Activist Investor Letter and Railroad's Response

As activist investor Ancora tries to change Norfolk Southern railroad’s leadership, students can analyze persuasive communications from both sides.

The Ancora letter to shareholders itemizes what they consider “failures of governance” and "the Board’s poor judgment.” Many of the points relate to the hiring of a new COO—the third in the past two and a half years—whom they think is unsuitable, partly because of accusations about his “abusive behavior and serious misconduct.” The activists say the railroad held an insufficient search and overpaid the chosen candidate. Students can analyze the letter in terms of organization (main points in the introduction?), formatting (excessive underlining!), and evidence.

In an interview on CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Cramer, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw defended the decision. Cramer challenges him a bit about the COO but, overall, the interview is favorable. Clearly, he’s a fan, supporting what Shaw says about delivering on promises during his short time with the company. As any CEO would, Shaw minimized the February 2023 train derailment in Ohio, which released toxic chemicals. He said, “Yeah, we had a challenge last year, but we met that challenge head on.” Later, he refers to it as “East Palestine” (typonym rhetorical device?), which makes the incident feels unspeakable.

Cramer is indignant when he learns that the railroad offered Ancora two board seats, and the activists didn’t accept them. Ancora doesn’t mention this in its letter. The activists want what Shaw describes as “wholesale change,” which he believes would be too disruptive. Cramer compares the situation to Disney, which students also can research.

For more, see this “fireside chat” with Shaw, another interview ahead of the shareholders meeting on May 9.

Accenture Case About ADHD

A London lawsuit against Accenture raises issues of neurodiversity in the workplace. The nuance and ambiguity in the case touches on business communication.

Accenture’s Chair and Chief Executive Julie Sweet is accused of mistreating Peter Lacy, Accenture’s former head of sustainability and global management committee member. Lacy, who is diagnosed with ADHD, post-traumatic stress, and depression, claims that he was “shamed” and “belittled.” He gives examples of being cut off during senior-level and other large meetings, for example, by being told, “Peter you need to stop now.” Lacy says another executive “engaged in a 15-minute tirade against [Lacy] in respect of a piece of work . . . for no apparent reason.” Lacy says these situations, in addition to the long work hours and stressful work environment, exacerbated his symptoms and led to his wrongful termination. Accenture defends the dismissal as part as a larger layoff, as employers often do.

One sticking point is whether Lacy’s disability was apparent, which he claims but the Accenture team denies. This is an interesting question for business communicators: When does speech or presentation obviously convey a disability? A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about “professionalism,” which tends to box people into norms and excludes people who don’t fit conventional standards. Is this such a case? Or was Lacy simply out of line and inappropriate? Whether someone has a disability or not, how much leeway—or to use the legal parlance, accommodation—should an organization provide related to communication? Where’s the line to determine when disruption affects others or prevents business from moving forward?

It strikes me that business communication faculty deal with this issue every day in class. We expect students to behave in certain ways and accommodate those who don’t or can’t—to a point. This case seems to be about that tipping point. The case will be interesting to watch because of its implications for the increasing numbers of neurodiverse employees.

Image source.

Baltimore Bridge Crisis News Conferences

The collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore offers crisis communication examples for students to analyze. Sadly, the incident cost the lives of six workers from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras who were working on the bridge at the time.

Typical news conferences for crisis situations cover the following points, against which students can analyze this one:

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

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

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

• Provide investigation process/status

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

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Compassion typically comes first, and then explanations and plans.

The news conference also illustrates the players’ roles and responsibilities—and their audience and communication objectives—when a public crisis happens:

• Governor Wes Moore: First up, Moore’s focus is on local response. His primary audience are local responders and Baltimore residents. His attention is on gratitude to those working on rescue. He also wants to reassure people that they are safe. He says that this is most likely an accident and that “we haven’t seen any credible evidence of a terrorist attack.” This surprised me given that the ship pilot reported lost power, but he is warding off potential conspiracy theories. At the end, he expresses sympathy for the victims and their loved ones, which might have also come at the beginning. As expected, he talks about “Maryland spirit” (“We are Maryland tough, and we are Baltimore Strong”) with some nice anaphora at the end too: “That’s what we’ve always done. That’s what we’ll continue to do. And that’s what we’re doing to get done together.”

