Tools for Managing Through Interpersonal Conflict
As students protest across campuses, faculty can help them manage through conflict. Here are two tools from the text chapter, “Communicating Across Differences,” and a few thoughts about character.
This matrix, adapted from other sources (see below), shows students how to move from debate to dialogue—and through emotional involvement, my addition for more personal and community conflicts.
Students may practice reflection after presentations or activities, but reflecting “in action” is a way to zoom out and get perspective during an interaction that isn’t going well. Questions about emotional and physical reactions deepen students’ typical intellectual reflections in the classroom and encourage students to take action—even to support those who disagree with them.
Students also will learn from discussions about character. When they stand for their beliefs, they demonstrate courage, but changing their beliefs also takes courage (and humility). Protests also may veer from challenging injustice to self-righteousness, an extreme of courage that looks like moral superiority and absolute certainty.
Protesting demonstrates compassion for one side, but so does seeing the other side’s pain. In addition, students are vulnerable when they protest: they risk emotional exposure and being “doxxed,” identity exposure they might consider unbearable.
Figure 6 is adapted from “Creating Community Across Difference,” Intergroup Dialogue Project, Cornell University, 2018, which is adapted from University of Michigan Program on Intergroup Relations, 2008. Original source: Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). Adapted with Eric Clay, multi-faith and secular chaplain.
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.
Fake Fetterman and Intellectual Humility
Psychology research suggests that susceptibility to conspiracy theories is caused by a failure of analytical thinking—and intellectual humility. To some, Senator John Fetterman’s improved speech, altered facial hair, and concealed tattoo can mean only one thing: he has a body double (despite his hard-to-match six-foot-eight frame). The research behind conspiracy theories relates to business communication learning objectives about how people decide to believe or deny evidence.
Although people who tend to believe conspiracy theories pride themselves on being “unique” or “too special to be duped,” new research cited in an MSNBC article paints a different picture. From studies published last fall, authors conclude, “[P]eople may believe conspiracies partly because they fail to engage in analytic thinking and rely too much on their intuition.” More recent studies conclude:
[C]onspiracy believers not only relied more intuition, but also overestimated their performance on numeracy and perception tests (i.e. were overconfident in their own abilities).
When students scroll through their social feeds, do they generally believe what they read? This question also raises the idea of intellectual humility, a topic I discuss in Building Leadership Character. Psychologists developed this scale, which could be useful to share with students:
I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong.
I reconsider my opinions when presented with new evidence.
I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own.
I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong.
In the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.
I like finding out new information that differs from what I already think is true.
The paradox is that conspiracy theorists believe they are going against conventional thinking—for example, disbelieving mainstream media reports. But partly because of arrogance, they too quickly and without enough evidence accept other ideas.
Murdoch's Email to Employees
In his email to employees, Rupert Murdoch announces his “transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News,” but he fails to mention what he’s leaving: both Boards of Directors.
His message confirms what news reports say: he’s going nowhere and will continue to wield influence. A Guardian columnist focuses on Murdoch’s “toxic legacy” and the political overtones of his note in which he criticizes “elites” “in cahoots” with the media. (Cahoots strikes me as an outdated term along the lines of no-goodnik. Both might be new to students.) With more defamation lawsuits pending against Fox, Murdoch also, again, defends the company’s reporting.
A New York Times article chronicles his successor’s “On-Again, Off-Again Relationship With the Family Business.” Unusual for these types of announcements, Murdoch says only about his third child, Lachlan, “[We] have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan” and that Lachlan “is absolutely committed to the cause [of freedom].”
Murdoch writes, “Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities.” Yet real humility is an admirable quality—and required for a leader to step aside and let others lead. Instead, like Logan Roy in HBO’s Succession, Murdoch will hover until he dies.
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to let you all know that I have decided to transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News. For my entire professional life, I have been engaged daily with news and ideas, and that will not change. But the time is right for me to take on different roles, knowing that we have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan who will become sole Chairman of both companies.
Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities. But I am truly proud of what we have achieved collectively through the decades, and I owe much to my colleagues, whose contributions to our success have sometimes been unseen outside the company but are deeply appreciated by me. Whether the truck drivers distributing our papers, the cleaners who toil when we have left the office, the assistants who support us or the skilled operators behind the cameras or the computer code, we would be less successful and have less positive impact on society without your day-after-day dedication.
