Texts from 2012: Instagram Cofounder Considers Acquisition by FB

I feel like a voyeur reading texts between tech leaders, and this exchange doesn’t disappoint. In 2012 texts, we see Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and investor Matt Cohler navigating Mark Zuckerberg’s initial gesture to acquire the company, which happened just two months later.

At some point during these 30 back-and-forth texts, they could have picked up the phone, which would have avoided the messages becoming public as part of The House Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust investigation. Such an important conversation seems worthy of a call if not an in-person meeting. But I guess I’m old school: in addition to my propensity to worry about what might go public, I don’t like spending half my day texting.

I’m always surprised at the casual nature of texts among executives. To start, Cohler quotes Zuckerberg: "i'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but i think maybe facebook should buy instagram, what do you think?" Then, in Systrom’s concern about the company he founded, we see Zuckerberg’s power:

Kevin Systrom
got it
you know him better than I do
a) will he go into destroy mode if I say no
b) will he understand if we choose to raise instead
c) will he understand that I don't want to shutter the product and that doesn't align with what FB does with companies

Matt Cohler
a) probably (and probably also if we just don't engage at all)
b) no, he'll go harder into destroy mode then
c) what i think he would most likely want to see is for instagram to turn into a stand-alone mobile facebook photos app, like beluga turned into facebook messenger
(re c he hasn't indicated anything to me at all there, i'm just speculating)

Later, we see these two planning to lie (I’ll be blunt here) about other potential suitors, as Systrom has a meeting scheduled with Jack Dorsey of Twitter.

The exchange is fascinating—a window into how M&A and other strategic decisions are made, or, how they just seem to happen despite what executives want for their company. Early in the exchange, Systrom writes, “I'm not interested really - even at the right price I don't think so,” but we know he sold anyway.

PGA Commissioner Address Criticism Directly

Golf tournaments PGA and LIV, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, announced a merger and faced backlash. Part of the controversy is how the decision was communicated: primarily during a CNBC interview of LIV Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan.

Players complained openly, shown here. As we teach business communication students, a thoughtful communication plan could prevent negative reactions—at least about how the news is delivered. Players should have been informed before any public announcement was made. Even in the CNBC video title, the news is called a “surprise deal.”

Monahan addressed personal criticism directly. In his statements, he demonstrates courage by acknowledging a perceived lack of integrity:

I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite, Anytime I said anything, I said it with the information that I had at that moment, and I said it based on someone that's trying to compete for the PGA Tour and our players. I accept those criticisms. But circumstances do change. I think that in looking at the big picture and looking at it this way, that's what got us to this point.

Monahan loosely acknowledged the impact on tour players, but he could have demonstrated more compassion, particularly for those who had turned down generous Saudi money to stick with the PGA:

This is an awful lot to ask them to digest, and this is a significant change for us in the direction that we were going down. We just realized that we were better off together than we were fighting or apart, and by thinking about the game at large and eliminating a lot of the friction that's been out there and doing this in a way where we can move forward and grow the PGA Tour.

Of course, Monahan’s explanation didn’t convince everyone that the merger is the right decision. A news release on the PGA website, which claims that the merger is “for the benefit of all stakeholders,” is another example for students to analyze.

AI Risk Communications

Two new messages about risks associated with AI are good examples for students to analyze.

Center for AI Safety published a short, joint statement about AI risks. The introduction, which explains the statement, is longer than the 22-word message itself. Unlike a longer statement published two months ago to encouraged a pause, this one is bold and focused:

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

The authors use analogies as emotional appeal to persuade their audiences. They also rely credibility, with more than 350 distinguished signatories, including current AI leaders and two Turing Award AI pioneers.

The second message is a blog post written by OpenAI founders to provide guidance for regulators and others wanting to mitigate risk. Titled, Governance of Superintelligence, the post distinguishes between current AI technology and the next generation. The authors’ strategy is to create a sense of urgency about an “existential” threat but prevent overregulation of current technology (like OpenAI, of course). In this statement, they use the analogies of nuclear energy and synthetic biology. The latter might be a better parallel than the pandemic, although a pandemic is more current and may be more universally understood.

