Words Removed From Government Sites and Other Comms
The list of words forbidden on U.S. government websites and other communications would make an interesting, although difficult, class conversation. The New York Times review of agency messages providing advice for updating government documentation (including school curricula) invites questions about word choice.
The Times points out that this list includes guidance from any agency and might not apply to all agencies. Still, I’m curious in which context some of these words and phrases should not be used, for example, pollution and mental health.
I won’t comment further, but I thought business communication faculty—and our students—might want to see the list, which is behind a NYT firewall. The reporters also say this list may be incomplete.
accessible
activism
activists
advocacy
advocate
advocates
affirming care
all-inclusive
allyship
anti-racism
antiracist
assigned at birth
assigned female at birth
assigned male at birth
at risk
barrier
barriers
belong
bias
biased
biased toward
biases
biases towards
biologically female
biologically male
BIPOC
Black
breastfeed + people
breastfeed + person
chestfeed + people
chestfeed + person
clean energy
climate crisis
climate science
commercial sex worker
community diversity
community equity
confirmation bias
cultural competence
cultural differences
cultural heritage
cultural sensitivity
culturally appropriate
culturally responsive
DEI
DEIA
DEIAB
DEIJ
disabilities
disability
discriminated
discrimination
discriminatory
disparity
diverse
diverse backgrounds
diverse communities
diverse community
diverse group
diverse groups
diversified
diversify
diversifying
diversity
enhance the diversity
enhancing diversity
environmental quality
equal opportunity
equality
equitable
equitableness
equity
ethnicity
excluded
exclusion
expression
female
females
feminism
fostering inclusivity
GBV
gender
gender based
gender based violence
gender diversity
gender identity
gender ideology
gender-affirming care
genders
Gulf of Mexico
hate speech
health disparity
health equity
hispanic minority
historically
identity
immigrants
implicit bias
implicit biases
inclusion
inclusive
inclusive leadership
inclusiveness
inclusivity
increase diversity
increase the diversity
indigenous community
inequalities
inequality
inequitable
inequities
inequity
injustice
institutional
intersectional
intersectionality
key groups
key people
key populations
Latinx
LGBT
LGBTQ
marginalize
marginalized
men who have sex with men
mental health
minorities
minority
most risk
MSM
multicultural
Mx
Native American
non-binary
nonbinary
oppression
oppressive
orientation
people + uterus
people-centered care
person-centered
person-centered care
polarization
political
pollution
pregnant people
pregnant person
pregnant persons
prejudice
privilege
privileges
promote diversity
promoting diversity
pronoun
pronouns
prostitute
race
race and ethnicity
racial
racial diversity
racial identity
racial inequality
racial justice
racially
racism
segregation
sense of belonging
sex
sexual preferences
sexuality
social justice
sociocultural
socioeconomic
status
stereotype
stereotypes
systemic
systemically
they/them
trans
transgender
transsexual
trauma
traumatic
tribal
unconscious bias
underappreciated
underprivileged
underrepresentation
underrepresented
underserved
undervalued
victim
victims
vulnerable populations
women
women and underrepresented
Kroger Is Vague About CEO Departure
Kroger’s CEO is leaving the company, but the reason is unclear. The official statement—and no word from the outgoing CEO—leaves us wondering what happened, which could conjure even worse stories.
The statement says Rodney McMullen, who started his career as a stock clerk while in college in 1978, left because of “his personal conduct that, while unrelated to the business, was inconsistent with Kroger's Policy on Business Ethics.” We’re told that an investigation happened, and we’re told what the conduct was not: “not related to the Company's financial performance, operations or reporting, and it did not involve any Kroger associates.”
Naturally, I’m curious. This sounds like a sad ending for a distinguished career. Unlike other leader-departure statements, we see no acknowledgement of McMullen’s long tenure at the company. Other issues might contribute to the traditional missing quotes about a leader’s contribution: McMullen led an attempted acquisition of Albertsons, which failed because of regulatory issues, and now Albertsons is suing the company for failing to do enough.
My imagination is going wild. I wonder whether it’s worse to keep the “conduct” a secret, although I’m guessing the decision protects McMullen’s privacy and dignity. The company’s objective is to assure investors that the behavior hasn’t affected business—although of course it does. Shares fell after the news, compounded by sales falling below expectations.
As usual in these situations, what’s called a “resignation” probably isn’t—at least not in the way you or I would resign from a job. This, too, preserves McMullen’s dignity.
Delta CEO Interview After Crash Focuses on PR and Safety
After a Delta flight flipped with 76 passengers and 4 crew members, CEO Ed Bastian interviewed with CBS News and focused on defending the company and the safety of air travel. The situation was particularly dramatic because it was on video, in flames at first, and then upside down with people exiting. It is miraculous that everyone survived the ordeal.
