doors.
Trouble had been brewing, as the founder and former CEO chronicled in a LinkedIn post back in July. But, of course, guests don’t necessarily see “the writing on the wall”—and even his post ends on a positive note about the Marriott deal. So they booked stays expecting the company would honor its commitment, an issue of integrity. (Cue Seinfeld at the rental car counter.)
Marriott’s statement promises to help guests—or, those who booked through Marriott. This message (click to expand/download) was posted by a guest on Reddit. Imagine how a guest feels receiving this note: “[w]e are kindly requesting that you check out of the property as soon as you are able.”
Apparently, Sonder employees at hotel properties had no notice either, learning about the failure when guests told them. Corporate employees say the same:
Even most of us at the corporate level were left in the dark. We didn't find out anything until our city teams started messaging us for more information, which if course we didn't get.
We received notice Sunday that more information would be sent to us today (Monday the 10th), and literally senior leadership was silent ALL DAY.
The only thing we received was an email saying "thanks for your service to the company, here's a link to the DOL's unemployment website. Your employment is terminated effective immediately."
No email from SLT, no messages, nothing. Yet, Janice had enough time to go give out a press release.
The writer is correct that Sondor published a statement about the “Chapter 7 liquidation” plan but mentions nothing about current guests.
It’s time for another lesson in communication planning for any change but, particularly, for bad news. One of the most important lessons is that employees should be notified before customers or the public.
In addition to the communication issues, this situation raises questions about integrity and accountability. What is owed to guests who had reservations? Some guests received help rebooking; others did not. Some had to book at places far more expensive than their Sondor property. What is the right, compassionate thing to do?
“Mistakes Have Been Made” by BBC Editing Trump Video
In a BBC documentary about President Trump, footage was edited in a way to mislead the audience. The situation is worth a class discussion about the ethics of editing and accountability.
The director general (top executive) and the head of news have resigned after criticism that combined segments of President Trump’s speech on January 6, before the Capitol attacks, seemed to purposely misled viewers. Here are the edited and original versions (click the image, right) showing parts spliced together:
BBC Video: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you don’t have a country anymore.”
Original Video: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
President Trump said that underlined part 54 minutes later—so the “fight” parts weren’t so closely connected to approaching the capitol.
The BBC executives demonstrated accountability by resigning, but they use passive voice, which makes their apologies sound evasive:
“Overall, the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made, and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.” (director general)
“While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear: recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.” (head of news)
We might question who did the actual editing? Who made the mistakes? Yes, these leaders ultimately are in charge, but how did this happen? Without clearer accountability, critics may be more likely to assume bias in reporting, a serious accusation for a news organization of BBC’s stature. The issue also raises bigger questions about BBC’s editorial process. BBC failed to isolate the event, which is common advice in crisis situations.
Layoffs and Private Jets: Integrity Issue?
A Wall Street Journal article describes a lack of consistency, which students might identify as an integrity issue: employees are laid off while companies increase use of private jets for executives. Students may analyze the reasons provided and draw their own conclusions.
Although other executive perks have declined, private flights have increased 76.7% since 2020. The WSJ article cites safety as the most common justification, with the murder of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson as an example.
The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) helps companies with proactive messaging. A long webpage is titled, “Toot Your Own Horn: Bizav [business aviation] Operators Tell Their Own Stories,” with the subtitle, “The value of building a proactive internal campaign to support your flight operation.” Although we’re seeing more external criticism, the article focuses on internal communication:
Business aviation is often misrepresented in the mainstream media, cast as a villain for the sake of a soundbite. Are you prepared to share the value your flight department brings to the company and the community, whether to principals or shareholders?
Long-time business aviation professionals shared with Business Aviation Insider their business aviation “whys” and also offered suggestions on how to build a proactive internal campaign to support a flight operation.
The arguments are fascinating. Students can analyze the claims, including data comparisons, for example, these:
[Business aviation] actually contributes less than one-half of 1% of man-made global emissions.
The reality is only about 3% of the approximately 15,000 business aircraft registered in the U.S. are flown by Fortune 500 companies.
Although the percentages are small, the figures may not be convincing. Another claim, an environmental “goal,” doesn’t have much meaning:
In your environmental discussions, reinforce that business aviation has adopted the goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Students can analyze other arguments about efficiency and do their own research to update the 2003 business aviation page. For example, the safety issue—the primary rationale given by executives interviewed in the WSJ article—isn’t included in this 2023 article. On the other hand, the WSJ article provides context of the recent economic environment—the contrast between cutting costs by layoffs and, presumably, increasing costs by adding private air travel.
