Is Snoop Dogg Vulnerable or Self-Promoting?
Snoop Dogg’s November 16 announcement that he’s quitting “smoke” sounds as though he’s struggling with a marijuana addiction. But further inspection raises questions about his intentions.
Snoop Dogg has a few cannabis-related businesses. He owns the marijuana brand Leafs by Snoop and Uncle Snoop’s, which launched Snazzle Os, onion-flavored, infused crispy snacks. Other planned projects include virtual cannabis items “authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs].” A partnership with Martha Stewart produced Best Buds Bags, fancy bags to hold the duo’s BIC EZ Reach lighters on the outside.
One day (November 15) before his giving-it-up announcement, Snoop was quoted about the bag:
“This bag’s got it all. From my favorite lighter, favorite color, and dime-sized secret stash pockets to stash my favorite herbs.”
On November 19, he announced that he’s partnering with a smokeless fire pit maker, Solo Stove:
I love a good fire outside, but the smoke was too much. Solo Stove fixed fire and took out the smoke. They changed the game, and now I’m excited to spread the love and stay warm with my friends and family,
Vulnerability is great unless it’s used for personal gain; then, it’s inauthentic and more like persuasion or manipulation. To be fair, he didn’t specify what kind of smoke he was quitting, but X replies indicate I’m not the only one who drew the cannabis conclusion. Maybe this was intended as a joke, but I didn’t find it funny.
New Baffling Comms About OpenAI Leadership Shuffles
Even the best communication can’t contain this much damage. The OpenAI saga, starting with the surprise firing of the CEO, illustrates the power of employee activism and the importance of communication planning.
The OpenAI board’s poor planning and decision making have led to angry investors, the loss of several key leaders and, as of now, more than 700 additional employees threatening to quit if the board doesn’t resign. The petition was fueled by employees posting on X, “OpenAI is nothing without its people.”
Employees have power because of their numbers and because of Microsoft’s promise to hire them, according to the signed letter. However, they also demand that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman be rehired, which may be unlikely since Microsoft quickly hired the pair to start a new subsidiary. In a 2:53 am, cover-all-bases tweet, Satya Nadella expressed continued confidence in the OpenAI team, and then slipped into the same paragraph Microsoft’s hiring of OpenAI’s two outsted leaders to start the new venture: “And [by the way] . . . .”
The employees who may join them include Mira Murati—the first to sign the letter—who was appointed interim CEO and replaced within two days. The biggest surprise might be #12 on the list—Ilya Sutskever, whom earlier reports blamed for the termination decision. Sutskever’s “regret” tweet doesn’t quite take responsibility, focusing on his “participation” (and if he were just following along) and his intention (which scarcely matters compared to the impact):
I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.
Further confusing those of us on the sidelines—or perhaps simply displaying an impressive swell of forgiveness—Altman replied with three heart emojis.
One obvious lesson for business communication students is to think carefully before making major changes. Faculty teach communication planning that considers who needs to know what information and how each audience might react to the news. The board clearly underestimated negative reactions by investors and employees.
As this circus continues, I’m sure students will learn more about what to do and what not to do when communicating change—and making good business decisions.
Botched Comms About Altman's Departure from OpenAI
After backlash following the sudden termination of CEO Sam Altman, the OpenAI board is in a bind. Their minimal communications and what seems like an impulsive decision caused problems inside and outside the company. The latest news is that Altman may return because of investor pressure—and because he and a few employees who resigned in protest started, within hours, setting up a competitive company.
The Board’s initial statement cites “safety concerns tied to rapid expansion of commercial offerings.” Although his termination seems shocking, we don’t know the level of friction between Altman and the board. This article describes the possible ideological differences between Altman and the board, which are more subtle than what some describe as differences between “doomers” and “accelerationists,” with more focus on how to rather than whether to expand generative AI
The company statement doesn’t say much, yet is “unusually candid,” as a Wall Street Journal writer put it:
Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.
“Candid” seems to be the word of the day. The WSJ writer means frank or forthcoming, while the board writer means truthful—both relate to integrity.
OpenAI President Greg Brockman was excluded from the meeting and resigned shortly after, writing on X that he was shocked too. Messages from Brockman and Altman to staff were short and professional. Other researchers resigned soon after. Altman has been posting his gratitude and potential plans regularly on X.
