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.
Another Case for the Thank-You Note: Generosity
Every so often, I see a reminder for sending thank-you notes—not ones after an interview but just because. Students could practice these positive messages as a way to express generosity.
We encourage students to send a thank-you email within a day of a job interview to differentiate themselves because so few candidates send them. These have a clear purpose: to get a job offer.
More personal notes—to a former teacher, religious leader, camp counselor, or baby sitter—might have no ulterior motive. Instead, they can have deep meaning for the receiver and unintended positive benefits for the sender. The notes are an act of generosity, defined as “the virtue of giving good things to others freely and abundantly.” Research shows that being generous helps us feel better, including feeling more satisfied and less burned out at work. Notes also are an act of humility—thinking of others more than ourselves.
We tend to worry that a positive message will be awkward. People might resist writing messages because they underestimate the impact. In one study, receivers were more surprised and happier than the writer anticipated.
Suggestions for writing notes follow suggestions for any positive message: start with the main point, add explanations, and end on a positive note. Students practice writing what the receiver did and how it affected their lives in a meaningful way, which is good practice for recognizing others and giving feedback in a work environment.
Name Change from MSNBC to MS NOW Gets Ridiculed
MSNBC is rebranding itself as MS NOW, short for My Source News Opinion World, but memes are drowning out the company’s enthusiasm.
Critics say “MS,” leftover from when Microsoft held part ownership years ago, is most commonly associated with multiple sclerosis, and they question why the letters remain. My Source News Opinion World seems a forced fit for the letters and makes little grammatical sense. Luckily, they probably won’t be muttered out loud.
Others say “NOW” is so yesterday sounding, and that the logo “looks like something you’d scroll past in a pile of poltical [sic] campaign logos from 2004.” Although the company statement confirms no change, the American flag could signal a more conservative slant.
The statement also conveys a self-importance that might not resonate with viewers:
For our viewers who have watched us for decades, it may be hard to imagine this network by any other name. We understand. But our promise to you remains as it always has. You know who we are, and what we do.
Students might have reactions about the change—or about other brand changes they have noticed. Here are two recent controversial examples:
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)
McDonald's Quarterly Earnings Report and Comm Strategies
McDonald’s had a good second quarter, with global sales up 6%. Students could analyze the report formats and communication strategies executives used during the earnings call.
One lesson for students is the multiple communication channels and report formats McDonald’s published to communicate its quarterly earnings. The press release, quarterly report in four formats (PDF, Zip files, HTML, and Excel), and recorded Webcast earnings call (and transcript) are all open to the public and convey a consistent message, which is upfront in the press release:
Our 6% global Systemwide sales growth this quarter is a testament to the power of compelling value, standout marketing, and menu innovation—proving again that when we stay focused on executing what matters most to our customers, we grow. Our technology investments and ability to scale digital solutions at speed will continue to elevate the McDonald's experience for customers, crew, and our global System.
Any question and answer during the earnings call provides examples of communication strategies. For example, executives use what we might teach as hedging or tentative language (“I think”); however, students can see these responses employed strategically. They persuade the audience by demonstrating humility and credibility—qualifying responses to show a cautious approach and, in effect, saying, “I don’t know everything.” This language also protects an executive whose prediction turns out wrong, and it conveys a conversational tone to build trust.
Although the news is good, the first question challenged the company’s reliance on “value,” particularly in the United States, where families are under increasing financial pressure. Here are the first question and answer as an example from the transcript (my notes in green italics):
David Palmer, Analyst, Evercore: Thank you, and thanks for all of your, comments. Sounds like you’re still exploring ways to bolster value perception in The US. Ahead of anything there, you know, could you just speak to where you think McDonald’s value and affordability scores are today in The US? You know, perhaps before and after Snack Wrap and your recent McValue menu changes. You know, where is the consumer perception today versus McDonald’s in the past and versus near end competitors and maybe even fast casual competitors?
And and if there’s a difference between The US perception in terms of value versus other key IOM markets, would love to hear about that as well. Thanks so much.
Chris Kemczynski, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, McDonald’s Corporation: Hi, David. It’s Chris [builds trust with first names and a friendly tone]. Thanks for the question. I think [demonstrates conversational style and humility with hedging language] when we talk about value, it’s important that we we really break it down and and get very specific about the different consumer segments. And I’ll start with, our most loyal consumers, and these are the ones who are on our loyalty program [previews content].
