Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide
In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.
Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.
The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.
Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.
The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.
But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.
We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.
April 30, 2023
The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.
As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.
Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.
In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.
In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.
Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.
Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:
Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.
Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.
Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.
Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.
Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.
Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.
There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.
Tense NBA Player Interview About "Failure"
A reporter asked NBA Milwaukee Bucks pro Giannis Antetokounmpo whether he considers the season a “failure,” and his response offers lessons for business presentations. First, Antetokounmpo said the reporter asked the same “odd question” the previous year. He pushed back, asking the reporter whether he gets a promotion every year and drawing an analogy to Michael Jordan’s success: “Michael Jordan played 15 years, won six championships. The other nine years was a failure?” Antetokounmpo put the losses in greater context, as crisis communicators do.
Reactions to his response are generally positive, and some are debating whether the question, also asked of another player, was “fair.” Generally, public reaction approved of the question, although some viewed it as “unprofessional” or a “gotcha.” This raises a good discussion topic for class: what is an “unfair” question?
Students might think about questions for business presentations. What questions do they consider out of bounds for their own topics, and what would they avoid asking of others? At the same time, how can they prepare for the inevitable “unfair” question? For bad-news presentations, I have planted and encouraged a few from class. Although difficult to address, students gained confidence with more practice.
Antetokounmpo’s response is also emotional, and students will have opinions on what’s “appropriate” for business presentations. When I Googled to find his interview, this video appeared from 2019, titled, “Giannis Antetokounmpo EMOTIONAL SPEECH.”
Fox News Takes Little Responsibility in Settlement Statement
Before the trial began, Fox News settled the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit and published the vaguest possible statement, below. In few words, the company made no apology and took little responsibility for making false statements about Dominion’s role in rigging machines during the 2020 election.
The settlement doesn’t require an apology or admission of making false claims, but a PBS NewsHour reporter said that the settlement amount, $787.5 million, might convey both. A large sum for a defamation case, the amount is just under half the ask, presumably so Fox can report that the company settled for “less than half.”
Fox’s statement refers to “this dispute with Dominion,” as if the two companies simply disagreed, and Fox wasn’t the one sued. The company also emphasizes the public value of the settlement: “instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, [it] allows the country to move forward from these issues.” Maybe, but companies settle lawsuits for one primary reason: they believe they will lose.
By this evening, the Fox News website showed no sign of the decision—only the stories shown here. One short news story focused on the agreement and the judge’s positive comments about the attorneys. I found a statement at the bottom of the website under links for About, Media Relations, Press Releases. Overall, the company scarcely demonstrates accountability and humility—or learning from its mistakes. One interpretation of its “continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards” is that nothing will change.
Students might be interested in this story and can discuss whether Fox should have done anything differently from an ethical perspective or, perhaps, from a PR perspective.
Although far from perfect, one comparison is McKinsey’s statement about its involvement with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis.
NEW YORK – April 18, 2023 — FOX News Media announced today that a settlement was reached in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit.
In making the announcement, the network said, “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”
FOX News Media operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX News Audio, FOX News Books, the direct-to-consumer streaming services FOX Nation and FOX News International and the free ad-supported television service FOX Weather. Currently the number one network in all of cable, FNC has also been the most watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, while FBN ranks among the top business channels on cable. Owned by Fox Corporation, FOX News Media reaches nearly 200 million people each month.
###
Avoiding Email Scams: Amazon's Message
Although not traditionally part of business communication courses, I wonder whether faculty should help students identify scams. This past week, I received a message impersonating the president of our professional organization, the Association for Business Communication. The writer said she didn’t have WiFi access and asked me to pay a bill via Zelle. I’m the Finance Committee chair, but still, this made no sense, so I ignored it and let her know someone is using her name.
Also this week, a friend got roped into a fake call from her insurance company. The “agent” got personal with her, saying she was distressed and needed funds to pay rent in the Philippines. My friend was ready to send her cash, but the scammer insisted on a bank transfer, and then, fortunately, she refused.
