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.
Hyatt's Bad-News Message to BCom Faculty
Association for Business Communication members woke up to a cold shower during the annual conference and later received a note from the director of operations. Naturally, we analyzed this message against principles for delivering bad news. I admit to “geeking out” on this one.
Strengths
The director of operations took responsibility for the issue and had a personal note delivered to every room. (I don’t know what time because I had left my room after getting what might have been the last warm shower at 6:20.)
Dietel mentions the news up front (despite older advice of using the indirect approach and putting bad news at the end), which is appropriate for the audience and situation.
He explains what happened (beyond the hotel’s control, so he won’t get blamed) and tells guests not to expect warm water for “several hours.”
He apologizes, noting, “this is very inconvenient.” (What else could he say?)
He provides staff contact information by phone and his direct email. He doesn’t shy away from customer complaints.
Areas for Improvement
The first sentence is confusing: Who is notified? The city steam plant? No, guests—or “you.”
To bring main points even more clearly up front, some version of the last sentence of the first paragraph—when guests can expect hot water—would work better.
The reason includes more detail than guests might care to know. I would make it more concise: “a disruption at the city steam plant.”
“Several hours” could be defined, but that might not be possible. Deitel says the disruption has been “restored,” and we’re waiting for “the necessary steam.”
Correct punctuation and proofreading are always appreciated; commas, hyphens, and “The city” instead of “They city” would increase credibility.
Maybe a text would have worked better to save paper and provide an easy way to notify people when the hot water returned. Otherwise, given the “several hours” prediction, guests would have to keep testing it. Don’t all guests provide a phone number when they check in? Or maybe the hotel favors paper for the appearance of more personalized service (like a handwritten thank-you note compared to an email).
Business communication faculty—including me—will dissect any message. But overall, the message is a good example of a director of operations leading: taking responsibility, communicating, and dealing with the repercussions. I hope no guests called or emailed. In a situation like this, the hotel staff can do very little.
University-Related Communications and the War
If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.
Protests and Free Speech
In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.
Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”
Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)
Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”
Criticism of Ivy League Statements
Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:
Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)
Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)
Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).
Donors Pulling Funding
Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?
Joint University Statement
Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.
Firms Denying Jobs
Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.
Tax Credits: Persuasive Comm and Ethics Case
The classic rhetorical triangle of logical argument (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos) examples:
Logos: “We make claiming the payroll tax refund easier.” (logical, step-by-step process for results)
Pathos: “The ERC offers a welcome cash infusion as owners struggle.” (appeal to emotion)
Ethos: Wall Street Journal quote and link to the IRS website. (credibility)
Robert Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion examples:
Reciprocity: With “no upfront costs,” the company inspires business owners to apply in return.
Scarcity: “Time is running out!” and “don’t let your business miss its chance to make a claim” convey a limited timeframe during which to apply.
Authority: “[O}ur team of independent tax attorneys and tax professionals” boasts the staff’s credentials.
Consistency: Users who complete the “check your eligibility” form are more likely to follow through.
Liking: The company presents its staff as likable and reliable—people business owners would want to work with: “Our team will guide you every step of the way, from eligibility to claiming and receiving refunds.”
Social Proof: Testimonials and the scrolling list of amounts and company logos show how others have succeeded in getting refunds.
Unity: I don’t see an example of unity, Cialdini’s additional principle, but maybe you or your students will.
Although the company denies wrongdoing, aggressive marketing tactics have resulted in far more claims—and much higher government costs—than expected.
Comparing University Statements About Israel
As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)
Statements
Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington
Questions for Discussion
Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?
What are the communication objectives?
For each statement:
How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?
What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?
How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?
How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?
How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?
What resources are offered for students?
What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?
What, if any, action does the university promise?
How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?
What else distinguishes one statement from another?
What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?
Lawsuits About Writing Used for AI Training
The list of authors suing AI companies for copyright infringement is growing, and students should understand the implications. One of the latest to file suit is George RR Martin, who might interest students because his novels inspired Game of Thrones.
