Expedia CEO Email About Bathroom Cameras

Facing an unusual company situation, Expedia CEO Peter Kern tried to reassure employees they are safe at work.

Although cameras were reported in December, security officers didn’t remove them, thinking they were a battery or music player. Employees were angry about the six-week delay between the time the cameras were reported and when they were notified. The cameras might have been planted by an employee who has a history of recording others and at least 33 devices in his home.

Kern’s email is below. I wonder whether he overuses “we” and “us.” Is he really concerned for his own safety? Does he use that bathroom or a private one?

What Kern does well is acknowledge employees’ feelings and the violation of trust. But he doesn’t address the company’s violation of trust because of its poor response—only the spying employee’s.

The third paragraph seems an odd mix of criticizing news reports about the company and allowing remote work. In this sentence, Kern equates employees’ frustration and disappointment with errant news reports rather than failing company actions. Lacking more accountability and humility, he doesn’t explain company actions—or admit failings. Without a paragraph break after this sentence, he seems to further correlate bad news reports with employees’ need for space and support.

I know that reading incomplete news stories about our team’s significant efforts to protect employees and identify the individual responsible has been frustrating and disappointing during a disturbing time.

What a strange situation for a CEO to have to address. I don’t think it’s related, but this incident comes during a transition back to a former CEO.

---

Dear Team,

I know this has been an incredibly challenging week for our Seattle campus community and those who have visited. The news that one of our own colleagues invaded our collective privacy is highly disturbing. It has left many of us angry and feeling vulnerable. There really are no words that I can offer to make those feelings go away for any of us — it has happened despite our vigilant efforts to make sure our people, our Seattle campus, and all our offices are safe places to work and visit. It happened because one of our own, whom we trusted, abused that trust. Our team identified and fired this former colleague, collaborated with law enforcement to bring them to justice, and gratefully the Seattle Police Department has arrested the individual responsible for the pain we are all feeling.

Some of you may have observed or heard that Seattle police were in the office yesterday to execute an additional search to make sure there was no other relevant evidence to the case. They did remove some items that may be relevant to the case (mentioned in our Chief Security Officer Kurt John’s message), but no additional recording devices were found. With that done we will be closing the Seattle campus this weekend through Monday to take additional security precautions as our teams continue to work to prevent anything like this from happening in the future. We’re closing campus as we do this work as an additional precaution. The best thing we can do now is help the authorities in every way possible, use resources to heal, and learn from this experience to put additional preventative measures in place.

Let me just end by saying that while we are not the first nor sadly the last company that will likely face something like this, the violation of our collective trust is real and will take time to heal. I know that reading incomplete news stories about our team’s significant efforts to protect employees and identify the individual responsible has been frustrating and disappointing during a disturbing time. While everyone responds to events like this in their own way, I want to reassure you that if you need some time and space, we understand and want you to care for yourselves. If you need some additional time to work remotely you can do so, including during Expedia Week. I urge you to use all the resources we are making available as we continue to ensure you are supported.

I am sorry for any distress this has caused you and can only say that our teams are working tirelessly to make sure you all feel safe and secure on our campuses.

Peter

Image source.

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.

Soccer Players "Walking Off" After Racist Comments

Not a sports watcher, I’m fascinated reading how soccer players handle racist comments during the game. Some players are walking off the field amid calls for greater penalties.

A writer for The Athletic explains what led to the AC Milan (the football team) to walk off:

[Mike] Maignan led his AC Milan teammates off the pitch at Udinese on Saturday after being racially abused twice from the stands. [Kasey] Palmer was racially abused by a Sheffield Wednesday fan towards the end of Coventry City’s 2-1 win at Hillsborough.

AC Milan posted support on X: “There is absolutely no place in our game for racism: we are appalled. We are with you, Mike. #WeRespAct”

Of his experience, Palmer said, “I’m black and proud, and I am raising my three kids to be the exact same. I’ll be honest, it feels like things will never change, no matter how hard we try,” and “Couple fans doing monkey chants don’t define a fanbase. I appreciate all the love and support I’ve received.”

Maignan called on authorities to do more. He also posted these thoughts on X:

It was not the player who was attacked. It's the man. He's the father of the family. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. And I'm not the first this has happened to. We issued press releases, advertising campaigns, protocols and nothing has changed. Today, an entire system must take responsibility. . . .