Amazon sent an email including suggestions, shown here, specific to Amazon orders. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has a webpage, “How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams,” with examples of what scammers do, ways to avoid getting these messages, and what to do if you receive one—or respond to one. This is useful information to know.
New Conventions for Layoff Messages
Guidelines for communicating layoffs are shifting, which may have implications for other bad-news messages. A Wall Street Journal article discusses which day of the week (now Wednesday instead of Friday), how deep to cut, how much severance to offer, and how to decide who goes.
The most obvious shift is away from the business communication wisdom of delivering bad news in person. Why call remote workers into the office only to fire them?
We could say the same for other types of bad news: cutting bonuses or benefits, giving a “below-expectations” performance review, or ending a project. Maybe the best wisdom is to follow communication norms. If a weekly one-on-one meeting is in person, then that would be an appropriate place and time to talk about negative customer feedback. The medium might raise bigger questions about typical communications. If the most typical communication is by text, then, maybe a text is best, but why is that the most typical way of communicating?
Of course, timing is an issue, so these regularly scheduled meetings might not be ideal. Then, what’s the secondary way to communicate? By phone? By email? The decision also depends on the severity of the news—a career-ended change or a minor setback? The guiding principle in articles seems to be that employees could complain publicly; perhaps a better guide is compassion—being humane and prioritizing employees’ feelings over our own reluctance to give bad news.
Back in 2015, in the 9th edition of Business Communication, I softened the “indirect style” recommendation for bad-news messages—adding a “buffer” and giving reasons before the main point. Research hasn’t supported this organizational strategy, and corporate messages that follow this “soften-the-blow” approach are ridiculed. Employees typically know when bad news is coming—or they should if managers have been doing their job.
In the past, faculty spent too much time worrying about sequence within a message; this is a non-issue in articles about layoff messages like the Wall Street Journal’s. Companies need to worry more about the sequence and timing of multiple messages, which are often posted online because they wind up there anyway. No spoiler alert, but Episode 3 of Succession on HBO, Season 3, is an interesting example.
Another "I Wish You Well" Moment
Gwyneth Paltrow ended her headline-grabbing lawsuit with a whisper: “I wish you well.” Paltrow was sued by a retired optometrist for crashing into him on a ski slope. She defended herself, saying, “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity.”
After the quick verdict in her favor, Paltrow leaned in and said quietly to her accuser: “I wish you well.” He responded, “Thank you, dear.”
I’ve been curious about this expression, which former President Trump said of Jeffrey Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump defended his statement: “I'm not looking for anything bad for her. . . . I wish a lot of people well.” In other words, it’s just a nice thing to say.
But a Guardian article refers to Paltrow’s words as a “memorable kiss-off.” Urban Dictionary explains, “This is what privileged people say when they want you to forget you knew them. ‘I am sorry I have not responded. I have been very busy. I wish you well.’” A Quora user writes, “I use it only with people I never want to communicate with again. It's a hope they change, but I'm not going to stick around for it. It's a nice way of saying, ‘F#%# off.’”
Of course, tone and context matter. We don’t hear Paltrow’s voice, and the exchange is so short. Regardless, her accuser took it positively, as he described the exchange to reporters: “She said, ‘I wish you well.’” Then he said, “Very kind of her.”
We may never know whether she meant it a sincere wish for well-being. We do know that Paltrow was an actress before she started making Goop.
If you have nothing better to do today, you can read “The 9 Most Bizarre Moments” of the trial from The Hollywood Reporter.
"Love Letters" to Home Sellers Are Out
Letters to home sellers illustrate problems with bias and insincere persuasive communication. Home buyers try to increase their chances of landing a house by writing letters to sellers, but they cause problems. These persuasive communications seemed like a good idea in a tight housing market. In addition to offering a high price, often above asking, buyers would make emotional appeals, for example, by telling sellers about themselves, how much they loved the house, and how they would care for it.