Roughly a quarter of our business in The US is on our loyalty program [frames the response and emphasizes return business]. And what we see is if you [conversational style] are a loyalty member at McDonald’s, we have we have exceptional value and affordability scores amongst those consumers. And probably that’s most evidenced by what I shared in in the prepared remarks, which is the uptick that you see in terms of frequency when we have a loyal consumer in our loyalty program going from 10 roughly 10 visits to 26 visits. So I think [again] with our loyalty members, our most ardent McDonald’s customers, we’re in a really good position as it relates to value [reinforces “value” throughout] and affordability perception. If you move then to the McValue program, McValue is working.
And if you think about what we have with McValue, we have the $5 meal deal, which is the anchor for that. That continues to perform very well for us. And then we also have the buy one, add one for a dollar program. What’s interesting is [highlights what’s important] those two programs are very complementary. If you look at consumers who are using both, it’s only about 8% or so who are actually using both.
So they’re going after two very different occasions, two very different users, but compelling to both. So I feel good about the loyalty program. I feel good [uses anaphora to emphasize his confidence] about where we are with McValue. But the issue or the opportunity is if you add those two up, that’s, call it, roughly 50% of the business. And we know there’s the other 50% that today isn’t coming into our restaurant, isn’t using McValue, isn’t using the loyalty program [anaphora again], and that’s where we have the opportunity, which is around core menu pricing that we talked about in our prepared remarks [transitions to an “opportunity”—is more direct in the next section].
Today, too often, if you’re that consumer, you’re driving up to the restaurant and you’re seeing combo meals could be priced over $10 and that absolutely is shaping value perceptions and is shaping value perceptions in a negative way. So we’ve got to get that fixed [addresses concern directly]. As I mentioned in my remarks, we’re having, I think [again], very active and productive conversations with the franchisees. But the single biggest driver of what shapes a consumer’s overall perception of McDonald’s value is the menu board. And it’s when they drive up to the restaurant and they see the menu board, that’s what’s shaping the that’s the number one driver. [Could be clearer, but the gist is that the low-priced meals are good sellers, but pricier menu items negatively affect consumer perception.]
So we’ve got more work to do on that in The US. I’d say on the IOM [international operational markets—insider abbreviations for the audience] side of the business, we’re in a better position on that. Part of it is, as I mentioned in in the remarks [Fourth time he refers to the remarks—could demonstrate consistency/integrity] as well, we have a really strong EDAP program in all of our markets. So these are essentially $1 $2.03 dollars $4 euro pound whatever the currency is. But that is proving to be a very strong addition to the value programs in the IOM market.
And then also, as I mentioned, our operators there have been very prudent and I think [again] are doing the right things to make sure that our core menu pricing continues to be at leadership levels in the market. I would just note [tentative language], also on our international side, it’s not as competitive a market as it is in The U. S. There’s a lot of different players in The U. S.
We don’t face the same breadth of those players or competitors in our international markets. And so I think it’s a little bit easier for us to stand out and represent good value in international.
Passive Investing in Charts
Simple charts illustrate passive and active investing. A new documentary, “Tune Out the Noise,” which The Wall Street Journal calls “a nerdy and genuinely engrossing documentary about investment strategy,” might interest finance and other business students.
These two charts show the total net assets and the net asset flows of active and passive investments over time. The area chart is a useful way to illustrate the percentage of total assets, while the line chart illustrates dollar value over time, clearly showing a shift beginning around 2005.
This might be an opportunity to explain the difference between active investing (trying to outperform the market, which may involve frequent moves and higher costs) and passive investing (buying and holding stocks for the long term, often in index funds with lower fees). A WSJ article raises questions of humility for active investing:
Picking stocks is at heart an arrogant act.
It requires in the stock picker a confidence that most others are dunces, and that riches await those with better information and sharper instincts.
A class activity or assignment could ask students to research and create visuals for active and passive investments over time. Results seem to vary by asset class. For example, a recent Morningstar analysis found higher long-term success rates of active investing in real estate, bonds, and small-cap equities, and the lowest rates in U.S. large-cap equities.