The interview began by asking Bastian what went wrong, and he responded, “Before I get to your question, Chris, I want to express my deep…” I thought he would first express compassion for those affected which is typically how crisis communication statements start. Instead, he complimented the crew, immediately protecting the company by defending their actions as well as emphasizing the Endeavor operator to distance the Delta brand. He then talked about “the safety embedded in the systems,” including extensive training. At least he didn’t say, “Safety is our top priority.”
At 2:33 into the 5:49-minute video, Gayle King finally asks about the video showing the flipped plane. To add drama, she asks about Bastian seeing the plane with the Delta logo. This is his chance to talk about his feelings. Again, he says, “Safety is embedded in our system,” and talks about the training and preparation. Then she asks about the Trump Administration cuts, and Bastian says the cuts are minimal and don’t affect them.
Bastian says, twice, that flying is the safest way to travel. Students could count the number of times he says versions of “safe.”
In the video, he says not a peep about the trauma people endured, which might be nice for the CEO to acknowledge regardless of the cause.
Southwest Layoff Memo Analysis
Fifteen percent of Southwest Airlines, or 1,750 employees, will be laid off, and CEO Bob Jordan's message to staff (below) serves as a bad-news example for students to analyze.
Budget airlines, including JetBlue, have been struggling, so the news shouldn’t be surprising to employees. During the December 2022 holiday storm when Southwest cancelled thousands of flights, a message asked employees to volunteer to help with scheduling; the company had been criticized for “outdated systems.” Increasing costs, competition, and activist pressure also led to a COO video message warning staff in September 2024:
[W]e try everything before we can make difficult decisions. We have a couple of difficult decisions heading our way. It’s not station closures. But we need to keep moving the network to help us drive back to profitability. And so I apologize in advance if you as an individual are affected by it. But I hope you understand that as we make these things, it’s not, you know, without lots of efforts otherwise.
He doesn’t use the “L-word,” but employees should see, as the saying goes, “the writing on the wall.” This context is important as students assess whether the message meets communication objectives and is appropriate for the audience. Here are a few points, comparing the memo to principles of bad-news messages:
The memo is on the Southwest website under Newsroom, a smart move because leaders can claim transparency—and the message likely would have been leaked, anyway, like the two I found mentioned above.
The news takes a while, but there’s no need to hold back when employees know what’s coming. The title, “Transforming The Way We Work,” means nothing (although is better than “Fork in the Road,” the most recent archived at opm.gov/fork). Employees will likely skim the first two paragraphs until they read the main point in the third: cutting 15%, or 1,750 mostly Corporate and Leadership positions (students will see random capitalization throughout).
Mentioning the types of positions is critical and too often omitted from layoff memos. Isolating the group is a good strategy to provide (some) relief to those not affected.
Offering pay through April without work is generous (although it might further enrage investors who have been pushing for reductions—how can such a large group be immediately laid off without consequence?). Jordan mentions severance, which could be spelled out here, as other leaders do, if it’s a generous package.
Jordan uses “I” when referring to the decision (“I arrived at this decision after careful and thorough reflection”), taking responsibility, and he demonstrates compassion in the next two paragraphs. He sounds sincere; few CEOs want to lay off staff.
I felt hopeful when I read the heading, “What to Expect,” but this is fluffy and doesn’t tell employees what they need to hear: Am I affected? When will I know? Instead, that paragraph is a company-pat-on-the-back—what they’re doing well. Other leaders are precise in layoff memos, for example, “Employees who are affected will receive an email by 5pm today and will meet [in-person if possible] with . . . “).
Endings are always tricky, balancing how those leaving might feel with a positive statement about the company’s future, but this one feels harsh: “As we focus on delivering on our plan, our future will be built upon the actions we take today to ensure an even brighter future.” A departing employee might read this as, “You were dragging us down, so thanks for going. Your future is completely unknown, but we’ll be better off without you.”
The message could be signed by Jordan for a more personal touch.
As posted on the site, it ends oddly with the boilerplate statement about the company’s history and number of employees, which probably didn’t appear in the original message. The weird footnotes are unnecessary, and the “2” needs to be superscript here: “By empowering its more than 72,0002 People to deliver unparalleled Hospitality.” Minor points—but this detracts from the message, which should feel heart-felt, particularly for a company that refers to its employees as “Cohearts.”
Overall, I have certainly seen worse. It’s a terrible time for Southwest and has been for a while. The hope is that those laid off will find better jobs, although the job market is difficult. The best we can do is wish people the best, including those staying, who could be part of an airline that will last.
Southwest Team:
We are at a pivotal moment as we carry out our three-year business plan to transform Southwest Airlines. Our transformational plan is the largest and most comprehensive in our 53-year history, and it focuses on three simple but powerful objectives. First, boost revenues and loyalty by offering our Customers the experience they want; second, maximize efficiencies and minimize costs; and third, make the most of our investments.
