Adidas CEO Inflames a Crisis
Illustrating how not to handle a crisis situation, Adidas CEO Bjorn Gulden might regret his comments about Kanye West (aka Ye). He renewed a conversation that could have been left behind and, instead, left the company to contain the damage.
During an interview on a Norwegian investment bank podcast, Gulden, appointed CEO in January, reflected on Ye’s antisemitic remarks, which caused the company to cancel its Yeezy partnership, along with several other brands, in October 2022. Gulden said the following about the situation and Ye:
“This is before my time,” Gulden told Tangen. “I think Kanye West is one of the most creative people in the world, both in music and what I’d call street culture. . . . And then, as creative people, you know, he did some statements that wasn’t that good and that caused Adi[das] to break the contract and withdraw the product.”
This was “unfortunate,” the CEO continued. “I don’t think he meant what he said, and I don’t think he’s a bad person. It just came across that way and that meant we lost that business, one of the most successful collaborations in the history. Very sad. But when you work with third parties it can happen, and it’s part of the game.”
Why did Gulden respond in this way? The interviewer had merely nudged: “But sometimes, um, the disadvantage of going with the big names is that they become very dominant, and you kind of had this issue with Kanye West. So, what happened there?”
Gulden could have spoken more generally about the dissolved partnership. But he defends Ye’s statements as something that “creative people” do. The interviewer agrees that these things happen in other industries, too, and Gulden laughs. The more appropriate response would be to support, not disagree with, the company decision—even though it was before his tenure. Otherwise, he raises questions of integrity, or consistency, with company values.
He could have said something like, “That was a terrible loss for the company and for customers. Kanye West is such a creative guy. But the company can’t tolerate inflammatory comments that conflict with the brand and values.” Of course, I would have preferred that he acknowledge the comments for what they are: antisemitic. But he could have said that much.
Gulden might also do more research about Ye’s comments, particularly what they mean for the Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee explains five of them, including the worst, about, “going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.”
Adidas responded well. With a concise statement, communicators reiterated the company’s decision: “Our position has not changed. Ending the partnership was appropriate.” News outlets won’t let this pass so quickly, but Gulden would do best to stay out of it at this point.
UAW Video Promotes UAW
Once again, I’m confused by United Auto Workers (UAW) communications. With the strike against three automakers in effect, a new video, posted on the website home page, is worth analyzing for audience and communication objectives.
As I wrote about last month, UAW president Shawn Fain is a prominent figure in these union messages. He’s on screen during much of the video, titled “What Is the Stand Up Strike?” and narrates for the entire four minutes, with dramatic background music throughout.
The actors and audience are unclear. Fain starts, “Everything working people have ever won, we’ve won together.” Who’s “we”? What “working people”? All working people? If so, that’s a stretch. He continues, “Today, America’s autoworkers are in the fight of our lives.” By using “our,” he includes himself. In the next few sentences, with accompanying images, he lists autoworkers’ broad goals around pay, benefits, and job security. But he transitions, loosely: “Winning these demands will take all of us. It will take a return to our roots.”
In the next segment, which lasts about one minute, Fain describes the UAW’s history. We see black and white images dating back to 1936, when Fain says the union confronted “company thugs, spies, and antiunion laws.” Promoting the value of the UAW—and unions, in general—this part seems to address a broader audience. Similarly, for about another minute, Fain then explains the union’s strategy of striking “The Big Three,” presenting the approach as an innovative model.
Not until 3:17 in the 4-minute video does Fain address autoworkers directly. He says, “UAW family, be ready,” and then encourages people to strike if their “local” is called up, stand on the picket line, and participate in other organizing activities. Business communication students will recognize the anaphora towards the end: “Stand up for ourselves and the working class. Let’s stand up for future generations. Let’s stand up for economic and social justice. Let’s stand up and, once again, make history together.”
My skepticism is about autoworkers’ interest in those ideals. Do people strike, which causes at least short-term economic loss, to make history? For future generations? This is why I miss the voice of the autoworker. How do people describe their struggles? What do they see as unfair? What would they like to see changed? Where’s the peer-to-peer influence if workers are the intended audience?
Here’s the video YouTube description, with another dose of anaphora:
The Stand Up Strike is our generation’s answer to the movement that built our union, the Sit-Down Strikes of 1937. Then as now, we face massive inequality across our society. Then as now, our industry is rapidly changing and workers are being left behind. Then as now, our labor movement is redefining itself. This is a strike that grows over time, giving our national negotiators maximum leverage and maximum flexibility to win a record contract.