Students can edit the governance post for clarity and conciseness. They’ll find overuse of “there is/are” and an abundance of “it,” for example, in this last sentence:

Second, we believe it would be unintuitively risky and difficult to stop the creation of superintelligence. Because the upsides are so tremendous, the cost to build it decreases each year, the number of actors building it is rapidly increasing, and it’s inherently part of the technological path we are on, stopping it would require something like a global surveillance regime, and even that isn’t guaranteed to work. So we have to get it right.

ChatGPT's Legal Trouble

ChatGPT might pass the bar exam, but it created havoc in a lawsuit. As we tell our business communication students, authors are responsible for their content, and that applies to lawyers who submit legal briefs.

In his documentation against Avianca Airlines, Steven Schwartz included six previous court decisions that didn’t exist. As we know, ChatGPT is a large language model and cannot be trusted to, for example, cite legal cases; it “hallucinates.”

Schwartz now faces sanctions. The American Bar Association requires competence, which includes supervising other lawyers’ and nonlawyers’ (including nonhuman) work. Another issue is confidentiality. Although some legal AI tools keep client data confidential, ChatGPT does not. In a court response, Schwartz apologized, saying he didn’t realize ChatGPT could give false information (!) and that he “had no intent to deceive this Court nor the defendant.”

Despite ChatGPT’s failings in this situation, AI can benefit law firms, as the Bar Association explains. And yet, law remains one of the top fields expected to be impacted by AI, as this NY Times article describes:

One new study, by researchers at Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania and New York University, concluded that the industry most exposed to the new A.I. was “legal services.” Another research report, by economists at Goldman Sachs, estimated that 44 percent of legal work could be automated. Only the work of office and administrative support jobs, at 46 percent, was higher.

This case is a good example for students to know—a lesson in accountability for their own work.

{Random: I’m surprised to see that the NY Times include periods after “A” and “I.” This seems to be a conversative approach losing ground. “AI” is easily recognized these days. Then again, the Times was a slow in dropping the hyphen in email, in my opinion.)

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”

Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.

In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:

"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."

In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.

The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.

Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”

Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.

Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide

In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.

Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.

The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.

Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.

The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.

But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.

---

We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.

April 30, 2023

The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.

As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.

Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.

In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.

In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.

Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.

Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:

• Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.

• Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.

• Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.

• Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.

• Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.

• Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.

There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.

Tense NBA Player Interview About "Failure"

A reporter asked NBA Milwaukee Bucks pro Giannis Antetokounmpo whether he considers the season a “failure,” and his response offers lessons for business presentations. First, Antetokounmpo said the reporter asked the same “odd question” the previous year. He pushed back, asking the reporter whether he gets a promotion every year and drawing an analogy to Michael Jordan’s success: “Michael Jordan played 15 years, won six championships. The other nine years was a failure?” Antetokounmpo put the losses in greater context, as crisis communicators do.

Reactions to his response are generally positive, and some are debating whether the question, also asked of another player, was “fair.” Generally, public reaction approved of the question, although some viewed it as “unprofessional” or a “gotcha.” This raises a good discussion topic for class: what is an “unfair” question?

Students might think about questions for business presentations. What questions do they consider out of bounds for their own topics, and what would they avoid asking of others? At the same time, how can they prepare for the inevitable “unfair” question? For bad-news presentations, I have planted and encouraged a few from class. Although difficult to address, students gained confidence with more practice.

Antetokounmpo’s response is also emotional, and students will have opinions on what’s “appropriate” for business presentations. When I Googled to find his interview, this video appeared from 2019, titled, “Giannis Antetokounmpo EMOTIONAL SPEECH.”

Fox News Takes Little Responsibility in Settlement Statement

Before the trial began, Fox News settled the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit and published the vaguest possible statement, below. In few words, the company made no apology and took little responsibility for making false statements about Dominion’s role in rigging machines during the 2020 election.

The settlement doesn’t require an apology or admission of making false claims, but a PBS NewsHour reporter said that the settlement amount, $787.5 million, might convey both. A large sum for a defamation case, the amount is just under half the ask, presumably so Fox can report that the company settled for “less than half.”

Fox’s statement refers to “this dispute with Dominion,” as if the two companies simply disagreed, and Fox wasn’t the one sued. The company also emphasizes the public value of the settlement: “instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, [it] allows the country to move forward from these issues.” Maybe, but companies settle lawsuits for one primary reason: they believe they will lose.