An earlier petition, addressed to the heads of OpenAI, Meta, Alphabet, Stability AI, Microsoft, and IBM, explains writers’ position. In this open letter, hundreds of members of the Authors Guild call out the “inherent injustice in exploiting our works as part of your AI systems without our consent, credit, or compensation.” Similar to the striking screenwriters, this group is concerned about compensation and job loss.
What’s relevant to students is how their own work is used and where it might end up. A conversation about posting online isn’t new to students, but AI raises new questions about copyright and privacy issues. Students probably don’t need to worry about a investment report or customer-service letter developed for class, but they might think twice about uploading creative work that could be copied or a resume or cover letter that could be misused.
As the makers of ChatGPT, OpenAI leaders seem to be sympathetic to authors’ concerns. A spokesperson said, "We're having productive conversations with many creators around the world, including the Authors Guild, and have been working co-operatively to understand and discuss their concerns about AI. We're optimistic we will continue to find mutually beneficial ways to work together." We’ll see.
Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement
BP’s communicators addressed sensitive “relationship” issues in the company’s announcement about the CEO resignation. I’ve analyzed the British energy company’s message by paragraph.
BP plc announces that Bernard Looney has notified the Company that he has resigned as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect.
Murray Auchincloss, the Company’s CFO, will act as CEO on an interim basis.
The message—some might call it “bad news,” others “positive”—is intended to be persuasive, with the goal of convincing audiences (likely investors primarily and the press/employees secondarily) that BP is an ethical company that stands by its values. The news is right up front, with an interesting few extra words.: “BP plc announces that” seems superfluous, and yet, the company intentionally leads with its own action, if only “announcing.” This reflects an attempt to demonstrate accountability, a subtle way of saying that the “resignation” is more of a technicality and likely was demanded.
The CEO replacement, even an interim one, is announced immediately to convey confidence and smooth operations.
In May 2022, the Board received and reviewed allegations, with the support of external legal counsel, relating to Mr Looney’s conduct in respect of personal relationships with company colleagues. The information came from an anonymous source.
A little history is good, but this seems misplaced. At first, I misread that it took the Board more than a year to take action. A short statement about the recent situation, which led to the resignation, before this part would be clearer. Also, “personal relationships with company colleagues” sounds icky, but I can’t think of anything better. It is icky. Stating “anonymous source” is relevant because the report didn’t come from Looney, increasing the ethical questions about his behavior and supporting the Board’s actions.
During that review, Mr Looney disclosed a small number of historical relationships with colleagues prior to becoming CEO. No breach of the Company’s Code of Conduct was found. However, the Board sought and was given assurances by Mr Looney regarding disclosure of past personal relationships, as well as his future behaviour.
“A small number” raises more questions than it answers. Whatever the number is, I’m thinking of something higher. “Historical” is an attempt to create greater distance than “prior to becoming CEO” implies. Mentioning the Code of Conduct is important—both that the company has one and that Looney didn’t, for example, have a relationship with someone who reported to him (which is what this implies). The last sentence uses “the Board” again as the actor, emphasizing its due diligence. But “However” seems misplaced after the previous sentence, and “given assurances . . . regarding . . .” is vague. More precise wording would convey that he said he had disclosed ALL past relationships (but hadn’t) and committed not to pursue additional relationships (which is odd and could probably be omitted).
Further allegations of a similar nature were received recently, and the Company immediately began investigating with the support of external legal counsel. That process is ongoing.
Here’s the real reason for his “resignation.” Using passive voice for the first independent clause of the sentence, the company downplays the Board. With active voice in the second independent clause, the Company springs into action. But despite an “ongoing” investigation, they have apparently, finally, had enough.
Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures. He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.
In other words, he lied by omission. The language choices are odd here too: he “informed” the Company that he “accepts” (twice) that did not fully disclose information. In case it wasn’t clear earlier, at this point, we might conclude that his resignation was, indeed, forced. Or, in today’s parlance, he was “released.”