• Senator Chris van Hollen: Although he adds little substance, he expands the gratitude and demonstrates the response of the federal government. His sympathy is first, and he talks about all the agencies that are already on the scene or will be soon. He admits his limited role: “I’m just here to say, together with [other senators and congressmen]. . . . we’re with you, we love you, and we’ll get through this together” (more anaphora). Like a lot of tragedies for politicians, this one is a photo op. He does what’s expected.

• Next up are the secretary of transportation and representatives from FBI and the Coast Guard.

The Q&A portion is predictable for this early conference. “We have no further information” and “We have no estimates on time lines” are common themes. The focus is on rescue at this point. However, the governor gets a bit emotional around 11:30 talking about the Key Bridge and the impact of the bridge loss on local lives. The questions, and the answers, are a bit of a dance at this point. The governor talks about rebuilding, but people died and are still missing, so he’s balancing hope for the future with compassion.

Other communications are of interest to business and crisis communicators:

• Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott: In a separate news conference, we see the chief of police introduce the mayor. He is brief and all about compassion and gratitude, asking people to pray for everyone affected.

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy: The only woman I’ve seen in the communication mix, Homendy is responsible for investigating the crash. Her objectives are to reassure the public that they will determine the cause. She emphasizes the work of her team—24 investigators, which I guess is supposed to sound like a lot, or at least, enough to do the job.

• Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg: He’s asked about bridge safety across the country, and his job is to reassure us that infrastructure is strong. He says, “This is a unique circumstance. I do not know of a bridge that has been constructed to withstand a direct impact of a vessel this size.” This is a classic communication strategy: to isolate the situation.

• The ship’s captain will be under scrutiny in the coming months. The head of the American Pilots’ Association is already defending the pilot: “These are among the most highly trained mariners in the world.”

• President Biden spoke about the tragedy, and political leaders have begun to question bridge safety as part of larger, political infrastructure issues, which Buttigieg (somewhat) addressed.

Kate Middleton's Health Announcement

After weeks of silence and the predictable conspiracy theories, the Princess of Wales announced her cancer diagnosis in a video. Students can analyze the message and discuss issues of privacy and integrity, which I raised last week.

Kate Middleton likely chose a video message instead of the typical written statement because of rumors about her failing marriage and death. Royal family PR experts view the message positively, a way to take back the narrative. In part, her message explains her silence:

As you can imagine, this has taken time. It has taken me time to recover from major surgery in order to start my treatment. But, most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that is appropriate for them, and to reassure them that I am going to be ok.

Where are the lines between privacy and public responsibility? We might see an analogy to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s reluctance to disclose his health issues. Like most analogies, this one is imperfect. Secretary Austin has, dare I say, clearer job responsibilities with greater potential consequences than does Kate Middleton. The royal family’s silence seems to hurt only themselves, similar to the situation when Princess Diana died. Still, they are all public figures, paid by taxpayers.

Yet speculation about Kate Middleton has been brutal, and no one deserves that. Her appearance takes speculators to task. She demonstrates vulnerability as a strength, owning her illness and asking for what she and her family needs:

We hope that you will understand that, as a family, we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment. My work has always brought me a deep sense of joy and I look forward to being back when I am able, but for now I must focus on making a full recovery.

Her request is reasonable and, now that she has broken the silence, should be respected, but we’ll see.

Lyft CEO Takes Responsibility but Is Casual About Typo

Lyft CEO David Risher said “My bad” for a typo that caused shares to lift dramatically, and then fall. The error is a good example for students to see the importance of proofreading, and the company response illustrates accountability, to a point.

An extra zero found its way into a quarterly earnings release, so the company reported growth of 500 basis points (5%) instead of 50 basis points (.5%) for the year, indicating a higher margin from bookings. The error still appears on the release. A statement was added to the top, which is an appropriate way to correct an error, rather than simply changing the original:

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Fifth bulleted list, third bullet of release should read: Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion (calculated as a percentage of Gross Bookings) of approximately 50 basis points year-over-year. [instead of Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion (calculated as a percentage of Gross Bookings) of approximately 500 basis points year-over-year.].