New Euphemism for "Feedback"
A WSJ article reports that “feedback” causes anxiety, so companies are using “feedforward” instead. The latest in corporate euphemisms, feedforward could soften comments on students’ writing and presentations, but I’m skeptical.
Attempts for gentler language for “negative” feedback are nothing new. Managers (and business communication faculty) typically use “areas for improvement,” “development areas,” or “constructive feedback.” Now, apparently, “feedback” is itself causing problems.
Other terms are emerging. Microsoft is using “perspectives” instead of “feedback,” “performance development” is replacing “performance management,” and “connect” session is replacing a “review.” How long before the patina of these terms wears off and they, too, become anxiety producing?
What’s the problem companies are trying to solve with new terms? On the surface, ”feedforward” is more accurate, emphasizing changes for the future, so I get it. But I have to question whether the term is the issue. Aren’t the real issues that people have difficulty facing what needs to change and that managers continue to struggle with delivering feedback? I’m a fan of Kim Scott’s work and book, Radical Candor, which encourages a supportive environment that makes difficult feedback easier to swallow.
For now, I think our student “tutorials” or “coaching sessions” are safe.
Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement
BP’s communicators addressed sensitive “relationship” issues in the company’s announcement about the CEO resignation. I’ve analyzed the British energy company’s message by paragraph.
BP plc announces that Bernard Looney has notified the Company that he has resigned as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect.
Murray Auchincloss, the Company’s CFO, will act as CEO on an interim basis.
The message—some might call it “bad news,” others “positive”—is intended to be persuasive, with the goal of convincing audiences (likely investors primarily and the press/employees secondarily) that BP is an ethical company that stands by its values. The news is right up front, with an interesting few extra words.: “BP plc announces that” seems superfluous, and yet, the company intentionally leads with its own action, if only “announcing.” This reflects an attempt to demonstrate accountability, a subtle way of saying that the “resignation” is more of a technicality and likely was demanded.
The CEO replacement, even an interim one, is announced immediately to convey confidence and smooth operations.
In May 2022, the Board received and reviewed allegations, with the support of external legal counsel, relating to Mr Looney’s conduct in respect of personal relationships with company colleagues. The information came from an anonymous source.
A little history is good, but this seems misplaced. At first, I misread that it took the Board more than a year to take action. A short statement about the recent situation, which led to the resignation, before this part would be clearer. Also, “personal relationships with company colleagues” sounds icky, but I can’t think of anything better. It is icky. Stating “anonymous source” is relevant because the report didn’t come from Looney, increasing the ethical questions about his behavior and supporting the Board’s actions.
During that review, Mr Looney disclosed a small number of historical relationships with colleagues prior to becoming CEO. No breach of the Company’s Code of Conduct was found. However, the Board sought and was given assurances by Mr Looney regarding disclosure of past personal relationships, as well as his future behaviour.
“A small number” raises more questions than it answers. Whatever the number is, I’m thinking of something higher. “Historical” is an attempt to create greater distance than “prior to becoming CEO” implies. Mentioning the Code of Conduct is important—both that the company has one and that Looney didn’t, for example, have a relationship with someone who reported to him (which is what this implies). The last sentence uses “the Board” again as the actor, emphasizing its due diligence. But “However” seems misplaced after the previous sentence, and “given assurances . . . regarding . . .” is vague. More precise wording would convey that he said he had disclosed ALL past relationships (but hadn’t) and committed not to pursue additional relationships (which is odd and could probably be omitted).
Further allegations of a similar nature were received recently, and the Company immediately began investigating with the support of external legal counsel. That process is ongoing.
Here’s the real reason for his “resignation.” Using passive voice for the first independent clause of the sentence, the company downplays the Board. With active voice in the second independent clause, the Company springs into action. But despite an “ongoing” investigation, they have apparently, finally, had enough.
Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures. He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.
In other words, he lied by omission. The language choices are odd here too: he “informed” the Company that he “accepts” (twice) that did not fully disclose information. In case it wasn’t clear earlier, at this point, we might conclude that his resignation was, indeed, forced. Or, in today’s parlance, he was “released.”
The Company has strong values and the Board expects everyone at the Company to behave in accordance with those values. All leaders in particular are expected to act as role models and to exercise good judgement in a way that earns the trust of others.