Grammy CEO Models Crisis Recovery
Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. delivered a surprising speech during the 2025 Grammy Awards, directly addressing criticism of the awards and explaining actions taken.
He described the situation when he became CEO in 2020. He said some artists were “pretty vocal in their complaints” and described reading about the Weeknd’s boycott in the newspaper. This approach gives us a window into the personal impact and might engender compassion:
I remember waking up to the headlines that the Weeknd called out the Academy for lack of transparency in our awards. He went so far as to announce he was boycotting the Grammys. That made for some interesting reading over breakfast. But you know what? Criticism is, okay. I heard him. I felt his conviction.
Next, Mason described the Recording Academy’s “transformation,” including new initiatives and a more diverse voting body. As he ends this segment, he promises, “I firmly believe we’re on the right path,” but he says there’s still work to do.
Finally, he transitions to introduce the Weeknd!
As we've seen tonight, music is a powerful force for good. It heals us, it unites us, and we need that in this city right now. With that in mind, on a truly special night, what better way to bring us together than this next artist? Someone who has seen the work the Academy has put in. I'm so honored to leave you with a sentence that I wasn't sure would ever be said on the Grammy stage again. My friends, my fellow music makers, please join me in welcoming back none other than four-time Grammy-winning artist and global superstar, The Weeknd.
This is a preventable (not victim or accidental) crisis situation, so the Academy had to take responsibility and do better. In their book, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs might call this an “extreme crisis,” which requires more significant actions in response. Mason described them well, and his delivery is appropriate for the awards ceremony: scripted but conversational. This is a good example for students to analyze.
Reflections on Copyediting
I’m reviewing suggestions from a copyeditor on my new book (Recovery at Work: Using Twelve Step Principles for Professional Success—more about that later!) and have a few observations about the editing/proofreading process:
Editing is not proofreading. We teach students the difference, and this should be clear in the Business Communication and Character text. Still, what is called copyediting, at times, seems to include only proofreading. Not that proofreading isn’t important! But I’ve had to change my expectations about the type of assistance I’ll get during the copyediting process.
Editions change. The copyeditor for my book suggested I hyphenate email and coworker, which the Chicago Manual of Style stopped suggesting with the 17th edition back in 2017. Guidance for formatting references changed since then too.
Copyeditors can be wrong. In addition to the edition confusion, the copyeditor has different ideas about punctuation. Here are three “corrections”:
Do we “walk the talk” and “practice what we preach?"
What starts small, affects people in future generations.
If this is your introduction to Twelve-Step programs, you’ll see how they have helped millions of people not only get and stay sober but live more peaceful, productive lives.
The first two errors are obvious to business communication faculty. The third could be debatable but not if we follow CMOS guidance (see examples of “graduate student housing” and “high school diploma”). Misreading as 12 step programs is unlikely. I also chose to capitalize and spell out Twelve Step to follow program convention.
I have work to do. My annoyance and impatience about the copyediting process remind me to continue working on my humility and perfectionism. The copyeditor is an imperfect human just like me. A friend and colleague suggested I recognize that errors are likely in printed books. I’m trying to accept that.
VP Harris Gives Presentation Advice
I’m looking for neutral (non-political) communications related to the U.S. presidential election and believe this fits. VP Kamala Harris offers young people advice about delivering a presentation.
In the video, VP Harris suggests, “It’s not about you.” Then she offers an analogy to the Titanic: If you’re the only one who knows the ship is sinking, you’re not going to worry about “how you look and how you sound.” It’s most important that people “know what you know.”
Clearly, she’s focusing on content, and I like the approach for these young people, who are typically self-obsessed. VP Harris is also offering a lesson in humility. (By the way, the girls are adorable in how they respond to her asking whether they learned about the Titanic. They launch into whether they saw the movie or it was their favorite—as though the Titanic is just a movie.)
Students could watch this clip and offer their own advice or analogies for young people to improve their public speaking. They also can use the tool I created, How To Feel Confident for a Presentation and Manage Speech Anxiety, to identify strategies to use before, during, and after a presentation.