Our companies are in robust health, as am I. Our opportunities far exceed our commercial challenges. We have every reason to be optimistic about the coming years - I certainly am, and plan to be here to participate in them. But the battle for the freedom of speech and, ultimately, the freedom of thought, has never been more intense.
My father firmly believed in freedom, and Lachlan is absolutely committed to the cause. Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.
In my new role, I can guarantee you that I will be involved every day in the contest of ideas. Our companies are communities, and I will be an active member of our community. I will be watching our broadcasts with a critical eye, reading our newspapers and websites and books with much interest, and reaching out to you with thoughts, ideas, and advice. When I visit your countries and companies, you can expect to see me in the office late on a Friday afternoon.
I look forward to seeing you wherever you work and whatever your responsibility. And I urge you to make the most of this great opportunity to improve the world we live in.
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.
3M's Defensive Settlement Comms
3M’s statement and the investor call (and associated deck) about settling lawsuits for damaging earplugs sound defensive and deny responsibility. In these crisis response situations, companies choose between demonstrating accountability, compassion, and humility and taking 3M’s route of deniability.
In the statement, 3M does the minimum: states the settlement reason and amount, describes the process going forward, and tries to put a bow on it. The intent is to end the lawsuits. That’s all in three short paragraphs; the rest is a bunch of words—the typical boiler plate of financial considerations, the investor teleconference, and long forward-looking statements. The earplug situation involves Aearo Technologies, the product maker acquired by 3M in 2008, so 3M could shift blame, although the leaders wisely chose not to use that losing strategy.
On the investor call (here are the deck and transcript), all statements, questions, and answers focus on the financials. Of course, it’s an investor call, so participants are most interested in the financial impact to the company. We hear fear, including questions about insurance, the potential for additional claims—and the Big Question about pending lawsuits for a different issue—“forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or FPAS) in drinking water. Legal fees could mount to $30 billion in those cases.
Still, is there nothing to learn from the situation? 3M says some lawsuits were fraudulent, brought by U.S. veterans who did not suffer damages. Still, is there no compassion for those who clearly did? The answer seems to be no, that the company’s primary audience is investors, and that is not their immediate concern.
Students could compare these communications to those of McKinsey about their role in the opioid epidemic, a better example of taking responsibility and acknowledging damage done. Although not perfect, McKinsey’s messages indicate that the company might make changes as a result of the litigation, which is often more important to litigants than the settlement money.
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.
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.
Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication
A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.
By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.
Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.
AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.
I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.
This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.
A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.
At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.
New Studies Suggest Humility for LinkedIn Writing
New studies emphasize writing about the journey, not just outcomes, in LinkedIn profiles, Twitter bios, and other employment communications. Across seven studies, authors found describing difficulties and growth as well as accomplishments conveyed a greater sense of warmth.
Ovul Sezer, an assistant professor at Cornell University, summarizes the findings:
We define “journey” as a long and often difficult process of going from one point to another, which reflects a determination to learn, an acquisition of skills, and a sense of growth and development. For example, obstacles one faced or learning processes they went through could be great information to include in one’s personal story. We find that journey information leads to greater perceptions of warmth because journeys help to communicate humility, mitigating the appearance of arrogance often associated with self-promotion.
Part of humility is being able to learn from mistakes, which any employer would value. Humility is also described as, not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less—being rightsized.
One study evaluated LinkedIn introductions of MBA students according to “high journey” or “high outcome,” defined as follows:
In accordance with the elements of journeys and outcomes uncovered in the pilot studies, the “high journey” cells in Table 2 showcase elements of a determination to learn (curiosity, eagerness to be challenged), difficulty (operational hurdles), the acquisition of skills (studying design innovation, organizational culture, etc.), and development/growth (exploring personal interests). The “high outcome” cells mention educational degrees (MBA, dual degrees) and job positions (member of a cross-functional team).
The authors clarify that introductions can illustrate both high journey and high outcome. For a class exercise, students could rate their peers’ introductions and provide feedback on journey and outcome criteria. Then they might discuss the degree of humility and warmth conveyed and offer suggestions for improvement. The article describes additional studies, including one with HR professionals, and offers examples of effective statements, which might be useful for students to see.