Lyft leaders do what we expect leaders to do: They are accountable for errors. The CFO first announced the mistake on an earnings call, and the CEO took a Bloomberg Technology interview.

Risher’s word choices and speech patterns are interesting to watch. He uses colloquial speech to say, “My bad,” but then, within a second, transitions with the time-honored “but” to enthusiastically compliment the company’s good work. He also uses the classic crisis communication strategy of downplaying, as though the error is no big deal. Apology criteria include acknowledging the impact of the mistake, which he failed to do. People made investment decisions based on bad information and lost money. Typos happen, but this one caused an errant $2 billion in market cap.

The first interviewer pushed, asking whether they used AI to create the release. Risher laughed and said “no way.” Another interviewer asked whether the CFO “is safe.” Risher responded, “It’s an unacceptable error, but . . . the team is taking it super-seriously.” That’s good, but Risher didn’t present it that way initially: His word choice and demeaner don’t match the seriousness of the event.

Of course, Risher’s response could be worse. He could not take an interview, or he could blame the CFO or others, who are ultimately responsible for proofreading. Instead, he said he’s ultimately responsible for all company communication, which is true.

Niecy Nash Thanks Herself in an Emotional Speech

The Emmy award audience and viewers love watching emotional speeches. Niecy Nash thanked herself in her acceptance speech, which students can analyze, given the context.

Nominated for five Emmys for her work in 2023, Nash won for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie for Dahmer—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. When we assess character, particularly an aspect of character like humility, we consider the entire context. Nash is crying as she begins her speech, saying, “I’m a winner, baby!” She was nominated for several Emmy awards over the years and won the last one in 2010. It’s been a while.

During her interview with Gayle King and Charles Barkley on CBS, she got emotional describing the work it took for her to be successful and how she felt proud of herself. Her difficulty is clear from her speech, too, when she thanks her “better half, who picked me up when I was gutted from this work. Thank you.” Then she says, “And you know who else I want to thank? I want to thank me.” She describes believing in herself and closes by acknowledging Black and brown women who went “unheard but over policed.” She mentions a few by name.

The context of her speech also is the historic underrepresentation of women of color in film, in TV, and as entertainment award winners. Humility can be defined as being neither below or above others. Nash expresses gratitude for being at a high competitive level and for being rewarded as she deserves to be. From another actor, the speech could certainly sound arrogant. But hers is taken well, and we see the audience enthusiastically applauding her.

Jelly Roll Speaks Out and Demonstrates Character

Not often do we see a rapper turned country music artist in front of congress. Students might be interested in discussing Jelly Roll’s character and analyzing his persuasive statement.

With a history of addiction, selling drugs, and jail time, Jelly Roll is open about his past. His hit “Save Me” (and others), his inspiring speech when he won the Country Music Award for New Artist of the Year, and his tearful video when he learned he received two Emmy nominations demonstrate his vulnerability and gratitude for his new life. We learn more about Jelly Roll during a CBS Sunday Morning interview, when he talks about being in therapy and says, “I think it’s cool to think about vulnerability that way—that we can all grow together, and that it’s OK to not have it figured out. . . .” Correspondent Kelefa Sanneh also noted his authenticity, among other character dimensions: “Songs like ‘Song of a Sinner’ and ‘Need a Favor’ make fans feel as if they really know him and believe in him.”

In his testimony to encourage lawmakers to pass a bill to sanction drug traffickers, Jelly Roll uses several persuasion strategies we teach in business communication classes. With a tattooed face, Jelly Roll started with a joke about having a microphone for performing. Then he captures attention with data about the number of people who will die from drug overdose during his five-minute testimony. He uses other logical appeals, including this poignant analogy about the average number of people who die every day in the United States of fentanyl overdose:

Could you imagine the national media attention it would get if they were reporting that a plane was crashing every single day and killing 190 people?