Well, of course. But without this assurance, the statement would be incomplete. This is the kind of boilerplate we expect to see in these situations.
No decisions have yet been made in respect of any remuneration payments to be made to Mr Looney. In accordance with section 430(2B) of the Companies Act 2006, particulars of any such decisions will be disclosed at such times as, and to the extent that, any such decisions are made.
This legalese is likely for investors who want to understand the financial impact. Or maybe it’s for people like me, shaking my head as I think about the millions in compensation that might accompany his departure.
This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 (MAR) as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Ditto about the legalese. This would be an unusual ending for an American company’s statement, which might end on a more forward-looking, positive note.
This crisis communication example raises issues of integrity (honesty and transparency in communication) and humility (learning from mistakes). Maybe this story offers a lesson for others, as a university communication professional once told my Corporate Communication class: “The truth will come out.” As these cases often go, covering up unethical behavior is often worse than the behavior itself.
Airbnb Shifts Communication About NYC
A NYC law that dramatically limits the number of short-term rentals has taken effect, and Airbnb is left to communicate requirements to hosts. The news is bad, but the communication focuses on action because the decision was made back in June. Here’s the gist:
Hosts (whether owners or tenants) cannot rent out an entire apartment or home to visitors for fewer than 30 days, even if the host owns or lives in the building.
The Sept. 5 deadline came after years of complaints and litigation, which the company explained to hosts and to the public. Now, messaging has turned to action: Airbnb is taking responsibility for getting hosts to follow registration guidelines now that the law is being enforced.
When the legal case was decided in June, messages expressed Airbnb’s disappointment and the effect. Theo Yedinsky, global policy director for Airbnb, provided this statement to the press, focusing on hosts: "New York City's short-term rental rules are a blow to its tourism economy and the thousands of New Yorkers and small businesses in the outer boroughs who rely on home sharing and tourism dollars to help make ends meet." He also explained the effect on NYC visitors: “The city is sending a clear message to millions of potential visitors who will now have fewer accommodation options when they visit New York City: ‘You are not welcome.’”
In a recent message to hosts, who are now Airbnb’s primary audience, the company explained what hosts need to do. The message is under “Help Center” and, appropriately, reads like a checklist. Unfortunately, the time to fight is over, and now hosts need to follow the law. Of course, Airbnb takes the opportunity to include a short introduction about how hard the company tried to avoid this situation—and how the decision rests with the city.
Instructions are clear and, significantly, the message starts with this ominous statement, implying that similar rules may come to other regions:
When deciding whether to become an Airbnb host, it is important for you to understand the laws in your region or city. As a platform and online marketplace we do not provide legal advice, but we want to provide resources that may help you better understand applicable laws and regulations. This list is not exhaustive, but it may give you a good start in understanding your local laws. If you have questions, visit the short-term rental homepage or other government agencies directly, or consult a local lawyer or tax professional.
As expected, the number of short-term rentals has taken a nosedive. Wired reports that the number of Airbnb properties dropped 70%—and that doesn’t include laggards who still need to either register or delist, and other short-term rental properties such as those on VRBO.
Protecting Students from Loan-Forgiveness Scams
When business communication faculty cover persuasive communication, let’s include a discussion of how students can protect themselves. This CNBC article identifies a few popular scams this summer, including a growing number of fake student loan forgiveness offers.
This Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a warning and three ways for people to avoid falling victim to these loan scams:
Never pay for help with your student loans.
Don’t give away your FSA ID login information.
Don’t trust anyone who contacts you promising debt relief or loan forgiveness, even if they say they're affiliated with the Department of Education.
These points seem obvious—until we fall victim. Companies use emotional appeals (excitement about loan forgiveness, confusion about the process), logical arguments (easy steps to follow for a quick decision and payments cancelled), and credibility (official-looking design, claims to be the Department of Education).
Students can bring their own examples of unethical persuasion and discuss the results. Have they been duped in the past? What aspects of logical argument, emotional appeal, or credibility persuaded them to do something they regretted?
It might be early to discuss the loan-forgiveness scams with undergraduates, but we can hope they remember the message for other examples of unethical persuasion.
Brands Capitalize on "Girl Math"
The “Girl Math” TikTok trend is fun but potentially harmful, and brands love it. Videos show young women describing their view of money. For example, if you return an item, the money you get back is “free”; if you forgo a purchase, the money you save is “free”; or, if you pay with cash, items are “free”—meaning the money can be spent on anything and doesn’t count as a cost. Evolving from “Lazy Girl Jobs” (essentially doing nothing and getting paid), the message is for girls to buy products when they can’t necessarily afford them. In addition to the obvious financial problems, the trend, as a BBC reporter writes, “[C]an also be infantilising and reinforce harmful gender stereotypes.”