Boeing CEO's Rough Senate Hearing and Safety Plan
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun faced lawmakers during the senate committee hearing bluntly titled, “Boeing’s Broken Safety Culture.” The investigation offers lessons in answering difficult questions and demonstrating compassion, humility, integrity, and accountability. In addition, students can see a sample report: “Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan.”
Taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s impromptu facing of families during the senate hearing about social media harm, Calhoun began his opening statement by turning around and addressing families who lost people in Boeing plane crashes dating back to 2018. Like Zuckerberg, who was prompted by Senator Hawley, Calhoun had little choice. He was in room full of people holding photos of lost loved ones, with several shouting as we see and hear cameras flash. The pain is palpable, and Calhoun is visibly shaken, playing with his glasses, until the hearing is called into session.
Senator Richard Blumenthal begins by acknowledging families and asking them, by name, to stand with their photographs. He also acknowledges the family of the Boeing whistleblower who died by suicide. I cried. I believe we’re seeing a more compassionate approach to these hearings, keeping the focus on the impact of wrongdoing and on the responsibilities of our corporate and political leaders. But I wonder whether the face-the-victims’-families apology will become routine in these types of hearings and at what point—maybe already—it feels perfunctory.
Blumenthal had harsh words for Boeing, saying the “once iconic” company has “lost its way,” having put “stock price over people.” He said he’s pursuing prosecution and that Calhoun hasn’t kept the company’s promises. Predictable questions were about Calhoun’s salary and his decision not to resign. Throughout the hearing, Calhoun tried his best to convince lawmakers (and families, investors, airlines, and passengers) that they are making changes. Lawmakers didn’t seem to buy it.
Character was on display throughout the hearing. For example, demonstrating an issue with integrity, or inconsistency, at around 26:00, Blumenthal challenged Boeing’s nonretaliation policy with recent charges of threats and harassment against several whistleblowers. Calhoun said that he listens to people and that “something went wrong” [in these cases]. Without specific action on specific cases, his response sounded hollow. The follow-up question about firings based on retaliation elicits no specific information. Calhoun might have prepared this information, knowing it would be a major line of questioning.
Blumenthal’s criticism of Boeing’s data submission and Calhoun’s response, starting around 30:30, are worth watching. He asks whether Calhoun can make sense of the information—a page without any formatting—and he says, “No, sir,” and agrees when the senator says, “complete gobbledygook.” It’s shocking that Calhoun didn’t review what was sent. At first, he said not “line by line,” but it wasn’t clear he reviewed any of the documentation. One explanation is the stress and challenge of preparing for such a hearing, and I acknowledge that. But business communicators, both those preparing the documents and those standing up for them, can do better.
Bumble Apologizes for Celibacy Joke
Dating app Bumble apologized for ads that offended women. Students can assess the company’s response against principles for apologies.
In addition to the billboard shown here, an ad tells women, “Thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.” Women are not amused, with some feeling as though their choice of celibacy is being mocked and their autonomy questioned. Others question why the ad targets women’s behavior and not men’s.
Bumble responded on Instagram (text below). The company hits several of the marks for an effective apology identified in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character, 11e. Although they didn’t explicitly write, “We’re sorry,” they take responsibility upfront (“We made a mistake”). They also identified what they did wrong in the first paragraph and humbly list the reactions—how people were affected—in the second paragraph. Pulling the ads is the only rational thing to do.
For me, the donation seems patronizing and trivial, particularly without knowing whether the amount is significant and without evidence of a previous relationship with the organization. Offering the billboard space is at least relevant to the situation.
Students might speculate on how this happened. Did an external ad agency get carried away? If so, Bumble, appropriately, doesn’t blame them. Did they fail to test the ads with focus groups? We may never know, but Bumble seems to have learned the lesson and, overall, responded well.
TO OUR BELOVED BUMBLE COMMUNITY:
We made a mistake. Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite.
Some of the perspectives we heard were: from those who shared that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted; from others for whom celibacy is a choice, one that we respect; and from the asexual community, for whom celibacy can have a particular meaning and importance, which should not be diminished. We are also aware that for many, celibacy may be brought on by harm or trauma.
For years, Bumble has passionately stood up for women and marginalized communities, and their right to fully exercise personal choice. We didn't live up to these values with this campaign and we apologize for the harm it caused.
