In-N-Out Burger's Anti-Mask Policy Draws Criticism

A new In-N-Out Burger policy tells employees masks are no longer acceptable. The email became public and is a good example of persuasive writing. Framed as “mask guidelines,” the message follows some business communication principles but not others.

• Overall, the message is clear. The requirement, stores, effective date, exemptions, and consequences are easy to understand.

• The message appropriately follows a direct organization plan, with main points up front in a summary paragraph.

• Headings allow the reader to skim, although they could be more descriptive to reinforce main points.

• The tone is surprisingly formal and bureaucratic in parts.

• In the first sentence under “General Guidelines,” the message refers to an associate as “he or she.” This choice isn’t surprising given the company’s Christian evangelical roots, but the binary pronouns are easily avoidable by ending the sentence after “medical note" or {gasp!} by using singular they.

The political issues are difficult to avoid with this news. Nowhere does the message say that masks are “banned,” but that is the effect, and liberal news sources like NPR lead with that headline. Contrast that with the Fox News headline: “Liberals rage at In-N-Out Burger after fast food chain bans masks for employees.” The industry group Nation’s Restaurant News gives a more balanced overview and focuses more on the petitioning customers: “In-N-Out edict ignites new brawl over worker-mask policies.”

In response to the controversy, In-N-Out’s chief operating officer issued a statement with more rationale:

At In-N-Out Burger, we’ve communicated with our smiles since 1948, and a smiling associate helps to set a warm and inviting atmosphere in our stores. We believe that wearing a mask literally adds a barrier to communication — much of which is nonverbal — and promotes a more distant and disconnected environment. In balancing these fundamental values while still accommodating the specific circumstances affecting our associates, we have updated our internal guidelines to permit only those associates with a medical need to wear a face mask while working.

In a way, this story demonstrates integrity. As of now, the company isn’t backing down. Also, In-N-Out management was vocal about COVID-19 policies back in 2021, when the San Francisco store was temporarily closed because of failure to abide by local regulations. So management is consistent.

Image source.

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.”

Image source.

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.

Image source.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Shell Protester and Company Comms

Protester and Shell Oil communications illustrate rhetorical devices, reasoning, and evidence. Dutch activist investor Follow This, which owns Shell stock, pushed for a shareholder resolution to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. As protesters stormed the annual meeting, they illustrated rhetorical devices communication faculty might teach as a way to appeal to emotion and make speech more memorable. “Hit the Road Jack,” and “Go to hell, Shell, and don’t you come back no more” illustrate an allusion to a popular song and assonance, or vowel rhyming.

On page 8 of the annual investor meeting notice, Shell executives explain three reasons for shareholders to reject the resolution:

• Against shareholders’ interests: The company claims it would give up profits, but protesters say the company has had record profits (and, I suppose, can give some up?). The company argues that the proposition “would not help to mitigate global warming,” but evidence is not provided.

• Against good governance: The company argues that the proposition is “unclear, generic, and would create confusion as to Board and shareholder accountabilities.” With criteria reasoning, executives say that Shell already has a shareholder-approved strategy in place, so this new guidance would conflict. They also claim that any change is merely advisory and that “the legal responsibility for approving or objecting to Shell’s strategy lies with the Board and Executive Committee.”

• Negative consequences for customers: This section includes causal reasoning that hasty shifts “could cause disruptions to the world’s energy system, with the risk of shortages and high energy prices.” Skeptics might say this is a slippery slope fallacy. Then, the next two confusing paragraphs have footnotes to Shell's own site (not an external source):

  • As an energy user, Shell has set a bold target to reduce absolute emissions from its operations (Scope 1 and 2), by 50% by 2030, compared with its 2016 reference year. Shell delivered a 30% reduction at the end of 2022, compared with 2016 on a net basis. Global energy-related carbon emissions increased by around 4% in the same period. [A]

  • As an energy provider, Shell has set a target to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products it sells by 20% by 2030. It has achieved a 3.8% reduction since 2016. Our analysis, using data from the International Energy Agency, shows the net carbon intensity of the global energy system fell by around 2% over that same time. [B]

On its website, Follow This announces that the proposition was voted down. However, in a press release, the group emphasizes a relatively high percentage of supporting votes: “One-fifth of Shell shareholders maintain demand for emissions reductions to meet Paris by voting for Follow This climate resolution.” The group founder puts this figure in context, a common persuasive tactic: “Considering that up to 99% of shareholders voted along with the board on the other 25 resolutions, 20% of support and a significant number of abstentions in spite of a negative board recommendation clearly indicates shareholder discontent.” As an example of synecdoche, the group refers to “Paris,” meaning the U.N. Paris Agreement to limit average temperature increases.