These letters teach lessons about communication ethics, particularly integrity. One buyer lied by omission, failing to mention a pending divorce that would change the buyer’s ability to get a mortgage. Other problems include revealing race, religion, and other facts that a seller can use—consciously or unconsciously—to discriminate against a buyer, which violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act.
This “Barbie House” letter, written to sellers of a pink house, may have landed the deal (although the buyers also offered $25,000, so who knows). Maybe not in this case, but in others, letters appeal so much to emotions that vulnerable sellers are duped into taking lower offers.
The California Association of Realtors has since published these guidelines for letters, which discourage them entirely.
Four Charts About SVB Don't Tell the Whole Story
WSJ visuals illustrate the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and how four chart types are used for different purposes.
The first is this bubble chart comparing SVB to the next largest bank implosion since 2001: Washington Mutual Bank. The chart—and the article title, “Here is what the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history looks like in graphics”—might exaggerate the issue. Yes, the data and title are accurate, but SVB’s customer base was limited to “a very exclusive group of companies: tech startups and venture-backed health care companies,” as my friends at The Strebel Planning Group explain well. In other words, large, more diversified, and more cautious banks are not likely to fail, despite dramatic headlines.
The second visual, a bar chart (technically a column chart because the bars are vertical), effectively shows when inflows of money turned to outflows. The purple shows the steep, immediate decline, ending in $42 billion—hence, the “run on the bank” that SVB couldn’t cover.
The third graphic is a 2D, stacked area chart, which is used to show the magnitude of a change, something the WSJ clearly wants to emphasize. Again, the chart looks bad, and it is, but a joint statement by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC promised to cover all loses, even those not covered by FDIC insurance.
With a simple line chart, the last graphic (not shown here) illustrates how much SVB depended on bonds, which have lost value over time. The chart type is a good choice for showing a change, including a steep incline in 2021.
All these charts illustrate different types well but, at-a-glance, don’t tell the full story. Perhaps one or two more visuals that puts SVB in greater context of other banks would give a more complete picture of the banking industry’s potential exposure. This could ease public concern and maintain confidence in the system.
Salesforce CEO Addresses McConaughey Controversy
The Salesforce CEO responded to criticism about paying actor Matthew McConaughey (“a friend,” according to a WSJ report) more than $10 million while laying off 8,000 employees. In a video interview, Marc Benioff uses persuasive strategies to convince the audience that this is appropriate and not an ethical issue or, as the Barron’s interviewer asks, “Is that fair?”
Benioff started with a joke, which is surprising considering the situation. He interrupts the interviewer to say, “alright, alright, alright,” a classic line from McConaughey’s 1993 movie Dazed and Confused. By not taking the issue seriously, Benioff might have reduced his credibility.
But Benioff then used an effective crisis communication strategy of distancing the current time: “Years ago, we signed a contract with Matthew . . . ” A better choice might have been to avoid using only his first name, which stresses his personal relationship. But the time period does separate the decision from the recent cost-cutting.
Directly addressing the question, Benioff said, “Putting those two things together, I don’t think is fair,” and “it’s not related to our layoffs.” Another strategy Benioff used was providing context. First, he explained that the company ramped up and then faced currency and inflation issues that required reductions. Next, he said, “Do we have to take an employment action [layoffs]? Well, I think every company is.” Acting in line with other companies makes the layoffs sound reasonable—even necessary—without requiring other cuts, such as marketing.
Of course, Benioff doesn’t address the possibility of cancelling McConaughey’s contract, and he doesn’t provide evidence of McConaughey’s “great work” that would warrant maintaining the expense. But overall, Benioff does a good job pushing back on the criticism.
