Expedia CEO Email About Bathroom Cameras

Facing an unusual company situation, Expedia CEO Peter Kern tried to reassure employees they are safe at work.

Although cameras were reported in December, security officers didn’t remove them, thinking they were a battery or music player. Employees were angry about the six-week delay between the time the cameras were reported and when they were notified. The cameras might have been planted by an employee who has a history of recording others and at least 33 devices in his home.

Kern’s email is below. I wonder whether he overuses “we” and “us.” Is he really concerned for his own safety? Does he use that bathroom or a private one?

What Kern does well is acknowledge employees’ feelings and the violation of trust. But he doesn’t address the company’s violation of trust because of its poor response—only the spying employee’s.

The third paragraph seems an odd mix of criticizing news reports about the company and allowing remote work. In this sentence, Kern equates employees’ frustration and disappointment with errant news reports rather than failing company actions. Lacking more accountability and humility, he doesn’t explain company actions—or admit failings. Without a paragraph break after this sentence, he seems to further correlate bad news reports with employees’ need for space and support.

I know that reading incomplete news stories about our team’s significant efforts to protect employees and identify the individual responsible has been frustrating and disappointing during a disturbing time.

What a strange situation for a CEO to have to address. I don’t think it’s related, but this incident comes during a transition back to a former CEO.

---

Dear Team,

I know this has been an incredibly challenging week for our Seattle campus community and those who have visited. The news that one of our own colleagues invaded our collective privacy is highly disturbing. It has left many of us angry and feeling vulnerable. There really are no words that I can offer to make those feelings go away for any of us — it has happened despite our vigilant efforts to make sure our people, our Seattle campus, and all our offices are safe places to work and visit. It happened because one of our own, whom we trusted, abused that trust. Our team identified and fired this former colleague, collaborated with law enforcement to bring them to justice, and gratefully the Seattle Police Department has arrested the individual responsible for the pain we are all feeling.

Some of you may have observed or heard that Seattle police were in the office yesterday to execute an additional search to make sure there was no other relevant evidence to the case. They did remove some items that may be relevant to the case (mentioned in our Chief Security Officer Kurt John’s message), but no additional recording devices were found. With that done we will be closing the Seattle campus this weekend through Monday to take additional security precautions as our teams continue to work to prevent anything like this from happening in the future. We’re closing campus as we do this work as an additional precaution. The best thing we can do now is help the authorities in every way possible, use resources to heal, and learn from this experience to put additional preventative measures in place.

Let me just end by saying that while we are not the first nor sadly the last company that will likely face something like this, the violation of our collective trust is real and will take time to heal. I know that reading incomplete news stories about our team’s significant efforts to protect employees and identify the individual responsible has been frustrating and disappointing during a disturbing time. While everyone responds to events like this in their own way, I want to reassure you that if you need some time and space, we understand and want you to care for yourselves. If you need some additional time to work remotely you can do so, including during Expedia Week. I urge you to use all the resources we are making available as we continue to ensure you are supported.

I am sorry for any distress this has caused you and can only say that our teams are working tirelessly to make sure you all feel safe and secure on our campuses.

Peter

Image source.

Videos of the Layoff

First, we read employees’ public posts about their layoff, commiserating with others. Now, we watch videos leading up to and during layoff.

In one video with 3.8 million views, we see jewishmillenial, a tech employee, await her layoff meeting at home. What’s useful to organizational leaders is to see the other side of the process—the employee’s perspective. We see her dread after receiving a “mysterious” 30-minute meeting scheduled with her boss’s boss and others in her group, one by one, “disappearing off of Teams.”

She gives us a periodic countdown to her being laid off, at one point, wondering why the company doesn’t just schedule a meeting for everyone instead of multiple individual meetings they have to wait for. Others complain about mass layoff meetings and having all technology immediately cut off. They believe the layoff is “inconsistent” or random and not performance based.