Students may have a lot to say about the speech, which demonstrates credibility, logical argument, and emotion appeal. In some respects, he risks little. He is vulnerable, speaking of his wife’s addiction and a past he might prefer to forget, but his advocacy is unlikely to affect his career negatively: he’s getting positive publicity and his role might endear people toward him. Still, he demonstrates integrity by being consistent in his music and in his life. He is making “living amends,” as people do in Twelve Step programs: taking positive steps when apologies aren’t possible or enough.

Image source.

Hasan Minhaj Defends Embellishing Stand-Up Comedy

The comedian Hasan Minhaj isn’t cowering after a New Yorker reporter fact checked and criticized his Netflix series Patriot Act and other performances. His response is an unusual approach for crisis communication. Students might discuss issues of integrity and analyze evidence in this situation.

In her article, “Hasan Minhaj’s ‘Emotional Truths’,” Clare Malone wrote,

[A]fter many weeks of trying, I had been unable to confirm some of the stories that he had told onstage. . . . Still, he said that he stood by his work. “Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth,” he said. “My comedy Arnold Palmer is seventy per cent emotional truth—this happened—and then thirty per cent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”

In part, Malone’s focus was on the consequences of Minhaj’s fabrications (he might say “embellishments”). When comparing his stories to George Santos’s, Minhaj says Santos’s are "pointless,” whereas his have societal value, which gives him moral standing. Students can discuss how much is too much “stretching the truth.” How might standards of integrity differ for comedians, politicians, organizational leaders, entrepreneurs, job applicants, etc.?

People make difficult decisions about whether and how to respond to criticism. Minhaj fought back. A New York Times writer summarizes Minhaj’s response well:

Typical crisis management dictates you should move on, not fixate. But in our attention economy, where the most popular Netflix specials of the past year featured Chris Rock talking about the Slap and John Mulaney joking about going to rehab, comedians are wise to consider Rahm Emanuel’s famous political advice: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Minhaj split the difference. He did not linger on the story but dedicated a solid chunk of jokes to it that got one of the biggest responses of the night. There were moments when I even thought this scandal might be the best thing that ever happened to him.

During a recent Beacon Theater show, Minhaj quipped to the audience, “Don’t fact check me.” He said of the New Yorker report, “I got caught embellishing for dramatic effect,” and said it was too bad it was such “a dorky scandal” and not one involving, for example, child abuse.

In a 21-minute video watched, so far, 1.9 million times, Minhaj addressed criticism head-on, showing headlines and a Bill Maher clip. He apologized to those hurt by his routines and addressed three stories in detail. He distinguished between what really happened and how he changed details to create a funny/poignant story. Supporting his points, Minhaj played audio from the interview with the New Yorker reporter. As he acknowledges during the video, his explanations are a bit much (saying at one point, “If you’re still here,” and, I admit, I dropped off soon after). But he does provide good evidence of the reporter ignoring or missing information. (For a deep dive of disputed facts, read this Slate analysis.) Naturally, Malone posted a short statement on X, defending her reporting.

To his credit, Minhaj has enough perspective to conclude with a main point (direct organization plan—up front!): he didn’t “fake racism.” Students can draw their own conclusions and whether they are convinced by Minhaj’s presentation of the evidence.

This situation gives students a different perspective on crisis communications. Minhaj highlighted rather than downplayed criticism, which may have avoided his getting “cancelled” and might even elevate his reputation.

Missing Communications Prep in University Testimony

If students need an example of the value of crisis communication, the university presidents’ testimony this past week proves the point. An embarrassment to all three colleges, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, and MIT, the public hearing ended with apologies from two of the leaders and the resignation of Penn’s.

A New York Times article describes how a law firm prepared both the Harvard and Penn presidents. As business communication faculty know, legal advice protects the organization from litigation. But crisis communication advice protects the organization’s, and the leader’s, reputation.

To a PR expert, the lack of proper preparation, including practicing answering a range of difficult questions, is clear. NY Representative Elise Stefanik asked the most pointed question: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or No?“ Presidents focused on speech vs. conduct and said it “depended on the context.” Harvard President Claudine Gay gave vague answers about Harvard’s “commitment to free expression” and “rights to privacy.” Stefanik and other lawmakers accused Gay of not speaking with “moral clarity.”