Students will find other examples of rhetorical devices and methods used to persuade in both organizations’ communications.

OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone

In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.

In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:

"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”

Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comms About Starbucks Unions and Store Closures

Three stores in my hometown, Ithaca, NY, have closed, about a year after they unionized, but Starbucks denies retaliation charges. Communications illustrate principles of persuasion.

The union filed a complaint citing a causal effect:

Ithaca was the first city in the United States with 100 percent unionized Starbucks locations, after the union won elections at all three locations by a combined total of 47-3 on April 8, 2022. On May 27, 2023, Ithaca will have no Starbucks locations due to the Employer’s heinous conduct in response to the union campaign.

In response, according to a local report, Starbucks cited “staffing, worker turnover, inability to retain management and worker absence” as the reasons for closing. When the Collegetown location closed, which was the first to unionize and the first to close, management cited maintenance issues. For the two additional stores, a company representative pointed to a quarterly results report that included this hollow, jargony explanation: “In support of our Reinvention Plan, and as part of our ongoing efforts to transform our store portfolio, we continue to open, close and evolve our stores as we assess, reposition and strengthen our store portfolio.”

The “optics,” as PR and crisis communicators say, are bad, and Starbucks may have an uphill climb to avoid a causal link between union efforts and store closings. Context also matters: a college town, Ithaca is a “very liberal” community, with the School of Industrial Labor Relations at Cornell University. Large corporations are not always appreciated locally.

Our local news came less than two weeks after Howard Schultz testified at a U.S. Senate hearing, “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks.” His testimony began, as we might expect, with his humble upbringing, raised by a veteran father and without “adequate benefits.” He said he respects workers’ rights to unionize but describes unions as an impediment and criticizes their tactics. Most of his statement focuses on the good Starbucks has done in the world. Students will find a good mix of logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility throughout the statement.

Cornell students are taking action with a petition for Starbucks coffee to be removed on campus. The statement uses a few rhetorical devices that students can spot (e.g., anaphora, chiasmus, rhyming). They’ll also see emotional, accusatorial language typical for a student petition.

Image source.

Southwest Comms and Disruption

After technical issues that caused outsized delays in December, Southwest communicated little, trying to downplay more service disruptions yesterday. The first tweet, shown here, responded to a customer complaint. The second tweet accurately describes the issue as a “pause,” a term a New York Times article repeats, based on the time period. But the impact on passengers was significant: 1,820 flights (43% of the airline’s daily flights) were delayed. A silly gif with moving clip art appeared in the second message for no reason.

On the Southwest website, a short “Operational Update” tries to shift blame to a supplier: “a vendor-supplied firewall went down and connection to some operational data was unexpectedly lost.” Later, a “Travel Advisory” apologized to customers and gave options for no-fee rebooking and standing by—and a list of phone numbers for assistance.

Critics say Southwest’s “outdated” technology might cause more problems until a systemwide upgrade is possible. One communication strategy is to manage customer expectations in the meantime. Telling people to expect delays might ease some pain; of course, that could lead to fewer bookings, but that may likely happen anyway. Passengers will need to be reminded about other benefits of traveling with Southwest.

Letter Requesting an AI Pause

An open letter asking for a pause on training advanced AI systems serves as an example of persuasive communication. Signed by more than 2,300 leaders as of this writing, the message is a warning and a request. Students can analyze the letter structure and persuasive strategies, which are a mix of emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility.

The letter doesn’t follow organizational principles we teach in business communication classes. Although faculty encourage the main point up front, this message includes the “ask” in bold type at the beginning of the third paragraph: “Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” Another main point, also in bold, appears in the middle of the second paragraph: “Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.” Paragraph organization is mixed. Some follow a traditional topic sentence format, while one is a single sentence.

Evidence for the pause includes OpenAI’s own communication. The letter quotes the company and uses italics: “At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." Then the authors write, “We agree. That point is now,” good examples of short, punchy sentences.

The last paragraph sounds like an add-on, which is possible with a collaborative writing process. The signers ask for a “long AI summer,” a chance to “reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt.” “AI summer” is catchy and could be a better frame for the letter. Referring to the last paragraph, the last footnote lists examples of other tech pauses: “Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.” Repeating “society” in this sentence is curious, and I found myself wanting to read more about this—and earlier. The footnote reads, “Examples include human cloning, human germline modification, gain-of-function research, and eugenics.” An analogy of one of these examples could be a useful persuasive strategy earlier as well.