No one approach is perfect for everyone. A performance-based layoff at Cloudfare and other companies are also criticized. The Cloudfare one didn’t include the employee’s manager—just HR people—so that didn’t go over well. The HR representatives couldn’t answer her questions about why she was laid off or what the performance metrics are. The CEO did admit that managers should be involved in these meetings and that employees shouldn’t be blindsided by news of their underperformance. Of course, we don’t know how clearly performance feedback has been communicated in these cases, but we could say that the immediate manager lacks accountability. More typically, managers are involved in these meetings, whether performance based or not.

What makes us watch these videos? The voyeuristic pleasure of the layoff meeting is undeniable, and perhaps we feel a mix of empathy for the person, gratitude for still having a job, and fear of losing our job. For business communicators, they’re a reality show for one of the more difficult meetings a manager (or HR) will have, and we can learn how to plan and facilitate these interactions better.

Disclosing an Illness

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III delayed telling the White House about his prostate cancer, which raises questions about whether or when a corporate executive should disclose an illness.

At a news conference on January 9, Pentagon Press Secretary Gen. Patrick Ryder apologized for failing to notify proper channels when Austin was hospitalized:

I recognized that I should have tried to learn more and to press for an earlier public acknowledgement. So I want to offer my apologies and my pledge to learn from this experience. And I will do everything I can to meet the standard that you expect from us.

He also said, “Secretary Austin has taken responsibility for the issues with transparency.”

Leaders might naturally avoid disclosing an illness. A palliative care doctor said, “It’s very human to not want to have yourself sort of flayed open for the world to see.” He’s describing vulnerability, or emotional exposure. Others say it’s a coping mechanism, trying to control the uncontrollable. Compartmentalization—to a point—is a useful way to deal with a diagnosis. But experts warn that being too secretive can lead to isolation and may not get people the help they need.

Austin’s situation reminds me of others who have disclosed illnesses for good reasons. Alex Trebek, long-time Jeopardy! host announced is illness on air. He described his rationale for the message about his stage 4 pancreatic cancer diagnosis: to be “open and transparent” and to avoid “overblown or inaccurate reports.” His diagnosis has a particularly low survival rate, so the decision might have been easier for him, as he accepted his likely death. For different reasons, Senator John Fetterman revealed his mental health struggles, which was lauded as courageous and a way to normalize depression.

For corporate CEOs, the decision to disclose health issues is complicated because of the potential impact on customer, employee, or investor confidence. Famously, Steve Jobs downplayed and delayed disclosing his pancreatic cancer and other health issues, which was highly criticized for its impact on, for example, investor decision making, and was a troubling situation for some board members.

According to this Harvard Law article, “Best Practices for Disclosing Executive Health Issues,” the obligation for public disclosure is limited:

If a senior executive is incapacitated and therefore unable to perform his or her duties, disclosure is required (particularly if the executive performs certain roles [9] or is otherwise reasonably believed to be critical to the success of the company).

In addition to reviewing the risks and approaches, including a communication plan, the article authors provide examples of companies that gave full disclosures, mixed disclosures, and “The Silent Treatment.” They conclude: “Most risk arises from partial disclosures or “half-truths”—which should be avoided. Sometimes silence with respect to executive health is the best policy.” Maybe, but I’ll also quote a university communication executive: “The trust will come out.”

Corporate executives have difficult choices in these situations. In this case, Austin didn’t really have a decision to make: he should have followed protocol and did not.

Image source.

Boeing Crisis Comms Need Work

Once again, Boeing is in crisis communication mode trying to explain plane failures. Messaging could sound more authentic and compassionate.

After part of the fuselage fell off an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 plane, United found loose bolts needing “additional tightening” on the same model. In a flashback to the horrible deaths caused by MAX planes five years ago, the FAA grounded 171 of the planes.

On its website, Boeing lists daily “Updates,” but none of them acknowledge the fear (and of course, the inconvenience) to passengers. The audience for these messages is the public, and communications to passengers seem to be missing. One update restates what CEO Dave Calhoun said in a company-wide meeting to employees:

When it comes to the safety of our products and services, every decision and every action matters. And when serious accidents like this occur, it is critical for us to work transparently with our customers and regulators to understand and address the causes of the event, and to ensure they don’t happen again. This is and must be the focus of our team right now. I am deeply grateful to our colleagues who have been working tirelessly on our company’s response over the past two days.