To me, the character dimension most at issue is integrity—the universities’ commitment to DEI and free speech, yet what some see as an inconsistent application. All three presidents issued statements after the hearings:

• Harvard: President Gay issued a short statement, contradicting her response to Stefanik’s question: "There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.” In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, she apologized and demonstrated compassion, “I am sorry,” “Words matter,” and “When words amplify distress and pain, I don’t know how you could feel anything but regret.”

• MIT: In a statement, President Kornbluth linked to her opening statement and wrote generally about community and fighting against hate. She didn’t directly address the hearings or her responses to questions.

• Penn: Demonstrating humility in a video message, President Magill admitted that she should have responded differently: “In that moment, I was focused on our University’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's evil—plain and simple.”

Magill has since resigned from Penn along with the Board chair. Alumni pressure at Penn was particularly strong even before the hearings. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, possibly the loudest voice, is calling for the other presidents to resign as well. A Harvard graduate, Ackman wrote an additional letter to his alma mater, a good example of persuasive communication if you’re prepared to manage fallout from a heated class discussion.

Image from source.

Musk Apologizes and Curses Advertisers

After losing major advertisers on X, Elon Musk illustrates communication lessons about apologies and rebuilding image. At least two parts of an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin are worthy of class discussion.

Starting Around 8:15
The first relates to Musk’s agreement with an X post about a antisemitic conspiracy theory. Musk tried to backtrack by posting explanations, which he said were “ignored by the media. And essentially, I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me and to those who are antisemitic, and for that I am quite sorry.” Entwined in his apology is Musk as victim, which typically doesn’t play well in rebuilding image. Apologies focus on those affected—not the actor.

Another good lesson for business communication students is Musk’s regret. He said he “should not have replied to that particular person, and I should have written in greater length as to what I meant.” A leader should know that even liking a post, no less writing, “You have said the actual truth,” carries tremendous weight. Perhaps X, with its entire founding based on short posts, is not the best medium to discuss theories of race. [Side note: Musk clarified during the interview that “tweets” were more appropriate when Twitter allowed only 140 characters. He prefers “posts” now.]

Musk visited Israel, a trip he said was planned before the X post incident. Still, the visit looked like, as Sorkin said, “an apology tour.” Musk denied the accusation, repeating the phrase “apology tour,” despite what crisis communicators might advise. Musk posted, “Actions speak louder than words." Yes, they do, so the post itself is odd. People can draw their own conclusions about his visit to Israel. The Washington Post reported that few advertisers have been positively moved by his visit.

Starting Around 11:15
When Sorkin started speaking about advertisers, Musk interrupted to say, “I hope they stop [advertising].” Understandably, Sorkin looked confused, but Musk continued, “Don’t advertise. . . . If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f—- yourself.” Sorkin was speechless at this point, and Musk repeated the command and asked, “Is that clear? I hope that it is.” We hear titters in the audience, a mix of shock and embarrassment.

Where’s the line between confidence and arrogance? Students certainly will have opinions on that topic. In fairness, Musk gets quite philosophical later in the interview. He comes across as authentic and somewhat vulnerable, revealing his personal struggles as well as his commitment to the environment and his business plans. He also expressed disappointment about OpenAI, having named the platform, which he said “should be renamed super-closed source for maximum profit AI.” That got a genuine laugh.

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.

"Open to Work" and Other Desperations

Although LinkedIn offers an “open to work” option, at least one recruiter says it’s the “biggest red flag" for employers. This reminds me of other ways students inadvertently appear desperate to recruiters.

LinkedIn explains the feature, which offers the option to show the banner to all LinkedIn members or only to recruiters. Users might select all members, thinking about networking strategies, but this might increase the look of desperation. LinkedIn also explains, “[W]e can’t guarantee complete privacy” because, if someone is still employed, recruiters at the company might find out from other recruiters that they’re on the market.

One recruiter compares job seeking to dating and encourages “exclusivity.” Business communication faculty may refer to Cialdini’s scarcity principle: people want what they can’t have.