Ulta Beauty is taking full advantage of the trend and the consumer, going so far as using #girlmath and #girlmather in its X (Twitter) description. In addition to a weird, frenetic, 6-second video, the account is active, responding to every comment, like this one, about girl math.
Lane Bryant advertised sales: You call it Girl Math, we call it the Labor Day sale.” The point in this example is getting a lot for little money, which, I guess, is like not spending at all.
I’m trying to find the humor, but I’m old school and believe in saving for retirement. Obviously, these campaigns also promote consumerism, which has other negative consequences, but I’ll get off my soapbox. If you discuss this marketing strategy with students, I’m guessing they’ll see it differently.
AI Doesn't Do Too Well on College Essays
More students are asking AI tools for help writing their college essays, but a New York Times reporter didn’t get great results.
Using short-answer essay questions from Princeton, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yale, the reporter asked for ideas and full responses. For one of Princeton’s question, shown here, ChatGPT suggested an inappropriate response—not just because it’s about sex but because it doesn’t accurately answer the question.
The reporter concludes:
My takeaway: high school seniors hoping to stand out may need to do wholesale rewrites of the texts they prompt A.I. chatbots to generate. Or they could just write their own—chatbot-free—admissions essays from scratch.
That may be true about many writing assignments. In addition, using AI raises integrity issues and may hurt students’ differentiation. With the limited number of tools, how many students will submit the same song to Princeton? I’m reminded of reading hundreds of applications for the Hotel School at Cornell. To the question about why students chose to apply, far too many wrote that the school is “number one” or that they love Disney. Admissions committee members see enough unoriginal responses without the help of AI.
Update: Some schools now offer guidance for using or not using AI in applications. The equity issues are clear in The University of Michigan’s approach. Students might not have people in their lives who can offer this assistance: “Applicants may, however, ask pre-law advisors, mentors, friends, or others for basic proofreading assistance and general feedback and critiques.”
Georgia Tech offers a more democratic approach:
Tools like ChatGPT, Bard and other AI-based assistance programs are powerful and valuable tools. We believe there is a place for them in helping you generate ideas, but your ultimate submission should be your own. As with all other sources, you should not copy and paste content you did not create directly into your application. Instead, if you choose to utilize AI-based assistance while working on your writing submissions for Georgia Tech, we encourage you to take the same approach you would when collaborating with people. Use it to brainstorm, edit, and refine your ideas. AI can also be a useful tool as you consider how to construct your resume in the Activities portion of the Common Application. We think AI could be a helpful collaborator, particularly when you do not have access to other assistance to help you complete your application.
A Staff Member Handles Mitch McConnell Skillfully
Although news reports (and mean memes) focus on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “freezing” during another news conference, I want to focus on the aide who handled the incident with kindness and grace. I can’t find information about who she is, but she serves as a good example of what to do in an uncomfortable presentation situation.
In the video, we see the woman by Senator McConnell’s side to support him while he is silent after receiving a question. She waited a few seconds to see whether McConnell would recover his words, and then was next to him quickly, touching his arm, and asking in a clear voice, “Did you hear the question, Senator? Running for election in 2026?” Framing the lapse as a hearing problem helped maintain McConnell’s dignity. When he didn’t respond, she addressed the group colloquially, as a colleague might: “OK, I’m sorry, y’all. We’re gonna need a minute.” She winked at them, as though she were taking them into her confidence. Then, she called the security officer up in case the senator needed to be removed from the podium. Fortunately, he did not.
After McConnell said he was fine, the woman stayed by his side for just a bit more. Then, again implying that it might have been a hearing problem (and the reporter’s fault), said, “Somebody else have a question? Please speak up.” She also made a good choice in seeking a new question in case the previous loaded one contributed to the lapse.
Her handling of the situation was much better than what happened last month, when the senator was silent and unmoving for about 20 seconds. At that time, a gaggle of people stood behind him looking anxious until a colleague asked him, “Hey Mitch. Anything else you want to say, or should we just go back to your office.” Then he was escorted away. To be fair, he recovered last time, so this aide thought that was possible again—and he did.