Lesson Learned: Don't Use AI in Sensitive Situations
The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, used ChatGPT to generate an email about the Michigan State campus shooting, and it wasn’t received well. This story illustrates issues of accountability (administrators taking responsibility), but failing compassion in a time of tragedy and failing integrity (consistency).
The email referred to “shootings,” which is not accurate. Otherwise, it sounds like boilerplate, but not that much different from typical emails a campus community receives in these types of situations. Compare that email to one sent from the vice provost and dean of students, which sounds more emotional but is still common.
Perhaps the only giveaway was a line at the bottom:
(“Paraphrase from OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI language model, personal communication, February 15, 2023.”)
On the one hand, I admire the writers’ honesty, doing what faculty are increasingly asking students to do: to identify whether and how they use AI for their writing. But of course, the choice reflects poor judgment.
Student backlash was swift and fierce. Using words like “disgusting” and “sick and twisted,” students called on administrators to “Do more. Do anything. And lead us into a better future with genuine, human empathy, not a robot.” A senior said, “Would they do this also for the death of a student, faculty, or staff member? Automating messages on grief and crisis is the most on-the-nose, explicit recognition that we as students are more customers than a community to the Vanderbilt administration. The fact it’s from the office of EDI might be the cherry on top.”
University officials responded quickly. In a follow-up email to students, an EDI dean wrote, “While we believe in the message of inclusivity expressed in the email, using ChatGPT to generate communications on behalf of our community in a time of sorrow and in response to a tragedy contradicts the values that characterize Peabody College. As with all new technologies that affect higher education, this moment gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what we know and what we still must learn about AI.” Could ChatGPT have written that too?
This is a precarious time for universities, as faculty grapple with how to use AI tools and what policies best serve students and academic goals. Using AI as a starting point for such a sensitive message may never be acceptable, and it’s certainly too soon now. Faculty will have a difficult time enforcing AI policies if they use tools in ways that contradict the spirit of their own guidelines.
Do Better than “CFBR” for Social Support
A WSJ article describes the increased use of “CFBR,” meaning commenting for better reach, a way to elevate a social media post. A popular way of giving laid-off employees more visibility during their job search, the approach raises questions of authenticity and true compassion.
Hootsuite’s definition makes it sound careless:
CFBR, or Commenting For Better Reach, is a popular comment used on platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook.
Since most social media algorithms favor content with high engagement, “commenting for better reach” is a way to offer an organic boost to a post you think should have more exposure. When you comment on someone else’s post, that post is more likely to show up in your followers’ feeds.
This tactic may be effective, but it’s a little spammy. If you want to take a more thoughtful approach, we recommend leaving an authentic comment that engages with the post’s content—or even resharing that post with your followers.
Typing CFBR may be the “Good luck!” of social media posts despite heartache shared in the original post. I wonder how students view and use the comment. Maybe they can find better ways to support their peers.
Google “Word Mangles” Shared Office Space
A message to Google cloud employees illustrates challenges with communicating bad news with integrity. The gist of the message is this: “Most Googlers will now share a desk with one other Googler.” Employees within departments will be organized into “neighborhoods“ and will negotiate their space: “Through the matching process, they will agree on a basic desk setup and establish norms with their desk partner and teams to ensure a positive experience in the new shared environment.”
The announcement would be unwelcome news at any time but has an extra sting after the 11,000 layoffs in January. Employees also expressed frustration with the “corpspeak.” The CNBC article reports one example:
Internally, leadership has given the new seating arrangement a title: ‘Cloud Office Evolution” or “CLOE,” which it describes as “combining the best of pre-pandemic collaboration with the flexibility” from hybrid work.
In one meme, an employee wrote, “Not every cost-cutting measure needs to be word mangled into sounding good for employees. A simple ‘We are cutting office space to reduce costs’ would make leadership sound more believable.”
For students, this example illustrates the value of straight talk and integrity. Particularly when the business purpose of the decision is obvious, transparency is a better approach for messages that impact people negatively.