We coach students to be more selective in their search. When a recruiter or hiring manager asks, “What’s your ideal job?,” students should have one in mind—not too narrow, but not too broad either. “I’ll do anything. I just want to work for xx” likely won’t inspire an offer. This reminds me of reading applications for the Cornell Nolan School of Hotel Administration. Many students would write that they applied because “it’s the best” program. That answer says little about the applicant’s decision process—or maybe the answer says it all.

On the other hand, students who lie about multiple job offers are playing a dangerous game. In addition to the obvious issues of integrity, college recruiters talk.

Networking requires more effort than a banner. Years of curating a network, which develops from supporting and being helpful to others, results in people who care about an applicant and want to see that person succeed. For students, this is more challenging but starts during school.

John Oliver Blasts McKinsey

Last Week Tonight produced a 26-minute segment criticizing management consultancy McKinsey. Students can decide whether John Oliver was fair in his conclusion that, “McKinsey’s advice can be expensive but obvious, its predictions can be deeply flawed, and it’s arguably supercharged inequality in this country.” He contrasts these conclusions with the CEO saying, “Our purpose is to create positive, enduring change in the world.”

Here are a few areas to explore, or you can just show the fake recruiting ad starting at 23:00, which is pretty funny.

Timing

I’m curious why Oliver created this segment now. McKinsey’s role in the opioid crisis, which he covers at around 12:00, was most highly litigated back in 2021 - 2022. He doesn’t point to anything specific since then.

Evidence

To make his points, Oliver uses a variety of evidence but mostly examples in the form of stories. If this were a serious rebuke of McKinsey, students might expect more data. I also question the many references to a 1999 film. Maybe things have changed since then? The inexplicable timing contributes to the segment feeling like the attack that it is, rather than a balanced piece. But I forget: This is “late-night news,” not actual news.

The Example of Eliminating Signatures

The example of identifying cost savings for an energy client is just silly (at 7:30). I wonder whether this is just a terrible example—or whether more information about the situation, or more examples in the original video, would make it less embarrassing. We don’t see the context.

Oliver’s Indignance

Oliver jokes about his British accent sounding “smug” (6:33), but his style is part of the reason I don’t watch him or other talk-show hosts. I’m guessing a lot of students find him funny because of his style. This might start an interesting discussion about delivery styles.

McKinsey’s Response

I don’t see any response from McKinsey, and I don’t think it would be wise. But it’s a worthy discussion point with students. Why wouldn’t the company respond? What are the arguments for responding? What, if anything, could the company say or do?

Other Perspectives

Business communication faculty—and journalism faculty—teach students to offer multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives. At around 21:00, Oliver does present other sides. He acknowledges that other consulting firms sometimes act unethically or have questionable client relationships, which (sort-of) addresses criticism that he’s singling out McKinsey. Oliver also describes how McKinsey responded to an inquiry from the show a few days before airing and admits that he’s presenting examples, which McKinsey would say don’t represent their work. But he argues against these claims by saying that the harm McKinsey has done outweighs the good.

Character

Starting at around 22:30, Oliver calls out the character dimensions students will associate with this story. He calls for greater accountability and transparency, which I describe as part of integrity. That cues up the parody McKinsey recruiting video, which starts at 23:00 for students’ enjoyment.

Of course, the entire segment raises questions about Oliver’s own integrity. Then, again, the show is what it is intended to be: entertaining.

SBF's "Scoffing" Relates to Student Behavior

The Sam Bankman-Fried trial is getting dramatic, with the defendant’s behavior potentially affecting a witness. This situation raises questions about audience reactions during presentations.

Caroline Ellison, formerly the Alameda CEO and Bankman-Fried’s girlfriend, is testifying against him. Her attorney called out Bankman-Fried’s behavior while she was on the witness stand: “[T]he defendant has laughed, visibly shaken his head, and scoffed.” He claimed that this could have a negative effect on her, while Bankman-Fried’s attorney said his reactions are “for your honor and the jury to decide.” I can’t imagine his behavior reflects well on him.

I think about all those presentations I gave while working for companies and all those presentations I watched students deliver in class. The audience could certainly affect someone’s delivery—even if someone wasn’t involved romantically.