We will spend time together Tuesday talking about our company’s response to this accident, and reinforcing our focus on and our commitment to safety, quality, integrity and transparency. While we’ve made progress in strengthening our safety management and quality control systems and processes in the last few years, situations like this are a reminder that we must remain focused on continuing to improve every day.

On January 9, a video of Calhoun talking with employees was posted on the site. In this message, he found some emotion, referring to the shocking pictures, which reminded him that he’s a parent and grandparent. His delivery style is natural, but much of the message sounded canned. Imagine if he said “honesty,” instead of “transparency,” which he announced like a section heading:

[Honesty.] Let me talk a little bit about what I did today and what I’ll keep doing with members of our team who are with us today. We’re going to approach this, number one, acknowledging our mistake. We are going to approach it with 100% in complete [honesty] every step of the way.”

Transparency seems best achieved through actions rather than promises—like safety.

Unfortunately for Boeing, other media sources aren’t reflecting well on the company. Several passenger TikTok videos show the missing part of the plane. (Passengers are uncharacteristically calm, perhaps because this is one of those situations when they have absolutely no control and no choice but to surrender.) A former employee whistleblower told CNBC, “It really wasn’t a surprise, sadly.”

In a CNBC interview, Corporate Communication Professor Paul Argenti criticized Boeing’s “focus on profits rather than safety, and you need to do both.” He encouraged a greater sense of urgency in [CEO Dave] Calhoun’s response: “I don’t see him saying the kinds of things that would give me confidence in the organization.” Argenti said that we need to know what went wrong and what the company will do to fix it, and “They need somebody new. . . a hero to come in and save this company.” The former CEO also struggled with communication.

Air Alaska showed a bit more compassion towards customers on the flight, but it’s at the end of the statement:

A statement from Alaska Airlines CEO, Ben Minicucci:

At Alaska Airlines, safety is our foundational value and the most important thing we focus on every day. Following tonight’s event on Flight 1282, we have decided to take the precautionary step of temporarily grounding our fleet of 65 Boeing 737-9 aircraft. Each aircraft will be returned to service only after completion of full maintenance and safety inspections. We anticipate all inspections will be completed in the next few days.

I am personally committed to doing everything we can to conduct this review in a timely and transparent way.

We are working with Boeing and regulators to understand what occurred tonight, and will share updates as more information is available. The NTSB is investigating this event and we will fully support their investigation.  

My heart goes out to those who were on this flight – I am so sorry for what you experienced. I am so grateful for the response of our pilots and flight attendants. We have teams on the ground in Portland assisting passengers and are working to support guests who are traveling in the days ahead.

-Ben

WSJ’s Analysis of Spotify’s Layoff Email

The Wall Street Journal analyzed Spotify’s layoff email announcing a 17% workforce cut—about 1,500 people. For the most part, comments align with what business communication faculty teach about writing bad-news messages.

Here are a few notes about the WSJ comments. Students could use these components to compare the four company messages the WSJ mentions—Amazon, Meta, and Salesforce in addition to Spotify’s.

• Subject line: The WSJ is right that most of these emails have a subject line that sounds “innocuous”; all four have “update” in the title. (The Journal writer calls it a “title” because that’s what we see online, but to employees, it’s an email subject.) What’s more relevant about the use of “update” is the organizations’ reminder that bad news is coming. Layoffs should not be a surprise, and company leaders want all stakeholders to know that they have properly prepared employees.

• When the news is broken: Older communication principles taught the indirect organization style for bad-news messages (with context/reasons first), but we have little evidence to support this structure, which tends only to make the writer feel better (for example, see Microsoft Layoff Email). In these four email examples, the news (including a workforce percentage) is clearest in the second paragraph. An interesting study would assess how quickly employees read the first paragraph, scanning for the bottom line.

  Yet, the second paragraph is probably “upfront” enough given that the layoffs should be expected. But the news tends to come at the end of that second paragraph, an indirect paragraph structure in itself. In 2020, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky broke rank and wrote in the first paragraph (albeit at the end): “today I have to share some very sad news.”

