Quantitative Data Needs Context
A Wall Street Journal interview illustrates the importance of context when presenting quantitative data. The segment, “95,000 Hours Saved: Unique Ways Companies Are Tackling Worker Frustration,” describes several ways efficiency can be quantified, but some of them invite questions.
Two examples illustrate lessons from Chapter 9 of Business Communication and Character about comparing and explaining data. What do the numbers really mean? Why do they matter? To help students think more critically about data, consider discussing these examples from the WSJ story, posted as a podcast on YouTube:
1:58: To reduce meeting time, Shopify eliminated 12,000 events and saved 95,000 hours. I have questions, and students should too. What percentage of events does this represent? What types of events? What is the context for 95,000 hours: how many employees work how much time total? What was the result? What was gained? What was lost? Are employees doing something productive with their new-found time, or are they working fewer hours, or have jobs been eliminated? In other words, so what?
6:35: AT&T reduced time by eliminating a process that sounds insane: listing on an expense report everyone who came to an employee celebration (e.g., an anniversary). The company saved 28,500 hours. As of January 2023, AT&T had about 161,000 employees (down from 280,000 in 2017!). I’m curious about the number of parties and how much time people spent entering names. Also, with 161,000 employees working, let’s say, a 35-hour week for 50 weeks per year, that’s 281,750,000. 28,5000 represents 0.0101% of the total work hours. Is that significant? Maybe.
Regardless, the data point seems a bit silly when extrapolated, but the process was silly too. I wonder why the process existed and whether employees do similar tasks that might reflect management’s distrust. That seems to be a more useful question for the company to address.
Without a fuller picture of the “efficiencies,” these numbers seem more like sound bites than meaningful statistics for decision making. This is a news report, so let’s hope companies are clearer about why this matters when they communicate with employees and shareholders.
Northwestern's Statement on Coach Termination Lacks Compassion
Northwestern University’s president published a statement explaining the decision to fire the head football coach after investigating claims about hazing. The message could be an example of persuasion—and either good or bad news, depending on your perspective.
Taking responsibility up front, President Michael Schill put his name at the top of the statement, which was posted online. His accountability for the decision is reinforced in his first line: “This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.” Later, he writes, “While I am appreciative of the feedback and considered it in my decision-making, [need a semi-colon here] ultimately, the decision to originally suspend Coach Fitzgerald was mine and mine alone, as is the decision to part ways with him.”
Schill convinces his audience—primarily the Northwestern community—by showing the pervasiveness of hazing (“systemic dating back many years.”) and by providing examples of acts (“The hazing included forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature, in clear violation of Northwestern policies and values”).
But he minimizes the impact (“I am grateful that—to my knowledge—no student suffered physical injury as a result of these behaviors”) and defends himself (“I only recently learned many of the details”). His statement seems to lack compassion towards those affected by the hazing. Complaints must show that people were negatively impacted. Where is that acknowledgement in the statement?
Demonstrating courage and leadership, Schill does acknowledge controversy about the decision. He describes the coach’s positive impact on many, but identifies a replacement and encourages moving forward. Some say the decision is long overdue, with reports of racism dating back to the 2000’s. Schill doesn’t mention that.
The statement ends with misplaced gratitude, which feels like a last-minute add-on. The nod to the Board chair would have been more appropriate in the second paragraph, where he describes input from the chair and others. Lobbing off that sentence, the ending is strong: “While today is a difficult day, I take solace in knowing that what we stand for endures.”
Roku and Shopify News Release Emphasizes “Integrating”
A Roku announcement offers an example of reinforcing main points in a positive message, a press release. As students might expect from this type of public message, the emphasis is on benefits for viewers. For an audience of investors, the focus would be different, with more emphasis on financial benefits.
One feature of press releases is the main point right up front. This one has a clear title and subtitle, and the first sentence says it all:
Today, Roku (Nasdaq: ROKU), the #1 TV streaming platform in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico*, announced a first-of-its-kind partnership with Shopify that provides viewers the ability to purchase products from Shopify merchants directly from their TV through Roku Action Ads.
The asterisk is an unusual choice, but students might be surprised by the claim and appreciate the evidence: “based on hours streamed, December 2022, Hypothesis Group.”