As we continue to work together to transform our Company, an area of intense focus will be maximizing efficiencies and minimizing costs. We must ensure we fund the right work, reduce duplicative efforts, and have a lean organizational structure that drives clarity, pace, and urgency. Improving how we work together and how we get work done has a tremendous impact on our efficiency as a Company and how we deliver against our plan.
We have made the very tough decision to move forward with a reduction in our workforce, focused almost entirely on Corporate and Leadership positions. This reduction affects approximately 1,750 Employee roles, or 15% of Corporate positions. Separations do not begin until late April. Until then, most Employees who are notified of their displacement will not work but will continue to receive their salary, benefits, and bonus, if eligible.
This is a very difficult and monumental shift, and I arrived at this decision after careful and thorough reflection, knowing how hard it will be to say goodbye to Cohearts who have been a significant part of our Culture and our accomplishments.
We are dedicated to operating safely and reliably for our Customers every single day. The fundamental objective of Leadership and Noncontract roles is to support our Frontline Employees as efficiently and effectively as possible. With the best intentions, the growth of our Leadership and Noncontract functions have outpaced our operation's growth for many years. Now, this group must become more lean, efficient, and agile to better serve our Frontline Employees in our shared mission of serving our Customers.
What to Expect
This will be hard, and we will treat our People with the care and respect they have earned and they deserve. Impacted Employees will receive severance and will be offered resources to provide an opportunity to ask questions and prepare for the future, like sessions with Human Resource Business Partners, a dedicated Offboarding Support Team, and outplacement services.
Moving Forward Together
This was an extremely difficult decision to make because of its impact on our People—both those who will be directly impacted and those who will remain.
Changing how we work is an essential part of becoming a more agile Company, and it will be a journey. We are building a leaner organization with increased clarity regarding what is most important, quicker decision making, and a focus on getting the right things done with urgency—not unlike our entrepreneurial founding spirit of the 1970s. As we focus on delivering on our plan, our future will be built upon the actions we take today to ensure an even brighter future.
Jobs Report and Graphics
A Wall Street Journal article illustrates simple graphics for the latest jobs report and serves as a good discussion starter for students about their own prospects.
The classic bar chart shows non-farm jobs added over the past couple of years. Student might compare the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ presentation and the Wall Street Journal’s. Of course, the WSJ adds some color, including red to highlight the latest data point. But the axis ranges show the biggest differences. The WSJ pulled data back from 2022, forcing a larger x-axis range and including the uptick in 2022, which may imply more volatility and a lower number in 2025.
The BLS includes -100 on its x-axis—a good idea to illustrate potential losses, which of course, we see in longer-range job charts. For perspective on the current employment economy, these would be interesting for students to explore.
Students might create a different chart from the BLS data and tell their own story. Their story might involve a tougher time finding full-time employment, which is an obvious problem with these domestic averages.
A useful discussion is why the BLS and WSJ chose a bar chart for jobs added and a line chart for the unemployment rate. The bar compares discrete values each month, while the line chart shows the trend of a continuous data point over time. A line chart could work for jobs, too, and we’ll see this display as well. Students could search for “jobs added” and compare the graphics.
Mattel Communicates Tariff Response
Mattel communicated its plans as tariffs go into effect. Companies are in a tough spot. As a Financial Times writer explains, “Public companies have been reluctant to make concrete predictions over the effects of tariffs, as they struggle to keep up with rapid policy changes or seek to avoid antagonising Washington.”
Mattel depends on 40% of its production from China and 10% from Mexico. In the company’s fourth quarter financial report, guidance for 2025 includes the following:
Guidance includes the anticipated impact of new U.S. tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada imports announced on February 1st, and mitigating actions we plan to take, including leveraging the strength of our supply chain, and potential pricing.
Reading between the lines, students might understand that Mattel plans to reduce sourcing outside the United States (a CNBC article confirms plans to reduce the amount from 50% to 25% by 2027) and will try to absorb increased costs. In other words, Mattel is saying, we’ll be fine, but we might raise prices. In the end, as CNBC reports, Mattel, like Chipotle and many others, may have “consumers pay the rest.”
A New York Post headline is more blunt: “Mattel shares spike 15% after toy giant says it will raise Barbie prices because of China tariffs.” The article explains how toy companies, although vulnerable because 80% of their products are made in China, produce 80% new toys each year and have a captive audience: kids who want the latest toys and parents who will pay for them.
Price increases are one of those situations that is good or bad news depending on the audience. Either way, we could see it as an issue of integrity: Mattel’s language isn’t quite transparent (clear and accurate), although it’s appropriate for the primary audience of investors.
Grammy CEO Models Crisis Recovery
Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. delivered a surprising speech during the 2025 Grammy Awards, directly addressing criticism of the awards and explaining actions taken.