The FIFA president made a statement condemning racism, including, “No to racism! No to any form of discrimination!” But many are calling for harsher punishments in addition to the current process:

FIFA’s guidance follows a “three-step” policy: at the first incident of racism, the referee should report it to the “home club safety officer via the fourth official”; at the second, the referee may suspend the match “allowing the safety officer and police to deal with the perpetrators”; it’s only at the third incident that the referee is empowered to abandon the match.

As we can expect, not everyone agrees, with some calling for players to do the equivalent of “man up” but with more literal expressions I had to look up and won’t write. Students could weigh in on this situation, and a discussion could lead to, but doesn’t have to, what’s acceptable on college campuses.

This situation raises issues of integrity for the league. A writer for The Athletic says of FIFA’s president, “Now it’s time for him to follow up his words with action.” This is a call for words and deeds to match, or for consistency, a key component of integrity.

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.

Disclosing an Illness

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III delayed telling the White House about his prostate cancer, which raises questions about whether or when a corporate executive should disclose an illness.

At a news conference on January 9, Pentagon Press Secretary Gen. Patrick Ryder apologized for failing to notify proper channels when Austin was hospitalized:

I recognized that I should have tried to learn more and to press for an earlier public acknowledgement. So I want to offer my apologies and my pledge to learn from this experience. And I will do everything I can to meet the standard that you expect from us.

He also said, “Secretary Austin has taken responsibility for the issues with transparency.”

Leaders might naturally avoid disclosing an illness. A palliative care doctor said, “It’s very human to not want to have yourself sort of flayed open for the world to see.” He’s describing vulnerability, or emotional exposure. Others say it’s a coping mechanism, trying to control the uncontrollable. Compartmentalization—to a point—is a useful way to deal with a diagnosis. But experts warn that being too secretive can lead to isolation and may not get people the help they need.

Austin’s situation reminds me of others who have disclosed illnesses for good reasons. Alex Trebek, long-time Jeopardy! host announced is illness on air. He described his rationale for the message about his stage 4 pancreatic cancer diagnosis: to be “open and transparent” and to avoid “overblown or inaccurate reports.” His diagnosis has a particularly low survival rate, so the decision might have been easier for him, as he accepted his likely death. For different reasons, Senator John Fetterman revealed his mental health struggles, which was lauded as courageous and a way to normalize depression.

For corporate CEOs, the decision to disclose health issues is complicated because of the potential impact on customer, employee, or investor confidence. Famously, Steve Jobs downplayed and delayed disclosing his pancreatic cancer and other health issues, which was highly criticized for its impact on, for example, investor decision making, and was a troubling situation for some board members.

According to this Harvard Law article, “Best Practices for Disclosing Executive Health Issues,” the obligation for public disclosure is limited:

If a senior executive is incapacitated and therefore unable to perform his or her duties, disclosure is required (particularly if the executive performs certain roles [9] or is otherwise reasonably believed to be critical to the success of the company).

In addition to reviewing the risks and approaches, including a communication plan, the article authors provide examples of companies that gave full disclosures, mixed disclosures, and “The Silent Treatment.” They conclude: “Most risk arises from partial disclosures or “half-truths”—which should be avoided. Sometimes silence with respect to executive health is the best policy.” Maybe, but I’ll also quote a university communication executive: “The trust will come out.”

Corporate executives have difficult choices in these situations. In this case, Austin didn’t really have a decision to make: he should have followed protocol and did not.

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.

CMU's Response to Antisemitism Lawsuit

A Carnegie Mellon University graduate student of architecture filed a lawsuit alleging antisemitism, and the university’s response could be improved. The federal complaint describes incidents since 2018, including a professor’s actions and comments to the student and the student’s reports to the DEI office and the Title IX office, which she says discouraged her from filing a formal complaint.

The university’s response sounds like ChatGPT wrote it. The president uses well-worn phrases for these types of statements, as if they were pulled from those who had faced similar situations, regardless of whether the response was well received or ethical. The most glaring sentence is, “We take these allegations very seriously, are reviewing them closely and plan to respond appropriately.” Of course they do and they will. This is no great statement of accountability: the university has little choice after receiving a federal complaint.

“Values” appears three times in the short statement, the last one linking to the university’s “shared values” that no one but me will read. If they did, they would see that all eight values could appear on any university’s website—or that of most for-profit, non-profit, or governmental organizations.