Microsoft tried to contain the damage. Without prior notice, CEO Satya Nadella posted a short statement expressing his continued confidence in the company. He referenced “Mira,” Interim CEO Mira Murati, and said nothing else about leadership changes. Still, Microsoft shares fell 1.7% by Friday’s close.
The OpenAI COO also tried to control damage in an email to staff that confirmed the decision was about a “breakdown in communications” (no kidding!) and not about “malfeasance.”
Students might be interested to learn more about the unusual governance structure of OpenAI. As a nonprofit board (in this case, only six members), they have more control over OpenAI’s leadership and operations than do investors of the subsidiary. Still, investors—and employees and the public—can and certainly are voicing their opinions. Whether or not Altman returns, the messaging will be interesting to watch.
Meta Lawsuit Demonstrates Claims and Evidence
A lawsuit filed against Meta by 33 states provides claims and evidence of manipulation, most significantly, a “scheme to exploit young users for profit.” Students might be interested in analyzing the suit and drawing their own conclusions.
Although a lawsuit typically isn’t considered business communication genre, this one demonstrates a few features faculty teach for writing reports. The first is a detailed table of contents with message titles, or “talking headings.” Students can read them and see whether they form a complete argument. They’ll notice major and minor claims and can analyze the evidence provided for each.
The “Summary of the Case” (Case Summary?) serves as a report executive summary. On pages 1 – 4 (6 – 9 in the PDF), the report outlines the major arguments. The organization is standard for legal briefs but weird to business communicators. We see a numbered list of paragraphs with no relation to each other. Paragraph 2 lists four parts of Meta’s “scheme.” Paragraphs 3 and 4 explain the first and second parts; paragraph 5 continues describing the second part, and so on. The concept of a subheading is lost.
Of course, legal writing is its own specialty. But students can draw comparisons to business reports as they dissect the arguments against the parent of the popular Instagram. The case also is interesting because the litigation approach is new—similar to those of suits against tobacco and pharmaceutical companies that claimed consumer harm.
FDIC's "Toxic Workplace" and an Activity
As Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg faces pressure to resign, students can explore what a “toxic workplace” looks like. Without getting too detailed, they could describe their own experiences—when they have felt uncomfortable during jobs and internships.
In my persuasive communication and organizational behavior classes, I used a variation of an activity from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values that could be useful as you discuss the FDIC example. In the FDIC situation, speaking up didn’t make a difference. Still, reflecting on students’ own experience may inspire them to take action and have an impact in the future.
A Wall Street Journal investigation revealed multiple leadership problems dating back to at least 2008 at the FDIC. Complaints went unresolved and sometimes resulted in promotions of those accused. Although Black employees won a $15 million class action suit in 2000, discrimination complaints continued. Workers claim that sexual harassment and bullying is part of the culture.
FDIC leadership is taking no accountability and saying little in response to the published investigation. An official told the WSJ that the agency "has no higher priority than to ensure that all FDIC employees work in a safe environment where they feel valued and respected. Sexual harassment or discriminatory behavior is completely unacceptable. We take these allegations very seriously." Students will recognize this as meaningless boilerplate. Because the story is so visible and the reporting is so clear, the agency is better off demonstrating humility—recognizing failures and, if nothing specific at this point, at least describing plans for corrective action.
Taking Action
For this activity, you’ll compare two examples from your work or other experience.[1] The purpose of this exercise is to see how you have taken action in a situation that conflicted with your values. Then, you will analyze a time when you didn’t take action to see how you could have handled the situation differently.
Individual Planning Questions
First, think of a time when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values, and you spoke up or acted in some way to address the situation.
Briefly describe the context.
What inspired you to do something?
What did you do and how did it impact others?
What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?
In retrospect, how did you do? You don’t need to be too self-critical, but think about what would have been ideal in the situation.
Next, think of another situation in which you did not speak up or act when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values or ethics.
Briefly describe the context.
What prevented you from speaking up? What would have motivated you to take action?
What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?
In retrospect, what could you have done differently?
Partner Feedback
If you can work with a partner, discuss your responses and learn from each experience.
When talking about your own situation, you don’t need to defend your actions or be too critical. When you listen to your partner’s situation, you can ask clarifying questions or share similar experiences, but try not to judge the decision. Like you, your partner may be sensitive about actions taken or not taken.
At the end of your conversation, summarize the main learning points. What would you like to do more of in the future to develop leadership character?