So, here's what we're doing:
We're removing these ads from our global marketing campaign. Bumble will be making a donation to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, among other organizations, as a part of our ongoing efforts to support the work being done around the world to support women, marginalized communities, and those impacted by abuse.
We will also be offering these partners this billboard space to display an ad of their choice for the duration of our reserved billboard time.
Please keep speaking up and telling us how we can be better. We care about you and will always be here for you.
With love and sincere appreciation,
Bumble
VW's “Neutral” Response to Union
Volkswagen’s communication is another example of the changing tide in favor of unions. Students can compare messages from companies during and after unionization efforts.
The positive vote at the Chattanooga, TN, plant is significant because it’s the first union in an international automaker located in the South. Twice since 2010, when the plant opened, employees voted against the United Auto Workers (UAW), but this time the vote was overwhelmingly positive.
Management’s “neutral” stance is also significant. A CNN article explains:
The company said it is neutral in the election, only urging workers to vote however they want. That’s relatively rare in union representation elections, where management often lobbies workers to vote no at mandatory meetings, and sometimes takes action against union organizers. Even union supporters acknowledge that hasn’t happened in this case, however.
The company’s statement about the vote wasn’t exactly steeped in humility, as we saw in the Costco response earlier this year. But management isn’t antagonistic either; when a decision is clear, they might as well accept it. The statement is short, simply reporting the vote and closing with, “Volkswagen thanks its Chattanooga workers for voting in this election.”
Cultural differences may be at play. About half of German workers belong to unions, and trust in unions is twice as high in Germany as it is in the United States (see JEP_German_Model_of_Industrial_Relations_Primer.pdf). Whatever the reasons, the UAW is emboldened to pursue more unions as planned.
Does a Brand Have a Soul? Does Starbucks?
Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz wrote a letter to Board about preserving the “soul” of the brand. Students can analyze his letter and discuss whether a company or a brand has a soul. Does Starbucks?
The context of Starbucks’ unionization efforts likely drove Schultz’s thinking. (All three Starbucks in Ithaca, NY, have come and gone because of unionization efforts, the company’s response, and local backlash. Costco may be a better role model for accepting and negotiating with unions. A useful project for students would be to analyze the effects of unions in the past several decades.)
Schultz writes that this definition of soul is from Webster, but it doesn’t match what I see in the dictionary listing, which is worth comparing. Here’s his list:
a) the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b) the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c) spiritual or moral force
Schultz then writes, “Webster did not anticipate the necessity to define soul in business terms for the very reason I am addressing it. It rarely exists, and it’s almost impossible to define.” Or, perhaps a business or brand cannot have a soul. Perhaps his view is an overreach, reflecting the exact arrogance for which Starbucks is criticized. After all, the company sells coffee. This is a cynical view, and students may believe, or feel, otherwise.
Also worth analyzing is the purpose of the letter. What are Schultz’s communication objectives? In addition to the Board audience, he forwarded the letter in an email to those of us on his former Schultz-for-president distribution list. After reading the letter, will the Board feel inspired, and if so, to do what, exactly?
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
Niecy Nash Thanks Herself in an Emotional Speech
The Emmy award audience and viewers love watching emotional speeches. Niecy Nash thanked herself in her acceptance speech, which students can analyze, given the context.
Nominated for five Emmys for her work in 2023, Nash won for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie for Dahmer—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. When we assess character, particularly an aspect of character like humility, we consider the entire context. Nash is crying as she begins her speech, saying, “I’m a winner, baby!” She was nominated for several Emmy awards over the years and won the last one in 2010. It’s been a while.
During her interview with Gayle King and Charles Barkley on CBS, she got emotional describing the work it took for her to be successful and how she felt proud of herself. Her difficulty is clear from her speech, too, when she thanks her “better half, who picked me up when I was gutted from this work. Thank you.” Then she says, “And you know who else I want to thank? I want to thank me.” She describes believing in herself and closes by acknowledging Black and brown women who went “unheard but over policed.” She mentions a few by name.
The context of her speech also is the historic underrepresentation of women of color in film, in TV, and as entertainment award winners. Humility can be defined as being neither below or above others. Nash expresses gratitude for being at a high competitive level and for being rewarded as she deserves to be. From another actor, the speech could certainly sound arrogant. But hers is taken well, and we see the audience enthusiastically applauding her.