I am sympathetic. University presidents are leading in extremely challenging times, when no answer, no action will satisfy everyone. This has always been true for organizational leaders, but now seems particularly rough. Related: I found Sophia Rosenfeld’s article, “I Teach a Class on Free Speech. My Students Can Show Us the Way Forward,” to be a poignant, hopeful summary of the current situation.

Image source.

WSJ’s Analysis of Spotify’s Layoff Email

The Wall Street Journal analyzed Spotify’s layoff email announcing a 17% workforce cut—about 1,500 people. For the most part, comments align with what business communication faculty teach about writing bad-news messages.

Here are a few notes about the WSJ comments. Students could use these components to compare the four company messages the WSJ mentions—Amazon, Meta, and Salesforce in addition to Spotify’s.

• Subject line: The WSJ is right that most of these emails have a subject line that sounds “innocuous”; all four have “update” in the title. (The Journal writer calls it a “title” because that’s what we see online, but to employees, it’s an email subject.) What’s more relevant about the use of “update” is the organizations’ reminder that bad news is coming. Layoffs should not be a surprise, and company leaders want all stakeholders to know that they have properly prepared employees.

• When the news is broken: Older communication principles taught the indirect organization style for bad-news messages (with context/reasons first), but we have little evidence to support this structure, which tends only to make the writer feel better (for example, see Microsoft Layoff Email). In these four email examples, the news (including a workforce percentage) is clearest in the second paragraph. An interesting study would assess how quickly employees read the first paragraph, scanning for the bottom line.

  Yet, the second paragraph is probably “upfront” enough given that the layoffs should be expected. But the news tends to come at the end of that second paragraph, an indirect paragraph structure in itself. In 2020, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky broke rank and wrote in the first paragraph (albeit at the end): “today I have to share some very sad news.”

• How context is explained: What’s interesting to me is whether the leader takes responsibility for the need to layoff, say, 17% of the workforce. I’m impress by Marc Benioff’s accountability and humility (learning from mistakes) at Salesforce: “we hired too many people leading into this economic downturn we’re now facing, and I take responsibility for that.” Andy Jassy at Amazon admits, “we’ve hired rapidly over the last several years.” Mark Zuckerberg focuses on “efficiencies," leaving us to wonder where the inefficiencies came from. The Journal writer notes, “executive mea-culpa has become another staple of the layoff letter,” but I don’t see many as explicit as Benioff. Others point to changing conditions that were difficult to predict. Although that may be true, exuberant hiring was still a mistake, by definition, given the negative results. A leader could own it.

• Balancing those leaving and staying: The Journal writer points out a difficult part of writing layoff memos—the tone for each group: “Executives want to acknowledge the contributions of the laid-off employees, while quickly then pivoting to explain why the company will be fine without them.” This is why one massive email to multiple audiences is an imperfect approach. But it’s probably best for consistent, timely, and transparent communication.

• How people are affected: Let’s face it: what employees reading these emails care most about is, what about me? Spotify is clear about what to expect next: “If you are an impacted employee, you will receive a calendar invite within the next two hours from HR for a one-on-one conversation.” A tech, rather than a personal, contact isn’t great, but, again, it’s best for quick, consistent communication.

• Compensation and benefits for people leaving: I used to think this was inappropriate to include in layoff emails sent to people not affected, but I’ve warmed up to the idea. Now that these emails are made public, the company needs to assure all stakeholders that they are being fair, if not generous. Spotify received accolades for its process from people like Dave Lehmkuhl, whose LinkedIn post got more than 57,000 likes so far.

• Jargon: The Journal writer jokes, “Ding, ding, ding: If you had ‘right-sized’ on your corporate-layoff-memo bingo card, you’re a winner.” Students will find other jargon in these emails, but not an abundance of it. CEOs and their writers want to avoid the likely ridicule.

• Rallying those remaining: Does that last email section describe a place where those left behind want to work? Ending on a positive note is critical, particularly if the message is public for shareholders and consumers to read. But only the primary audience, employees, can answer the question—and perhaps only in a year from now will they know for sure.

Image 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.

New Baffling Comms About OpenAI Leadership Shuffles

Even the best communication can’t contain this much damage. The OpenAI saga, starting with the surprise firing of the CEO, illustrates the power of employee activism and the importance of communication planning.