Student Handout: Tips for Using ChatGPT
This handout guides students through using ChatGPT responsibly. I take a realistic approach, assuming that students will use the program regardless of our insistence not to.
Revise and use as you wish; you can also download this Word document. I would appreciate knowing what changes you make, so I can consider revisions.
Tips for Using ChatGPT for Your
Business Communication Assignments
Ask ChatGPT for help generating ideas.
If you’re having trouble coming up with or honing an idea for a writing assignment or presentation, ask ChatGPT. The program can help you move past writer’s block, clarify your thinking, and narrow down a topic. Practice asking follow-up questions until you get better responses.
Think of ChatGPT as a writing partner.
Imagine that the program is a tutor or writing center consultant, who would ask you questions and give you ideas and feedback—not write for you. Use ChatGPT as part of an iterative thinking process.
Use your natural, authentic voice.
ChatGPT is a robot and sounds like one. You’re taking this class to find your own personal writing and speaking style. If ChatGPT writes for you, you’re missing the opportunity to convey your personality. What differentiates you at work is your character—who you are as a person. No AI technology can ever match your sense of humor or style.
Adapt writing to your audience.
Every assignment in this class has a defined audience. ChatGPT can’t build a relationship; only you can do that. You’re more likely to inspire or persuade someone when you use your emotional intelligence to understand what moves and motivates someone, and then tailor your writing to that person.
Beware of misinformation.
ChatGPT tends to “hallucinate”—invent information that doesn’t exist, particularly sources like books and journal articles. If you ask the program to provide evidence to support claims, check everything and add sources after 2021, which ChatGPT can’t access. For your own credibility, do your own research.
Learn from ChatGPT’s corrections.
If you ask ChatGPT to correct your grammar, ask it to explain the mistakes it corrected and the grammar rules, so you can learn for the future.
Plan ahead and expect change.
As of now, ChatGPT is often overloaded, so you’ll need to plan ahead if you rely on it. Also, these suggestions are based on ChatGPT as of January 2023. The program will evolve.
Developed by Amy Newman, February 2, 2023. Revise and use as you wish.
Inspired by Lance Cummings, @LanceElyot, “Student Contract for AI Creativity (draft),” Twitter, January 10, 2023.
Greenwashing Gets Sophisticated
Greenwashing—making false or exaggerated claims about sustainability or positive impacts on the environment—is nothing new, but companies may be getting more subtle. A recent CNBC article warns consumers, “For a company to say they’re ‘100% sustainable’ or they’re ‘eco-conscious’ . . . doesn’t mean anything.” Those seem to be obvious empty statements.
But a Euronews article offers six more sophisticated ways companies greenwash. The article gives examples of each, and students can find their own:
Greencrowding: hiding within a group or being the slowest adopter within a group.
Greenlighting: emphasizing a green aspect of the company to detract from negative impacts.
Greenshifting: blaming the customer for environmental problems (example shown here).
Greenlabelling: calling something green or sustainable that isn’t really
Greenrinsing: changing goals before they’re achieved.
Greenhushing: downplaying or hiding green activities to avoid attention.
Both articles suggest investigating companies’ credentials; the CNBC article also suggests looking at metrics and the company’s history. But let’s face it: that requires work. We’re easily swayed by labels and soundbites. Perhaps students can identify what affects their purchase decisions, which of course, is what drives greenwashing in the first place.
George Santos Resume
In case you didn’t see it, here’s the resume of now U.S. Representative George Santos. Although we’ve been hearing for weeks about his fake jobs at Goldman Sachs and Citi and his fake education at Baruch, it’s quite shocking to see it all in print.
Students might enjoy reviewing his resume, finding errors and other ways to improve his employment communication. For example, the summary and list of skills at the top are jargony and sound like boiler plate; I’m surprised to see so little tailoring to a political position. Students will find other issues, for example, unparallel bullets, an odd page break, misaligned spacing, a lower-case i, missing periods, a missing end parenthesis, and acronyms that readers might not know.