By this evening, the Fox News website showed no sign of the decision—only the stories shown here. One short news story focused on the agreement and the judge’s positive comments about the attorneys. I found a statement at the bottom of the website under links for About, Media Relations, Press Releases. Overall, the company scarcely demonstrates accountability and humility—or learning from its mistakes. One interpretation of its “continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards” is that nothing will change.

Students might be interested in this story and can discuss whether Fox should have done anything differently from an ethical perspective or, perhaps, from a PR perspective.

Although far from perfect, one comparison is McKinsey’s statement about its involvement with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis.

---

NEW YORK – April 18, 2023 — FOX News Media announced today that a settlement was reached in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit.

In making the announcement, the network said, “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”

FOX News Media operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX News Audio, FOX News Books, the direct-to-consumer streaming services FOX Nation and FOX News International and the free ad-supported television service FOX Weather. Currently the number one network in all of cable, FNC has also been the most watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, while FBN ranks among the top business channels on cable. Owned by Fox Corporation, FOX News Media reaches nearly 200 million people each month.

###

Avoiding Email Scams: Amazon's Message

Although not traditionally part of business communication courses, I wonder whether faculty should help students identify scams. This past week, I received a message impersonating the president of our professional organization, the Association for Business Communication. The writer said she didn’t have WiFi access and asked me to pay a bill via Zelle. I’m the Finance Committee chair, but still, this made no sense, so I ignored it and let her know someone is using her name.

Also this week, a friend got roped into a fake call from her insurance company. The “agent” got personal with her, saying she was distressed and needed funds to pay rent in the Philippines. My friend was ready to send her cash, but the scammer insisted on a bank transfer, and then, fortunately, she refused.

Amazon sent an email including suggestions, shown here, specific to Amazon orders. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has a webpage, “How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams,” with examples of what scammers do, ways to avoid getting these messages, and what to do if you receive one—or respond to one. This is useful information to know.

New Conventions for Layoff Messages

Guidelines for communicating layoffs are shifting, which may have implications for other bad-news messages. A Wall Street Journal article discusses which day of the week (now Wednesday instead of Friday), how deep to cut, how much severance to offer, and how to decide who goes.

The most obvious shift is away from the business communication wisdom of delivering bad news in person. Why call remote workers into the office only to fire them?

We could say the same for other types of bad news: cutting bonuses or benefits, giving a “below-expectations” performance review, or ending a project. Maybe the best wisdom is to follow communication norms. If a weekly one-on-one meeting is in person, then that would be an appropriate place and time to talk about negative customer feedback. The medium might raise bigger questions about typical communications. If the most typical communication is by text, then, maybe a text is best, but why is that the most typical way of communicating?

Of course, timing is an issue, so these regularly scheduled meetings might not be ideal. Then, what’s the secondary way to communicate? By phone? By email? The decision also depends on the severity of the news—a career-ended change or a minor setback? The guiding principle in articles seems to be that employees could complain publicly; perhaps a better guide is compassion—being humane and prioritizing employees’ feelings over our own reluctance to give bad news.

Back in 2015, in the 9th edition of Business Communication, I softened the “indirect style” recommendation for bad-news messages—adding a “buffer” and giving reasons before the main point. Research hasn’t supported this organizational strategy, and corporate messages that follow this “soften-the-blow” approach are ridiculed. Employees typically know when bad news is coming—or they should if managers have been doing their job.

In the past, faculty spent too much time worrying about sequence within a message; this is a non-issue in articles about layoff message like the Wall Street Journal’s. Companies need to worry more about the sequence and timing of multiple messages, which are often posted online because they wind up there anyway. No spoiler alert, but Episode 3 of Succession on HBO, Season 3, is an interesting example.

Image source.

Another "I Wish You Well" Moment

Gwyneth Paltrow ended her headline-grabbing lawsuit with a whisper: “I wish you well.” Paltrow was sued by a retired optometrist for crashing into him on a ski slope. She defended herself, saying, “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity.”

After the quick verdict in her favor, Paltrow leaned in and said quietly to her accuser: “I wish you well.” He responded, “Thank you, dear.”

I’ve been curious about this expression, which former President Trump said of Jeffrey Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump defended his statement: “I'm not looking for anything bad for her. . . . I wish a lot of people well.” In other words, it’s just a nice thing to say.

