Activist Investor Letter and Railroad's Response

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

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

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

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

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

Letter from Founder of World Central Kitchen

I’m posting this hoping it’s not perceived as “political” but as a beautifully written letter by an organization leader about his work and his staff. I know that the facts in the letter are disputed.

José Andrés is the founder of World Central Kitchen, whose seven aid workers were killed while trying to deliver food to the people in Gaza. His letter was published in The New York Times with the title, “Let People Eat,” and in ynetnews, an Israeli news source, with the title, “The Probe Into Death of WCK Volunteers Needs to Start From the Top.”

This is a persuasive message, as we define it in business communication, but to me, it’s more usefully viewed as an example of leader integrity and compassion. Andrés demonstrates integrity by focusing on his own and the organization’s mission and values, which he says transcend particular groups or situations. He demonstrates compassion by giving names to those lost and describing his personal connections and appreciation of them and their work.

Update: Here is IDF’s response to the incident.

Chick-fil-A's New "Chicken Commitment"

Chick-fil-A had a difficult announcement to make, changing its No Antibiotics Ever (NAE) policy to some antibiotics. Students can analyze the message for its audience focus, persuasive strategies, and issues of integrity.

The message begins with the reason: “To maintain supply of the high-quality chicken you expect from us.” The opening implies that, without this new strategy, consumers might not get good chicken, setting the reader up to agree with whatever the company needs to meet that standard.

The change is right up front: from no antibiotics to some. Although this is jarring at first—“No Antibiotics Ever (NAE)” is quite a “commitment”—the message is clear. Chick-fil-A admits and focuses on the change. Maybe the NAE plan wasn’t realistic to begin with. They could say more explicitly that NAE was established in 2014, and new threats require reevaluating the policy.

But the message audience is likely not consumers. The acronyms NAE and NAIHM mean something only to Chick-fil-A and industry insiders. I wonder how much consumers even care about the decision. Do they choose Chick-fil-A because they don’t (or haven’t until now) used antibiotics in the chicken, or do they go because it tastes good, and they like the service, speed, or fries and other sides?

Regardless, the frame is now about “restricting the use of those antibiotics that are important to human medicine”; in other words, only the necessary kinds for chicken. The focus is on limiting, and the message downplays that yes, they will now use antibiotics. They also don’t explain the difference between human medicine and other animal antibiotics. In this Northeastern University article, a food expert describes concerns about using any antibiotics and calls the move a “dangerous precedent for other food companies to follow.” He also challenges Chick-fil-A’s focus on supply and says the decision is, no surprise, really about profits:

They’re saying that the availability of the supply is not there; it is there, apparently. It’s just the availability at the price point they’re willing to pay is not there to maintain their profit margins. When they’re trying to defend their actions, they’re not talking about science and medicine and health.

The message raises issues of integrity because of what’s missing—lying by omission. Without more explanations, the company fails to acknowledge the potential downsides of the decision and focuses on restrictions instead of actual use. And yet, this is what we expect companies to do: to present themselves in the best possible light.

After the introduction shown above, the message identifies three short explanations about quality, animal well-being, and continuous evaluation. I admire Chick-fil-A’s candor in lines like this: “Like other chicken in the United States, ours contains no added hormones.” They’re not trying to distinguish themselves. On the contrary, the entire message, with large font, is so short and colorful that the words draw little attention.

Kate Middleton's Health Announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Marines Change Outdated Dress Policy with Outdated Message

In a decision that feels so 1990s, the U.S. Marine Corp is allowing women to choose whether they wear hosiery with their long skirts. The announcement may sound strange for those of us outside the military and might interest both military and civilian students.

A spokesperson admits, “Within the spirit of common sense, our Uniform Board recommended a change to the policy that required women to wear hosiery with skirts. Hosiery is now optional." The message looks like what it is: a military communication. With what appears to be a typewriter font, the message uses no pronoun and scarcely an actor, for example, “Effective immediately, the wear of hosiery with skirts is optional.” The numbering, which we also see in legal briefs, is odd, with paragraphs lined up as though they have equal weight and no relation to one another. I wonder how this message was distributed.