The Company has strong values and the Board expects everyone at the Company to behave in accordance with those values. All leaders in particular are expected to act as role models and to exercise good judgement in a way that earns the trust of others.
Well, of course. But without this assurance, the statement would be incomplete. This is the kind of boilerplate we expect to see in these situations.
No decisions have yet been made in respect of any remuneration payments to be made to Mr Looney. In accordance with section 430(2B) of the Companies Act 2006, particulars of any such decisions will be disclosed at such times as, and to the extent that, any such decisions are made.
This legalese is likely for investors who want to understand the financial impact. Or maybe it’s for people like me, shaking my head as I think about the millions in compensation that might accompany his departure.
This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 (MAR) as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Ditto about the legalese. This would be an unusual ending for an American company’s statement, which might end on a more forward-looking, positive note.
This crisis communication example raises issues of integrity (honesty and transparency in communication) and humility (learning from mistakes). Maybe this story offers a lesson for others, as a university communication professional once told my Corporate Communication class: “The truth will come out.” As these cases often go, covering up unethical behavior is often worse than the behavior itself.
Protecting Students from Loan-Forgiveness Scams
When business communication faculty cover persuasive communication, let’s include a discussion of how students can protect themselves. This CNBC article identifies a few popular scams this summer, including a growing number of fake student loan forgiveness offers.
This Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a warning and three ways for people to avoid falling victim to these loan scams:
Never pay for help with your student loans.
Don’t give away your FSA ID login information.
Don’t trust anyone who contacts you promising debt relief or loan forgiveness, even if they say they're affiliated with the Department of Education.
These points seem obvious—until we fall victim. Companies use emotional appeals (excitement about loan forgiveness, confusion about the process), logical arguments (easy steps to follow for a quick decision and payments cancelled), and credibility (official-looking design, claims to be the Department of Education).
Students can bring their own examples of unethical persuasion and discuss the results. Have they been duped in the past? What aspects of logical argument, emotional appeal, or credibility persuaded them to do something they regretted?
It might be early to discuss the loan-forgiveness scams with undergraduates, but we can hope they remember the message for other examples of unethical persuasion.
Brands Capitalize on "Girl Math"
The “Girl Math” TikTok trend is fun but potentially harmful, and brands love it. Videos show young women describing their view of money. For example, if you return an item, the money you get back is “free”; if you forgo a purchase, the money you save is “free”; or, if you pay with cash, items are “free”—meaning the money can be spent on anything and doesn’t count as a cost. Evolving from “Lazy Girl Jobs” (essentially doing nothing and getting paid), the message is for girls to buy products when they can’t necessarily afford them. In addition to the obvious financial problems, the trend, as a BBC reporter writes, “[C]an also be infantilising and reinforce harmful gender stereotypes.”
Ulta Beauty is taking full advantage of the trend and the consumer, going so far as using #girlmath and #girlmather in its X (Twitter) description. In addition to a weird, frenetic, 6-second video, the account is active, responding to every comment, like this one, about girl math.
Lane Bryant advertised sales: You call it Girl Math, we call it the Labor Day sale.” The point in this example is getting a lot for little money, which, I guess, is like not spending at all.
I’m trying to find the humor, but I’m old school and believe in saving for retirement. Obviously, these campaigns also promote consumerism, which has other negative consequences, but I’ll get off my soapbox. If you discuss this marketing strategy with students, I’m guessing they’ll see it differently.
NYC Message About ChatGPT Demonstrates Humility and AI Shift
Back in May, the New York City school chancellor changed the policy to ban ChatGPT. The message is a good example of humility—and a summary of what educators have learned about AI.
David Banks’ message, titled, “ChatGPT caught NYC schools off guard. Now, we’re determined to embrace its potential,” describes how teachers’ thinking has evolved. He admits, “[O]ur best-laid plans are sometimes disrupted by the advance of technology and innovation.”