McConnell didn’t help ward off questions about his age and health when he avoided reporters’ questions about the incident last month. He said, “I’m fine” when he’s clearly not. The reporter asked if the moment was related to his injury, and he could have used that as a reason. For example, he could have said that it was probably a remnant of his concussion, which his doctor wrote in a letter recently, or he could have made a joke or conveyed agility and inspired confidence in some other way.
This time, the staff member helped preserve his dignity, but questions about his ability to continue in his role linger.
3M's Defensive Settlement Comms
3M’s statement and the investor call (and associated deck) about settling lawsuits for damaging earplugs sound defensive and deny responsibility. In these crisis response situations, companies choose between demonstrating accountability, compassion, and humility and taking 3M’s route of deniability.
In the statement, 3M does the minimum: states the settlement reason and amount, describes the process going forward, and tries to put a bow on it. The intent is to end the lawsuits. That’s all in three short paragraphs; the rest is a bunch of words—the typical boiler plate of financial considerations, the investor teleconference, and long forward-looking statements. The earplug situation involves Aearo Technologies, the product maker acquired by 3M in 2008, so 3M could shift blame, although the leaders wisely chose not to use that losing strategy.
On the investor call (here are the deck and transcript), all statements, questions, and answers focus on the financials. Of course, it’s an investor call, so participants are most interested in the financial impact to the company. We hear fear, including questions about insurance, the potential for additional claims—and the Big Question about pending lawsuits for a different issue—“forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or FPAS) in drinking water. Legal fees could mount to $30 billion in those cases.
Still, is there nothing to learn from the situation? 3M says some lawsuits were fraudulent, brought by U.S. veterans who did not suffer damages. Still, is there no compassion for those who clearly did? The answer seems to be no, that the company’s primary audience is investors, and that is not their immediate concern.
Students could compare these communications to those of McKinsey about their role in the opioid epidemic, a better example of taking responsibility and acknowledging damage done. Although not perfect, McKinsey’s messages indicate that the company might make changes as a result of the litigation, which is often more important to litigants than the settlement money.
Analyzing Data Visualizations for Rent or Mortgage
Charts about U.S. rents and mortgages provide good examples of visualizing data. The topic might interest students who will likely rent but could consider buying a home someday. Depending the city, rent money put towards a mortgage could buy a lot or very little square footage. Here are a few charts from the NY Times and from the original source—data from Point2, a real estate analysis company, which provides a few visualizations and clear explanations.
List of Cities. In this NY Times chart, which is essentially a table, the winners and losers are clear in chronological order. But students might see better graphics: a line chart, horizontal bar, or vertical (column) bar chart might be too much with so many data points, but including fewer cities would work well. I’m also wanting to see percentages, which I often miss in data visualizations. In the Point2 article, you’ll see a bar chart within a table that’s a bit more visual.
Map. For a bigger picture, The Point2 article (not shown here) provides two U.S. maps with pinpoints showing the most affordable cities. Curiously, they present separate maps with most and least, and I wonder whether they could be combined, particularly to see the obvious geographic spread between eastern and western cities.
Tree Map. Shown here, this tree map is a great at-a-glance visual with mouseovers for more detail (see Point2 for the functionality). In addition to the proper sizing for each box, the designer added color to show in which cities you get the most space for the rent money.
Point2 makes the data practical by including insurance and property taxes. However, the researchers admit, “[W]e assumed a 20% down payment was covered.” Unfortunately, despite getting more space, buying instead of renting is still impossible for a lot of people. The article clarifies this obstacle and others. Overall, the article is a good example of presenting useful data for decision making.
NYC Message About ChatGPT Demonstrates Humility and AI Shift
Back in May, the New York City school chancellor changed the policy to ban ChatGPT. The message is a good example of humility—and a summary of what educators have learned about AI.
David Banks’ message, titled, “ChatGPT caught NYC schools off guard. Now, we’re determined to embrace its potential,” describes how teachers’ thinking has evolved. He admits, “[O]ur best-laid plans are sometimes disrupted by the advance of technology and innovation.”
Banks demonstrates humility (learning from mistakes) and vulnerability (risking emotional emotional exposure):
The knee-jerk fear and risk overlooked the potential of generative AI to support students and teachers, as well as the reality that our students are participating in and will work in a world where understanding generative AI is crucial.
To gain credibility, he provides examples of how faculty are using AI now, particularly by exploring ethical issues.