Although we encourage business communicators to explain the reason for changes, I find this one a bit defensive and obvious: “When hosiery is not worn, shoe liners or no-show socks will be to be worn [sic] for hygienic purposes and to avoid abrasions or blisters caused by direct contact and rubbing between the foot and shoe.” For color guidance, no explanation is given and perhaps none is needed: “Hose, when worn, should harmonize with the natural skin tone of the individual.” Maybe “blend” would be a better word choice?

The Marines are the last to cave to such lax standards. In 2022, the Air Force made hosiery optional for women and softened other rules, such as allowing scalp tattoos (for men only, which seems inconsistent to me). In 2021, the Navy changed its standards (with photos!) in 2021. Students may enjoy comparing these messages.

The Navy photos, at right, look funny to me, something out of a 1960s Sears catalog. But they use “flesh tone” for color, which seems a better choice than “harmonizing.” I find the message format—showing a series of entire “deleted” policies and then the “added” policies—inefficient and confusing. A better choice would be simply showing the revised text highlighted or in another color (not necessarily flesh tone). Students will have other ideas.

Problems with Medical "Professionalism"

The challenge of what professionalism means and how definitions affect different groups has met the medical profession. The topic may interest business communication students, who will see similar issues in their own fields.

Professionalism as a work standard has been criticized for some time for its vagueness and disparate impact. Ideas about professionalism, for example, focusing only on work and not bringing personal (non-work) issues into the workplace, vary by culture and may be unevenly applied to women and men. Others think of professionalism as sameness or conformity and lash out at the inherent privilege and impact of demands about “image, dress, politeness and emotional regulation” on the working class. Some view professionalism as a racial construct, for example, in the legal profession: “While professionalism seemingly applies to everyone, it is used to widely police and regulate people of color in various ways including hair, tone, and food scents.”

A retracted article illustrates the issue in the medical profession. The October 2019 Journal of Vascular Surgery article, “Prevalence of Unprofessional Social Media Content Among Young Vascular Surgeons,” was retracted in August 2020. The retraction notice includes this explanation:

In addition, the methodology, analysis and conclusions of this article were based on published but not validated criteria, judging a series of behaviors including attire, alcohol consumption, controversial political and religious comments like abortion or gun control, in which significant conscious and unconscious biases were pervasive. The methodology was in part predicated on highly subjective assessments of professionalism based on antiquated norms and a predominantly male authorship supervised the assessments made by junior, male students and trainees. The authors did not identify biases in the methodology, i.e., judging public social media posts of women wearing bikinis on off-hours as “potentially unprofessional.” The goal of professionalism in medicine is to help ensure trust among patients, colleagues and hospital staff. However, professionalism has historically been defined by and for white, heterosexual men and does not always speak to the diversity of our workforce or our patients.

If students don’t relate to the potentially discriminatory impact of a professionalism standard, they might feel the effect of their social media accounts being used to determine whether they measure up. As we encourage students to be their authentic selves, this story highlights some of the potentially negative consequences.

Image source.

British Royal Family and the "Information Vacuum"

The British royal family (which, I just realized, has its own website), is facing pressure because of edited photos and secrecy about health issues.

News outlets have retracted a photo of the Princess of Wales, aka Kate Middleton, hugging her three children on U.K. Mother’s Day. The princess is an amateur photographer, as she explains in her apology, which came more than a long day after the news broke. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the retraction is unusual but happened because the photos were so obviously edited. The family didn’t share the original photo, raising questions about what exactly was changed.

The reporter described the family’s secrecy regarding recent health issues as well. The princess underwent “abdominal surgery,” while the king is undergoing treatment for cancer. The vague descriptions seem only to fuel speculation. As the WSJ reporter says and business communicators know happens, in an “information vacuum, conspiracy theories have come to rest.”

He also raises ethical and regulatory issues, reminding us that “this is a partly taxpayer-funded monarchy, and they have constitutional roles . . . to uphold.” They need to balance individual privacy with their obligation to keep the public informed about their health.

A Princeton sociology and public policy professor has a different take, questioning the “We pay, they pose” mentality. She also challenges a double standard between calls for Catherine’s privacy and no similar respect for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. These differences could be explored with students as well.