The partnership and new functionality are innovative, as the company boasts, so the second paragraph provides a helpful visualization:
Upon seeing an ad for a Shopify merchant, viewers can simply press OK on their Roku remote to learn more about the product and purchase it directly from their TV. They will be able to check out with Roku Pay, Roku’s payments platform, and return to their streaming experience once they have completed the purchase. Purchasers will receive email confirmation of their order directly from the merchant once the transaction has been processed.
An image would be more effective but non-standard for a press release.
Students can analyze other aspects of the statement and will find a clear theme, reinforced by such words as “seamless,” “frictionless,” “unmissable” (odd), “directly”—and, used in various forms five times and repeated in a callout quote, “integrating.” The point is clear.
Dispute Over "Thumbs-Up" Emoji
From a recent legal contract case, students can discuss what it means to text the “thumbs-up” emoji. A grain purchaser sent a contract to a farm supplier with terms for buying flax at $17 per bushel. The supplier responded to the signed contract in a text message with the emoji, and a judge ruled that the contract was “at least verbally struck.”
Trouble started when the supplier didn’t ship the flax, which quickly increased in price to $41 per bushel. Now, the supplier has to pay $82,000 for breach of contract.
I can see students running into similar trouble with job offers and informal communication. In this case, the purchaser said the “thumbs-up” was no different from other text responses they received from the farmer in the past: “ok,” “yup,” or “looks good.” The defense used a slippery slope argument:
[A]llowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean – for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature.
The judge didn’t agree, perhaps perceiving the argument as a fallacy. Students may want to use the “thumbs-up”—and other emojis—more judiciously for business communication. Legal contracts might call for more formal acknowledgements, such as e-signatures.
Affirmative Action Decision in Charts
The New York Times published two charts to support the opinion that “in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.”
The first graphic is an interactive bubble chart (which you can hover over online) to show selectivity. The more selective schools are most highly impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to restrict affirmative action in admissions decisions. With the explosive number of schools at the bottom of the graphic, the designer illustrates how few schools currently use race in admissions decisions. As the article authors explain, “the ruling will make little difference for most college students.”
The second chart, below, is a classic column (or bar) chart, illustrating a related point: “Notice how relatively few Black and Hispanic students attend schools with an admission rate of 20 percent or less.” At a glance, we see the distribution of students, including the obvious divergence of Asian students, by level of selectivity.
Both charts work well for the purpose, but the authors’ main point, about educational justice, is more difficult to illustrate. Students might compare these charts to those of the Chronicle of Higher Education, which are simpler but not interactive or as easy to see at a glance.
Retracted Behavioral Science Studies
The process of discovering fraud—and the aftermath—in a Harvard Business School professor’s work is a lesson in evidence, data integrity, and ethics for business communication students. I’ve admired Francesca Gino’s work and cited her research on learning and authenticity in Building Leadership Character. But three of her studies are being retracted, and Harvard has placed her on administrative leave.
News outlets love headlines like NPR’s, “Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data,” and, this almost identical one from The Guardian, “Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies.” Fair enough, but her work is far broader—more about management decision making than honesty or ethics.
On their blog Data Colada, researchers describe how they discovered falsified data. Their sleuthing involves a fascinating dive into hidden Excel files that, the detectives say, proved that data was* moved and changed. Students might be interested to learn how much data Excel stores.
As examples of crisis communication, responses to the news are mixed. To date, Harvard hasn’t commented on reports or the decision to place Gino on leave. Announced in a blurb, at least one of her scheduled presentations has been cancelled. In a Chronicle article, collaborators and other behavioral scientists expressed their concern and/or defended their own work. Rational folks suggested waiting until more information is revealed, and work is ongoing to document the origins of all study data. Gino wrote nothing about the controversy on her own website, but she did post a short statement on LinkedIn. Her voice is reserved but clear, expressing humility and gratitude—both appropriate for the situation and early findings.
* Random: I use data as a singular noun, which is more common in business. This article explains my reasons well.
Comms Related to the Supreme Court Decision
Business communication faculty brave enough to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to restrict affirmative action in college admissions will find many communication examples for students to analyze. Here are a few to consider, and each requires careful facilitation. The first two are probably the easiest to manage and the most relevant to our courses.