He described the situation when he became CEO in 2020. He said some artists were “pretty vocal in their complaints” and described reading about the Weeknd’s boycott in the newspaper. This approach gives us a window into the personal impact and might engender compassion:
I remember waking up to the headlines that the Weeknd called out the Academy for lack of transparency in our awards. He went so far as to announce he was boycotting the Grammys. That made for some interesting reading over breakfast. But you know what? Criticism is, okay. I heard him. I felt his conviction.
Next, Mason described the Recording Academy’s “transformation,” including new initiatives and a more diverse voting body. As he ends this segment, he promises, “I firmly believe we’re on the right path,” but he says there’s still work to do.
Finally, he transitions to introduce the Weeknd!
As we've seen tonight, music is a powerful force for good. It heals us, it unites us, and we need that in this city right now. With that in mind, on a truly special night, what better way to bring us together than this next artist? Someone who has seen the work the Academy has put in. I'm so honored to leave you with a sentence that I wasn't sure would ever be said on the Grammy stage again. My friends, my fellow music makers, please join me in welcoming back none other than four-time Grammy-winning artist and global superstar, The Weeknd.
This is a preventable (not victim or accidental) crisis situation, so the Academy had to take responsibility and do better. In their book, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs might call this an “extreme crisis,” which requires more significant actions in response. Mason described them well, and his delivery is appropriate for the awards ceremony: scripted but conversational. This is a good example for students to analyze.
New AI Copyright Ruling and My Book Guidance
Students may want to know about the U.S. Copyright Office’s new ruling: AI-assisted works can be copyrighted if enough human creativity contributed to the product.
With 207 citations, the 52-page report clarifies what AI output can be copyrighted, challenging previous thinking that no output can carry the protection. The ruling is most relevant to people in creative fields who use AI to produce music, film, artwork, etc., but has implications for all of us. The National Law Review summarized the latest:
The Office reiterated its position that copyright protection may currently be available for: (a) human-created works of authorship used as inputs/prompts that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs; (b) creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs (i.e., compilations); (c) creative modifications of the outputs; and (d) the prompts themselves if they are sufficiently creative (but not the outputs created in response to the prompts).
The last point is perhaps the most relevant: prompts alone do not constitute human intervention into AI results. Additional human creativity and authorship are essential.
With a reference to Paula Lentz’s article on ethical authorship, here’s what I included in the upcoming 12th edition of Business Communication and Character on the topic:
Regardless of how you use AI, you are always the author of your work. Maintain your own authorship, including your authority and authenticity, over your writing—in other words, yourself. You want your writing to represent you and your character—not whatever content GenAI generates from existing sources; that output isn’t necessarily original work. Depending on the task, think of AI as a collaborator, an assistant, or a coach—but never a replacement for you.
With this guidance, AI output can certainly be copyrighted. For example, inputting a curated dataset or rearranging or changing results could be enough human creativity. But what is sufficient to reach this threshold remains to be seen.
American Airlines' Evolving Crisis Communications
American Airlines has posted several messages as part of its crisis response to the tragic Flight 5342 crash en route from Wichita, Kansas (ICT), to Washington, D.C. (DCA). The CEO’s videos serve as a model of bad-news communication, and he cleverly and subtlety shifts blame away from the airline.
Calling the tragedy an “accident,” American Airlines places the crash into one of the three categories of crises: victim, accident, or preventable. (See Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Routledge, 2022.) Unlike a preventable crisis, such as financial impropriety, an accidental crisis doesn’t require company leaders to take responsibility. Of course, leaders still need to express sympathy for those affected, but they do not apologize as they would when blamed for a crisis.
American Airlines created a webpage to chronicle the company’s response and what they know. So far, four messages are posted, with blame increasingly shifting elsewhere.
An initial announcement describes the event with little information and a hotline number. At this point, responsibility is unclear.
A video from CEO Robert Isom expresses sympathy and concern. His delivery is scripted, but he sounds serious and measured. He promises to “take care of all passengers and crew involved and their families.” He says the AA flight “appears to have collided with a military aircraft on approach.”
One day later, a second video thanks the Safety Board and others. Now he says they’re focused on the “families and loved ones.” He says “recovery efforts” are continuing, but it’s fairly clear at this point that no one survived the crash. Again, his tone reflects a caring, engaged executive.
He also begins to shift blame, saying the reverse of his previous message: “A military helicopter collided with American Eagle flight 5342 upon its approach” and “This flight was operated under PSA, one of our wholly owned carriers.”
The fourth message, below, further shifts blame. President Trump has blamed DEI efforts for the crash: "I put safety first. Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first. The FAA's website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism." Isom doesn’t address these comments, but he expresses gratitude for the president’s “leadership on aviation safety,” and “applaud(s)” the Administration’s response. His focus is on military helicopters, focusing on new reports that helicopters may be crowding the airspace around D.C. airports.
Isom is front and center during the crisis communication, as he should be as the leader of a major company involved in a tragedy. In addition to framing the crisis as an “accident,” he doesn’t blame others directly but increasingly shifts attention away from AA to the carrier and to the military. The last sentence in his statement implies a historical lack of investment in critical resources.