The OpenAI board’s poor planning and decision making have led to angry investors, the loss of several key leaders and, as of now, more than 700 additional employees threatening to quit if the board doesn’t resign. The petition was fueled by employees posting on X, “OpenAI is nothing without its people.”

Employees have power because of their numbers and because of Microsoft’s promise to hire them, according to the signed letter. However, they also demand that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman be rehired, which may be unlikely since Microsoft quickly hired the pair to start a new subsidiary. In a 2:53 am, cover-all-bases tweet, Satya Nadella expressed continued confidence in the OpenAI team, and then slipped into the same paragraph Microsoft’s hiring of OpenAI’s two outsted leaders to start the new venture: “And [by the way] . . . .”

The employees who may join them include Mira Murati—the first to sign the letter—who was appointed interim CEO and replaced within two days. The biggest surprise might be #12 on the list—Ilya Sutskever, whom earlier reports blamed for the termination decision. Sutskever’s “regret” tweet doesn’t quite take responsibility, focusing on his “participation” (and if he were just following along) and his intention (which scarcely matters compared to the impact):

I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.

Further confusing those of us on the sidelines—or perhaps simply displaying an impressive swell of forgiveness—Altman replied with three heart emojis.

One obvious lesson for business communication students is to think carefully before making major changes. Faculty teach communication planning that considers who needs to know what information and how each audience might react to the news. The board clearly underestimated negative reactions by investors and employees.

As this circus continues, I’m sure students will learn more about what to do and what not to do when communicating change—and making good business decisions.

Image source.

FDIC's "Toxic Workplace" and an Activity

As Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg faces pressure to resign, students can explore what a “toxic workplace” looks like. Without getting too detailed, they could describe their own experiences—when they have felt uncomfortable during jobs and internships.

In my persuasive communication and organizational behavior classes, I used a variation of an activity from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values that could be useful as you discuss the FDIC example. In the FDIC situation, speaking up didn’t make a difference. Still, reflecting on students’ own experience may inspire them to take action and have an impact in the future.

A Wall Street Journal investigation revealed multiple leadership problems dating back to at least 2008 at the FDIC. Complaints went unresolved and sometimes resulted in promotions of those accused. Although Black employees won a $15 million class action suit in 2000, discrimination complaints continued. Workers claim that sexual harassment and bullying is part of the culture.

FDIC leadership is taking no accountability and saying little in response to the published investigation. An official told the WSJ that the agency "has no higher priority than to ensure that all FDIC employees work in a safe environment where they feel valued and respected. Sexual harassment or discriminatory behavior is completely unacceptable. We take these allegations very seriously." Students will recognize this as meaningless boilerplate. Because the story is so visible and the reporting is so clear, the agency is better off demonstrating humility—recognizing failures and, if nothing specific at this point, at least describing plans for corrective action.

---

Taking Action

For this activity, you’ll compare two examples from your work or other experience.[1]  The purpose of this exercise is to see how you have taken action in a situation that conflicted with your values. Then, you will analyze a time when you didn’t take action to see how you could have handled the situation differently.

Individual Planning Questions

First, think of a time when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values, and you spoke up or acted in some way to address the situation.

• Briefly describe the context.

• What inspired you to do something?

• What did you do and how did it impact others?

• What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?

• In retrospect, how did you do? You don’t need to be too self-critical, but think about what would have been ideal in the situation.

Next, think of another situation in which you did not speak up or act when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values or ethics.

• Briefly describe the context.

• What prevented you from speaking up? What would have motivated you to take action?

• What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?

• In retrospect, what could you have done differently?

Partner Feedback

If you can work with a partner, discuss your responses and learn from each experience.

When talking about your own situation, you don’t need to defend your actions or be too critical. When you listen to your partner’s situation, you can ask clarifying questions or share similar experiences, but try not to judge the decision. Like you, your partner may be sensitive about actions taken or not taken.

At the end of your conversation, summarize the main learning points. What would you like to do more of in the future to develop leadership character?

[1] This activity is adapted from Mary Gentile, Giving Voice to Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 51–53.

Image source.

Recall Notices About Metal in Chicken Nuggets

Recalls about “foreign matter” in food can be tricky to communicate. Tyson and USDA notices illustrate accountability and bad-news messaging for students to compare.

Audiences and communication objectives are similar for all recall notices. For the company and government agency, the primary audience is customers, and both organizations want customers to avoid using affected products. Messages clarify which products have been affected (typically product types, distributors, and locations), and companies offer a refund for returned products. Companies have an additional objective—to maintain brand image.