Banks demonstrates humility (learning from mistakes) and vulnerability (risking emotional emotional exposure):
The knee-jerk fear and risk overlooked the potential of generative AI to support students and teachers, as well as the reality that our students are participating in and will work in a world where understanding generative AI is crucial.
To gain credibility, he provides examples of how faculty are using AI now, particularly by exploring ethical issues.
Business communication faculty are going beyond this exploration and are experimenting with using AI in the writing process and to support faculty work. The 2023 Association for Business Communication conference has a robust line-up of presentations about incorporating AI into our classes. I’m working with a colleague to experiment with ChatGPT as a peer reviewer.
It’s an exciting—and nerve-wracking—time. But the chancellor has learned what business communication faculty knew from the beginning: we have no choice but to embrace ChatGPT and other AI tools. Maybe higher-ed faculty recognize that we have little control over students, which K-12 faculty needed more time to acknowledge. We also see how businesses already use use AI as an integral part of work, and we embrace our responsibility to prepare students for this reality. In addition, our students have better foundational critical thinking and writing skills than young kids, so maybe the risks of using AI seem lower. Regardless, seeing parallels as well as divergent paths of how business communication and K-12 faculty use AI will be interesting to watch.
UAW Union Communications Case
Union communications are a particular genre of persuasive communication for students to learn, and the United Auto Workers (UAW) serves as a timely case study. The organization is using new, “more aggressive” tactics against automakers, but communications may seem dated to students.
The UAW’s strategy and messages are worth analyzing with an eye towards the current push against GM, Ford, and Stellantis. Unlike previous negotiations, the UAW is targeting three major automakers at the same time, threatening strikes that could lead to a “loss of more than $5 billion after 10 full days.” The auto industry is already suffering from supply chain issues lingering since the pandemic, so the union may be in a stronger position than in years ago.
Audience analysis is complex for union communications. Automaker CEOs likely are a primary audience. In the messages below, students will see the union president as a prominent figure, which may be understandable, given his positional power during negotiations with CEOs. Yet his image and videos strike me as a bit much. With declining union membership, the stakes are high for organizations like UAW to not only negotiate on behalf of current members, but to influence perception of union value and benefits.
Given the opportunity, the UAW needs to step up its social media campaign. A 2020 Journal of Industrial Relations study of Facebook communications found that unions are “challenged by digital technologies” and use “outdated ‘one-way’ model of communication.” Students might use the table at right, from the study to evaluate UAW communications, to analyze UAW communications. Here are a few starters:
UAW Website: At left on the home, we see three links for which we can evaluate tone defined by the Journal of Industrial Relations study. The first link is a call to action (signing the petition), but the second two are informative (checking out news and reading the magazine).
UAW’s YouTube Channel: The first video is a good one for students to analyze. UAW president Shawn Fain says union demands are not about the president but are about the members. He starts, “Historically, the biggest and most significant demands in our union have been referred to by the president’s demands.” Sounding defensive, the president explains the process before describing “our” (workers’) demands. Fain says, again, “These aren’t my demands; they come straight from the membership.” With dramatic text and threatening-sounding music, the video feels, as the study authors say about other union communication, “outdated.” Could another approach work better, for example, driven by the workers’ voice instead? I find no other video on the channel from workers about the three automakers—only a few about other union activity.
X (Twitter): As of this writing, two of the first four posts have a picture of Fain. One of the most effective retweets a post by Robert Reich.
Instagram: As of now, of the first six images, two have a picture of Fain and another includes his name.
As a class activity or assignment, students could act as consultants to help the UAW. Having students read a resent Washington Post article about Fain, described as “tough talking” but prone to “theatrics,” for example, not shaking executives’ hands and throwing proposals in the trash, which aren’t appreciated by all.