In another study, authors include a chat and offer this example:
B.2.4 Outcome plus journey condition You introduce yourself to Michael and the two of you engage in the following chat:
You: “It’s great to connect with you and congratulations on winning a BDC award! I’d love to hear more about it.”
Michael: “Absolutely! It’s great to be selected as an award winner. I had to overcome a lot of obstacles along the way, like time constraints with my freelance work, and it was really challenging to reflect on my unique perspective of the world and translate that into my designs. I was nervous! But I was motivated to apply because I knew it would help me grow as a designer. Along the way, I realized that what makes me tick is to inspire people – that’s what drives me to want to be a designer.”
You: “Wow! That’s great to hear.”
One concern is the length of LinkedIn introductions. As we might expect, the most effective statements are somewhat longer than a list of accomplishments. However, authors found that, when both journey and outcomes are included, the number of words was still within an acceptable range. At the same time, including their journey will challenge students to write concisely, even when telling more of their story.
Retracted Behavioral Science Studies
The process of discovering fraud—and the aftermath—in a Harvard Business School professor’s work is a lesson in evidence, data integrity, and ethics for business communication students. I’ve admired Francesca Gino’s work and cited her research on learning and authenticity in Building Leadership Character. But three of her studies are being retracted, and Harvard has placed her on administrative leave.
News outlets love headlines like NPR’s, “Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data,” and, this almost identical one from The Guardian, “Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies.” Fair enough, but her work is far broader—more about management decision making than honesty or ethics.
On their blog Data Colada, researchers describe how they discovered falsified data. Their sleuthing involves a fascinating dive into hidden Excel files that, the detectives say, proved that data was* moved and changed. Students might be interested to learn how much data Excel stores.
As examples of crisis communication, responses to the news are mixed. To date, Harvard hasn’t commented on reports or the decision to place Gino on leave. Announced in a blurb, at least one of her scheduled presentations has been cancelled. In a Chronicle article, collaborators and other behavioral scientists expressed their concern and/or defended their own work. Rational folks suggested waiting until more information is revealed, and work is ongoing to document the origins of all study data. Gino wrote nothing about the controversy on her own website, but she did post a short statement on LinkedIn. Her voice is reserved but clear, expressing humility and gratitude—both appropriate for the situation and early findings.
* Random: I use data as a singular noun, which is more common in business. This article explains my reasons well.
OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone
In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.
In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."
Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:
"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”
Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.
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.
Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide
In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.
Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.
The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.
Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.
The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.
But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.
We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.
April 30, 2023
The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.
As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.
Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.
In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.
In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.
Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.
Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:
Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.
Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.
Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.
Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.
Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.
Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.
There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.
Fox News Takes Little Responsibility in Settlement Statement
Before the trial began, Fox News settled the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit and published the vaguest possible statement, below. In few words, the company made no apology and took little responsibility for making false statements about Dominion’s role in rigging machines during the 2020 election.
The settlement doesn’t require an apology or admission of making false claims, but a PBS NewsHour reporter said that the settlement amount, $787.5 million, might convey both. A large sum for a defamation case, the amount is just under half the ask, presumably so Fox can report that the company settled for “less than half.”
Fox’s statement refers to “this dispute with Dominion,” as if the two companies simply disagreed, and Fox wasn’t the one sued. The company also emphasizes the public value of the settlement: “instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, [it] allows the country to move forward from these issues.” Maybe, but companies settle lawsuits for one primary reason: they believe they will lose.
By this evening, the Fox News website showed no sign of the decision—only the stories shown here. One short news story focused on the agreement and the judge’s positive comments about the attorneys. I found a statement at the bottom of the website under links for About, Media Relations, Press Releases. Overall, the company scarcely demonstrates accountability and humility—or learning from its mistakes. One interpretation of its “continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards” is that nothing will change.
Students might be interested in this story and can discuss whether Fox should have done anything differently from an ethical perspective or, perhaps, from a PR perspective.
Although far from perfect, one comparison is McKinsey’s statement about its involvement with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis.
NEW YORK – April 18, 2023 — FOX News Media announced today that a settlement was reached in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit.