Still, the princess’s photo was an attempt to show that everything is alright, perhaps even perfect, which is why people doctor images—to delete imperfections. But her editing has revealed the opposite: that everything is, literally, not right. The situation raises issues of integrity and trust, integrity meaning wholeness and consistency. When the family releases photos in the future, they will be scrutinized more closely.

Does a Brand Have a Soul? Does Starbucks?

Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz wrote a letter to Board about preserving the “soul” of the brand. Students can analyze his letter and discuss whether a company or a brand has a soul. Does Starbucks?

The context of Starbucks’ unionization efforts likely drove Schultz’s thinking. (All three Starbucks in Ithaca, NY, have come and gone because of unionization efforts, the company’s response, and local backlash. Costco may be a better role model for accepting and negotiating with unions. A useful project for students would be to analyze the effects of unions in the past several decades.)

Schultz writes that this definition of soul is from Webster, but it doesn’t match what I see in the dictionary listing, which is worth comparing. Here’s his list:

a) the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b) the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c) spiritual or moral force

Schultz then writes, “Webster did not anticipate the necessity to define soul in business terms for the very reason I am addressing it. It rarely exists, and it’s almost impossible to define.” Or, perhaps a business or brand cannot have a soul. Perhaps his view is an overreach, reflecting the exact arrogance for which Starbucks is criticized. After all, the company sells coffee. This is a cynical view, and students may believe, or feel, otherwise.

Also worth analyzing is the purpose of the letter. What are Schultz’s communication objectives? In addition to the Board audience, he forwarded the letter in an email to those of us on his former Schultz-for-president distribution list. After reading the letter, will the Board feel inspired, and if so, to do what, exactly?

Image source.

Comms Around Capital One's Discover Acquisition

If the deal is approved by regulators and shareholders, Capital One’s acquisition of Discover Financial will create the largest credit card company. Here are two positive-news messages for students to analyze, as much for what’s said as for what’s not said:

• Capital One press release. As expected, the release explains the benefits primarily to investors. A few throw-away lines are included for other stakeholders: something about “making a positive difference in our communities” and “great deals for consumers.”

• Capital One CEO’s video message to employees. Posted on Capital One’s website under “Newsroom,” the video is as much an external as an internal statement. Students might comment on the CEO’s big arm movements and natural, well-paced delivery (although they might think it’s too slow and too long).

As of now, nothing is posted on Discover’s website, which is surprising. When the Marriott Starwood merger was announced, Starwood associates received a separate email and a video message from both CEOs.

Messages are consistent, but other reasons help us understand the decision. The acquisition is a protective move for Capital One. New regulations might make it difficult for credit card companies to enjoy the high fees they’re accustomed to charging. Discover’s payments network helps Capital One compete against larger players and growing fintechs that offer greater convenience and charge lower fees. Instead of paying “tolls” across Visa and Mastercard networks, Capital One would charge fees from all transactions over Discover’s network.

Real benefits to consumers are unclear. Other than more places that accept the cards and a few extra perks, the acquisition bets on increasing credit card debt. Capital One already has a large share of high-interest-paying customers who are among the most likely to default.

President Biden's Foray Into TikTok

President Biden needs to connect with younger voters and prove wrong the justice department’s label of him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” But is TikTok the right platform?

His new account, bidenhq, is managed by his campaign staff, not by him personally (in case that isn’t obvious). The profile picture of Biden—with explosive, red-light glasses—might not be the image he wants to portray. If I didn’t know this was real, I might think it was a parody account.

The account is a strange mix of videos. Of the 20 videos posted so far, 12 are about former President Trump, and two compare Trump and Biden. Some of them show Trump “confused on stage” and describe Trump as “rambling incoherently.”

In the first video posted on the account, Biden is doing his best to be cool. In a clearly edited, fast-paced Q&A, Biden answers popular-culture questions. The caption reads, “lol hey guys."

During his first show back as The Daily Show host, John Stewart found his target. In addition to multiple jokes about both candidates’ age, he showed a clip from that first TikTok video. When asked whether he prefers Jason Kelce or Travis Kelce, Biden said, “Mama Kelce. I understand she makes great chocolate chip cookies.” Stewart made him look silly and, as always, the clip out of context looked worse.