CEO Robert Isom statement on the Trump Administration action on aviation safety
Friday, January 31, 2025, 2:45 p.m.
American Airlines CEO Robert Isom issued the following statement surrounding changes to flight activity at DCA: “We are all hurting as we continue to grieve the loss of our passengers and team members. I thank President Trump for his leadership on aviation safety. I applaud him, Secretary Duffy and the Administration for taking quick and decisive action today to restrict helicopter activity around DCA. In the days ahead, we will work tirelessly with the Administration and leaders in Congress to make our aviation system even safer, including by increasing investments in infrastructure, technology and personnel.”
Analyzing an Argument: Institutional Neutrality for Corporations
A New York Times opinion encourages corporate leaders to “keep your mouth shut.” Students can analyze the argument in light of research about public opinion.
The authors, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, point to their article published in The University of Chicago Business Law Review. They compare corporate leaders’ choices to universities increasingly adopting institutional neutrality, including Chicago, which adopted guidelines back in 1967. The authors suggest that corporate leaders do the same—avoid statements as well as political activity—particularly regarding President Trump and his policies.
The authors argue that corporate leaders cave to pressure, which creates a swell of demand for other corporate leaders to chime in. The resulting statements are either “vanilla” and meaningless or “veer away from the mainstream,” which causes backtracking.
Students might evaluate the opinion against counterarguments. One example is this Forbes opinion, which suggests three reasons for leaders to speak out: aligning with stakeholder values, enhancing brand reputation, and driving position change. Much of the University of Chicago researchers’ article describes notable exceptions to the rule, for example, mission- or values-driven reasons or significant stakeholder views, so these opinions aren’t entirely contradictory.
Students also might bring public opinion into the argument. A recent University of Iowa study confirms what the Chicago researchers suggest.
Ending by focusing on courage and, implied, integrity, the authors highlight two character dimensions for all leaders:
In both the business and university contexts, silence often takes courage and a commitment to institutional modesty. For a corporation, a general policy of silence can remind stakeholders that the business of the business is, well, business.
Vimeo CEO Video
Students can analyze this Vimeo CEO message to identify the audience and communication objectives and to assess his delivery style.
A little history is important. Vimeo has had a string of CEOs in the past few years and a number of senior leader departures. As the CEO since April 2024, Philip Moyer might want to make his mark, but students could question the audience, purpose, and medium choice.
It’s unclear who would watch the video, which is posted on Vimeo’s website and sent to users by email. On a positive note, Moyer describes the content creators Vimeo supports, and he mentions a few product features. But he’s not specific about what differentiates Vimeo or what plans are in place. This could add interest—if his audience cares to watch. Maybe acknowledging feedback from customers and describing how features how been improved would increase the audience focus. Maybe Moyer also could highlight a few standout projects created using Vimeo.
Students might comment on filming and Moyer’s delivery. The short video was shot in several segments, which makes it look staged. For only a minute of video, perhaps Moyer could have delivered his message in one take? Some of his gestures look too planned as well. If he were speaking for a minute, we might see more fluid, natural gestures.
Coors Typo and Response
Coors is going all-in on a typo on billboard and full-page newspaper ads—or they planned it all along. One of only three words in the giant ad is misspelled: refershment.
It’s hard to imagine how designers and copyeditors would miss the typo. Ready to respond, the company sent a press release and posted a clever explanation on social media platforms: “a case of the Mondays.” In addition to the obvious typo, the response rings false. On the Instagram post shown here, Mondays is written three times, including in the caption. The repetition could be a persuasive strategy, or it could be cloying for a reaction.
Now, a new campaign renames the beer to Mondays Light, which will be available, in a case, of course, for a limited time. A Superbowl ad connects a Case of the Mondays to “the worst Monday of all. The Monday after the big game.” Social tags, a contest, even a hat are converging into a grand campaign.
ChatGPT tells me the campaign is lauded, but even AI is confused. The response starts by calling the misspelling “intentional” and ends by saying Coors is “leveraging a potential mishap.” It all feels silly to me, but I don’t drink beer or watch football.
Meta's “Non-regrettable Attrition”
Another year, another euphemism for layoffs. Downsize, rightsize, smartsize, rationalize, amortize, reduce, redeploy, reallocate, reorganize, restructure, offshore, outsource, outplace—and now “non-regrettable attrition,” which has no ready verb form, as though it’s something beyond a company’s control.
A Forbes writer sums up the issue:
There’s also nothing wrong with categorizing turnover into desired (company-initiated) and undesired (employee-initiated) attrition.
But the term "non-regrettable attrition" that Meta used is a poor choice of words.
It’s not just tone-deaf—it comes across as dismissive and arrogant.
The writer explains the damage the label does to an individual who might find more suitable employment elsewhere. It’s a good point: a poor performer in one job can be quite successful in another.