But a Guardian article refers to Paltrow’s words as a “memorable kiss-off.” Urban Dictionary explains, “This is what privileged people say when they want you to forget you knew them. ‘I am sorry I have not responded. I have been very busy. I wish you well.’” A Quora user writes, “I use it only with people I never want to communicate with again. It's a hope they change, but I'm not going to stick around for it. It's a nice way of saying, ‘F#%# off.’”

Of course, tone and context matter. We don’t hear Paltrow’s voice, and the exchange is so short. Regardless, her accuser took it positively, as he described the exchange to reporters: “She said, ‘I wish you well.’” Then he said, “Very kind of her.”

We may never know whether she meant it a sincere wish for well-being. We do know that Paltrow was an actress before she started making Goop.

If you have nothing better to do today, you can read “The 9 Most Bizarre Moments” of the trial from The Hollywood Reporter.

"Love Letters" to Home Sellers Are Out

Letters to home sellers illustrate problems with bias and insincere persuasive communication. Home buyers try to increase their chances of landing a house by writing letters to sellers, but they cause problems. These persuasive communications seemed like a good idea in a tight housing market. In addition to offering a high price, often above asking, buyers would make emotional appeals, for example, by telling sellers about themselves, how much they loved the house, and how they would care for it.

These letters teach lessons about communication ethics, particularly integrity. One buyer lied by omission, failing to mention a pending divorce that would change the buyer’s ability to get a mortgage. Other problems include revealing race, religion, and other facts that a seller can use—consciously or unconsciously—to discriminate against a buyer, which violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act.

This “Barbie House” letter, written to sellers of a pink house, may have landed the deal (although the buyers also offered $25,000, so who knows). Maybe not in this case, but in others, letters appeal so much to emotions that vulnerable sellers are duped into taking lower offers.

The California Association of Realtors has since published these guidelines for letters, which discourage them entirely.

Four Charts About SVB Don't Tell the Whole Story

WSJ visuals illustrate the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and how four chart types are used for different purposes.

The first is this bubble chart comparing SVB to the next largest bank implosion since 2001: Washington Mutual Bank. The chart—and the article title, “Here is what the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history looks like in graphics”—might exaggerate the issue. Yes, the data and title are accurate, but SVB’s customer base was limited to “a very exclusive group of companies: tech startups and venture-backed health care companies,” as my friends at The Strebel Planning Group explain well. In other words, large, more diversified, and more cautious banks are not likely to fail, despite dramatic headlines.

The second visual, a bar chart (technically a column chart because the bars are vertical), effectively shows when inflows of money turned to outflows. The purple shows the steep, immediate decline, ending in $42 billion—hence, the “run on the bank” that SVB couldn’t cover.

The third graphic is a 2D, stacked area chart, which is used to show the magnitude of a change, something the WSJ clearly wants to emphasize. Again, the chart looks bad, and it is, but a joint statement by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC promised to cover all loses, even those not covered by FDIC insurance.

With a simple line chart, the last graphic (not shown here) illustrates how much SVB depended on bonds, which have lost value over time. The chart type is a good choice for showing a change, including a steep incline in 2021.

All these charts illustrate different types well but, at-a-glance, don’t tell the full story. Perhaps one or two more visuals that puts SVB in greater context of other banks would give a more complete picture of the banking industry’s potential exposure. This could ease public concern and maintain confidence in the system.

Salesforce CEO Addresses McConaughey Controversy

The Salesforce CEO responded to criticism about paying actor Matthew McConaughey (“a friend,” according to a WSJ report) more than $10 million while laying off 8,000 employees. In a video interview, Marc Benioff uses persuasive strategies to convince the audience that this is appropriate and not an ethical issue or, as the Barron’s interviewer asks, “Is that fair?”

Benioff started with a joke, which is surprising considering the situation. He interrupts the interviewer to say, “alright, alright, alright,” a classic line from McConaughey’s 1993 movie Dazed and Confused. By not taking the issue seriously, Benioff might have reduced his credibility.

But Benioff then used an effective crisis communication strategy of distancing the current time: “Years ago, we signed a contract with Matthew . . . ” A better choice might have been to avoid using only his first name, which stresses his personal relationship. But the time period does separate the decision from the recent cost-cutting.

Directly addressing the question, Benioff said, “Putting those two things together, I don’t think is fair,” and “it’s not related to our layoffs.” Another strategy Benioff used was providing context. First, he explained that the company ramped up and then faced currency and inflation issues that required reductions. Next, he said, “Do we have to take an employment action [layoffs]? Well, I think every company is.” Acting in line with other companies makes the layoffs sound reasonable—even necessary—without requiring other cuts, such as marketing.