• How context is explained: What’s interesting to me is whether the leader takes responsibility for the need to layoff, say, 17% of the workforce. I’m impress by Marc Benioff’s accountability and humility (learning from mistakes) at Salesforce: “we hired too many people leading into this economic downturn we’re now facing, and I take responsibility for that.” Andy Jassy at Amazon admits, “we’ve hired rapidly over the last several years.” Mark Zuckerberg focuses on “efficiencies," leaving us to wonder where the inefficiencies came from. The Journal writer notes, “executive mea-culpa has become another staple of the layoff letter,” but I don’t see many as explicit as Benioff. Others point to changing conditions that were difficult to predict. Although that may be true, exuberant hiring was still a mistake, by definition, given the negative results. A leader could own it.

• Balancing those leaving and staying: The Journal writer points out a difficult part of writing layoff memos—the tone for each group: “Executives want to acknowledge the contributions of the laid-off employees, while quickly then pivoting to explain why the company will be fine without them.” This is why one massive email to multiple audiences is an imperfect approach. But it’s probably best for consistent, timely, and transparent communication.

• How people are affected: Let’s face it: what employees reading these emails care most about is, what about me? Spotify is clear about what to expect next: “If you are an impacted employee, you will receive a calendar invite within the next two hours from HR for a one-on-one conversation.” A tech, rather than a personal, contact isn’t great, but, again, it’s best for quick, consistent communication.

• Compensation and benefits for people leaving: I used to think this was inappropriate to include in layoff emails sent to people not affected, but I’ve warmed up to the idea. Now that these emails are made public, the company needs to assure all stakeholders that they are being fair, if not generous. Spotify received accolades for its process from people like Dave Lehmkuhl, whose LinkedIn post got more than 57,000 likes so far.

• Jargon: The Journal writer jokes, “Ding, ding, ding: If you had ‘right-sized’ on your corporate-layoff-memo bingo card, you’re a winner.” Students will find other jargon in these emails, but not an abundance of it. CEOs and their writers want to avoid the likely ridicule.

• Rallying those remaining: Does that last email section describe a place where those left behind want to work? Ending on a positive note is critical, particularly if the message is public for shareholders and consumers to read. But only the primary audience, employees, can answer the question—and perhaps only in a year from now will they know for sure.

Image source.

Botched Comms About Altman's Departure from OpenAI

After backlash following the sudden termination of CEO Sam Altman, the OpenAI board is in a bind. Their minimal communications and what seems like an impulsive decision caused problems inside and outside the company. The latest news is that Altman may return because of investor pressure—and because he and a few employees who resigned in protest started, within hours, setting up a competitive company.

The Board’s initial statement cites “safety concerns tied to rapid expansion of commercial offerings.” Although his termination seems shocking, we don’t know the level of friction between Altman and the board. This article describes the possible ideological differences between Altman and the board, which are more subtle than what some describe as differences between “doomers” and “accelerationists,” with more focus on how to rather than whether to expand generative AI

The company statement doesn’t say much, yet is “unusually candid,” as a Wall Street Journal writer put it:

Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.

“Candid” seems to be the word of the day. The WSJ writer means frank or forthcoming, while the board writer means truthful—both relate to integrity.

OpenAI President Greg Brockman was excluded from the meeting and resigned shortly after, writing on X that he was shocked too. Messages from Brockman and Altman to staff were short and professional. Other researchers resigned soon after. Altman has been posting his gratitude and potential plans regularly on X.

Microsoft tried to contain the damage. Without prior notice, CEO Satya Nadella posted a short statement expressing his continued confidence in the company. He referenced “Mira,” Interim CEO Mira Murati, and said nothing else about leadership changes. Still, Microsoft shares fell 1.7% by Friday’s close.

The OpenAI COO also tried to control damage in an email to staff that confirmed the decision was about a “breakdown in communications” (no kidding!) and not about “malfeasance.”