At this point, the account has 156.2k followers, not a great showing compared to, for example, Taylor Swift with 24.8 million. Although Biden wants to reach younger voters on TikTok, the medium is an odd choice. The app is banned on government-issued devices so, in a way, this feels like an integrity issue. Despite security concerns that prevent the president himself from having the app on a phone, he’s using the app for his campaign.

Stanley Responds to Lead Concerns

Stanley cups are all the rage, but a recent lead scare caused the company to respond. People are posting their home lead tests online, which raises questions about evidence.

The company responded to concerns with a short statement on its website, which students can analyze. The main point is somewhere in the middle, after the explanation. They acknowledge using lead according to industry standards but assure us that it’s “inaccessible.”

TikTokers and others are showing positive home tests, but a BBC article quotes NYU Public Health Professor Jack Caravanos, who confirms Stanley’s claim:

“There appears to be lead, according to the report, but I had trouble detecting it and wasn’t able to detect it using state-of-the-art equipment." He says this is probably because the lead was "too deep inside the unit," meaning it would be very tough to be exposed to it or ingest it.

He does express disappointment that Stanley is using lead at all. The company isn’t complying with California’s Proposition 65, which requires companies to disclose any amount of lead. In the statement and on the website FAQs, Stanley attests, “all Stanley items comply with Prop 65 and FDA requirements,” but they didn’t specifically disclose that products use lead—until they posted the statement addressing concerns.

Students might have their own experience with Stanley cups and can discuss how they reacted to videos. Are they swayed by them? Has fear driven them to discarded their custom-engraved, nail-polish-matched Quencher? Does a public health professor’s test change their opinion?

Despite the company’s lack of complete transparency, it would be unfortunate if sales take a hit because of false information. Maybe the dramatic sales increase for Stanley—a little-known thermos company turned $750-million internet craze—made it vulnerable to deceptive claims.

Image source.

Videos of the Layoff

First, we read employees’ public posts about their layoff, commiserating with others. Now, we watch videos leading up to and during layoff.

In one video with 3.8 million views, we see jewishmillenial, a tech employee, await her layoff meeting at home. What’s useful to organizational leaders is to see the other side of the process—the employee’s perspective. We see her dread after receiving a “mysterious” 30-minute meeting scheduled with her boss’s boss and others in her group, one by one, “disappearing off of Teams.”

She gives us a periodic countdown to her being laid off, at one point, wondering why the company doesn’t just schedule a meeting for everyone instead of multiple individual meetings they have to wait for. Others complain about mass layoff meetings and having all technology immediately cut off. They believe the layoff is “inconsistent” or random and not performance based.

No one approach is perfect for everyone. A performance-based layoff at Cloudfare and other companies are also criticized. The Cloudfare one didn’t include the employee’s manager—just HR people—so that didn’t go over well. The HR representatives couldn’t answer her questions about why she was laid off or what the performance metrics are. The CEO did admit that managers should be involved in these meetings and that employees shouldn’t be blindsided by news of their underperformance. Of course, we don’t know how clearly performance feedback has been communicated in these cases, but we could say that the immediate manager lacks accountability. More typically, managers are involved in these meetings, whether performance based or not.

What makes us watch these videos? The voyeuristic pleasure of the layoff meeting is undeniable, and perhaps we feel a mix of empathy for the person, gratitude for still having a job, and fear of losing our job. For business communicators, they’re a reality show for one of the more difficult meetings a manager (or HR) will have, and we can learn how to plan and facilitate these interactions better.

Zuckerberg Impromptu Apologizes, Defends Progress

Tech CEOs faced senators’ tough questions and accusations about child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platforms. Rarely do we see an impromptu apology, but Mark Zuckerberg directly faced families during the hearings.

Lawmakers held little back with the CEOs of six major tech companies. One of the harshest was Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said, “You have blood on your hands.” Several families were present, holding photos of children who were harmed or killed as a result of online abuse.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley asked if Mark Zuckerberg “would like to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your platforms. [To the audience] Show him the pictures. [Back to Zuckerberg] Would you like to apologize for what you have done to these good people?” Understandably, Zuckerberg looked hesitant and awkward, as photographers swarmed around him. He turned around to face the families and said, “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered, and this is why we invested so much.” The scene is both heartbreaking and farcical.