In making the announcement, the network said, “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”
FOX News Media operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX News Audio, FOX News Books, the direct-to-consumer streaming services FOX Nation and FOX News International and the free ad-supported television service FOX Weather. Currently the number one network in all of cable, FNC has also been the most watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, while FBN ranks among the top business channels on cable. Owned by Fox Corporation, FOX News Media reaches nearly 200 million people each month.
###
Intel Honors Gordon Moore
Intel’s home page links to several communications about the co-founder’s death. Like all obituaries for older people, the articles about Gordon Moore, age 94, were clearly prepared ahead of time. The news is technically bad, but it was expected, so these communications are opportunities to demonstrate respect—and for company PR.
With the primary audience as members of the press, the webpage includes an obituary, downloadable photos, a tribute, and more. The obituary acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for the announcement and includes a link to the organization. This is a promotional opportunity for the foundation as well.
The tribute, titled, “He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans: Never the loudest guy in the room, Intel’s co-founder commanded huge respect,” is a more personal look at Moore’s life. Three interviews tell us more about Moore’s “character,” as the author writes.
A visual timeline shows his major accomplishments and recognitions. One of Moore’s most significant contributions is what came to be known as “Moore’s Law,” a prediction that the “number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years.” Intel’s tribute describes Moore as a humble man. He told his biographer that he was embarrassed to have the law named after him.
The press kit lists the following, including the three links above:
Visual Tribute: A Look Back at the Life of Intel's Co-Founder
Timeline: Celebrating Gordon Moore
More on Moore: Five Things to Know About Gordon Moore
Video: The Gordon Moore Effect
Gordon Moore Park at Ronler Acres: Intel Marks Grand Opening of $3 Billion Factory Expansion in Oregon | Event Replay
Zuckerberg Frames Layoffs in the “Year of Efficiency”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s note to employees is a study in bad-news messages. In a 2,188-word message note posted on Meta’s news site and his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg explained his strategy for the “Year of Efficiency.” This frame for operational changes is good for investors, who are concerned with financials, but not for employees who will be laid off.
In the first paragraph, Zuckerberg reiterates Facebook’s initial mission of “building the future of human connection,” and he identifies two broad goals: becoming a better technology company and improving financial performance. He doesn’t wait too long—the third paragraph—to confirm layoffs, which are obvious from the start. With some compassion, he acknowledges “uncertainty“ and “stress” and identifies the timeline, so people know what to expect. In the fourth and sixth paragraphs, he writes:
This will be tough and there's no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success. They've dedicated themselves to our mission and I'm personally grateful for all their efforts. We will support people in the same ways we have before and treat everyone with the gratitude they deserve. . . .
I understand that this update may still feel surprising, so I'd like to lay out some broader context on our vision, our culture, and our operating philosophy.
Zuckerberg outlines additional changes, including hiring freezes, technology investments, and more in-person time, which may not be popular either. Students could analyze evidence Zuckerberg provides for his claims, for example, “leaner is better,” “flatter is faster,” and working in-person improves performance. For the in-person claim, he does acknowledge, “This requires further study, but our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.” Still, this could be a contentious issue, and he could offer external research to support his points. But perhaps academic research would have less credibility than the internal data, which he uses for his other claims.
Zuckerberg demonstrates some humility and highlights changes based on employee feedback:
I recognize that sharing plans for restructuring and layoffs months in advance creates a challenging period. But last fall, we heard feedback that you wanted more transparency sooner into any restructuring plans, so that's what I'm trying to provide here. I hope that giving you a timeline and principles for what to expect will help us get through the next couple of months and then move forward as we implement these changes that I believe will have a very positive impact on how we work.
The post illustrates a CEO’s difficult decisions and how he communicates them to employees. These changes are in addition to last year’s layoffs—13% of the workforce—which Zuckerberg mentions towards the end of the long post. Despite his communication efforts, uncertainty prevails—not only in employees’ wondering who will have a job in a few months but in whether the metaverse vision will be as successful as Zuckerberg hopes.
Allbirds Admits Mistakes
Allbirds provides a good example of accountability and humility. No executive likes to discuss disappointing quarterly results, but Joey Zwillinger, co-founder and co-CEO, admitted mistakes, which could improve his credibility for future plans.