Students might be interested to learn more about the unusual governance structure of OpenAI. As a nonprofit board (in this case, only six members), they have more control over OpenAI’s leadership and operations than do investors of the subsidiary. Still, investors—and employees and the public—can and certainly are voicing their opinions. Whether or not Altman returns, the messaging will be interesting to watch.

Recall Notices About Metal in Chicken Nuggets

Recalls about “foreign matter” in food can be tricky to communicate. Tyson and USDA notices illustrate accountability and bad-news messaging for students to compare.

Audiences and communication objectives are similar for all recall notices. For the company and government agency, the primary audience is customers, and both organizations want customers to avoid using affected products. Messages clarify which products have been affected (typically product types, distributors, and locations), and companies offer a refund for returned products. Companies have an additional objective—to maintain brand image.

In this case of the “Fun Nuggets” recall, the USDA message is straightforward, starting with “Tyson” as the actor recalling the product. The notice describes the recall issue this way:

The problem was discovered after the firm notified FSIS that it had received consumer complaints reporting small metal pieces in the chicken patty product.

There has been one reported minor oral injury associated with consumption of this product.

With clunky language, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) subtly promotes itself by describing what the agency does to follow up:

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

The Tyson message also starts with the main point up front but emphasizes the “voluntary recall,” which is typical but a bit strange. Would the company need to be convinced to recall the product in such a case? Still, the writer chooses “out of an abundance of caution,” a near-cliché to describe the decision:

A limited number of consumers have reported they found small, pliable metal pieces in the product, and out of an abundance of caution, the company is recalling this product.  

At least two more differences between the messages are notable. “Pliable” does sound better, and of course, Tyson doesn’t mention the “minor oral injury.” Tyson also states, “a limited number” of customer complaints, as any company would in a crisis situation to contain the damage. Stating a specific number also might convey an unpleasant image, which I have in my head, of an 8-year-old screaming at a kitchen table.

The FSIS message states where products were distributed, which seems useful, while the Tyson message includes a product photo, which seems essential. I’m guessing the FSIS wouldn’t send an agent out to buy a bag to take a picture, but they could lift the image from Tyson.

Hyatt's Bad-News Message to BCom Faculty

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

Strengths

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

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

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

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

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

Areas for Improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University-Related Communications and the War

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

Protests and Free Speech

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

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

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

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

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

Donors Pulling Funding

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

Joint University Statement

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

Firms Denying Jobs

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

Bruno Mars Is Quiet About Israel Concert Cancellation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Airbnb Shifts Communication About NYC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

3M's Defensive Settlement Comms

3M’s statement and the investor call (and associated deck) about settling lawsuits for damaging earplugs sound defensive and deny responsibility. In these crisis response situations, companies choose between demonstrating accountability, compassion, and humility and taking 3M’s route of deniability.

In the statement, 3M does the minimum: states the settlement reason and amount, describes the process going forward, and tries to put a bow on it. The intent is to end the lawsuits. That’s all in three short paragraphs; the rest is a bunch of words—the typical boiler plate of financial considerations, the investor teleconference, and long forward-looking statements. The earplug situation involves Aearo Technologies, the product maker acquired by 3M in 2008, so 3M could shift blame, although the leaders wisely chose not to use that losing strategy.

On the investor call (here are the deck and transcript), all statements, questions, and answers focus on the financials. Of course, it’s an investor call, so participants are most interested in the financial impact to the company. We hear fear, including questions about insurance, the potential for additional claims—and the Big Question about pending lawsuits for a different issue—“forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or FPAS) in drinking water. Legal fees could mount to $30 billion in those cases.

Still, is there nothing to learn from the situation? 3M says some lawsuits were fraudulent, brought by U.S. veterans who did not suffer damages. Still, is there no compassion for those who clearly did? The answer seems to be no, that the company’s primary audience is investors, and that is not their immediate concern.

Students could compare these communications to those of McKinsey about their role in the opioid epidemic, a better example of taking responsibility and acknowledging damage done. Although not perfect, McKinsey’s messages indicate that the company might make changes as a result of the litigation, which is often more important to litigants than the settlement money.