[1] This activity is adapted from Mary Gentile, Giving Voice to Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 51–53.
Recall Notices About Metal in Chicken Nuggets
Recalls about “foreign matter” in food can be tricky to communicate. Tyson and USDA notices illustrate accountability and bad-news messaging for students to compare.
Audiences and communication objectives are similar for all recall notices. For the company and government agency, the primary audience is customers, and both organizations want customers to avoid using affected products. Messages clarify which products have been affected (typically product types, distributors, and locations), and companies offer a refund for returned products. Companies have an additional objective—to maintain brand image.
In this case of the “Fun Nuggets” recall, the USDA message is straightforward, starting with “Tyson” as the actor recalling the product. The notice describes the recall issue this way:
The problem was discovered after the firm notified FSIS that it had received consumer complaints reporting small metal pieces in the chicken patty product.
There has been one reported minor oral injury associated with consumption of this product.
With clunky language, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) subtly promotes itself by describing what the agency does to follow up:
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.
The Tyson message also starts with the main point up front but emphasizes the “voluntary recall,” which is typical but a bit strange. Would the company need to be convinced to recall the product in such a case? Still, the writer chooses “out of an abundance of caution,” a near-cliché to describe the decision:
A limited number of consumers have reported they found small, pliable metal pieces in the product, and out of an abundance of caution, the company is recalling this product.
At least two more differences between the messages are notable. “Pliable” does sound better, and of course, Tyson doesn’t mention the “minor oral injury.” Tyson also states, “a limited number” of customer complaints, as any company would in a crisis situation to contain the damage. Stating a specific number also might convey an unpleasant image, which I have in my head, of an 8-year-old screaming at a kitchen table.
The FSIS message states where products were distributed, which seems useful, while the Tyson message includes a product photo, which seems essential. I’m guessing the FSIS wouldn’t send an agent out to buy a bag to take a picture, but they could lift the image from Tyson.
Emotions Drove a Football Manager's Comments
A football writer offers a lesson for all business communicators: “Maybe managers shouldn’t give interviews straight after games.” Similar to other business situations, emotions run high, and people need to take a beat before they speak or write. Student athletes and fans will be particularly interested in this story, but the example is for anyone who reacts before thinking through the consequences.
Arsenal Football Club (soccer to Americans) manager Mikel Arteta took an interview after a disappointing game. He disputed a goal call:
We have to talk about the result because you have to talk about how the hell this goal stands up and it’s incredible. I feel embarrassed, but I have to be the one now come here to try to defend the club and please ask for help, because it’s an absolute disgrace that this goal is allowed. . . .It’s an absolute disgrace. Again, I feel embarrassed having more than 20 years in this country, and this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world. I am sorry.
Critics called Arteta’s reaction “disproportionate.” Such language as “how the hell” and “absolute disgrace” reflect a far greater injustice. I’ll leave the analysis to sports enthusiasts, but it seems like a questionable call—not an outrage.
The trouble worsens when the Arsenal Football Club defends Arteta in a statement, which included unequivocal support: “Arsenal Football Club wholeheartedly supports Mikel Arteta’s post-match comments.” The Athletic describes what business communication faculty would conclude, comparing the response to a crisis situation:
But for a football club to release an “official statement,” once upon a time the sort of thing reserved for managerial dismissals and so forth, about a marginal refereeing decision they disagree with, is extraordinary.
Over-reactions are difficult to withdraw. Arsenal supported the manager, which generally is a good corporate practice, but doubling-down on exaggeration makes management look defensive and lacking humility, as if they know a wrong was committed but are stuck.
Of course, a better approach for Arteta is to have waited a bit, as the writer suggests. It’s the same for business communicators. Write an email while angry but don’t send it until a day or so later. During a difficult interaction, pause and step away if you need to. Most often, an immediate response, as this situation shows, isn’t needed.
DoorDash Delays Orders Without Tips
DoorDash is piloting a new screen warning customers that no tip could mean a delayed order. The messaging illustrates principles of persuasive communication.
DoorDash’s message framing encourages tips, even though the process is punishing. In the statement title and subtitle, the company emphasizes “quality” and “the best possible experience for Dashers, consumers, and merchants.” These frames are clever alternatives to claims about pay fairness because that would reflect poorly on the company, which some customers call out in tweets about paying a living wage.