Citations are a mix of academic papers and books, popular media, and websites. The first footnote refers to several sources, which might reduce the credibility. Again, I envision multiple authors “tacking on” sources, including their own work.

Another topic for class discussion is how this news has been reported. Most of the articles I read, for example, Business Insider’s, lead with Elon Musk. But more than 2,000 distinguished leaders signed the letter, including Steve Wozniak, Andrew Yang, and AI researchers. I can’t be the only one tired of hearing about Elon Musk. The signers offer credibility, but Musk might diminish that approach.

If you’re looking for another written example for students to analyze, see the statement from OpenAI, which explains the benefits of AI but acknowledges “serious risk of misuse, drastic accidents, and societal disruption.”

Intel Honors Gordon Moore

Intel’s home page links to several communications about the co-founder’s death. Like all obituaries for older people, the articles about Gordon Moore, age 94, were clearly prepared ahead of time. The news is technically bad, but it was expected, so these communications are opportunities to demonstrate respect—and for company PR.

With the primary audience as members of the press, the webpage includes an obituary, downloadable photos, a tribute, and more. The obituary acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for the announcement and includes a link to the organization. This is a promotional opportunity for the foundation as well.

The tribute, titled, “He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans: Never the loudest guy in the room, Intel’s co-founder commanded huge respect,” is a more personal look at Moore’s life. Three interviews tell us more about Moore’s “character,” as the author writes.

A visual timeline shows his major accomplishments and recognitions. One of Moore’s most significant contributions is what came to be known as “Moore’s Law,” a prediction that the “number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years.” Intel’s tribute describes Moore as a humble man. He told his biographer that he was embarrassed to have the law named after him.

The press kit lists the following, including the three links above:

• Obituary: Gordon Moore, Intel Co-Founder, Dies at 94

• Tribute: Gordon Moore: He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans

• Visual Tribute: A Look Back at the Life of Intel's Co-Founder

• Timeline: Celebrating Gordon Moore

• More on Moore: Five Things to Know About Gordon Moore

• Video: The Gordon Moore Effect 

• Gordon Moore Park at Ronler Acres: Intel Marks Grand Opening of $3 Billion Factory Expansion in Oregon | Event Replay

Comms About TikTok Testimony

TikTok CEO Shou Chew’s testimony provides examples of persuasive communication. U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee members called on Chew to address concerns about safety and security, but lawmakers were not convinced by his answers and are taking steps against the company.

The Committee webpage lists members’ comments under non-parallel, but descriptive headings. The page is self-promotional: congressional members are proud of grilling the CEO, and we see only pithy, unattributed statements—none of Chew’s responses.

Chew’s opening statement is his attempt to convince the committee that TikTok is sufficiently American and will become more so. To establish credibility—and to distance himself from the Chinese government—Chew starts with his brief background: born in Singapore, attended college in the U.K. and business school in the States, and married a Virginian. Chew describes “Project Texas,” the company’s plan to move data to the United States where it will be fully controlled by Americans. Students can analyze his persuasive strategies and delivery skills. He is clear but nods quite a bit.

During the five-hour testimony, as these hearings go, some representatives invested more in their questions than in wanting legitimate answers, while others never got their questions answered. Some sticking points were around 55 minutes into the video and then around the one-hour mark, when Chew evaded questions repeatedly. What made headlines is Chew’s admission that the Chinese government may be able to access some data—or he wasn’t clear enough: “After Project Texas is done, the answer is no,” and “Today, there is still some data that we need to delete.” Several times, Chew tried to put TikTok in context of the tech industry, saying the company is no worse than any others and may be doing more, for example, to protect kids and reduce misinformation.

After the testimony, a TikTok spokesperson tweeted: "Shou came prepared to answer questions from Congress, but, unfortunately, the day was dominated by political grandstanding that failed to acknowledge the real solutions already underway through Project Texas or productively address industry-wide issues of youth safety. Also not mentioned today by members of the Committee: the livelihoods of the 5 million businesses on TikTok or the First Amendment implications of banning a platform loved by 150 million Americans.”

Regardless, Chew’s testimony didn’t seem to impress lawmakers. We’ll see what happens next.

Image source.