Business communication faculty are going beyond this exploration and are experimenting with using AI in the writing process and to support faculty work. The 2023 Association for Business Communication conference has a robust line-up of presentations about incorporating AI into our classes. I’m working with a colleague to experiment with ChatGPT as a peer reviewer.
It’s an exciting—and nerve-wracking—time. But the chancellor has learned what business communication faculty knew from the beginning: we have no choice but to embrace ChatGPT and other AI tools. Maybe higher-ed faculty recognize that we have little control over students, which K-12 faculty needed more time to acknowledge. We also see how businesses already use use AI as an integral part of work, and we embrace our responsibility to prepare students for this reality. In addition, our students have better foundational critical thinking and writing skills than young kids, so maybe the risks of using AI seem lower. Regardless, seeing parallels as well as divergent paths of how business communication and K-12 faculty use AI will be interesting to watch.
UAW Union Communications Case
Union communications are a particular genre of persuasive communication for students to learn, and the United Auto Workers (UAW) serves as a timely case study. The organization is using new, “more aggressive” tactics against automakers, but communications may seem dated to students.
The UAW’s strategy and messages are worth analyzing with an eye towards the current push against GM, Ford, and Stellantis. Unlike previous negotiations, the UAW is targeting three major automakers at the same time, threatening strikes that could lead to a “loss of more than $5 billion after 10 full days.” The auto industry is already suffering from supply chain issues lingering since the pandemic, so the union may be in a stronger position than in years ago.
Audience analysis is complex for union communications. Automaker CEOs likely are a primary audience. In the messages below, students will see the union president as a prominent figure, which may be understandable, given his positional power during negotiations with CEOs. Yet his image and videos strike me as a bit much. With declining union membership, the stakes are high for organizations like UAW to not only negotiate on behalf of current members, but to influence perception of union value and benefits.
Given the opportunity, the UAW needs to step up its social media campaign. A 2020 Journal of Industrial Relations study of Facebook communications found that unions are “challenged by digital technologies” and use “outdated ‘one-way’ model of communication.” Students might use the table at right, from the study to evaluate UAW communications, to analyze UAW communications. Here are a few starters:
UAW Website: At left on the home, we see three links for which we can evaluate tone defined by the Journal of Industrial Relations study. The first link is a call to action (signing the petition), but the second two are informative (checking out news and reading the magazine).
UAW’s YouTube Channel: The first video is a good one for students to analyze. UAW president Shawn Fain says union demands are not about the president but are about the members. He starts, “Historically, the biggest and most significant demands in our union have been referred to by the president’s demands.” Sounding defensive, the president explains the process before describing “our” (workers’) demands. Fain says, again, “These aren’t my demands; they come straight from the membership.” With dramatic text and threatening-sounding music, the video feels, as the study authors say about other union communication, “outdated.” Could another approach work better, for example, driven by the workers’ voice instead? I find no other video on the channel from workers about the three automakers—only a few about other union activity.
X (Twitter): As of this writing, two of the first four posts have a picture of Fain. One of the most effective retweets a post by Robert Reich.
Instagram: As of now, of the first six images, two have a picture of Fain and another includes his name.
As a class activity or assignment, students could act as consultants to help the UAW. Having students read a resent Washington Post article about Fain, described as “tough talking” but prone to “theatrics,” for example, not shaking executives’ hands and throwing proposals in the trash, which aren’t appreciated by all.
Of course, first, students would identify the primary and second audiences and define communication objectives. At this moment, the union has power over GM, Ford, and Stellantis, but the UAW also is trying to increase their union base and have a broader impact. Is the organization meeting its communication objectives?
Lessons Learned from Maui's Disaster Communications
Criticism about Maui’s emergency management during devastating wildfires center around disaster communications and what could have been done differently. Students will see parallels with business communication in this public communication situation.
A PBS NewsHour segment includes an interview with Tricia Wachtendorf, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. She identifies a “sequence of behaviors that people need to go through before they even begin reacting to a disaster warning”: hear it, understand it, believe it, personalize it (is this about me?), and confirm it. The objective is to speed up this process as well as the evacuation process. As we might expect, Wachtendorf encourages more advanced warning to help people plan and, as business communicators know, using multiple channels of communication. She also said that research doesn’t support that people panic when hearing warnings, as some believe.
This sequence could be applied to change, bad-news, or persuasive communication. Understanding more about the audience response tells students how to adjust their messages in all of these situations. For example, in a layoff situation, employees likely would process the news in a similar “sequence,” although the process is accelerated in crisis situations.