Corporate responses: This article provides a few examples for students to analyze, considering the industry, customer base, mission, and other factors driving the response.
University responses: Cornell University’s president published a statement, and I imagine other university leaders have done the same. Students can analyze and compare messages.
Full text of the decision: This 237-page document is a bit overwhelming, but the document, in its entirety, illustrates one persuasive genre for a professional group.
Dissenting opinions: For more manageable reads, these two dissenting opinions serve as good examples of persuasive arguments.
Opinion letters: The WSJ and NY Times editorial board opinions offer useful contrasts. Students might find their own opinion articles to analyze.
Chronicle Recommendation for Full Disclosure Raises Character Questions
A Chronicle of Higher Education article suggests that academic leaders practice full disclosure when applying for jobs. The recommendation is to avoid issues later in the hiring process, and the decision tests candidates’ character, particularly integrity, courage, and authenticity. Our students face similar decisions.
Here’s the search consultants’ advice:
Be forthcoming and candid about any sensitive or confidential information that may affect your candidacy. Search committees and hiring managers—and I can’t stress this enough—hate surprises. So it’s critical to disclose a potential roadblock as soon as possible once you’ve decided to become a candidate.
Hiring managers “hate surprises” for a few reasons. First, no one wants to waste time. If a candidate, even at an entry-level, will be ruled out, HR wants to know early on. Students with a criminal record of theft should not bother applying for an auditing position. Second, employers want to hire people with integrity, which includes being honest up front. This takes courage, a worthy topic of discussion with our students. Yes, students risk missing out on a job offer, but better to remove themselves from the process early than wait until the third interview or, worse, after they’re hired. When I worked in HR, terminating hired employees after a discovery was a painful process, and this only makes it harder for someone to find another job.
In their list of disclosures, the search professionals include legal issues, negative publicity, barriers to relocating, and leaving previous employers on bad terms. Students might want to discuss gaps in employment, negative social media posts, family obligations, and job terminations—not all at once, of course. Depending on the situation, job market, industry, and so many other factors, students have difficult decisions to make about whether, how, how much, and when to disclose issues that might negatively affect their candidacy. Some of the advice in Business Communication and Character is rooted in Chalice Randazzo’s work: "A Framework for Resume Decisions: Comparing Applicants’ and Employers’ Reasons” (BPCQ, 2020).
Here’s an inspiring story about a researcher at Intel who decided to talk about his history of addiction during his job interview. In the end, what students choose to reveal reflects on their character. They might find this discussion and handout about the Character, Audience, Message (CAM) Model useful.
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.
New Twitter CEO's First Email
With much-needed advertising experience, Linda Yaccarino joined Twitter and wrote her first email to staff, a good one for students to analyze. In addition to the email, below, Yaccarino posted her message in a Twitter thread.
Here are a few notes about the email:
Twitter employees are the primary audience. Secondary audiences might be Twitter users, the media, investors, and the public. As you’ll see, Elon Musk is significant too.
Yaccarino started on June 5, so it took a while for her first email. One meme shows a skeleton waiting for her second email.
She starts with a question designed to engage her readers. Then she compliments Elon Musk, her boss and a quite a force. For her first message, acknowledging him is probably important, although I found myself skimming this part. The next paragraph gushes on—in italics. Clearly, Yaccarino is speaking to Musk fans and free speech advocates with that last bit.
I’m wanting to know more about her: who is Linda Vaccarino? After her opening question, I expected something more personal, maybe about her background or her experience as a Twitter user.
The “global town square” refers to Musk’s goal for Twitter. After a quick mention, Yaccarino defines it after “Enter Twitter 2.0,” which, I guess, is a heading along with “The success . . .” That section loosely shifts to employees.
Her tone is enthusiastic, as we would expect. Morale has been low, with mass layoffs, harsh communication, and falling ad revenue.
As we see too often, her use of “literally” is colloquial and not quite right.
She uses a couple of rhetorical devices that I find: “wrapping your arms” and “heels” (the latter, a defined metaphor) and an attempt at alliteration: “person, partner, and creator on the planet.” We could call the “global town square” an allusion.
I’m not a fan of what I call random font enhancements: bold and italics in the middle of paragraphs or at the ends of sentences. Could she use better organization to emphasize key points?