Another fun discussion with grammarians in your class: I’ve avoided writing “Santos’s resume” as did The New York Times. The paper titled the article, “The Résumé of George Santos.” I chose the modifier form instead. And I’ve given up on the accent marks in résumé because I rarely see them in business job descriptions.
Steve Jobs Email Blast from the Past
We get a window into executive decision making with Internal Tech Emails. This 2005 thread starts with Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin telling his team that Steve Jobs called, angry about Google “recruiting from the safari team.” Without ever hitting the caps key, Brin described Jobs as “agitated” about at least one potential hire away from Apple. In addition to losing staff, Jobs was concerned about Google developing a search engine to compete with Safari, but Brin assured Jobs that this wasn’t in the works.
The email thread includes other Google execs jumping in to explain that they were, in fact, trying to recruit a high-profile employee from the search team—and that the hire might bring additional employees as well. At some point, an HR leader, Arnnon Geshuri, weighs in: “We are careful to adhere to non-compete agreements if we have established these with any company. However, it is the staffing organization's practice to aggressively pursue leads that come from our employees and bring the best talent onboard.”
But, as the conversation continued (and after few more calls from Jobs), we see the team shift. They agree not to pursue more candidates without pre-approval from Apple if the prized employee came on board.
"Embellishment" vs. Lying
New York Representative-elect George Santos misrepresented himself during his campaign for Congress and is facing calls to resign. The story is relevant for students finding the line between “putting their best self forward” and lying during a job search.
Santos now says, “My sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry.” But his claims are clear fabrications in several cases. What’s interesting about the situation is how easily his claims could be verified. The New York Times simply contacted Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Baruch College, and none could verify his employment and graduation claims.
In his position paper, he claimed to be “a proud American Jew.” He also said he is “half Jewish” and a “Latino Jew” and claimed that he has Holocaust and Ukrainian heritage, which has not been supported. Now he clarifies: "I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background, I said I was Jew-ish.”
Santos also defended himself during an interview. He said, “I didn’t outright lie,” but he did admit that he used “a poor use of words” and included “a little bit of fluff.” He blamed “elitist” outlets like The New York Times for referring to his customer service experience as “odd jobs,” which forced him to inflate his experience.
His justification raises an issue about how students can handle their own vulnerability. Business communication faculty encourage students to explain how their experience relates to a prospective job. Some students downplay their experience, so we ask them to highlight the relevance to an employer. But none of us would encourage students to include experiences they didn’t have.
We’ll see whether his colleagues vote for him to stay or leave.
Justin Bieber and H&M Dispute
Justin Bieber claimed—on Instagram—that H&M created and was selling products without his approval. In addition to the post shown here, he wrote, “The H&M merch they made of me is trash and I didn’t approve it,” and “Don’t buy it.”
H&M pulled the products and explained the decision in a statement: “H&M has followed all proper approval procedures, as we have done in this case, but out of respect for the collaboration and Justin Bieber, we have removed the garments from selling.”
This story raises questions about integrity: what exactly was the process, and was it followed as agreed? I also question Bieber’s medium choice. Why did he make such a public statement? Did he already reach out to H&M privately and not get the response he wanted? We might question both parties’ accountability: how did they agree to resolve differences?
Integrity Issues in Musk and Twitter Comms
Two Elon Musk/Twitter-related gems this week illustrate issues of integrity. I’m posting these in case you’re not entirely bored with Musk news and teach winter classes or are already planning for next semester.
Musk’s Poll: Musk posted a poll asking whether he should “step down as head of Twitter,” and the results are clear. The next day, he blamed bots for the results. Two days later, Musk tweeted, “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job! After that, I will just run the software & servers teams.” We might call this a lack of integrity—both questioning a poll he ostensibly runs and not doing what he says he will do. In addition, Musk still owns the company, so he remains the leader until he sells, and he has no successor, particularly given the recent exodus.