Lessons Learned from Maui's Disaster Communications

Criticism about Maui’s emergency management during devastating wildfires center around disaster communications and what could have been done differently. Students will see parallels with business communication in this public communication situation.

A PBS NewsHour segment includes an interview with Tricia Wachtendorf, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. She identifies a “sequence of behaviors that people need to go through before they even begin reacting to a disaster warning”: hear it, understand it, believe it, personalize it (is this about me?), and confirm it. The objective is to speed up this process as well as the evacuation process. As we might expect, Wachtendorf encourages more advanced warning to help people plan and, as business communicators know, using multiple channels of communication. She also said that research doesn’t support that people panic when hearing warnings, as some believe.

This sequence could be applied to change, bad-news, or persuasive communication. Understanding more about the audience response tells students how to adjust their messages in all of these situations. For example, in a layoff situation, employees likely would process the news in a similar “sequence,” although the process is accelerated in crisis situations.

The county’s head of emergency management resigned following questions about not sounding alarms for people to evacuate. He takes responsibility for the decision, saying people would have “gone Mauka,” meaning inland or into the fire, but he resigned for “health reasons.” I tried to find a statement on the website but got distracted by the lack of information. Here’s the home page with “no alerts at this time,” which seems strange given that Maui Now has this notice: “Maui wildfire disaster updates for Aug. 19: Death toll at 114; fires are still raging but not spreading.”

Investigations may take years, but more information about what happened may help other regions improve communications during similar events.

Even Zoom Asks Employees Back to the Office

Perhaps the least likely of tech companies, Zoom is asking employees to spend more time in the office (return to office, or RTO). The company held out longer than others for obvious reasons: the move could imply that Zoom questions the value of remote work using its product. To protect its market, the company’s communication is delicate, but employees’ reactions are the same as we see throughout the industry.

A spokesperson is careful not to disparage remote work. Instead, she says the company plans a “structured hybrid” approach with employees who work close to an office to work there two days per week. In a statement, she explained:

“As a company, we are in a better position to use our own technologies, continuing to innovate, and support our global customers,” and [Zoom will keep] “dispersed teams connected and working efficiently.”

The reason is unclear to employees, who lashed out on Blind. One wrote, “Isn't the whole point of Zoom that it enables work from ANYWHERE? Apparently, that doesn't apply to the actual employees who make Zoom ...” Of course, that’s illogical, but employees react as they do because many prefer to work from home, at least part of the time. In reality, many employees prefer the hybrid approach Zoom is implementing.

Could Zoom and the other tech companies be more transparent about the decision? Is it about real estate investments, or for closer management and then, as some employees worry, more layoffs? No one wants to be told they aren’t trusted, but that is the sense employees despite claims of better collaboration and teamwork.

Zoom held out long enough. It’s not the only company that uses technology to communicate that has reduced WFH. It’s just the easiest to poke fun at.

Image source.

Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication

A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.

By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.

Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.

AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.

I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.

This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.

A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.

At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.

Improving a JetBlue Email for Writing Style

A JetBlue email announcing a program change uses a conversational writing style but could use more “you” focus. Students can analyze the message and might identify the following:

• The main points are up front in both the subject line (above the blue bar) and first sentence.

• Although technically correct, the comma after “Hi” and before “Amy” is not conventional. I gave this up after seeing hundreds of business emails without the comma.

• The tone is reassuring and tells customers what they need to know.

• Mostly, the tone is conversational with natural language, for example, “wanted to let you know about a couple upcoming changes.”

• More use of “you” would make the email sound more natural, as in the example below.

• Some language choices sound odd, for example, “To the extent any individual customers are impacted, JetBlue will reach out individually for any required re-accommodation or refund.” I thought airlines learned the “re-accommodation” jargon lesson after United dragged a man out of his seat and off the plane in 2017. How about, “You’ll hear from us separately with options for changing flights.”

• The president and COO signed the letter—always a good example of accountability.

• The president appropriately blames federal action for the change, without being too snarky or getting into the details, which would not be relevant to customers: “We've had so much great member feedback on this partnership and are bluer than usual to see it end, after a federal court ruled that the Northeast Alliance could not continue.”