Costco Accepts the Union with Humility
In a great display of humility, Costco management wrote to employees about the new union—a good, positive message to share with students. The CEO and president co-signed the letter to acknowledge the union and reinforce their values, which, they admit, may not have been upheld:
[W]e’re disappointed in ourselves as managers and leaders. The fact that the majority of Norfolk employees felt that they wanted or needed a union constitutes a failure on our part.
The Costco leaders made a good choice if for no other reason that the vote is done, so they might as well accept it. Also, they’re right about the reason for all union activity: employees aren’t getting what they want or need from management and seek outside help.
But few leaders admit this. Starbucks and Amazon, in particular, fought union activity to the extent that the National Labor Relations Board accused Starbucks of interfering with employees’ rights and Amazon of not bargaining in good faith.
Microsoft hasn’t been entirely antagonistic against union activity. After acquiring Activision Blizzard last year, it entered into a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America. This meant that employees were free to choose a union without management’s interference (although that is the law). Employees did vote for the union, Microsoft’s first in the United States, and a spokesperson commented:
In light of the results of the recent unionization vote, we recognize the Communications Workers of America (CWA) as the bargaining representative for the Quality Assurance employees at ZeniMax. We look forward to engaging in good-faith negotiations as we work towards a collective bargaining agreement.
A tech writer made a good point about who defines “good faith.” In response to a similar (but more defensive) Apple statement about its union, he wrote:
To some extent, it could be said that Apple now has a spotlight on its actions at the negotiations—whether it meets the union on the union’s definition of good faith negotiations, or whether it continues to stand on its own record of positive remuneration in spite of the union’s negotiating position.
We’ll see more company responses as union activity gains speed for the first time in decades, particularly in tech and retail industries.
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 impressed 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.
Musk Apologizes and Curses Advertisers
After losing major advertisers on X, Elon Musk illustrates communication lessons about apologies and rebuilding image. At least two parts of an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin are worthy of class discussion.
Starting Around 8:15
The first relates to Musk’s agreement with an X post about a antisemitic conspiracy theory. Musk tried to backtrack by posting explanations, which he said were “ignored by the media. And essentially, I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me and to those who are antisemitic, and for that I am quite sorry.” Entwined in his apology is Musk as victim, which typically doesn’t play well in rebuilding image. Apologies focus on those affected—not the actor.
Another good lesson for business communication students is Musk’s regret. He said he “should not have replied to that particular person, and I should have written in greater length as to what I meant.” A leader should know that even liking a post, no less writing, “You have said the actual truth,” carries tremendous weight. Perhaps X, with its entire founding based on short posts, is not the best medium to discuss theories of race. [Side note: Musk clarified during the interview that “tweets” were more appropriate when Twitter allowed only 140 characters. He prefers “posts” now.]
Musk visited Israel, a trip he said was planned before the X post incident. Still, the visit looked like, as Sorkin said, “an apology tour.” Musk denied the accusation, repeating the phrase “apology tour,” despite what crisis communicators might advise. Musk posted, “Actions speak louder than words." Yes, they do, so the post itself is odd. People can draw their own conclusions about his visit to Israel. The Washington Post reported that few advertisers have been positively moved by his visit.
Starting Around 11:15
When Sorkin started speaking about advertisers, Musk interrupted to say, “I hope they stop [advertising].” Understandably, Sorkin looked confused, but Musk continued, “Don’t advertise. . . . If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f—- yourself.” Sorkin was speechless at this point, and Musk repeated the command and asked, “Is that clear? I hope that it is.” We hear titters in the audience, a mix of shock and embarrassment.
Where’s the line between confidence and arrogance? Students certainly will have opinions on that topic. In fairness, Musk gets quite philosophical later in the interview. He comes across as authentic and somewhat vulnerable, revealing his personal struggles as well as his commitment to the environment and his business plans. He also expressed disappointment about OpenAI, having named the platform, which he said “should be renamed super-closed source for maximum profit AI.” That got a genuine laugh.
FDIC's "Toxic Workplace" and an Activity
As Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg faces pressure to resign, students can explore what a “toxic workplace” looks like. Without getting too detailed, they could describe their own experiences—when they have felt uncomfortable during jobs and internships.