Of course, Benioff doesn’t address the possibility of cancelling McConaughey’s contract, and he doesn’t provide evidence of McConaughey’s “great work” that would warrant maintaining the expense. But overall, Benioff does a good job pushing back on the criticism.

Lesson Learned: Don't Use AI in Sensitive Situations

The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, used ChatGPT to generate an email about the Michigan State campus shooting, and it wasn’t received well. This story illustrates issues of accountability (administrators taking responsibility), but failing compassion in a time of tragedy and failing integrity (consistency).

The email referred to “shootings,” which is not accurate. Otherwise, it sounds like boilerplate, but not that much different from typical emails a campus community receives in these types of situations. Compare that email to one sent from the vice provost and dean of students, which sounds more emotional but is still common.

Perhaps the only giveaway was a line at the bottom:

(“Paraphrase from OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI language model, personal communication, February 15, 2023.”)

On the one hand, I admire the writers’ honesty, doing what faculty are increasingly asking students to do: to identify whether and how they use AI for their writing. But of course, the choice reflects poor judgment.

Student backlash was swift and fierce. Using words like “disgusting” and “sick and twisted,” students called on administrators to “Do more. Do anything. And lead us into a better future with genuine, human empathy, not a robot.” A senior said, “Would they do this also for the death of a student, faculty, or staff member? Automating messages on grief and crisis is the most on-the-nose, explicit recognition that we as students are more customers than a community to the Vanderbilt administration. The fact it’s from the office of EDI might be the cherry on top.”

University officials responded quickly. In a follow-up email to students, an EDI dean wrote, “While we believe in the message of inclusivity expressed in the email, using ChatGPT to generate communications on behalf of our community in a time of sorrow and in response to a tragedy contradicts the values that characterize Peabody College. As with all new technologies that affect higher education, this moment gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what we know and what we still must learn about AI.” Could ChatGPT have written that too?

This is a precarious time for universities, as faculty grapple with how to use AI tools and what policies best serve students and academic goals. Using AI as a starting point for such a sensitive message may never be acceptable, and it’s certainly too soon now. Faculty will have a difficult time enforcing AI policies if they use tools in ways that contradict the spirit of their own guidelines.

Do Better than “CFBR” for Social Support

A WSJ article describes the increased use of “CFBR,” meaning commenting for better reach, a way to elevate a social media post. A popular way of giving laid-off employees more visibility during their job search, the approach raises questions of authenticity and true compassion.

Hootsuite’s definition makes it sound careless:

CFBR, or Commenting For Better Reach, is a popular comment used on platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook.

Since most social media algorithms favor content with high engagement, “commenting for better reach” is a way to offer an organic boost to a post you think should have more exposure. When you comment on someone else’s post, that post is more likely to show up in your followers’ feeds.

This tactic may be effective, but it’s a little spammy. If you want to take a more thoughtful approach, we recommend leaving an authentic comment that engages with the post’s content—or even resharing that post with your followers.

Typing CFBR may be the “Good luck!” of social media posts despite heartache shared in the original post. I wonder how students view and use the comment. Maybe they can find better ways to support their peers.

Image source.

Google “Word Mangles” Shared Office Space

A message to Google cloud employees illustrates challenges with communicating bad news with integrity. The gist of the message is this: “Most Googlers will now share a desk with one other Googler.” Employees within departments will be organized into “neighborhoods“ and will negotiate their space: “Through the matching process, they will agree on a basic desk setup and establish norms with their desk partner and teams to ensure a positive experience in the new shared environment.”

The announcement would be unwelcome news at any time but has an extra sting after the 11,000 layoffs in January. Employees also expressed frustration with the “corpspeak.” The CNBC article reports one example:

Internally, leadership has given the new seating arrangement a title: ‘Cloud Office Evolution” or “CLOE,” which it describes as “combining the best of pre-pandemic collaboration with the flexibility” from hybrid work.

In one meme, an employee wrote, “Not every cost-cutting measure needs to be word mangled into sounding good for employees. A simple ‘We are cutting office space to reduce costs’ would make leadership sound more believable.”

For students, this example illustrates the value of straight talk and integrity. Particularly when the business purpose of the decision is obvious, transparency is a better approach for messages that impact people negatively.