Parents didn’t seem to appreciate the apology; one said, “He had a gun to his head,” meaning it wasn’t sincere. But after Hawley’s insistence, he would have looked callous to refuse an on-the-spot apology. He was set up. Considering the situation, he did OK.

Although Zuckerberg’s view is that they have “invested so much,” people want to see more. An internal email revealed that Zuckerberg rejected a request to add 45 staff to the effort.

At least a couple of lawmakers blamed themselves for not passing legislation after dozens of hearings. Some blamed the tech companies’ resistance and lobbying efforts. Zuckerberg’s position is that the data, “on balance,” shows positive outcomes of the platforms. He also said, “Overall, teens tell us this is a positive part of their lives.” As we teach in business communication courses, averages are not always the most useful information.

The conversation is tiring after all these years. Zuckerberg’s integrity is damaged because of his failed promises and because internal documents are inconsistent with them. But the senate hearings aren’t inspiring much movement—and are becoming a circus.

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.

The Visual Pull of Tech Stocks

Line charts show how the “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla—affect the S&P 500. Students can analyze the potential audience and objective of each of these visual displays, find others, or create their own. Hover over for comments about each, and click on the slide for the original source. The data represents different timeframes, so the charts aren’t quite comparable.

This simple line chart compares returns of the total S&P 500 to that of the seven and the other 493 stocks. Note the typo in the first date on the X axis.

Dating back to October 2022, this line chart shows the downward pull of the seven in addition to the recent upswing. We can almost feel the effect both ways—the drag and the lift.

With this detail, we see the contribution of each stock. This would work better without the separate legend.

This tree map shows the market value of each stock, which explains why a rise in, for example, Microsoft, more significantly affects the S&P.

The donut is more graphical but conveys less than the tree map does.

This infographic/bubble chart has visual appeal (but weird color combinations) -- and does convey more information (including both market cap and return) than the others do.

This one is pretty but conveys little.

Students also might be interested in evaluating whether Tesla should remain part of the Magnificent Seven. Some believe it’s lackluster performance makes it unworthy of the designation.

China Changes Youth Unemployment Measure

After a five-month lapse, China reported youth unemployment data, which looks better because of new metrics. The change raises questions about data integrity and reporting.

According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate of people between 16 and 24 years old dropped from a high of 23.1 in June to 14.9 in December. But the rate doesn’t mean more young people are employed. The Bureau now excludes students enrolled in school, even if they’re seeking part-time employment. Reports also will now separate people between 25 and 29 from those between 25 and 59. A record number of college graduates are having a particularly difficult time finding jobs, partly because of restrictions on tech, real estate development, and education fields and because of a slow recovery from the pandemic, which Chinese officials seem reluctant to admit.

The youth data change might not have been as alarming if China hadn’t stopped reported data after that record high in June.

Students might discuss the significance of these changes and compare how China reports jobless data to U.S. methodology (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). This situation is a good project for students to dig into the data and also analyze, for example, differences between urban and overall rates.

Students also can find or create charts to visualize the change over time. They’ll likely find mostly line charts like the one at right that shows the urban rate over the past two years. As many do, this chart has a truncated Y axis, exaggerating the differences (and yet, one percentage point is a lot of people out of work).

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.

Costco Accepts the Union with Humility

In a great display of humility, Costco management wrote to employees about the new union—a good, positive message to share with students. The CEO and president co-signed the letter to acknowledge the union and reinforce their values, which, they admit, may not have been upheld:

[W]e’re disappointed in ourselves as managers and leaders. The fact that the majority of Norfolk employees felt that they wanted or needed a union constitutes a failure on our part.

The Costco leaders made a good choice if for no other reason that the vote is done, so they might as well accept it. Also, they’re right about the reason for all union activity: employees aren’t getting what they want or need from management and seek outside help.

But few leaders admit this. Starbucks and Amazon, in particular, fought union activity to the extent that the National Labor Relations Board accused Starbucks of interfering with employees’ rights and Amazon of not bargaining in good faith.

Microsoft hasn’t been entirely antagonistic against union activity. After acquiring Activision Blizzard last year, it entered into a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America. This meant that employees were free to choose a union without management’s interference (although that is the law). Employees did vote for the union, Microsoft’s first in the United States, and a spokesperson commented:

In light of the results of the recent unionization vote, we recognize the Communications Workers of America (CWA) as the bargaining representative for the Quality Assurance employees at ZeniMax. We look forward to engaging in good-faith negotiations as we work towards a collective bargaining agreement.