I also think of the “head-nodders”—those students, during presentations or regular class—who inspire the speaker (or the faculty member) to continue, believing the message is well received. At the same time, some students seem to nod reflexively (or maybe to keep themselves awake).

Students would benefit from a conversation about their nonverbals as audience members. What does a nod or a smile mean: support, encouragement, listening, or something else? To what extent are students aware of their behavior?

How do students giving presentations interpret behavior, for example, looking at the clock or writing notes? To what extent are students swayed by audience behavior? Students might reflect on their experiences during internships: have audiences affected their presentation delivery?

An interesting, but risky, question after a presentation would be to ask speakers what behaviors they observed and how, if at all, they were affected. As faculty, we need to be prepared to answer the same question about our observations and the affect on us. Are you highly sensitive, immune, or somewhere in between?

Image source.

Small Talk Phrases

Matt Abrahams promotes his new book in an attention-grabbing CNBC headline: “The No. 1 phrase people who are good at small talk always use, says Stanford public speaking expert.” Of course, I was curious about the phrase, and it is . . . “Tell me more.”

Although the headline is hyperbolic (“No. 1” and “always”), Abrahams is encouraging what any business communication faculty member would encourage: use open-ended questions and phrases. He also recommends, “What excited you about that?” or “Wow, what happened next?” or “How did you feel when that happened?” Abrahams’ point is to avoid “shifting” the conversation to yourself. However, sometimes it’s useful to relate to a speaker by sharing your own experience. Also, these phrases are useful when, at times, you’re not sure what to say in response.

Students might choose phrases that feel more natural to them, for example, “I’d like to hear more about __,” “Say more about that,” or, simply, “Really?” I recently heard, “Can you take that thinking further along the track for me?” I liked that approach given the situation (a complex political idea). In similar situations, I’ve heard others offer a noncommittal “Interesting,” which felt like a polite, “Please stop talking now.”

In addition to “small talk” situations, students could practice these phrases during presentation Q&As.

Image source.

UAW Video Promotes UAW

Once again, I’m confused by United Auto Workers (UAW) communications. With the strike against three automakers in effect, a new video, posted on the website home page, is worth analyzing for audience and communication objectives.

As I wrote about last month, UAW president Shawn Fain is a prominent figure in these union messages. He’s on screen during much of the video, titled “What Is the Stand Up Strike?” and narrates for the entire four minutes, with dramatic background music throughout.

The actors and audience are unclear. Fain starts, “Everything working people have ever won, we’ve won together.” Who’s “we”? What “working people”? All working people? If so, that’s a stretch. He continues, “Today, America’s autoworkers are in the fight of our lives.” By using “our,” he includes himself. In the next few sentences, with accompanying images, he lists autoworkers’ broad goals around pay, benefits, and job security. But he transitions, loosely: “Winning these demands will take all of us. It will take a return to our roots.”

In the next segment, which lasts about one minute, Fain describes the UAW’s history. We see black and white images dating back to 1936, when Fain says the union confronted “company thugs, spies, and antiunion laws.” Promoting the value of the UAW—and unions, in general—this part seems to address a broader audience. Similarly, for about another minute, Fain then explains the union’s strategy of striking “The Big Three,” presenting the approach as an innovative model.

Not until 3:17 in the 4-minute video does Fain address autoworkers directly. He says, “UAW family, be ready,” and then encourages people to strike if their “local” is called up, stand on the picket line, and participate in other organizing activities. Business communication students will recognize the anaphora towards the end: “Stand up for ourselves and the working class. Let’s stand up for future generations. Let’s stand up for economic and social justice. Let’s stand up and, once again, make history together.”

My skepticism is about autoworkers’ interest in those ideals. Do people strike, which causes at least short-term economic loss, to make history? For future generations? This is why I miss the voice of the autoworker. How do people describe their struggles? What do they see as unfair? What would they like to see changed? Where’s the peer-to-peer influence if workers are the intended audience?

Here’s the video YouTube description, with another dose of anaphora:

The Stand Up Strike is our generation’s answer to the movement that built our union, the Sit-Down Strikes of 1937. Then as now, we face massive inequality across our society. Then as now, our industry is rapidly changing and workers are being left behind. Then as now, our labor movement is redefining itself. This is a strike that grows over time, giving our national negotiators maximum leverage and maximum flexibility to win a record contract.