Image source.

Student Handout: Tips for Using ChatGPT

This handout guides students through using ChatGPT responsibly. I take a realistic approach, assuming that students will use the program regardless of our insistence not to.

Revise and use as you wish; you can also download this Word document. I would appreciate knowing what changes you make, so I can consider revisions.

Tips for Using ChatGPT for Your
Business Communication Assignments

Ask ChatGPT for help generating ideas.

If you’re having trouble coming up with or honing an idea for a writing assignment or presentation, ask ChatGPT. The program can help you move past writer’s block, clarify your thinking, and narrow down a topic. Practice asking follow-up questions until you get better responses.

Think of ChatGPT as a writing partner.

Imagine that the program is a tutor or writing center consultant, who would ask you questions and give you ideas and feedback—not write for you. Use ChatGPT as part of an iterative thinking process.  

Use your natural, authentic voice.

ChatGPT is a robot and sounds like one. You’re taking this class to find your own personal writing and speaking style. If ChatGPT writes for you, you’re missing the opportunity to convey your personality. What differentiates you at work is your character—who you are as a person. No AI technology can ever match your sense of humor or style. 

Adapt writing to your audience.

Every assignment in this class has a defined audience. ChatGPT can’t build a relationship; only you can do that. You’re more likely to inspire or persuade someone when you use your emotional intelligence to understand what moves and motivates someone, and then tailor your writing to that person.   

Beware of misinformation.

ChatGPT tends to “hallucinate”—invent information that doesn’t exist, particularly sources like books and journal articles. If you ask the program to provide evidence to support claims, check everything and add sources after 2021, which ChatGPT can’t access. For your own credibility, do your own research.

Learn from ChatGPT’s corrections.

If you ask ChatGPT to correct your grammar, ask it to explain the mistakes it corrected and the grammar rules, so you can learn for the future.

Plan ahead and expect change.

As of now, ChatGPT is often overloaded, so you’ll need to plan ahead if you rely on it. Also, these suggestions are based on ChatGPT as of January 2023. The program will evolve.

---

Developed by Amy Newman, February 2, 2023. Revise and use as you wish.

Inspired by Lance Cummings, @LanceElyot, “Student Contract for AI Creativity (draft),” Twitter, January 10, 2023.

Greenwashing Gets Sophisticated

Greenwashing—making false or exaggerated claims about sustainability or positive impacts on the environment—is nothing new, but companies may be getting more subtle. A recent CNBC article warns consumers, “For a company to say they’re ‘100% sustainable’ or they’re ‘eco-conscious’ . . . doesn’t mean anything.” Those seem to be obvious empty statements.

But a Euronews article offers six more sophisticated ways companies greenwash. The article gives examples of each, and students can find their own:

• Greencrowding: hiding within a group or being the slowest adopter within a group.

• Greenlighting: emphasizing a green aspect of the company to detract from negative impacts.

• Greenshifting: blaming the customer for environmental problems (example shown here).

• Greenlabelling: calling something green or sustainable that isn’t really

• Greenrinsing: changing goals before they’re achieved.

• Greenhushing: downplaying or hiding green activities to avoid attention.

Both articles suggest investigating companies’ credentials; the CNBC article also suggests looking at metrics and the company’s history. But let’s face it: that requires work. We’re easily swayed by labels and soundbites. Perhaps students can identify what affects their purchase decisions, which of course, is what drives greenwashing in the first place.

George Santos Resume

In case you didn’t see it, here’s the resume of now U.S. Representative George Santos. Although we’ve been hearing for weeks about his fake jobs at Goldman Sachs and Citi and his fake education at Baruch, it’s quite shocking to see it all in print.

Students might enjoy reviewing his resume, finding errors and other ways to improve his employment communication. For example, the summary and list of skills at the top are jargony and sound like boiler plate; I’m surprised to see so little tailoring to a political position. Students will find other issues, for example, unparallel bullets, an odd page break, misaligned spacing, a lower-case i, missing periods, a missing end parenthesis, and acronyms that readers might not know.

Another fun discussion with grammarians in your class: I’ve avoided writing “Santos’s resume” as did The New York Times. The paper titled the article, “The Résumé of George Santos.” I chose the modifier form instead. And I’ve given up on the accent marks in résumé because I rarely see them in business job descriptions.