I wonder how employees responded. Are they motivated? I’m not sure what anyone would do differently after reading the email? What was the purpose?
Building Twitter 2.0 Together
Hello Twitter!
People keep asking me: Why Twitter? So, I’ll tell you.
From space exploration to electric vehicles, Elon knew these industries needed transformation, so he did it. More recently it has become increasingly clear that the global town square needs transformation—to drive civilization forward through the unfiltered exchange of information and open dialogue about the things that matter most to us.
Have you ever been talking with someone particularly insightful and thought, You’re brilliant—everybody should get the chance to hear this. Or, I’m learning so much from you—can we do this again? Or maybe it’s as simple as, You should have the freedom to speak your mind. We all should.
Enter Twitter 2.0.
Twitter is on a mission to become the world’s most accurate real-time information source and a global town square for communication. We’re on the precipice of making history—and that’s not an empty promise. That’s OUR reality.
When you start by wrapping your arms around this powerful vision, literally everything is possible. You have to genuinely believe—and work hard for that belief. And in this moment of complete reinvention, we have the opportunity to reach across aisles, create new partnerships, celebrate new voices, and build something together that can change the world. And from what I can tell so far, you’re built for this.
The success of Twitter 2.0 is all of our responsibility.
We need to think big.
We need to transform.
We need to do it all together.
And we can do it all by starting from first principles – questioning our assumptions and building something new from the ground up. It’s rare to have the chance to put a new future into the hands of every person, partner, and creator on the planet.
That’s exactly why I’m here – with all of YOU.
So, let’s dig our heels in (4 inches or flat!) and build Twitter 2.0 together.
Linda
Negotiating Salary for "Mission-Driven" Organizations
Applicants are hesitant to negotiate higher salaries when organizations use “social impact framing” in job ads, but using business communication principles, students can get more pay. New research published in Organization Science found that candidates feared seeming selfish and reducing their chance of an offer. You never know how managers will perceive salary negotiations, but we know that people in majority groups are more likely to negotiate and that taking the first offer can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost pay over someone’s career.
In Business Communication and Character, I recommend the following process to help students muster up the courage to negotiate. I hope these suggestions are useful for your students:
Consider the entire package. Negotiating an increase in salary is best because annual merit increases will build on a larger base every year. But the compensation and benefits package also could include bonus and equity (company stock) pay, healthcare benefits, relocation assistance, tuition reimbursement, sign-on bonus—and other aspects of the job that you may value, such as, how much time you can work from home, the start date, and so on. Think about what is most important to you and where the company might have flexibility. For example, vacation time and retirement plans may be fixed for every new hire at your level, but a hiring manager might have more leeway with relocation, a sign-on bonus, and remote work options.
Know your value. Review your resume and focus on your skills and accomplishments related to the job and company. Be confident about what you bring to the table. People in dominant identity groups may have an easier time with this idea, which is part of the explanation for the gender pay gap in the United States and elsewhere.
Research starting salaries. Explore your college’s career management office, Glassdoor, PayScale, Salary.com, and other sites to determine the likely range for the position and location. You might share your offer with other students; people are surprisingly willing to talk about their finances, and transparency helps reduce the pay gap. Keep your expectations realistic. You can ask a recruiter about a salary range—but not too early in the process. Negotiations typically don’t start until after you have a job offer. If asked about your requirements, try to get a salary range from the employer first, so you don’t “low-ball” yourself.
Highlight your assets. When you begin to negotiate, give concrete examples, for example, similar work and accomplishments at other companies. Think about why the employer should pay you more. Often, they are looking for your motivation level. In other words, how can you prove—with evidence—that you’ll work harder than other employees and, therefore, be worth the extra compensation? Avoid talking about your needs, for example, student loans; other than relocation, an employer will pay more for what you can contribute—not for your expenses.
Decide on your approach. Include all your requests up front so the employer doesn’t get frustrated and feel manipulated when you negotiate each term separately. If you don’t get the salary or other terms you request, what will you do? Be clear about what you’re willing to compromise and at what point you will decline the offer.