Banned Accounts: Twitter banned @ElonJet, which posted Musk’s use of his private plane. Journalists and others reporting on the account, who say the data is public, had their accounts suspended. One journalist explains that, although his account no longer indicates suspension, he cannot post until he removes offending tweets. Mastodon, a Twitter competitor that’s gaining traction, also had an account suspended and explains how the platform is superior to Twitter’s. The Mastodon message illustrates persuasion—and not-so-subtle sales tactics that would be interesting to explore with students.
ChatGPT Got a D on My Writing Prompt
I submitted to ChatGPT, “Write an argument to convince a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, to pay a living wage.” I received this response in about 3 seconds. See my notes at the bottom—and a prompt for a longer response.
There are several compelling arguments that a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, should consider when deciding whether to pay a living wage to its employees.
First, paying a living wage can help to attract and retain top talent. Employees who are paid a fair wage are more likely to be motivated and engaged in their work, which can lead to improved customer service and a better overall experience for diners. In addition, a living wage can help to reduce turnover and the costs associated with training new employees, which can ultimately save the restaurant money in the long run.
Second, paying a living wage can help to build a positive company culture and reputation. Customers and community members are increasingly looking for businesses that prioritize the well-being and fair treatment of their employees, and a restaurant that pays a living wage can differentiate itself in this regard. This can lead to increased customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth marketing, which can help to drive business.
Finally, paying a living wage can have broader social and economic benefits for the community. When employees are paid a fair wage, they are more likely to be able to afford basic necessities such as housing, food, and healthcare, which can contribute to a stronger and more stable local economy. In addition, paying a living wage can help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice, which can have a positive impact on the overall well-being of the community.
In summary, there are numerous reasons why a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, should pay a living wage to its employees. Doing so can help to attract and retain top talent, build a positive company culture and reputation, and contribute to the overall well-being of the community.
I hit “Regenerate response” and got this:
Paying a living wage has numerous benefits for both the restaurant and its employees.
First, paying a living wage can improve employee morale and satisfaction, leading to a more positive work environment and lower turnover rate. When employees feel financially secure and valued, they are more likely to be motivated and committed to their work, which can result in better service and customer satisfaction.
Second, paying a living wage can also improve the restaurant's reputation and attract top talent. Customers and potential employees are increasingly considering a company's commitment to social and environmental responsibility when making purchasing and career decisions. By paying a living wage, the restaurant can differentiate itself from competitors and appeal to a socially conscious customer base.
Finally, paying a living wage can have a positive impact on the local community. When employees are paid a wage that allows them to meet their basic needs, they are more likely to spend their income locally, supporting other businesses and boosting the local economy.
Overall, paying a living wage is a win-win for both the restaurant and its employees. It can lead to improved employee satisfaction and retention, a positive reputation, and a positive impact on the local community.
Once again, “Regenerate response”:
Paying a living wage is good for businesses, employees, and the community.
First, businesses that pay a living wage tend to have lower employee turnover and higher levels of employee satisfaction, which can lead to improved customer service and increased customer loyalty. This can ultimately lead to increased profits for the business.
Second, paying a living wage allows employees to support themselves and their families without relying on government assistance programs. This not only helps to reduce poverty in the community, but it also helps to stimulate the local economy as employees have more disposable income to spend at local businesses.
Finally, paying a living wage is simply the right thing to do. It ensures that all employees are fairly compensated for their hard work and enables them to live with dignity and respect.
In conclusion, paying a living wage is a win-win situation for businesses, employees, and the community. It can improve profits, reduce poverty, and promote economic growth, while also promoting fairness and dignity for all.
My notes
Bottom line: D, a generous grade if the assignment asked for citations, which most would. I can see how the 5-paragraph essay drives ChatGPT, and this is exactly what business communication faculty try to get students to stop doing.