In this case of the “Fun Nuggets” recall, the USDA message is straightforward, starting with “Tyson” as the actor recalling the product. The notice describes the recall issue this way:

The problem was discovered after the firm notified FSIS that it had received consumer complaints reporting small metal pieces in the chicken patty product.

There has been one reported minor oral injury associated with consumption of this product.

With clunky language, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) subtly promotes itself by describing what the agency does to follow up:

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

The Tyson message also starts with the main point up front but emphasizes the “voluntary recall,” which is typical but a bit strange. Would the company need to be convinced to recall the product in such a case? Still, the writer chooses “out of an abundance of caution,” a near-cliché to describe the decision:

A limited number of consumers have reported they found small, pliable metal pieces in the product, and out of an abundance of caution, the company is recalling this product.  

At least two more differences between the messages are notable. “Pliable” does sound better, and of course, Tyson doesn’t mention the “minor oral injury.” Tyson also states, “a limited number” of customer complaints, as any company would in a crisis situation to contain the damage. Stating a specific number also might convey an unpleasant image, which I have in my head, of an 8-year-old screaming at a kitchen table.

The FSIS message states where products were distributed, which seems useful, while the Tyson message includes a product photo, which seems essential. I’m guessing the FSIS wouldn’t send an agent out to buy a bag to take a picture, but they could lift the image from Tyson.

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.

Hyatt's Bad-News Message to BCom Faculty

Association for Business Communication members woke up to a cold shower during the annual conference and later received a note from the director of operations. Naturally, we analyzed this message against principles for delivering bad news. I admit to “geeking out” on this one.

Strengths

• The director of operations took responsibility for the issue and had a personal note delivered to every room. (I don’t know what time because I had left my room after getting what might have been the last warm shower at 6:20.)

• Dietel mentions the news up front (despite older advice of using the indirect approach and putting bad news at the end), which is appropriate for the audience and situation.

• He explains what happened (beyond the hotel’s control, so he won’t get blamed) and tells guests not to expect warm water for “several hours.”

• He apologizes, noting, “this is very inconvenient.” (What else could he say?)

• He provides staff contact information by phone and his direct email. He doesn’t shy away from customer complaints.

Areas for Improvement

• The first sentence is confusing: Who is notified? The city steam plant? No, guests—or “you.”

• To bring main points even more clearly up front, some version of the last sentence of the first paragraph—when guests can expect hot water—would work better.

• The reason includes more detail than guests might care to know. I would make it more concise: “a disruption at the city steam plant.”

• “Several hours” could be defined, but that might not be possible. Deitel says the disruption has been “restored,” and we’re waiting for “the necessary steam.”

• Correct punctuation and proofreading are always appreciated; commas, hyphens, and “The city” instead of “They city” would increase credibility.

• Maybe a text would have worked better to save paper and provide an easy way to notify people when the hot water returned. Otherwise, given the “several hours” prediction, guests would have to keep testing it. Don’t all guests provide a phone number when they check in? Or maybe the hotel favors paper for the appearance of more personalized service (like a handwritten thank-you note compared to an email).

Business communication faculty—including me—will dissect any message. But overall, the message is a good example of a director of operations leading: taking responsibility, communicating, and dealing with the repercussions. I hope no guests called or emailed. In a situation like this, the hotel staff can do very little.

Comparing University Statements About Israel

As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)

Statements

Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington

Questions for Discussion

• Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?

• What are the communication objectives?

• For each statement:

  • How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?

  • What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?

  • How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?

  • How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?

  • How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?

  • What resources are offered for students?

  • What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?

  • What, if any, action does the university promise?

  • How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?

  • What else distinguishes one statement from another?

• What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?

Image source.

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.

Airbnb Shifts Communication About NYC

A NYC law that dramatically limits the number of short-term rentals has taken effect, and Airbnb is left to communicate requirements to hosts. The news is bad, but the communication focuses on action because the decision was made back in June. Here’s the gist:

Hosts (whether owners or tenants) cannot rent out an entire apartment or home to visitors for fewer than 30 days, even if the host owns or lives in the building.

The Sept. 5 deadline came after years of complaints and litigation, which the company explained to hosts and to the public. Now, messaging has turned to action: Airbnb is taking responsibility for getting hosts to follow registration guidelines now that the law is being enforced.