Another strategy DoorDash uses is deflecting responsibility, or blame, onto the drivers:
In the event that a consumer chooses to not leave a tip, we also let them know that their order may take longer to be accepted as a result. This is because—as independent contractors—Dashers have full freedom to accept or reject offers based on what they view as valuable and rewarding. Since launching this test, we’ve seen a meaningful decrease in no-tip orders.
In that last bit, DoorDash evokes peer influence, which also is used at the beginning of the statement: “That’s why we encourage consumers to show their appreciation by tipping—and the vast majority do.” The idea is for customers to get on board with the majority: if they hadn’t been tipping, as most do, then they should begin now, as more have.
The statement rambles a bit, and students might identify a contradiction towards the end:
The test does not impact DoorDash’s commitment to quality or how orders are fulfilled. Our goal is to deliver the best possible experience—regardless of the amount a consumer tips—on each and every order.
But isn’t the objective of the pilot—more tipping—to improve quality? For most people, a delayed order isn’t the best possible experience.
Customers point out another contradiction, which is tipping before service. But, as Michael Lynn, who has studied tipping for decades, says, “Ultimately, social approval’s the main reason we tip,” so DoorDash’s peer influence strategy should work. For more about the morality of tipping, David Brooks offers one perspective, which is that we should tip generously regardless of service.
"Open to Work" and Other Desperations
Although LinkedIn offers an “open to work” option, at least one recruiter says it’s the “biggest red flag" for employers. This reminds me of other ways students inadvertently appear desperate to recruiters.
LinkedIn explains the feature, which offers the option to show the banner to all LinkedIn members or only to recruiters. Users might select all members, thinking about networking strategies, but this might increase the look of desperation. LinkedIn also explains, “[W]e can’t guarantee complete privacy” because, if someone is still employed, recruiters at the company might find out from other recruiters that they’re on the market.
One recruiter compares job seeking to dating and encourages “exclusivity.” Business communication faculty may refer to Cialdini’s scarcity principle: people want what they can’t have.
We coach students to be more selective in their search. When a recruiter or hiring manager asks, “What’s your ideal job?,” students should have one in mind—not too narrow, but not too broad either. “I’ll do anything. I just want to work for xx” likely won’t inspire an offer. This reminds me of reading applications for the Cornell Nolan School of Hotel Administration. Many students would write that they applied because “it’s the best” program. That answer says little about the applicant’s decision process—or maybe the answer says it all.
On the other hand, students who lie about multiple job offers are playing a dangerous game. In addition to the obvious issues of integrity, college recruiters talk.
Networking requires more effort than a banner. Years of curating a network, which develops from supporting and being helpful to others, results in people who care about an applicant and want to see that person succeed. For students, this is more challenging but starts during school.
John Oliver Blasts McKinsey
Last Week Tonight produced a 26-minute segment criticizing management consultancy McKinsey. Students can decide whether John Oliver was fair in his conclusion that, “McKinsey’s advice can be expensive but obvious, its predictions can be deeply flawed, and it’s arguably supercharged inequality in this country.” He contrasts these conclusions with the CEO saying, “Our purpose is to create positive, enduring change in the world.”
Here are a few areas to explore, or you can just show the fake recruiting ad starting at 23:00, which is pretty funny.
Timing
I’m curious why Oliver created this segment now. McKinsey’s role in the opioid crisis, which he covers at around 12:00, was most highly litigated back in 2021 - 2022. He doesn’t point to anything specific since then.
Evidence
To make his points, Oliver uses a variety of evidence but mostly examples in the form of stories. If this were a serious rebuke of McKinsey, students might expect more data. I also question the many references to a 1999 film. Maybe things have changed since then? The inexplicable timing contributes to the segment feeling like the attack that it is, rather than a balanced piece. But I forget: This is “late-night news,” not actual news.
The Example of Eliminating Signatures
The example of identifying cost savings for an energy client is just silly (at 7:30). I wonder whether this is just a terrible example—or whether more information about the situation, or more examples in the original video, would make it less embarrassing. We don’t see the context.
Oliver’s Indignance
Oliver jokes about his British accent sounding “smug” (6:33), but his style is part of the reason I don’t watch him or other talk-show hosts. I’m guessing a lot of students find him funny because of his style. This might start an interesting discussion about delivery styles.
McKinsey’s Response
I don’t see any response from McKinsey, and I don’t think it would be wise. But it’s a worthy discussion point with students. Why wouldn’t the company respond? What are the arguments for responding? What, if anything, could the company say or do?