We also see an issue of integrity, or inconsistency, in the company’s messaging. Although Zuckerberg’s memo to staff, below, doesn’t mention the term, Hillary Champion, Meta's Director of People Development Growth Programs, separately, said the goal is for 10% non-regrettable attrition: “This means we are aiming to exit approximately another 5% of our current employees [in 2025] who have been with the company long enough to receive a performance rating.”
I thought the term also lacked accountability because “attrition” typically is used to mean people leaving an organization voluntarily. But I was wrong: Gartner defines attrition as both voluntary and involuntary.
Still, another character dimension worth mentioning is compassion. “Non-regrettable attrition” communicates some combination of “We don’t care about you,” and “Don’t let the door…”
The full memo is below from Mark Zuckerberg to staff follows:
Meta is working on building some of the most important technologies in the world — Al, glasses as the next computing platform, and the future of social media. This is going to be an intense year, and I want to make sure we have the best people on our teams.
I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster. We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle — with the intention of backfilling these roles in 2025. We won’t manage out everyone who didn’t meet expectations for the last period if we’re optimistic about their future performance, and for those we do let go we’ll provide generous severance in line with what we’ve provided with previous cuts.
We’ll follow up with more guidance for managers ahead of calibrations. People who are impacted will be notified on February 10 — or later for those outside the US.
Letting people go is never easy. But I’m confident this will strengthen our teams and help us build leading technology to enable the future of human connection.
Starbucks Union Example of Persuasive Communication
Starbucks Workers Union messaging illustrates several persuasive communication strategies. Students can analyze the website, Instagram posts, Tiktok videos, and other content to determine which are most and least effective.
Students will have no trouble finding communication examples during the strike that workers promise will last through Christmas in Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago. Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Influence, Topoi, rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, ethos), or other frameworks can be used for analysis.
The website and a video offer a few examples of rhetorical appeals, with connections to other frameworks.
Logical Argument (Logos)
A video shows an employee talking about pride flags that hadn’t been put up this year—the first in the 5 or 6 years since she has worked at the store. The employee claims this is inconsistent with Starbucks’ “claims to care about LGBTQ+ employees.” Students might find Starbucks’ messaging about LGBTQ+ support and analyze her argument—and that of Starbucks. Is not having a ladder a legitimate safety issue? If it is, does that mean Starbucks doesn’t care about LGBTQ+ employees? How could union activity affect this situation?
Emotional Appeal (Pathos)
This statement is an appeal based on emotions, particularly what Starbucks partners consider as poor working conditions. They hope this will inspire people to support their cause. The reference to Starbucks profits could be an example of Topoi, comparison—comparing low salaries (although it’s not mentioned explicitly here) to money “raked in” by the company.
How We Got Here
As partners at Starbucks stores across the country, we have long experienced understaffing, overwork, and a lack of say in our workplace. Meanwhile, Starbucks has raked in record, billion-dollar profits.
Credibility/Trust (Ethos)
Referring to themselves beyond their Starbucks role suggests credibility. This is also an example of Cialdini’s social proof: others acting similarly, which could inspire the reader to follow suit if they identify with the partners.
Meet Us
We’re not just baristas—we’re students, parents, forward-thinkers, and coffee fans united by the simple idea that we think Starbucks can be so much better when workers have a say in company and store operations.
Messaging is also about character, of course. In this quote, the employee questions the company’s integrity—promising but not delivering on that promise:
Nobody wants to strike. It’s a last resort, but Starbucks has broken its promise to thousands of baristas and left us with no choice. In a year when Starbucks invested so many millions in top executive talent, it has failed to present the baristas who make its company run with a viable economic proposal. This is just the beginning. We will do whatever it takes to get the company to honor the commitment it made to us in February.
Helping Someone Whose Parent Is Overly Involved
I was curious about this story of a business owner who stepped in to offer advice to a parent. The owner’s friend reported the story and focused on the owner’s feedback to the father, but I want to focus on what else would be helpful to the young person looking for employment.
Jason Feifer, editor of Entreprenuer, posted the story on LinkedIn with a question, “My friend sent this text—would you?” His friend, Jeff Peterson received four messages from a young man’s father, each asking for a job for his son. Frustrated and genuinely wanting to be helpful, Peterson sent the message here. On a Help Wanted Spotify episode, Jason, Jeff, and Nicole Lapin discussed the situation.
They questioned whether this type of message might be helpful for the dad, so he knows, as Jeff says, that he isn’t “doing [his son] any favors.” They talked about other options, for example, ghosting the dad or saying only that all positions were filled.
I might consider a different approach. My thinking is that the father already knows that his son, not him, should be taking the initiative for jobs. I’m having trouble imagining a situation where an ambitious, go-getter son tells his dad that he’s going to reach out to Jeff, and the father says, “Oh, no. I’ll do it.” Four times? We don’t know the situation or their relationship, but I’m thinking there may be other issues. In other words, this might be a desperate attempt for a son who can’t or won’t reach out himself.