Addressing the issue today, organizations might take a more balanced approach. They might explain the efficiencies and safety issues for executives, yet acknowledge that the “optics” aren’t good. In other words, private flights may appear to be an ethical failure, but the decision may be consistent with corporate goals for increasing efficiency and ensuring safety. Executives might convey the message themselves to demonstrate accountability for the decision. That would be a different approach than what the NBAA recommends.
Tylenol, Crisis Communication Exemplar, Now in Crisis
Four for decades, Johnson & Johnson’s handling of Tylenol tampering has been a case study for teaching crisis communication. Now, Tylenol has a new crisis: addressing claims that taking the product during pregnancy causes autism.
In 1982, when poisoned Tylenol tablets caused deaths, J&J immediately told customers not to take any Tylenol product and removed all products from shelves nationwide. The company then pioneered tamper-proof packaging. A reviewer for my book Building Leadership Character suggested I mention the case. Believing it had run its course, I added it begrudgingly, but now I see the renewed significance. (Also see the 2025 Netflix show, Cold Case: The Tylenol Murders.)
The earlier situation was a “victim crisis,” in which the company had no control (Tachkova and Coombs, 2022). Students might conclude the same about the current accusation that Tylenol, now under the parent company, Kenvue, causes autism. Other types of crises are accidental and preventable. Although unlikely accidental, like a fire, students could believe the crisis is preventable—if they believe the autism link. That conclusion might be beyond the scope of a business communication class (although a useful discussion would distinguish causation and correlation). Either way, we can look at the company’s messaging as a victim crisis, given the company’s view that the claim is false.
With this premise—that the claim is false—the company’s response focuses on correcting misinformation. An apology is neither needed nor appropriate.
Here are responses for students to analyze:
Tylenol website: The homepage has a link at the top, “Have questions about recent media coverage…?” Referring to “media coverage,” the company avoids the president and politics. The link opens a page with a bunch of FAQs. The first few questions are generic, which is an important part of the company’s strategic response: to be measured—to neither elevate the claims nor dismiss them, either of which could draw more negative attention. Later FAQs are specific to autism. The company broadens the conversation to acetaminophen, implicating their competition and downplaying the focus on the Tylenol brand. Here’s the first part of the first response, which relies heavily on credibility and reputation management. However, students might question whether the “scientific” approach would work for the intended audience.
We understand the recent media coverage you’re reading may cause concern or lead to questions. We want to make sure you have the answers.
Here is what we can tell you:
Credible, independent scientific data continues to show no proven link between taking acetaminophen and autism.
Medical and public health organizations agree.
This includes:
Our best advice? Talk to your healthcare professional before taking or administering acetaminophen.
As our label says, “If pregnant or breast-feeding, talk to your healthcare professional before use.”
Your health provider is best positioned to advise whether taking this medication is appropriate based on your unique medical condition.
Instagram. Three posts, shown here, are pinned on Tylenol’s Instagram account. Comments on each image are short, and the third links to the website.
Tylenol Professional: This short page includes excerpts from the main page and is tailored for doctors.
The company also responded to a 2017 post reposted by the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services and The White House. In a statement, Kenvue said the statement was “taken out of context" and was in response to a customer post that was deleted. The company clarified, “We recommend pregnant women do not take any over-the-counter medication, including acetaminophen, without talking to their doctor first.”
Kenvue shares bounced back a bit after hitting an all-time low. We’ll see whether the crisis communications can rebuild the brand as they did so well years ago.
Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Abingdon (UK: Routledge, 2022), 35–42.
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.
Analyzing Edits on the California Companion Chatbots Bill
Line edits on a new bill about companion chatbots communicate priorities for legislators and AI operators. The California bill addresses growing concern about AI as a harmful tool. A TechCrunch writer explains how the bill, awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature, “protect minors and vulnerable users.”
In this summary, we see edits to describe the purpose:
The first edit in the paragraph attempts to clarify language and standards. That bit about “unpredictable intervals…” is confusing. Originally, the purpose was to avoid periodic rewards that could be lead to addiction. A state senator said, “I think it [the revision] strikes the right balance of getting to the harms without enforcing something that’s either impossible for companies to comply with, either because it’s technically not feasible or just a lot of paperwork for nothing.”
Instead of “take reasonable steps,” the bill now includes the reasonable person standard used in other legislation. Just as “reasonable steps” may include a wide range of choices, whether people are misled depends on a variety of factors, including their own capabilities and vulnerabilities, but the language is consistent with other legal measures.