Of course, first, students would identify the primary and second audiences and define communication objectives. At this moment, the union has power over GM, Ford, and Stellantis, but the UAW also is trying to increase their union base and have a broader impact. Is the organization meeting its communication objectives?
Northwestern's Statement on Coach Termination Lacks Compassion
Northwestern University’s president published a statement explaining the decision to fire the head football coach after investigating claims about hazing. The message could be an example of persuasion—and either good or bad news, depending on your perspective.
Taking responsibility up front, President Michael Schill put his name at the top of the statement, which was posted online. His accountability for the decision is reinforced in his first line: “This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.” Later, he writes, “While I am appreciative of the feedback and considered it in my decision-making, [need a semi-colon here] ultimately, the decision to originally suspend Coach Fitzgerald was mine and mine alone, as is the decision to part ways with him.”
Schill convinces his audience—primarily the Northwestern community—by showing the pervasiveness of hazing (“systemic dating back many years.”) and by providing examples of acts (“The hazing included forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature, in clear violation of Northwestern policies and values”).
But he minimizes the impact (“I am grateful that—to my knowledge—no student suffered physical injury as a result of these behaviors”) and defends himself (“I only recently learned many of the details”). His statement seems to lack compassion towards those affected by the hazing. Complaints must show that people were negatively impacted. Where is that acknowledgement in the statement?
Demonstrating courage and leadership, Schill does acknowledge controversy about the decision. He describes the coach’s positive impact on many, but identifies a replacement and encourages moving forward. Some say the decision is long overdue, with reports of racism dating back to the 2000’s. Schill doesn’t mention that.
The statement ends with misplaced gratitude, which feels like a last-minute add-on. The nod to the Board chair would have been more appropriate in the second paragraph, where he describes input from the chair and others. Lobbing off that sentence, the ending is strong: “While today is a difficult day, I take solace in knowing that what we stand for endures.”
Dispute Over "Thumbs-Up" Emoji
From a recent legal contract case, students can discuss what it means to text the “thumbs-up” emoji. A grain purchaser sent a contract to a farm supplier with terms for buying flax at $17 per bushel. The supplier responded to the signed contract in a text message with the emoji, and a judge ruled that the contract was “at least verbally struck.”
Trouble started when the supplier didn’t ship the flax, which quickly increased in price to $41 per bushel. Now, the supplier has to pay $82,000 for breach of contract.
I can see students running into similar trouble with job offers and informal communication. In this case, the purchaser said the “thumbs-up” was no different from other text responses they received from the farmer in the past: “ok,” “yup,” or “looks good.” The defense used a slippery slope argument:
[A]llowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean – for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature.
The judge didn’t agree, perhaps perceiving the argument as a fallacy. Students may want to use the “thumbs-up”—and other emojis—more judiciously for business communication. Legal contracts might call for more formal acknowledgements, such as e-signatures.
Comms Related to the Supreme Court Decision
Business communication faculty brave enough to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to restrict affirmative action in college admissions will find many communication examples for students to analyze. Here are a few to consider, and each requires careful facilitation. The first two are probably the easiest to manage and the most relevant to our courses.
Corporate responses: This article provides a few examples for students to analyze, considering the industry, customer base, mission, and other factors driving the response.
University responses: Cornell University’s president published a statement, and I imagine other university leaders have done the same. Students can analyze and compare messages.
Full text of the decision: This 237-page document is a bit overwhelming, but the document, in its entirety, illustrates one persuasive genre for a professional group.
Dissenting opinions: For more manageable reads, these two dissenting opinions serve as good examples of persuasive arguments.
Opinion letters: The WSJ and NY Times editorial board opinions offer useful contrasts. Students might find their own opinion articles to analyze.
Chronicle Recommendation for Full Disclosure Raises Character Questions
A Chronicle of Higher Education article suggests that academic leaders practice full disclosure when applying for jobs. The recommendation is to avoid issues later in the hiring process, and the decision tests candidates’ character, particularly integrity, courage, and authenticity. Our students face similar decisions.