A Staff Member Handles Mitch McConnell Skillfully

Although news reports (and mean memes) focus on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “freezing” during another news conference, I want to focus on the aide who handled the incident with kindness and grace. I can’t find information about who she is, but she serves as a good example of what to do in an uncomfortable presentation situation.

In the video, we see the woman by Senator McConnell’s side to support him while he is silent after receiving a question. She waited a few seconds to see whether McConnell would recover his words, and then was next to him quickly, touching his arm, and asking in a clear voice, “Did you hear the question, Senator? Running for election in 2026?” Framing the lapse as a hearing problem helped maintain McConnell’s dignity. When he didn’t respond, she addressed the group colloquially, as a colleague might: “OK, I’m sorry, y’all. We’re gonna need a minute.” She winked at them, as though she were taking them into her confidence. Then, she called the security officer up in case the senator needed to be removed from the podium. Fortunately, he did not.

After McConnell said he was fine, the woman stayed by his side for just a bit more. Then, again implying that it might have been a hearing problem (and the reporter’s fault), said, “Somebody else have a question? Please speak up.” She also made a good choice in seeking a new question in case the previous loaded one contributed to the lapse.

Her handling of the situation was much better than what happened last month, when the senator was silent and unmoving for about 20 seconds. At that time, a gaggle of people stood behind him looking anxious until a colleague asked him, “Hey Mitch. Anything else you want to say, or should we just go back to your office.” Then he was escorted away. To be fair, he recovered last time, so this aide thought that was possible again—and he did.

McConnell didn’t help ward off questions about his age and health when he avoided reporters’ questions about the incident last month. He said, “I’m fine” when he’s clearly not. The reporter asked if the moment was related to his injury, and he could have used that as a reason. For example, he could have said that it was probably a remnant of his concussion, which his doctor wrote in a letter recently, or he could have made a joke or conveyed agility and inspired confidence in some other way.

This time, the staff member helped preserve his dignity, but questions about his ability to continue in his role linger.

The Art of the Business Leader Interview

David Rubenstein’s Peer to Peer show on Bloomberg TV is a window into business and political leaders’ lives—and how to approach such an interview. The website, also a YouTube channel, has dozens of interviews. I wish the representation were better, but students can watch someone who interests them and analyze the questions and answers.

In one recent clip, Galaxy Digital Founder and CEO Mike Novogratz refers to Sam Bankman-Fried as a “sociopath.” This segment illustrates how a leader admits his own failings: although he didn’t invest with with SBF, Novogratz acknowledges doing business with him and losing money. Then again, he says, “I just never assumed I’m dealing with a sociopath. It’s hard to risk-manage against that.”

Instructors might ask students to identify ways in which leaders demonstrates character dimensions, for example, authenticity, humility, integrity, and vulnerability.

Press Conference About School Shooting

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

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

• Introduce yourself

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

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

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

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

• Provide investigation process/status

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

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

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

Untimely "Welcome to Hell" Ad

As orange haze was filling New York, a billboard appeared in the foreground: “Welcome to Hell, New York.” Creators of the “Diablo IV” video game ad didn’t realize the poor timing, and the coincidence may have worked in their favor. The launch date on the billboard is 6.6.23, the same day air quality alerts began. Of course, if marketers used the news of smoke from Canadian wildfires to promote the ad, that would have been in poor taste.

On Twitter, the EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO, Activision Blizzard, responded to questions:

I would like to clarify that Blizzard has no affiliation or partnership with the wildfires in Canada. In fact we are firmly against wildfires and condemn them in the strongest terms.

Funny? Maybe they could have done better. Some humor is acceptable in this situation because the smoke was eerie and could be harmful but didn’t cause widespread devastation, at least in New York. If that had been the case, for example, if the ad appeared in Quebec, the company response would need to be quite different.

This story reminds me of the adage (P. T. Barnum), no publicity is bad publicity, which is no longer true. But in this case, Activision Blizzard got recognition beyond the billboard.