Other Perspectives
Business communication faculty—and journalism faculty—teach students to offer multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives. At around 21:00, Oliver does present other sides. He acknowledges that other consulting firms sometimes act unethically or have questionable client relationships, which (sort-of) addresses criticism that he’s singling out McKinsey. Oliver also describes how McKinsey responded to an inquiry from the show a few days before airing and admits that he’s presenting examples, which McKinsey would say don’t represent their work. But he argues against these claims by saying that the harm McKinsey has done outweighs the good.
Character
Starting at around 22:30, Oliver calls out the character dimensions students will associate with this story. He calls for greater accountability and transparency, which I describe as part of integrity. That cues up the parody McKinsey recruiting video, which starts at 23:00 for students’ enjoyment.
Of course, the entire segment raises questions about Oliver’s own integrity. Then, again, the show is what it is intended to be: entertaining.
Hyatt's Bad-News Message to BCom Faculty
Association for Business Communication members woke up to a cold shower during the annual conference and later received a note from the director of operations. Naturally, we analyzed this message against principles for delivering bad news. I admit to “geeking out” on this one.
Strengths
The director of operations took responsibility for the issue and had a personal note delivered to every room. (I don’t know what time because I had left my room after getting what might have been the last warm shower at 6:20.)
Dietel mentions the news up front (despite older advice of using the indirect approach and putting bad news at the end), which is appropriate for the audience and situation.
He explains what happened (beyond the hotel’s control, so he won’t get blamed) and tells guests not to expect warm water for “several hours.”
He apologizes, noting, “this is very inconvenient.” (What else could he say?)
He provides staff contact information by phone and his direct email. He doesn’t shy away from customer complaints.
Areas for Improvement
The first sentence is confusing: Who is notified? The city steam plant? No, guests—or “you.”
To bring main points even more clearly up front, some version of the last sentence of the first paragraph—when guests can expect hot water—would work better.
The reason includes more detail than guests might care to know. I would make it more concise: “a disruption at the city steam plant.”
“Several hours” could be defined, but that might not be possible. Deitel says the disruption has been “restored,” and we’re waiting for “the necessary steam.”
Correct punctuation and proofreading are always appreciated; commas, hyphens, and “The city” instead of “They city” would increase credibility.
Maybe a text would have worked better to save paper and provide an easy way to notify people when the hot water returned. Otherwise, given the “several hours” prediction, guests would have to keep testing it. Don’t all guests provide a phone number when they check in? Or maybe the hotel favors paper for the appearance of more personalized service (like a handwritten thank-you note compared to an email).
Business communication faculty—including me—will dissect any message. But overall, the message is a good example of a director of operations leading: taking responsibility, communicating, and dealing with the repercussions. I hope no guests called or emailed. In a situation like this, the hotel staff can do very little.
Tools for Managing Through Interpersonal Conflict
As students protest across campuses, faculty can help them manage through conflict. Here are two tools from the text chapter, “Communicating Across Differences,” and a few thoughts about character.
This matrix, adapted from other sources (see below), shows students how to move from debate to dialogue—and through emotional involvement, my addition for more personal and community conflicts.
Students may practice reflection after presentations or activities, but reflecting “in action” is a way to zoom out and get perspective during an interaction that isn’t going well. Questions about emotional and physical reactions deepen students’ typical intellectual reflections in the classroom and encourage students to take action—even to support those who disagree with them.
Students also will learn from discussions about character. When they stand for their beliefs, they demonstrate courage, but changing their beliefs also takes courage (and humility). Protests also may veer from challenging injustice to self-righteousness, an extreme of courage that looks like moral superiority and absolute certainty.
Protesting demonstrates compassion for one side, but so does seeing the other side’s pain. In addition, students are vulnerable when they protest: they risk emotional exposure and being “doxxed,” identity exposure they might consider unbearable.
Figure 6 is adapted from “Creating Community Across Difference,” Intergroup Dialogue Project, Cornell University, 2018, which is adapted from University of Michigan Program on Intergroup Relations, 2008. Original source: Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). Adapted with Eric Clay, multi-faith and secular chaplain.
Visuals About SAT Disparities
Charts showing SAT scores by family income provide useful data visualization examples for students to analyze. A New York Times report concludes, “New data shows, for the first time at this level of detail, how much students’ standardized test scores rise with their parents’ incomes—and how disparities start years before students sit for tests.”