Here’s the search consultants’ advice:
Be forthcoming and candid about any sensitive or confidential information that may affect your candidacy. Search committees and hiring managers—and I can’t stress this enough—hate surprises. So it’s critical to disclose a potential roadblock as soon as possible once you’ve decided to become a candidate.
Hiring managers “hate surprises” for a few reasons. First, no one wants to waste time. If a candidate, even at an entry-level, will be ruled out, HR wants to know early on. Students with a criminal record of theft should not bother applying for an auditing position. Second, employers want to hire people with integrity, which includes being honest up front. This takes courage, a worthy topic of discussion with our students. Yes, students risk missing out on a job offer, but better to remove themselves from the process early than wait until the third interview or, worse, after they’re hired. When I worked in HR, terminating hired employees after a discovery was a painful process, and this only makes it harder for someone to find another job.
In their list of disclosures, the search professionals include legal issues, negative publicity, barriers to relocating, and leaving previous employers on bad terms. Students might want to discuss gaps in employment, negative social media posts, family obligations, and job terminations—not all at once, of course. Depending on the situation, job market, industry, and so many other factors, students have difficult decisions to make about whether, how, how much, and when to disclose issues that might negatively affect their candidacy. Some of the advice in Business Communication and Character is rooted in Chalice Randazzo’s work: "A Framework for Resume Decisions: Comparing Applicants’ and Employers’ Reasons” (BPCQ, 2020).
Here’s an inspiring story about a researcher at Intel who decided to talk about his history of addiction during his job interview. In the end, what students choose to reveal reflects on their character. They might find this discussion and handout about the Character, Audience, Message (CAM) Model useful.
Texts from 2012: Instagram Cofounder Considers Acquisition by FB
I feel like a voyeur reading texts between tech leaders, and this exchange doesn’t disappoint. In 2012 texts, we see Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and investor Matt Cohler navigating Mark Zuckerberg’s initial gesture to acquire the company, which happened just two months later.
At some point during these 30 back-and-forth texts, they could have picked up the phone, which would have avoided the messages becoming public as part of The House Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust investigation. Such an important conversation seems worthy of a call if not an in-person meeting. But I guess I’m old school: in addition to my propensity to worry about what might go public, I don’t like spending half my day texting.
I’m always surprised at the casual nature of texts among executives. To start, Cohler quotes Zuckerberg: "i'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but i think maybe facebook should buy instagram, what do you think?" Then, in Systrom’s concern about the company he founded, we see Zuckerberg’s power:
Kevin Systrom
got it
you know him better than I do
a) will he go into destroy mode if I say no
b) will he understand if we choose to raise instead
c) will he understand that I don't want to shutter the product and that doesn't align with what FB does with companies
Matt Cohler
a) probably (and probably also if we just don't engage at all)
b) no, he'll go harder into destroy mode then
c) what i think he would most likely want to see is for instagram to turn into a stand-alone mobile facebook photos app, like beluga turned into facebook messenger
(re c he hasn't indicated anything to me at all there, i'm just speculating)
Later, we see these two planning to lie (I’ll be blunt here) about other potential suitors, as Systrom has a meeting scheduled with Jack Dorsey of Twitter.
The exchange is fascinating—a window into how M&A and other strategic decisions are made, or, how they just seem to happen despite what executives want for their company. Early in the exchange, Systrom writes, “I'm not interested really - even at the right price I don't think so,” but we know he sold anyway.
PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly
Golf tournaments PGA and LIV, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, announced a merger and faced backlash. Part of the controversy is how the decision was communicated: primarily during a CNBC interview of LIV Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan.
Players complained openly, shown here. As we teach business communication students, a thoughtful communication plan could prevent negative reactions—at least about how the news is delivered. Players should have been informed before any public announcement was made. Even in the CNBC video title, the news is called a “surprise deal.”