Miami Beach Tries to Curtail Spring Break

Students might be interested in analyzing a video of the mayor of Miami Beach instituting a midnight curfew. Dan Gelber’s message comes after two fatal shootings, which he puts into broader context: “As is the case with most serious crime in our city, both shootings were between visitors to Miami Beach and did not involve residents.” Using anaphora as a rhetorical device, he also said, “We don’t ask for Spring Break in our city. We don’t want Spring Break in our city.”

The mayor describes the rapid police response but says police action would never be enough considering “the volume [sic] of people in our city, the unruly nature of too many, and the presence of guns.” He demonstrates accountability and courage with a clear plan despite the risks: a midnight curfew on South Beach within a defined area. The rules are clear, and the mayor refers to the city website for more details.

Mayor Gelber wards off criticism by saying they are within their legal rights. He apologizes for the “disruption and inconvenience” but could acknowledge more specifically the potential negative impact on businesses and residents.

Students may find his delivery interesting, for example, his impassioned speech, word emphasis, and gestures. The setting, his attire, and his choosing to reach a script also reflect on the mayor’s credibility and are worthy discussion topics.

"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.

Zuckerberg Frames Layoffs in the “Year of Efficiency”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s note to employees is a study in bad-news messages. In a 2,188-word message note posted on Meta’s news site and his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg explained his strategy for the “Year of Efficiency.” This frame for operational changes is good for investors, who are concerned with financials, but not for employees who will be laid off.

In the first paragraph, Zuckerberg reiterates Facebook’s initial mission of “building the future of human connection,” and he identifies two broad goals: becoming a better technology company and improving financial performance. He doesn’t wait too long—the third paragraph—to confirm layoffs, which are obvious from the start. With some compassion, he acknowledges “uncertainty“ and “stress” and identifies the timeline, so people know what to expect. In the fourth and sixth paragraphs, he writes:

This will be tough and there's no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success. They've dedicated themselves to our mission and I'm personally grateful for all their efforts. We will support people in the same ways we have before and treat everyone with the gratitude they deserve. . . .

I understand that this update may still feel surprising, so I'd like to lay out some broader context on our vision, our culture, and our operating philosophy.

Zuckerberg outlines additional changes, including hiring freezes, technology investments, and more in-person time, which may not be popular either. Students could analyze evidence Zuckerberg provides for his claims, for example, “leaner is better,” “flatter is faster,” and working in-person improves performance. For the in-person claim, he does acknowledge, “This requires further study, but our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.” Still, this could be a contentious issue, and he could offer external research to support his points. But perhaps academic research would have less credibility than the internal data, which he uses for his other claims.

Zuckerberg demonstrates some humility and highlights changes based on employee feedback:

I recognize that sharing plans for restructuring and layoffs months in advance creates a challenging period. But last fall, we heard feedback that you wanted more transparency sooner into any restructuring plans, so that's what I'm trying to provide here. I hope that giving you a timeline and principles for what to expect will help us get through the next couple of months and then move forward as we implement these changes that I believe will have a very positive impact on how we work.

The post illustrates a CEO’s difficult decisions and how he communicates them to employees. These changes are in addition to last year’s layoffs—13% of the workforce—which Zuckerberg mentions towards the end of the long post. Despite his communication efforts, uncertainty prevails—not only in employees’ wondering who will have a job in a few months but in whether the metaverse vision will be as successful as Zuckerberg hopes.

Allbirds Admits Mistakes

Allbirds provides a good example of accountability and humility. No executive likes to discuss disappointing quarterly results, but Joey Zwillinger, co-founder and co-CEO, admitted mistakes, which could improve his credibility for future plans.

On the Q4 2022 earnings call, Zwillinger acknowledged “missteps”:

However, in this journey, we also made some missteps:

1) We overemphasized products that extended beyond our core DNA, and as a result, some products and colors have had narrower appeal than expected.

2) Because we were spending significant time and resources on these new products that did not resonate well, we under-invested in our core consumers’ favorite products.

3) Finally we did not increase our brand awareness to the level that we anticipated.

These communications aren’t quite “bad-news message” because they aren’t announcements, which is why Zwillinger is smart to discuss problems openly: they are already quite obvious to investors. One of my favorite lines is, “As we made those adjacent product development decisions, we unfortunately lost a bit of sight of what our core consumer fell in love with us for in the first place and what they continue to want from us.”

With Zwillinger’s humility—his willingness to admit and learn from mistakes—he inspires confidence that Allbirds can get back to its core products and customers. Zwillinger makes the mistakes sound fixable; they sound like an over-reach that didn’t work out, a bad color choice that can be painted over. Other brands might have a tougher time communicating failure if problems are insurmountable or decisions are irreversible.