Progressive column charts show the increasing likelihood that a student will earn an SAT score of 1300 or higher as family income increases. The first chart shows students in the top 20% of income earners, and the second shows those in the top 1%, with dramatically higher chances of scoring 1300 or above.
One topic for discussion is the visual itself. Is a column chart the best representation for the data? It works well and is clear. Untraditionally, the X-axis labels are on the right side, but we don’t see much “chart junk,” although the horizontal lines seem superfluous. The X-axis is truncated (maxing out at 30%), so differences are exaggerated, but the data labels are clear. Data labels would be useful above all columns for consistency but would interfere with the text—and the author’s point of comparing the highest to the lowest. The chart shown here follows a previous one identifying the top 20%; this one “compares apples to oranges” (1% to 20%), but makes more sense with the earlier one for comparison. You’ll see more charts in the article, showing greater disparities still.
Another topic is data collection. The Times cites the original source, which includes more extensive reporting worth evaluating.
Of course, the Big Topic for discussion with students is the cause of this disparity. The article provides several reasons: kids attend preschool, attend better-resourced schools, etc. Asked for their opinions, students might identify the same reasons—or they might have different ideas that they should be prepared to support with evidence.
University-Related Communications and the War
If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.
Protests and Free Speech
In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.
Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”
Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)
Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”
Criticism of Ivy League Statements
Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:
Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)
Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)
Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).
Donors Pulling Funding
Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?
Joint University Statement
Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.
Firms Denying Jobs
Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.
AI Peer Review Assignment
My colleague at Cornell University, Christy McDowell, and I created an assignment for students to practice using ChatGPT for peer feedback. We’ll present the results from her Persuasive Management Communication class at the Association for Business Communication Conference on October 26, 2023, in Denver. (Download the deck at right.)
Here’s the assignment if you would like to modify it for your class, and you may use it for any writing task.
The assignment included multiple parts:
Step 1: Submit Your Assignment 1 Draft Outline
Step 2: Review Two Students’ Outlines
Step 3: Ask ChatGPT for Feedback
Step 4: Reflect on Your Experience with ChatGPT
Step 5: Compare AI and Human Feedback
Step 6: Reflect on Peer Feedback
In written reflections and class discussions, most students:
Were surprised at how skilled ChatGPT was in providing feedback (65%)
Found the process more helpful than previous peer review activities (67%)
Indicated that peer feedback and in-person discussion were more useful than the anonymous peer feedback (71 reflections)
Confirmed they will use AI to structure and organize content for future assignments (in-class discussion)
If you use parts or all of the assignment in your class, let us know how it works for you and your students!
SBF's "Scoffing" Relates to Student Behavior
The Sam Bankman-Fried trial is getting dramatic, with the defendant’s behavior potentially affecting a witness. This situation raises questions about audience reactions during presentations.
Caroline Ellison, formerly the Alameda CEO and Bankman-Fried’s girlfriend, is testifying against him. Her attorney called out Bankman-Fried’s behavior while she was on the witness stand: “[T]he defendant has laughed, visibly shaken his head, and scoffed.” He claimed that this could have a negative effect on her, while Bankman-Fried’s attorney said his reactions are “for your honor and the jury to decide.” I can’t imagine his behavior reflects well on him.
I think about all those presentations I gave while working for companies and all those presentations I watched students deliver in class. The audience could certainly affect someone’s delivery—even if someone wasn’t involved romantically.
I also think of the “head-nodders”—those students, during presentations or regular class—who inspire the speaker (or the faculty member) to continue, believing the message is well received. At the same time, some students seem to nod reflexively (or maybe to keep themselves awake).
Students would benefit from a conversation about their nonverbals as audience members. What does a nod or a smile mean: support, encouragement, listening, or something else? To what extent are students aware of their behavior?
How do students giving presentations interpret behavior, for example, looking at the clock or writing notes? To what extent are students swayed by audience behavior? Students might reflect on their experiences during internships: have audiences affected their presentation delivery?
An interesting, but risky, question after a presentation would be to ask speakers what behaviors they observed and how, if at all, they were affected. As faculty, we need to be prepared to answer the same question about our observations and the affect on us. Are you highly sensitive, immune, or somewhere in between?