Monahan addressed personal criticism directly. In his statements, he demonstrates courage by acknowledging a perceived lack of integrity:
I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite, Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that's trying to compete for the PGA Tour and our players. I accept those criticisms. But circumstances do change. I think that in looking at the big picture and looking at it this way, that's what got us to this point.
Monahan loosely acknowledged the impact on tour players, but he could have demonstrated more compassion, particularly for those who had turned down generous Saudi money to stick with the PGA:
This is an awful lot to ask them to digest, and this is a significant change for us in the direction that we were going down. We just realized that we were better off together than we were fighting or apart, and by thinking about the game at large and eliminating a lot of the friction that's been out there and doing this in a way where we can move forward and grow the PGA Tour.
Of course, Monahan’s explanation didn’t convince everyone that the merger is the right decision. A news release on the PGA website, which claims that the merger is “for the benefit of all stakeholders,” is another example for students to analyze.
AI Risk Communications
Two new messages about risks associated with AI are good examples for students to analyze.
Center for AI Safety published a short, joint statement about AI risks. The introduction, which explains the statement, is longer than the 22-word message itself. Unlike a longer statement published two months ago to encouraged a pause, this one is bold and focused:
Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.
The authors use analogies as emotional appeal to persuade their audiences. They also rely credibility, with more than 350 distinguished signatories, including current AI leaders and two Turing Award AI pioneers.
The second message is a blog post written by OpenAI founders to provide guidance for regulators and others wanting to mitigate risk. Titled, Governance of Superintelligence, the post distinguishes between current AI technology and the next generation. The authors’ strategy is to create a sense of urgency about an “existential” threat but prevent overregulation of current technology (like OpenAI, of course). In this statement, they use the analogies of nuclear energy and synthetic biology. The latter might be a better parallel than the pandemic, although a pandemic is more current and may be more universally understood.
Students can edit the governance post for clarity and conciseness. They’ll find overuse of “there is/are” and an abundance of “it,” for example, in this last sentence:
Second, we believe it would be unintuitively risky and difficult to stop the creation of superintelligence. Because the upsides are so tremendous, the cost to build it decreases each year, the number of actors building it is rapidly increasing, and it’s inherently part of the technological path we are on, stopping it would require something like a global surveillance regime, and even that isn’t guaranteed to work. So we have to get it right.
ChatGPT's Legal Trouble
ChatGPT might pass the bar exam, but it created havoc in a lawsuit. As we tell our business communication students, authors are responsible for their content, and that applies to lawyers who submit legal briefs.
In his documentation against Avianca Airlines, Steven Schwartz included six previous court decisions that didn’t exist. As we know, ChatGPT is a large language model and cannot be trusted to, for example, cite legal cases; it “hallucinates.”
Schwartz now faces sanctions. The American Bar Association requires competence, which includes supervising other lawyers’ and nonlawyers’ (including nonhuman) work. Another issue is confidentiality. Although some legal AI tools keep client data confidential, ChatGPT does not. In a court response, Schwartz apologized, saying he didn’t realize ChatGPT could give false information (!) and that he “had no intent to deceive this Court nor the defendant.”
Despite ChatGPT’s failings in this situation, AI can benefit law firms, as the Bar Association explains. And yet, law remains one of the top fields expected to be impacted by AI, as this NY Times article describes:
One new study, by researchers at Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania and New York University, concluded that the industry most exposed to the new A.I. was “legal services.” Another research report, by economists at Goldman Sachs, estimated that 44 percent of legal work could be automated. Only the work of office and administrative support jobs, at 46 percent, was higher.
This case is a good example for students to know—a lesson in accountability for their own work.
{Random: I’m surprised to see that the NY Times include periods after “A” and “I.” This seems to be a conversative approach losing ground. “AI” is easily recognized these days. Then again, the Times was a slow in dropping the hyphen in email, in my opinion.)
SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure
Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”
Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.
In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:
"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."
In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.
The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.
Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”
Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.