One option for Jeff, as the business owner, is to simply write—perhaps after the first message (and maybe he did)—”I’d be glad to consider your son’s application. Have him reach out to me himself.” A greater time investment that might be even more helpful is to say, after this fourth message, “Our positions are filled, but have your son contact me directly. I’d be glad to talk with him about how he might approach his search for other positions.” Again, maybe Jeff did respond that way to earlier messages, but that wasn’t discussed in the podcast.
Either way, the dad’s insistence is out of line, as they say on the podcast. I’m guessing students would agree about that.
Fake Firing of Stressed Employees as a PR Move
YesMadam, an Indian home salon company, faced criticism for what may have been a PR campaign. Reports showed the owner firing employees for responding, on a survey, that they’re stressed.
According to a three-page statement on LinkedIn, no one was actually fired. The original message was part of “a planned effort to highlight the serious issue of workplace stress.” People are skeptical about whether that’s true—or whether employees had been fired, and then the company changed course. To me, the original message sounds false and, after all, YesMadam promotes wellness, including reduced stress. So the “joke” fits the brand.
Either way, the incident doesn’t reflect well on the company. This doesn’t seem like one of those, any-press-is-good-press-situations. The three-page statement is clearly promotional and includes language as though the company is considered a leader with “India’s first-ever De-Stress Leave Policy for employees.”
A marketing consultant told BBC:
It's crucial for brands to prioritise ethical marketing practices and avoid using people's emotions as a tool for self-promotion. While attention-grabbing tactics may work in the short term, they ultimately erode trust and damage brand reputation.
Here’s a related topic for student discussion: rage-baiting. Apparently, you get more clicks for rage than for joy.
McKinsey's Admission in a Settlement Statement
McKinsey may be the first consulting firm held criminally responsible for giving advice that led to a client’s criminal activity. As a result of the deferred prosecution agreement, we see a clear admission of guilt for the firm’s role in the opioid crisis. The statement offers an example of demonstrating accountability and compassion, particularly when compared to statements about previous settlements.
Pages from a McKinsey deck encouraging aggressive sales of opioids served as the introduction to Chapter 10 of the 11th edition of Business Communication and Character. Since then, McKinsey has settled other lawsuits, and each statement is posted on the firm’s website. Here are statements after other settlements for students to compare:
February 2021 (State Attorney Generals and others): Former CEO Kevin Sneader wrote:
We deeply regret that we did not adequately acknowledge the tragic consequences of the epidemic unfolding in our communities. With this agreement, we hope to be part of the solution to the opioid crisis in the U.S. . . . As I have said previously, we are determined to take the steps necessary to strengthen our firm’s risk management policies and culture. We will build on the steps we have already taken to learn from past mistakes, and ensure we consistently meet the high standards our firm has always aspired to.
Around that time, Sneader also wrote to staff:
Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.
March 2021 (Nevada): This statement repeats part of the February 2021 quote and includes this statement:
As we noted in connection with the prior settlements, McKinsey believes its past work was lawful and has denied allegations to the contrary. The settlement agreement with Nevada, like those reached in February, contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability.
September 2023 (Political subdivisions and school districts): This statement mentions another settlement with Native American Tribes but includes no quote. This one sounds more defensive:
As we have stated previously, we continue to believe that our past work was lawful and deny allegations to the contrary, and the settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing. The firm entered into this agreement to avoid the time and expense of protracted litigation and, in the process, to support the efforts of these political subdivisions and school districts to help those affected by the opioid epidemic.
December 2024 (Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice): The purpose of this $650 million agreement is to avoid criminal prosecution, although one partner will plead guilty to obstructing evidence (deleting documents). The statement starts with this paragraph, with no sign of the previous “deny allegations” language:
We are deeply sorry for our past client service to Purdue Pharma and the actions of a former partner who deleted documents related to his work for that client. We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma. This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.
This brings McKinsey’s settlement total to more than $1.5 billion in addition to the reputational damage. More significantly, other management consulting firms are now on notice. As U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy of Massachusetts said, “We will cut through the slick PowerPoints and the consultant speak and hold you accountable for your conduct if you engage in criminal violations.”
Communication Implications of "Love Is Blind" Ruling
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that contestants on the popular Love Is Blind Netflix show are employees, not cast members. This story clarifies the definition and contractors’ rights, which could be important for students in their job search.
What could go wrong on a reality show that asks people to commit to marry each other without seeing each other, with millions of people watching? One thing is that cast members are unhappy and are speaking out about how they’re treated.
Love Is Blind contestants claimed “inhumane working conditions,” including low pay, not enough food or sleep, and too much alcohol. In other words, too much control over the cast members, which implies that they are employees. Show producers argue that contestants make their own decisions:
We document the independent choices of adults who volunteer to participate in a social experiment. Their journey is not scripted, nor is it filmed around the clock.