When the legal case was decided in June, messages expressed Airbnb’s disappointment and the effect. Theo Yedinsky, global policy director for Airbnb, provided this statement to the press, focusing on hosts: "New York City's short-term rental rules are a blow to its tourism economy and the thousands of New Yorkers and small businesses in the outer boroughs who rely on home sharing and tourism dollars to help make ends meet." He also explained the effect on NYC visitors: “The city is sending a clear message to millions of potential visitors who will now have fewer accommodation options when they visit New York City: ‘You are not welcome.’”

In a recent message to hosts, who are now Airbnb’s primary audience, the company explained what hosts need to do. The message is under “Help Center” and, appropriately, reads like a checklist. Unfortunately, the time to fight is over, and now hosts need to follow the law. Of course, Airbnb takes the opportunity to include a short introduction about how hard the company tried to avoid this situation—and how the decision rests with the city.

Instructions are clear and, significantly, the message starts with this ominous statement, implying that similar rules may come to other regions:

When deciding whether to become an Airbnb host, it is important for you to understand the laws in your region or city. As a platform and online marketplace we do not provide legal advice, but we want to provide resources that may help you better understand applicable laws and regulations. This list is not exhaustive, but it may give you a good start in understanding your local laws. If you have questions, visit the short-term rental homepage or other government agencies directly, or consult a local lawyer or tax professional.

As expected, the number of short-term rentals has taken a nosedive. Wired reports that the number of Airbnb properties dropped 70%—and that doesn’t include laggards who still need to either register or delist, and other short-term rental properties such as those on VRBO.

Image source.

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.

Lessons Learned from Maui's Disaster Communications

Criticism about Maui’s emergency management during devastating wildfires center around disaster communications and what could have been done differently. Students will see parallels with business communication in this public communication situation.

A PBS NewsHour segment includes an interview with Tricia Wachtendorf, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. She identifies a “sequence of behaviors that people need to go through before they even begin reacting to a disaster warning”: hear it, understand it, believe it, personalize it (is this about me?), and confirm it. The objective is to speed up this process as well as the evacuation process. As we might expect, Wachtendorf encourages more advanced warning to help people plan and, as business communicators know, using multiple channels of communication. She also said that research doesn’t support that people panic when hearing warnings, as some believe.

This sequence could be applied to change, bad-news, or persuasive communication. Understanding more about the audience response tells students how to adjust their messages in all of these situations. For example, in a layoff situation, employees likely would process the news in a similar “sequence,” although the process is accelerated in crisis situations.

The county’s head of emergency management resigned following questions about not sounding alarms for people to evacuate. He takes responsibility for the decision, saying people would have “gone Mauka,” meaning inland or into the fire, but he resigned for “health reasons.” I tried to find a statement on the website but got distracted by the lack of information. Here’s the home page with “no alerts at this time,” which seems strange given that Maui Now has this notice: “Maui wildfire disaster updates for Aug. 19: Death toll at 114; fires are still raging but not spreading.”

Investigations may take years, but more information about what happened may help other regions improve communications during similar events.

Improving a JetBlue Email for Writing Style

A JetBlue email announcing a program change uses a conversational writing style but could use more “you” focus. Students can analyze the message and might identify the following:

• The main points are up front in both the subject line (above the blue bar) and first sentence.

• Although technically correct, the comma after “Hi” and before “Amy” is not conventional. I gave this up after seeing hundreds of business emails without the comma.

• The tone is reassuring and tells customers what they need to know.

• Mostly, the tone is conversational with natural language, for example, “wanted to let you know about a couple upcoming changes.”

• More use of “you” would make the email sound more natural, as in the example below.

• Some language choices sound odd, for example, “To the extent any individual customers are impacted, JetBlue will reach out individually for any required re-accommodation or refund.” I thought airlines learned the “re-accommodation” jargon lesson after United dragged a man out of his seat and off the plane in 2017. How about, “You’ll hear from us separately with options for changing flights.”

• The president and COO signed the letter—always a good example of accountability.

• The president appropriately blames federal action for the change, without being too snarky or getting into the details, which would not be relevant to customers: “We've had so much great member feedback on this partnership and are bluer than usual to see it end, after a federal court ruled that the Northeast Alliance could not continue.”

Overall, this bad-news message sounds neutral and might be the best approach for the situation.