Practice. Practice what you’ll say with friends and others to address counterarguments and hold your ground. You don’t need to apologize (“Sorry to bother you with this. I know you’re busy”). Instead, adopt a confident, persuasive, yet friendly tone (“I’m very excited about the position and joining the team, and I know I’ll bring a lot of value to the table, particularly because of my experience at ___ [or something relevant you accomplished]. I'm wondering if we can explore a slightly higher starting salary of $ ___”). Your goal is to convince the employer, without sounding too demanding, that you’re worth the extra compensation.
“Rainbow Capitalism” and Integrity
Brands walk fine lines this month, perhaps genuinely wanting to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, but finding critics at all turns. June is Pride Month, when some companies engage in what may be called “rainbow capitalism” or “rainbow washing,” advertising or selling merchandise without any substance behind it. Memes joke about companies’ gratitude at the end of the month.
This year, Target and other companies removed merchandise, for example, as a swimsuit for trans women, after conservative backlash. Target published this statement after receiving bomb threats:
For more than a decade, Target has offered an assortment of products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. Since introducing this year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team members' sense of safety and well-being while at work. Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.
In other words, we’ll support people, as we always have, but can’t risk safety. They could say more about the threats and their “commitment” to convince customers that removing merchandise was the right decision and is still in line with their “inclusivity” values.
Ford, GM, and other companies’ plans are described in this article, which might make good class reading. Students could choose a brand and compare its Pride products and advertising to its policies and determine whether behavior matches ideology—an issue of integrity, or doing what they say they’ll do. Critics say companies will wave a flag but not offer employees gender-affirming insurance or allow employees to use preferred pronouns.
Students also can discuss why this year is different from others. Although a political topic, the context is important to assessing why brands may have scaled back their participation and whether that was the right thing to do. Of course, industry, location, product mix, customer base, and other factors are relevant too.
Press Conference About School Shooting
This may be too raw to share with students, but this video serves as a good example of a crisis communication press conference. Officials from Richmond, VA, describe a shooting after a high school graduation that killed two and left five injured. The conference is just hours after the incident, so little is known at this point, but authorities say, with confidence, that a suspect is in custody.
In the video, we see principles for a crisis communication news conference. Some of the following are out of order or are covered by different speakers: the police chief, Mayor Levar Marcus Stoney, and the school superintendent. The Q&A also illustrates these principles, despite a pending investigation:
Introduce yourself
After brief context, give condolences first if people are affected
Provide a preview (list of topics you’ll cover)
Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources
Never lie or misrepresent the truth
Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)
Provide investigation process/status
Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)
Say we will provide updates when we know more
Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate
Repeat condolences, if appropriate
Mayor Stoney’s section is a particularly good example of an inspiring speech. He demonstrates courage with his stand about guns, which is controversial. I don’t have good evidence for this opinion, but I remember, years ago, officials avoiding criticism of guns immediately after shooting incidents because it was “too soon.” That seems to have shifted.
Untimely "Welcome to Hell" Ad
As orange haze was filling New York, a billboard appeared in the foreground: “Welcome to Hell, New York.” Creators of the “Diablo IV” video game ad didn’t realize the poor timing, and the coincidence may have worked in their favor. The launch date on the billboard is 6.6.23, the same day air quality alerts began. Of course, if marketers used the news of smoke from Canadian wildfires to promote the ad, that would have been in poor taste.
On Twitter, the EVP Corporate Affairs and CCO, Activision Blizzard, responded to questions:
I would like to clarify that Blizzard has no affiliation or partnership with the wildfires in Canada. In fact we are firmly against wildfires and condemn them in the strongest terms.
Funny? Maybe they could have done better. Some humor is acceptable in this situation because the smoke was eerie and could be harmful but didn’t cause widespread devastation, at least in New York. If that had been the case, for example, if the ad appeared in Quebec, the company response would need to be quite different.
This story reminds me of the adage (P. T. Barnum), no publicity is bad publicity, which is no longer true. But in this case, Activision Blizzard got recognition beyond the billboard.
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.
Employees Protest RTO Policies
As companies push for employees to return to the office after working remotely during the pandemic, employees are pushing back. In their arguments, we see different approaches—some more effective than others.