On the Q4 2022 earnings call, Zwillinger acknowledged “missteps”:
However, in this journey, we also made some missteps:
1) We overemphasized products that extended beyond our core DNA, and as a result, some products and colors have had narrower appeal than expected.
2) Because we were spending significant time and resources on these new products that did not resonate well, we under-invested in our core consumers’ favorite products.
3) Finally we did not increase our brand awareness to the level that we anticipated.
These communications aren’t quite “bad-news message” because they aren’t announcements, which is why Zwillinger is smart to discuss problems openly: they are already quite obvious to investors. One of my favorite lines is, “As we made those adjacent product development decisions, we unfortunately lost a bit of sight of what our core consumer fell in love with us for in the first place and what they continue to want from us.”
With Zwillinger’s humility—his willingness to admit and learn from mistakes—he inspires confidence that Allbirds can get back to its core products and customers. Zwillinger makes the mistakes sound fixable; they sound like an over-reach that didn’t work out, a bad color choice that can be painted over. Other brands might have a tougher time communicating failure if problems are insurmountable or decisions are irreversible.
"Intense" Google All-Hands Meeting
A window into a Google employee meeting reveals strife within the company and how executives are responding by redefining/clarifying strategy and downplaying problems. Employees are still frustrated about the embarrassing introduction of Bard, Google’s AI competitor to ChatGPT. In the exchange, below, Bard product lead Jack Krawczyk tried to distinguish the engine from search, which employees say differs from the initial strategy. A new feature, “Search It,” is newly built for internal use for this purpose.
[Employee Question] “Bard and ChatGPT are large language models, not knowledge models. They are great at generating human-sounding text, they are not good at ensuring their text is fact-based. Why do we think the big first application should be Search, which at its heart is about finding true information?”
Krawczyk responded by immediately saying, “I just want to be very clear: Bard is not search.”
“It’s an experiment that’s a collaborative AI service that we talked about,” Krawczyk said. “The magic that we’re finding in using the product is really around being this creative companion to helping you be the sparkplug for imagination, explore your curiosity, etc.”
But Krawczyk was quick to follow up by saying, “we can’t stop users from trying to use it like search.”
CEO Sundar Pichai stressed improvements over time, downplaying Bard’s factual error, which overshadowed the rollout and caused Alphabet’s 9% stock decline. He said, “It’s important to acknowledge that it’s experimental, and “Products like this get better the more the people who use them. It’s a virtuous cycle.”
At some point, Pichai acknowledged, “It’s an intense time.” The meeting sounded rough, showing us the difficulty of facing employees in real time. All-hands meetings like this take leaders’ patience and sometimes call for vulnerability, which isn’t apparent from these quotes. From the reported excerpts, it’s difficult to gauge how employees responded, but the intensity, as Pichai said, is clear.
Warren Buffett's Letter Refers to “an Economic Illiterate”
Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders is always greatly anticipated, and this year, it doesn’t disappoint. All letters since 1977 are archived on this page of the company’s bare-bones website, which is a class topic in itself.
Last year was rocky for investors, but 92-year-old Buffett maintains confidence. As usual, his writing tone is straightforward and no-nonsense; for example, he writes, “‘Efficient’ markets exist only in textbooks. In truth, marketable stocks and bonds are baffling, their behavior usually understandable only in retrospect.” The most quoted excerpt seems to be his defense of stock buybacks:
When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).
Buffett’s style is also conversational. This paragraph demonstrates his humility as well:
At this point, a report card from me is appropriate: In 58 years of Berkshire management, most of my capital-allocation decisions have been no better than so-so. In some cases, also, bad moves by me have been rescued by very large doses of luck. (Remember our escapes from near-disasters at USAir and Salomon? I certainly do.) Our satisfactory results have been the product of about a dozen truly good decisions – that would be about one every five years – and a sometimes-forgotten advantage that favors long-term investors such as Berkshire. Let’s take a peek behind the curtain.
In addition to the writing style, the letter is a good example of clear organization, audience focus, and varied sentence structure. Finance students may enjoy reading his billionaire’s wisdom, just as his investors do.