Tax Credits: Persuasive Comm and Ethics Case
The classic rhetorical triangle of logical argument (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos) examples:
Logos: “We make claiming the payroll tax refund easier.” (logical, step-by-step process for results)
Pathos: “The ERC offers a welcome cash infusion as owners struggle.” (appeal to emotion)
Ethos: Wall Street Journal quote and link to the IRS website. (credibility)
Robert Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion examples:
Reciprocity: With “no upfront costs,” the company inspires business owners to apply in return.
Scarcity: “Time is running out!” and “don’t let your business miss its chance to make a claim” convey a limited timeframe during which to apply.
Authority: “[O}ur team of independent tax attorneys and tax professionals” boasts the staff’s credentials.
Consistency: Users who complete the “check your eligibility” form are more likely to follow through.
Liking: The company presents its staff as likable and reliable—people business owners would want to work with: “Our team will guide you every step of the way, from eligibility to claiming and receiving refunds.”
Social Proof: Testimonials and the scrolling list of amounts and company logos show how others have succeeded in getting refunds.
Unity: I don’t see an example of unity, Cialdini’s additional principle, but maybe you or your students will.
Although the company denies wrongdoing, aggressive marketing tactics have resulted in far more claims—and much higher government costs—than expected.
Comparing University Statements About Israel
As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)
Statements
Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington
Questions for Discussion
Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?
What are the communication objectives?
For each statement:
How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?
What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?
How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?
How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?
How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?
What resources are offered for students?
What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?
What, if any, action does the university promise?
How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?
What else distinguishes one statement from another?
What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?
Bruno Mars Is Quiet About Israel Concert Cancellation
Not surprisingly, a Bruno Mars concert scheduled for Tel Aviv was cancelled because of the Israel-Gaza Conflict that already left hundreds dead. In times of tragedy, celebrities are often at a loss. Mars seems to be keeping quiet.
Live Nation posted an announcement in Hebrew, which translates roughly as follows:
Dear Customers,
Bruno Mars concert scheduled to take place tonight is cancelled. All ticket purchases to the show will receive an automatic refund to the credit card through which the purchase was made.
The concert schedule on his website shows the next performance on October 8, in Qatar, with no explanation for October 7, although this is as of 9:45 pm on October 7. The website is bare-bones and out of date, with only one promotional “news” item dating back to 2021, so we wouldn’t expect more to be written here.
However, Mars is active on X, with posts on October 5 and 6. This would be a place to say something.
His Instagram also shows a picture from the October 6 concert, and some fans are asking for his support. One wrote, “Please share to all your fans what is happening in Israel right now. We love you.”
Mars might not want to weigh in on the political situation, but he could simply express regret for not performing as planned. The previous night was his first concert in Israel, and the Tel Aviv location would have been his second. Would a statement of regret raise questions about why he doesn’t support one side or the other?
Compassion seems warranted. Maybe fans would like to hear Mars’ disappointment and some version of “thoughts and prayers.” How about, “I’m as disappointed as fans that I can’t perform in Tel Aviv. I wish for peace for all.” Or would that cause a social media firestorm?
Of course, he could express his opinion if he feels strongly about the situation. That would take courage—taking action despite the risks, in this case possible backlash and, eventually, loss of fans or endorsement agreements. Students will have opinions on this topic.
Small Talk Phrases
Matt Abrahams promotes his new book in an attention-grabbing CNBC headline: “The No. 1 phrase people who are good at small talk always use, says Stanford public speaking expert.” Of course, I was curious about the phrase, and it is . . . “Tell me more.”
Although the headline is hyperbolic (“No. 1” and “always”), Abrahams is encouraging what any business communication faculty member would encourage: use open-ended questions and phrases. He also recommends, “What excited you about that?” or “Wow, what happened next?” or “How did you feel when that happened?” Abrahams’ point is to avoid “shifting” the conversation to yourself. However, sometimes it’s useful to relate to a speaker by sharing your own experience. Also, these phrases are useful when, at times, you’re not sure what to say in response.
Students might choose phrases that feel more natural to them, for example, “I’d like to hear more about __,” “Say more about that,” or, simply, “Really?” I recently heard, “Can you take that thinking further along the track for me?” I liked that approach given the situation (a complex political idea). In similar situations, I’ve heard others offer a noncommittal “Interesting,” which felt like a polite, “Please stop talking now.”
In addition to “small talk” situations, students could practice these phrases during presentation Q&As.