Here are a few employee messages against return to office (RTO) plans:
Apple: This powerful message directly argues against points the executive team made to inspire people back to work. It’s a compelling persuasive example. One of the strongest arguments is that the RTO policy “will make Apple younger, whiter, more male dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied, in short, it will lead to privileges deciding who can work for Apple, not who’d be the best fit.” Although the writers don’t provide a lot of evidence, the potential impact reflects reasons employees give for refusing to go back to an office. Less diversity as a result of RTO is clearly inconsistent with Apple’s inclusion and diversity mission, but the employees don’t mention that. This is a good lesson for our students who cite a company’s mission in their presentations; this approach may be too obvious and pedantic for internal arguments.
Starbucks: This message also disputes claims made by senior management and more explicitly identifies contradictions with the company mission, “One cup, one person, and one neighborhood at a time.” The logic is loose, and it sounds shallow. Later, employees hit hard: “Morale is at an all-time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk.” Those are big, bold statements that might cause executives to be less, instead or more, sympathetic.
Black & Veatch: Writers of this petition for a construction engineering company use survey data as their primary source of evidence. The message cites the “Working in New Ways” policy that allowed for remote work. Employees use criteria reasoning (and question the executives’ integrity): “Positions were advertised and professionals hired with the expectation their positions would remain permanently virtual.” Sadly, this message highlights the dangers of an employee survey: the data could be used against the company.
I can’t find an employee statement, but Amazon made news this week when they resisted CEO Andy Jassey’s RTO message. Jassey makes the usual arguments about culture, collaboration, learning, and connection, relying on what he and the rest of the “s-team” (senior management team) has observed. Students can analyze his argument and may find weak evidence.
At Amazon, employee walkouts may or may not influence the decision, but solidarity among corporate and warehouse employees is refreshing. Although warehouse employees never had remote work options, they seem to support the corporate staff’s flexibility, with one explaining, “It’s just showing us that Amazon has a problem with workers and listening to us.”
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.)
Netflix Anti-Sharing Message
On its website and in an email, Netflix communicated what people already know: sharing passwords is not OK. Business communication faculty would consider these messages bad news, although users must have known this was coming, so the approach is straightforward and direct. On its website, under a clever, intentionally misleading heading, “Share Netflix with someone who doesn’t live with you,” the company says, actually, you can’t, even though sharing has been an open secret for years.
Netflix sent an email to people who share accounts outside their household, which tells us that they knew all the time and didn’t take action. In the message, the company offers alternatives. You can transfer your account, which is a nice way of saying boot someone off your plan and tell them how to get their own for full price. Or you can buy an extra member, which might be a good solution for family and close friends, who have been seeing each other’s lists for years. For $7.99, you can add one member, but that’s only if you pay $15.49/month for the standard plan; you can add two members if you pay $19.99 for the premium plan.
The “Plans and Pricing” page could be clearer. Compare that page to Max’s “Choose Your Plan” table (formerly HBO Max). Why have a separate category for prices? The language is an obvious sales tactic: the “standard” plan is now the third highest of four levels. Like other streaming services, what used to be the regular plan without ads is now sub-standard with ads. The 99-cent strategy is well worn, giving the impression that people are paying significantly less. However, this USA Today article rounded up.
For many years, Netflix has been losing subscriber revenue, an estimated 100 million use shared accounts. With increasing competition among streaming companies, this move isn’t surprising—and shouldn’t be to those who have benefited for so long.
Showing Donation Amounts Increases Giving
A recent study confirms what fundraisers typically do: writing a list of possible donation amounts increases what people give. According to the study, “Giving Suggestions: Using Quantity Requests to Increase Donations,” published in the Journal of Consumer Research, fundraising letters or web pages with “donate” buttons will bring in more if they include specific amounts. This is relevant to students developing campaigns for nonprofit organizations and other ventures.
Alice Moon, the first author and an assistant professor of operations, information, and decisions at The Wharton School, explains the phenomenon: “They might just not want to appear stingy by giving a lower amount than they should. But unlike the other types of requests, [quantity requests] clarify those amounts by providing some norm about how much to give.” Other types of requests include offering a list of organizations.
This research parallels tipping research in restaurants, which suggests that servers receive higher tips when customers have higher tip options. But too much inflation could affect online reviews negatively. We could expect the same for donation requests.