The county’s head of emergency management resigned following questions about not sounding alarms for people to evacuate. He takes responsibility for the decision, saying people would have “gone Mauka,” meaning inland or into the fire, but he resigned for “health reasons.” I tried to find a statement on the website but got distracted by the lack of information. Here’s the home page with “no alerts at this time,” which seems strange given that Maui Now has this notice: “Maui wildfire disaster updates for Aug. 19: Death toll at 114; fires are still raging but not spreading.”
Investigations may take years, but more information about what happened may help other regions improve communications during similar events.
The Art of the Business Leader Interview
David Rubenstein’s Peer to Peer show on Bloomberg TV is a window into business and political leaders’ lives—and how to approach such an interview. The website, also a YouTube channel, has dozens of interviews. I wish the representation were better, but students can watch someone who interests them and analyze the questions and answers.
In one recent clip, Galaxy Digital Founder and CEO Mike Novogratz refers to Sam Bankman-Fried as a “sociopath.” This segment illustrates how a leader admits his own failings: although he didn’t invest with with SBF, Novogratz acknowledges doing business with him and losing money. Then again, he says, “I just never assumed I’m dealing with a sociopath. It’s hard to risk-manage against that.”
Instructors might ask students to identify ways in which leaders demonstrates character dimensions, for example, authenticity, humility, integrity, and vulnerability.
Even Zoom Asks Employees Back to the Office
Perhaps the least likely of tech companies, Zoom is asking employees to spend more time in the office (return to office, or RTO). The company held out longer than others for obvious reasons: the move could imply that Zoom questions the value of remote work using its product. To protect its market, the company’s communication is delicate, but employees’ reactions are the same as we see throughout the industry.
A spokesperson is careful not to disparage remote work. Instead, she says the company plans a “structured hybrid” approach with employees who work close to an office to work there two days per week. In a statement, she explained:
“As a company, we are in a better position to use our own technologies, continuing to innovate, and support our global customers,” and [Zoom will keep] “dispersed teams connected and working efficiently.”
The reason is unclear to employees, who lashed out on Blind. One wrote, “Isn't the whole point of Zoom that it enables work from ANYWHERE? Apparently, that doesn't apply to the actual employees who make Zoom ...” Of course, that’s illogical, but employees react as they do because many prefer to work from home, at least part of the time. In reality, many employees prefer the hybrid approach Zoom is implementing.
Could Zoom and the other tech companies be more transparent about the decision? Is it about real estate investments, or for closer management and then, as some employees worry, more layoffs? No one wants to be told they aren’t trusted, but that is the sense employees despite claims of better collaboration and teamwork.
Zoom held out long enough. It’s not the only company that uses technology to communicate that has reduced WFH. It’s just the easiest to poke fun at.
Troublesome Article Headline About Women's Communication
A New York Times opinion piece by Adam Grant titled “Women Know Exactly What They’re Doing When They Use ‘Weak Language’” has been gnawing at me. What troubles me is not the advice but the headline, which sounds like women are purposely manipulating the situation—perhaps more so than any person would in a similar situation. I may be overly sensitive (disclaimer! weak language!), but “women know what they're doing" reminds me of a sexist throwback. Google the phrase and you’ll find references to leaning over a table for tips and other examples of how women dress and behave around men (for example, see this ESPN story).
Otherwise, Grant’s points are worth sharing with students. He summarizes:
Disclaimers (I might be wrong, but …), hedges (maybe, sort of), and tag questions (don’t you think?) can be a strategic advantage. So-called weak language is an unappreciated source of strength. Understanding why can explain a lot about the way women acquire power and influence — and how men do, too.
Grant offers good advice and cites several studies about hiring and promotion decisions:
By using a disclaimer (“I don’t know …”) and a hedge “(I hope …”), the women reinforced the supervisor’s authority and avoided the impression of arrogance. For the men who asked for a raise, however, weak language neither helped nor hurt. No one was fazed if they just came out and demanded more money.
I’m guessing that the headline-writer’s intention (not Adam Grant’s doing) was to capture attention—and perhaps the phrasing was harmless, complimenting women on using a strategy, whether purposeful or not, that works. But the phrase has a history, which is why I saved the article in a browser tab for more than a week.