And yet, I’m surprised how good these are from a computer, and they illustrate how multiple students can enter the same prompt and receive different versions. However, they don’t meet our business writing standards.
Overall, the arguments are sound. The main points are probably best for convincing a restaurant owner.
Although simplistic, the organization is easy to follow. In all versions, arguments are grouped appropriately (and differently), and paragraph organization is acceptable. However, we would encourage an introductory paragraph that includes some version of the purpose, prompt, main points, and a preview, and a more varied closing paragraph with some forward-looking nod back to the audience.
The writing style is clear and varied, but wordy and lacks stronger subjects and verbs (there is, it is). We see several extraneous words and phrases.
Where I would deduct the most points on a rubric would be for argument/evidence and audience analysis:
No citations! These responses need references to be credible arguments. I’m curious about ChatGPT because this information comes from somewhere—where?
No depth. Partly because they lack citations, these arguments lack depth. We see big statements without nuance or extrapolation.
Limited argument. Similarly, this is a logical argument, as we would expect from a computer. Although we see references to fairness, we don’t see a balance of credibility, logic, and emotional appeals. Our students would likely include a story or two to illustrate arguments about income inequality and meeting “basic needs.”
No tailoring to the audience. To be fair, my prompt is sloppy, asking for an argument to a “restaurant,” but restaurant owner is assumed. My prompt does specify St. Paul, Minnesota, but only the first response even mentions the location. Data specific to the region would strengthen the argument. How much? What would be the average cost increase? What are the current regulations about a living wage? Experience of other restaurants in St. Paul or similar regions would also strengthen the argument and quell concerns about businesses closing because they can’t afford to pay a living wage—or a student might provide conditions under which restaurants are more successful in how they implement a living wage.
No opposing arguments. For persuasive communication, we ask students to acknowledge opposing arguments to challenge their own thinking, to present a comprehensive view, and to consider the audience’s perspective and address possible resistance.
Could students use ChatGPT as a starting point, as some use Wikipedia as a starting point for research? This idea is worth exploring, and a colleague and I may test this approach in the spring.
I wondered whether the length was an issue and asked ChatGPT to “Write a three-page argument to convince a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, to pay a living wage.” The result is about the same but includes more acknowledgement of the audience and possible challenges. But, in my view, this confirms ChatGPT’s limitations.
Introduction:
As a restaurant owner in St. Paul, Minnesota, you are no doubt constantly facing challenges and making difficult decisions. One of the most important choices you can make is how much to pay your employees. While it may be tempting to keep labor costs as low as possible, there are many compelling reasons to consider paying a living wage to your employees. In this argument, we will outline the benefits of paying a living wage, both for your business and for your employees, and explain why it is the right decision for your restaurant.
Body:
Paying a living wage has numerous benefits for your business. First and foremost, it can lead to increased productivity and morale among your employees. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are more likely to be focused, motivated, and engaged in their work. This can translate into higher levels of customer satisfaction and ultimately, increased profits for your restaurant.
Paying a living wage can also help to reduce turnover, which can be costly and disruptive to your business. When employees are paid a wage that allows them to support themselves and their families, they are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and less likely to leave. This can save you the time and expense of constantly training new hires and can lead to a more stable and experienced workforce.
In addition to the benefits for your business, paying a living wage has numerous positive impacts on your employees and the community at large. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are less likely to struggle with financial stress and insecurity. This can lead to improved physical and mental health, which can benefit not only your employees, but also their families and the community as a whole.
Paying a living wage can also help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are able to participate more fully in their communities and contribute to the local economy. This can help to build stronger, more vibrant communities, which can benefit everyone.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, paying a living wage is the right decision for your restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota. It can lead to increased productivity and morale among your employees, reduced turnover, and improved physical and mental health for your workers and their families. It can also help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice in the community. While it may require some adjustments to your business model, the long-term benefits are well worth the investment.