Overall, this bad-news message sounds neutral and might be the best approach for the situation.

Northwestern's Statement on Coach Termination Lacks Compassion

Northwestern University’s president published a statement explaining the decision to fire the head football coach after investigating claims about hazing. The message could be an example of persuasion—and either good or bad news, depending on your perspective.

Taking responsibility up front, President Michael Schill put his name at the top of the statement, which was posted online. His accountability for the decision is reinforced in his first line: “This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.” Later, he writes, “While I am appreciative of the feedback and considered it in my decision-making, [need a semi-colon here] ultimately, the decision to originally suspend Coach Fitzgerald was mine and mine alone, as is the decision to part ways with him.”

Schill convinces his audience—primarily the Northwestern community—by showing the pervasiveness of hazing (“systemic dating back many years.”) and by providing examples of acts (“The hazing included forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature, in clear violation of Northwestern policies and values”).

But he minimizes the impact (“I am grateful that—to my knowledge—no student suffered physical injury as a result of these behaviors”) and defends himself (“I only recently learned many of the details”). His statement seems to lack compassion towards those affected by the hazing. Complaints must show that people were negatively impacted. Where is that acknowledgement in the statement?

Demonstrating courage and leadership, Schill does acknowledge controversy about the decision. He describes the coach’s positive impact on many, but identifies a replacement and encourages moving forward. Some say the decision is long overdue, with reports of racism dating back to the 2000’s. Schill doesn’t mention that.

The statement ends with misplaced gratitude, which feels like a last-minute add-on. The nod to the Board chair would have been more appropriate in the second paragraph, where he describes input from the chair and others. Lobbing off that sentence, the ending is strong: “While today is a difficult day, I take solace in knowing that what we stand for endures.”

Image source.

Press Conference About School Shooting

This may be too raw to share with students, but this video serves as a good example of a crisis communication press conference. Officials from Richmond, VA, describe a shooting after a high school graduation that killed two and left five injured. The conference is just hours after the incident, so little is known at this point, but authorities say, with confidence, that a suspect is in custody.

In the video, we see principles for a crisis communication news conference. Some of the following are out of order or are covered by different speakers: the police chief, Mayor Levar Marcus Stoney, and the school superintendent. The Q&A also illustrates these principles, despite a pending investigation:

• Introduce yourself

• After brief context, give condolences first if people are affected

• Provide a preview (list of topics you’ll cover)

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

• Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)

• Provide investigation process/status

• Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Mayor Stoney’s section is a particularly good example of an inspiring speech. He demonstrates courage with his stand about guns, which is controversial. I don’t have good evidence for this opinion, but I remember, years ago, officials avoiding criticism of guns immediately after shooting incidents because it was “too soon.” That seems to have shifted.

PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly

Golf tournaments PGA and LIV, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, announced a merger and faced backlash. Part of the controversy is how the decision was communicated: primarily during a CNBC interview of LIV Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan.

Players complained openly, shown here. As we teach business communication students, a thoughtful communication plan could prevent negative reactions—at least about how the news is delivered. Players should have been informed before any public announcement was made. Even in the CNBC video title, the news is called a “surprise deal.”

Monahan addressed personal criticism directly. In his statements, he demonstrates courage by acknowledging a perceived lack of integrity:

I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite, Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that's trying to compete for the PGA Tour and our players. I accept those criticisms. But circumstances do change. I think that in looking at the big picture and looking at it this way, that's what got us to this point.

Monahan loosely acknowledged the impact on tour players, but he could have demonstrated more compassion, particularly for those who had turned down generous Saudi money to stick with the PGA:

This is an awful lot to ask them to digest, and this is a significant change for us in the direction that we were going down. We just realized that we were better off together than we were fighting or apart, and by thinking about the game at large and eliminating a lot of the friction that's been out there and doing this in a way where we can move forward and grow the PGA Tour.

Of course, Monahan’s explanation didn’t convince everyone that the merger is the right decision. A news release on the PGA website, which claims that the merger is “for the benefit of all stakeholders,” is another example for students to analyze.