In my persuasive communication and organizational behavior classes, I used a variation of an activity from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values that could be useful as you discuss the FDIC example. In the FDIC situation, speaking up didn’t make a difference. Still, reflecting on students’ own experience may inspire them to take action and have an impact in the future.
A Wall Street Journal investigation revealed multiple leadership problems dating back to at least 2008 at the FDIC. Complaints went unresolved and sometimes resulted in promotions of those accused. Although Black employees won a $15 million class action suit in 2000, discrimination complaints continued. Workers claim that sexual harassment and bullying is part of the culture.
FDIC leadership is taking no accountability and saying little in response to the published investigation. An official told the WSJ that the agency "has no higher priority than to ensure that all FDIC employees work in a safe environment where they feel valued and respected. Sexual harassment or discriminatory behavior is completely unacceptable. We take these allegations very seriously." Students will recognize this as meaningless boilerplate. Because the story is so visible and the reporting is so clear, the agency is better off demonstrating humility—recognizing failures and, if nothing specific at this point, at least describing plans for corrective action.
Taking Action
For this activity, you’ll compare two examples from your work or other experience.[1] The purpose of this exercise is to see how you have taken action in a situation that conflicted with your values. Then, you will analyze a time when you didn’t take action to see how you could have handled the situation differently.
Individual Planning Questions
First, think of a time when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values, and you spoke up or acted in some way to address the situation.
Briefly describe the context.
What inspired you to do something?
What did you do and how did it impact others?
What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?
In retrospect, how did you do? You don’t need to be too self-critical, but think about what would have been ideal in the situation.
Next, think of another situation in which you did not speak up or act when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values or ethics.
Briefly describe the context.
What prevented you from speaking up? What would have motivated you to take action?
What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?
In retrospect, what could you have done differently?
Partner Feedback
If you can work with a partner, discuss your responses and learn from each experience.
When talking about your own situation, you don’t need to defend your actions or be too critical. When you listen to your partner’s situation, you can ask clarifying questions or share similar experiences, but try not to judge the decision. Like you, your partner may be sensitive about actions taken or not taken.
At the end of your conversation, summarize the main learning points. What would you like to do more of in the future to develop leadership character?
[1] This activity is adapted from Mary Gentile, Giving Voice to Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 51–53.
Emotions Drove a Football Manager's Comments
A football writer offers a lesson for all business communicators: “Maybe managers shouldn’t give interviews straight after games.” Similar to other business situations, emotions run high, and people need to take a beat before they speak or write. Student athletes and fans will be particularly interested in this story, but the example is for anyone who reacts before thinking through the consequences.
Arsenal Football Club (soccer to Americans) manager Mikel Arteta took an interview after a disappointing game. He disputed a goal call:
We have to talk about the result because you have to talk about how the hell this goal stands up and it’s incredible. I feel embarrassed, but I have to be the one now come here to try to defend the club and please ask for help, because it’s an absolute disgrace that this goal is allowed. . . .It’s an absolute disgrace. Again, I feel embarrassed having more than 20 years in this country, and this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world. I am sorry.
Critics called Arteta’s reaction “disproportionate.” Such language as “how the hell” and “absolute disgrace” reflect a far greater injustice. I’ll leave the analysis to sports enthusiasts, but it seems like a questionable call—not an outrage.
The trouble worsens when the Arsenal Football Club defends Arteta in a statement, which included unequivocal support: “Arsenal Football Club wholeheartedly supports Mikel Arteta’s post-match comments.” The Athletic describes what business communication faculty would conclude, comparing the response to a crisis situation:
But for a football club to release an “official statement,” once upon a time the sort of thing reserved for managerial dismissals and so forth, about a marginal refereeing decision they disagree with, is extraordinary.
Over-reactions are difficult to withdraw. Arsenal supported the manager, which generally is a good corporate practice, but doubling-down on exaggeration makes management look defensive and lacking humility, as if they know a wrong was committed but are stuck.
Of course, a better approach for Arteta is to have waited a bit, as the writer suggests. It’s the same for business communicators. Write an email while angry but don’t send it until a day or so later. During a difficult interaction, pause and step away if you need to. Most often, an immediate response, as this situation shows, isn’t needed.