In some ways, more responsibility is given to AI companies in the edited version. Although “minor” is mentioned in a previous paragraph, the word was missing in the unedited version of this paragraph. Now the bill specifies that, when interacting with a minor, the chatbot must reveal itself as AI. Also, the change to “preventing the production” of harmful content rather than just “addressing” what the user expresses adds accountability for the “operator” (defined as AI companies, app developers/hosts, and third-party deployers).
We’ll see whether other states follow California’s lead in passing new legislation.
Recovering from an Embarrassing Incident
The CEO of a Polish paving company faced internet scorn after what appeared to be a hat-grab during the U.S. Open.
Video shows the CEO reaching in front of a young boy to take a hat from tennis pro Kamil Majchrzak. Ignoring the boy’s attempts to retrieve the hat, the executive shared the it with his family.
Students can analyze the CEO’s apology, below, against the following elements of a sincere apology from Business Communication and Character, 12e, Chapter 7:
Shows remorse (for example, saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” instead of “I regret”)
Accepts responsibility (for example, saying, “It’s my fault,” or “I failed to”)
States what he did wrong
Explains what happened
Acknowledges the impact
Offers to fix it
Says what he’ll do differently
Requests forgiveness
Sincere apologies avoid the following tactics, which are more self- than other-focused: making excuses, justifying our actions, blaming the victim, and minimizing the impact.
The tough part for the CEO was explaining what happened without trying to excuse the behavior. He managed to balance this well. We can understand how, during the excitement, he didn’t notice the boy at all and thought Majchrzak was handing the hat to him, particularly after meeting him earlier. Sure, he was a bit clueless in the moment, and maybe his status and focus on his own family caused him to disregard someone else so close to him, but his explanation makes sense.
He also didn’t stop there. With his apology, he hit the other elements, above, well. Most important, he apologized, admitted what he did wrong, acknowledged his lack of humility—and gave the sweaty hat to the boy, who received a second from Majchrzak himself. Saying, “only through actions can I rebuild the trust I have lost,” the CEO asks for forgiveness.
An incident like this can ruin an executive’s career, but his apology may have repaired his temporarily damaged reputation.
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.
Cracker Barrel Subordinates the Change and then Reverts to Old Logo
Following backlash from updating the logo, Cracker Barrel will keep “Uncle Herschel”—the man and the barrel. Students can identify business communication issues in the communication.
The restaurant has a rich history, with its first store, a restaurant with gas station, opening in Lebanon, TN, in 1969. Now 664 restaurants, Cracker Barrel maintains an old-timey, country feel: a menu of comfort food and farmhouse decor with antiques unique to each location.
The logo and decor change are hidden in a press release on August 19 titled, “Cracker Barrel Teams up with Country Music Star Jordan Davis to Invite Guests to Discover ‘All the More’ this Fall.” It’s as though the company leaders knew trouble might ensue. Note the placement in this paragraph, further subordinating the news:
Since 1969, Cracker Barrel has delivered heartfelt service, homestyle food and an unmatched dining experience. With nearly 660 locations nationwide, the brand remains a go-to for guests seeking community, comfort and special moments they can carry with them long after they leave. Its more popular menu offerings like farm fresh scrambled eggs and buttermilk biscuits even serve as inspiration behind the hues of a refreshed color palette featured in the new campaign. Anchored in Cracker Barrel's signature gold and brown tones, the updated visuals will appear across menus and marketing collateral, including the fifth evolution of the brand's logo, which is now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.
After years of subtle adjustments, the dramatic logo change hardly supports the conclusion, “now rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all.” The redesigned logo is rounder, but the most obvious change—omitting the man (“Old Timer”) and the actual barrel—is key and unmentioned. We might say the leadership lacks accountability for the decision, hiding behind positive/neutral news like a music partnership.
Try as it might to update the brand, Cracker Barrel is thrown back to earlier days. Brighter interiors with fewer, better organized items were meant to appeal to younger crowds, but fell flat. Instead, it felt like an affront to conservative values and became a political issue. As Americus Reed, marketing professor at The Wharton School, said, “If it ain’t woke, don’t fix it.” In the end, the logo redesign was deemed intolerable, as evidenced by the 7% stock price drop.
Social media backlash was fierce, and President Trump’s Truth Social post might have been the final straw. In a rare about-face post on X, the company said they listened and would change the logo back. Unfortunately, in the message, we don’t see the barrel on the X account.
The stock rebounded, and all is right again. Students might discuss lessons learned: get better feedback, make more incremental changes, stand behind your decisions or don’t make them, and perhaps, above all else, stay attuned to the political climate.
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)