One person who commented on the article pointed out inherent problems with the word “weak”:
I recommend we find an alternative to the phrase “weak language.” Weak language according to whom? A patriarchal world view? Let’s give it more dignity, the dignity it deserves. How about calling it “sensitivity to relationship” or “sensitivity to connection.” Something we need so much more of in our world today. (Anne Yeomans)
Others suggested “respectful” language. Some women lament being “between a rock and a hard place”—too weak or too assertive, nothing gets their voice heard.
Students will need to navigate these contradictions. Perhaps the best advice is to adapt to the industry, situation, and person—the same advice business communication faculty give to all students: to tailor to the context and audience as best they can.
Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication
A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.
By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.
Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.
AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.
I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.
This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.
A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.
At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.
New Studies Suggest Humility for LinkedIn Writing
New studies emphasize writing about the journey, not just outcomes, in LinkedIn profiles, Twitter bios, and other employment communications. Across seven studies, authors found describing difficulties and growth as well as accomplishments conveyed a greater sense of warmth.
Ovul Sezer, an assistant professor at Cornell University, summarizes the findings:
We define “journey” as a long and often difficult process of going from one point to another, which reflects a determination to learn, an acquisition of skills, and a sense of growth and development. For example, obstacles one faced or learning processes they went through could be great information to include in one’s personal story. We find that journey information leads to greater perceptions of warmth because journeys help to communicate humility, mitigating the appearance of arrogance often associated with self-promotion.
Part of humility is being able to learn from mistakes, which any employer would value. Humility is also described as, not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less—being rightsized.
One study evaluated LinkedIn introductions of MBA students according to “high journey” or “high outcome,” defined as follows:
In accordance with the elements of journeys and outcomes uncovered in the pilot studies, the “high journey” cells in Table 2 showcase elements of a determination to learn (curiosity, eagerness to be challenged), difficulty (operational hurdles), the acquisition of skills (studying design innovation, organizational culture, etc.), and development/growth (exploring personal interests). The “high outcome” cells mention educational degrees (MBA, dual degrees) and job positions (member of a cross-functional team).
The authors clarify that introductions can illustrate both high journey and high outcome. For a class exercise, students could rate their peers’ introductions and provide feedback on journey and outcome criteria. Then they might discuss the degree of humility and warmth conveyed and offer suggestions for improvement. The article describes additional studies, including one with HR professionals, and offers examples of effective statements, which might be useful for students to see.
In another study, authors include a chat and offer this example:
B.2.4 Outcome plus journey condition You introduce yourself to Michael and the two of you engage in the following chat:
You: “It’s great to connect with you and congratulations on winning a BDC award! I’d love to hear more about it.”
Michael: “Absolutely! It’s great to be selected as an award winner. I had to overcome a lot of obstacles along the way, like time constraints with my freelance work, and it was really challenging to reflect on my unique perspective of the world and translate that into my designs. I was nervous! But I was motivated to apply because I knew it would help me grow as a designer. Along the way, I realized that what makes me tick is to inspire people – that’s what drives me to want to be a designer.”
You: “Wow! That’s great to hear.”
One concern is the length of LinkedIn introductions. As we might expect, the most effective statements are somewhat longer than a list of accomplishments. However, authors found that, when both journey and outcomes are included, the number of words was still within an acceptable range. At the same time, including their journey will challenge students to write concisely, even when telling more of their story.
Improving a JetBlue Email for Writing Style
A JetBlue email announcing a program change uses a conversational writing style but could use more “you” focus. Students can analyze the message and might identify the following:
The main points are up front in both the subject line (above the blue bar) and first sentence.
Although technically correct, the comma after “Hi” and before “Amy” is not conventional. I gave this up after seeing hundreds of business emails without the comma.
The tone is reassuring and tells customers what they need to know.
Mostly, the tone is conversational with natural language, for example, “wanted to let you know about a couple upcoming changes.”
More use of “you” would make the email sound more natural, as in the example below.
Some language choices sound odd, for example, “To the extent any individual customers are impacted, JetBlue will reach out individually for any required re-accommodation or refund.” I thought airlines learned the “re-accommodation” jargon lesson after United dragged a man out of his seat and off the plane in 2017. How about, “You’ll hear from us separately with options for changing flights.”
The president and COO signed the letter—always a good example of accountability.
The president appropriately blames federal action for the change, without being too snarky or getting into the details, which would not be relevant to customers: “We've had so much great member feedback on this partnership and are bluer than usual to see it end, after a federal court ruled that the Northeast Alliance could not continue.”
Overall, this bad-news message sounds neutral and might be the best approach for the situation.