A tech writer made a good point about who defines “good faith.” In response to a similar (but more defensive) Apple statement about its union, he wrote:

To some extent, it could be said that Apple now has a spotlight on its actions at the negotiations—whether it meets the union on the union’s definition of good faith negotiations, or whether it continues to stand on its own record of positive remuneration in spite of the union’s negotiating position.

We’ll see more company responses as union activity gains speed for the first time in decades, particularly in tech and retail industries.

Boeing Crisis Comms Need Work

Once again, Boeing is in crisis communication mode trying to explain plane failures. Messaging could sound more authentic and compassionate.

After part of the fuselage fell off an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 plane, United found loose bolts needing “additional tightening” on the same model. In a flashback to the horrible deaths caused by MAX planes five years ago, the FAA grounded 171 of the planes.

On its website, Boeing lists daily “Updates,” but none of them acknowledge the fear (and of course, the inconvenience) to passengers. The audience for these messages is the public, and communications to passengers seem to be missing. One update restates what CEO Dave Calhoun said in a company-wide meeting to employees:

When it comes to the safety of our products and services, every decision and every action matters. And when serious accidents like this occur, it is critical for us to work transparently with our customers and regulators to understand and address the causes of the event, and to ensure they don’t happen again. This is and must be the focus of our team right now. I am deeply grateful to our colleagues who have been working tirelessly on our company’s response over the past two days.

We will spend time together Tuesday talking about our company’s response to this accident, and reinforcing our focus on and our commitment to safety, quality, integrity and transparency. While we’ve made progress in strengthening our safety management and quality control systems and processes in the last few years, situations like this are a reminder that we must remain focused on continuing to improve every day.

On January 9, a video of Calhoun talking with employees was posted on the site. In this message, he found some emotion, referring to the shocking pictures, which reminded him that he’s a parent and grandparent. His delivery style is natural, but much of the message sounded canned. Imagine if he said “honesty,” instead of “transparency,” which he announced like a section heading:

[Honesty.] Let me talk a little bit about what I did today and what I’ll keep doing with members of our team who are with us today. We’re going to approach this, number one, acknowledging our mistake. We are going to approach it with 100% in complete [honesty] every step of the way.”

Transparency seems best achieved through actions rather than promises—like safety.

Unfortunately for Boeing, other media sources aren’t reflecting well on the company. Several passenger TikTok videos show the missing part of the plane. (Passengers are uncharacteristically calm, perhaps because this is one of those situations when they have absolutely no control and no choice but to surrender.) A former employee whistleblower told CNBC, “It really wasn’t a surprise, sadly.”

In a CNBC interview, Corporate Communication Professor Paul Argenti criticized Boeing’s “focus on profits rather than safety, and you need to do both.” He encouraged a greater sense of urgency in [CEO Dave] Calhoun’s response: “I don’t see him saying the kinds of things that would give me confidence in the organization.” Argenti said that we need to know what went wrong and what the company will do to fix it, and “They need somebody new. . . a hero to come in and save this company.” The former CEO also struggled with communication.

Air Alaska showed a bit more compassion towards customers on the flight, but it’s at the end of the statement:

A statement from Alaska Airlines CEO, Ben Minicucci:

At Alaska Airlines, safety is our foundational value and the most important thing we focus on every day. Following tonight’s event on Flight 1282, we have decided to take the precautionary step of temporarily grounding our fleet of 65 Boeing 737-9 aircraft. Each aircraft will be returned to service only after completion of full maintenance and safety inspections. We anticipate all inspections will be completed in the next few days.

I am personally committed to doing everything we can to conduct this review in a timely and transparent way.

We are working with Boeing and regulators to understand what occurred tonight, and will share updates as more information is available. The NTSB is investigating this event and we will fully support their investigation.  

My heart goes out to those who were on this flight – I am so sorry for what you experienced. I am so grateful for the response of our pilots and flight attendants. We have teams on the ground in Portland assisting passengers and are working to support guests who are traveling in the days ahead.

-Ben