The IRS, Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, and some states all have definitions of an employee when compared to an independent contractor, and they all include level of control over the work. Another issue is whether cast members can speak out about their negative experiences. In at least one case, the company started arbitration proceedings after a cast member talked about the show in a televised interview. The NLRB says confidentiality agreements and other contract provisions are illegal.
Uber and Lyft drivers have argued that they are employees of their companies. Although courts have decided that they are not, this situation may be different.
This will be an interesting case to follow, particularly for reality TV fans whose other favorite shows may be affected. Students should carefully consider contract employment agreements before they sign.
Lyft and Apple Updating Terms of Service
A useful class activity would ask students to analyze how companies summarize changes to user agreements. Lyft and Apple Pay sent emails this week, but details about the changes aren’t clear.
Lyft’s email includes these major changes:
Terms of Service We're making updates related to the arbitration agreement between users and Lyft, restricted activities on the platform, insurance coverage for certain rides, and user eligibility requirements. These updates will apply to everyone who uses the Lyft Platform, including drivers, riders, and those who use bikes and third-party services.
Privacy Policy As part of our commitment to respecting your privacy – and explaining how we're complying with new state privacy laws – we're adding information to our Privacy Policy. This includes more detail about the data we collect and why, how we use it, and how we may share it. It also includes updates that reflect new initiatives, such as rider verification. Plus, we've added details about our privacy tools and options to help you better understand your rights and the choices you have related to our data practices.
Apple Pay & Wallet summarized these changes:
We have simplified our Terms and Conditions for Apple Pay and Wallet so that your review and agreement of these Terms and Conditions is effective across all of your Apple devices.
For our US customers, Apple Pay is a service provided by Apple Payments Services LLC, a subsidiary of Apple Inc.
Our Terms and Conditions now include standard assignment provisions.
Lyft’s changes seem significant. Maybe not the privacy policy changes, but all the terms of service changes sound like restrictions. If the changes mean stricter arbitration requirements, less platform functionality, reduced insurance—and who knows what about user eligibility, that could affect a user’s rights and experience.
Lyft’s entire Terms of Service (with the URL tag “preview,” so the link might change) is, according to ChatGPT, about 8,500 words, For such a long document, students might consider a company’s responsibility in communicating changes. Are the email summaries sufficient? I find myself wanting to see documents marked up to show the textual changes. Maybe they could show before-and-after tables?
Weighing in at a mere 5,000-6,000 words, Apple Pay & Wallet’s Terms and Conditions covers simpler transactions and relationships than does Lyft’s. The first two bullets in the email reflect administrative changes, and the last is legal-jargony, at least to me. Here’s the relevant last section, which comes after the ALL CAPS liability section.
8. Assignment
You may not transfer or assign any rights or obligations you have under these Apple Pay & Wallet Terms. Apple and Apple Payments Services may each transfer or assign these Apple Pay & Wallet Terms or any right or obligation under these Apple Pay & Wallet Terms at any time.
Is this new? Is this important to students? Should Apple have written more about this in the email?
I almost always breeze past these notices and wonder whether students do the same. It’s a potential issue of the company’s integrity if the email summary downplays important information for users.
Kohl's CEO Admits Mistakes
The outgoing Kohl’s CEO admitted failings, which students can analyze as an example of communicating bad news and accountability. The third-quarter earnings deck also serves as a class example.
One reason for Tom Kingsbury’s blunt admission is the obvious decline in sales and stock price. In the past two years, the stock declined 52%, and this quarter, sales declined 9.3%. In addition, Kingsbury is 72 years old and retiring; he may be concerned about his legacy, but he is no longer concerned about his next career move. Also, as a Citi analyst points out, he can’t blame macroeconomic conditions, as Target did recently, because Kohl’s decline is far beyond what we would expect from the results of inflation and more people shopping online.
Coming in as an activist investor, Kingsbury implemented ideas that didn’t work. Reducing petite clothing, jewelry sales, and private brand labels hurt sales. During the earnings webcast, Kingsbury said these decisions were “shortsighted.” He also said, “We thought, ‘We can do more with a lot less,’ and that didn’t work out for us.” On a positive note, he said, “We continue to believe our market brand strategy and investments into the key growth categories are the right long-term strategic moves,” although the WSJ writer disagrees: “So far, the numbers have told a different story.”
Students can read the quarterly presentation deck, with Kingsbury’s opening quotes. I admire his admission and taking responsibility, but we don’t see a clear strategy for the future, which sounds bleak. He says only “we must execute at a higher level and ensure we are putting the customer first”—nothing new here, and his plans to lower expectations aren’t inspiring. Kingsbury also uses “we” but will leave the company in May. Oddly, the company announced a new CEO the day before the earnings presentation. That’s good news! But I guess the deck couldn’t be updated in time? Students could suggest a stronger approach for this first content slide.