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 talked about other options, for example, “ghosting” the dad or saying only that all positions were filled. They discussed 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.”

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—and 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 may be one of those, any-press-is-good-press-situations, but I’m not so sure. 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.

Related 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.”

Image source.

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.

Image source.

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.

Lyft image source.

Apple Pay image source.

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.

Image source.

Bus Sign: "No Standees Beyond the Standee Line"

It’s been a while since I felt moved to share bad signage. This busy one from the Cornell Campus-to-Campus bus left me wondering who would read it and what they would do differently. Here are my suggestions.

UnitedHealthcare Messaging on Shooting

The CEO of UnitedHealthcare’s insurance unit was shot outside a New York Hilton, targeted by someone who is still not found. The company’s messaging offers a minimal example of crisis communication during a tragedy.

The news is so highly covered that UnitedHealthcare must respond. The company has similar text with a link on its homepage, but the statement is minimal at this point, the day after the shooting:

We are deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Brian was a highly respected colleague and friend to all who worked with him. We are working closely with the New York Police Department and ask for your patience and understanding during this difficult time. Our hearts go out to Brian’s family and all who were close to him.

In part, the incident is alarming because the attack was clearly premeditated and so public—in Midtown Manhattan. The words “delay” and “deny,” likely related to insurance claims, were among those found on bullet casings. The shooting raises safety concerns for other corporate executives. In addition, the shooter is still not found, despite cameras throughout the city, which is a particular issue for law enforcement, whose objective is for people to feel safe. Thompson’s wife told reporters that he and others on the management team had received threats, and news sources are reporting a lawsuit against Thompson and another executive for fraud and insider trading.

Students might discuss what else, if anything, the company should have said at this point. The Times has a long obituary-type article about Thompson, and UnitedHealth might consider the same soon. The Times also has a post about the Hilton, calling it “somehow both drab and sleek,” titled, “A storied New York Hilton adds a grim chapter to its history.” I don’t see anything posted by the Hilton, and that is probably a good choice.

Update: Later that day (December 5), UnitedHealth Group posted a longer statement:

While our hearts are broken, we have been touched by the huge outpouring of kindness and support in the hours since this horrific crime took place.

So many patients, consumers, health care professionals, associations, government officials and other caring people have taken time out of their day to reach out. We are thankful, even as we grieve.

Our priorities are, first and foremost, supporting Brian’s family; ensuring the safety of our employees; and working with law enforcement to bring the perpetrator to justice. 

We, at UnitedHealth Group, will continue to be there for those who depend upon us for their health care.

We ask that everyone respect the family’s privacy as they mourn the loss of their husband, father, brother and friend.

The statement is what we might expect of the company. As is appropriate at this point, they ignore a large outpouring from people who are disgruntled with insurance companies like UnitedHeathcare. Comments bubbled up in the days following the announcement, although we might see defensive hints of acknowledgement at this point: “So many patients, customers” and “those who depend on us.” We’ll see whether UnitedHealth responds further to the public outcry.

Red Lobster CEO Explains Post-Bankruptcy Strategy

Just 35 years old, new Red Lobster CEO Damola Adamolekun speaks to an interviewer about his plan to turn around the restaurant chain, including a few communication strategies.

Hired by a private equity firm, Adamolekun, the fifth CEO in five years, will implement plans that worked to bring P. F. Chang’s back from bankruptcy. He speaks with enthusiasm and confidence about the brand, saying, “This could be the greatest comeback in the history of the restaurant industry.” When the interviewer noted, “It’s not an easy environment right now. You’re coming in at a tough time.” Adamolekun wasn’t defensive and instead acknowledged the reality and then transitioned to his history of success: “It’s a challenged industry. But I took over P. F. Chang’s during COVID; I’m used to entering at a tough time.”

In addition to his own presentation, he describes a few plans that illustrate what we teach in business communication classes. One focus will be improving the menu “layout, the aesthetics, the photography.” He cites reducing the number of items and the order—the greatest value, he says, is currently buried on page 3.

The video includes a few simple graphics: a timeline of CEOs, a bar chart showing more restaurant chain bankruptcies than in 2020, and the increasing cost of shrimp, a staple of Red Lobster and possibly it’s downfall because of the all-you-can-eat offer.

This example shows how a CEO creates a positive message given a bleak situation.

Bluesky and, Once Again, "Safety Is Extremely Important"

This week, a new company used the old “safety is extremely important” expression after an incident that says otherwise. The CEO of Bluesky, quickly emerging as a popular X alternative, misstated the app’s minimum user age.

When Jay Graber was asked for the minimum age on Bluesky, she said, “When you sign up—I’ll have to check—I think it’s like 18 and above." That is not correct. She’s right that the app asks for a birthdate on the signup screen, but when I entered 2012 as my birth year, a message popped up about age 13, shown here. Here’s how the company responded, according to a BBC report:

Following the interview, Bluesky contacted the BBC to clarify that the minimum age is 13, not 18. A spokesperson said: "Child safety is extremely important for Bluesky. You must be at least 13 years old to sign up for an account, and anyone under 18 using Bluesky has additional settings applied to ensure that the content they see is safe for minors."

In a wide-ranging interview with presenter Rick Edwards, she [Graber] said Bluesky does not try to verify the identification of the user, to ensure people are not lying when signing up.

She said: "We don’t take IDs or anything like that. I know that’s proposed in some places. That’s very private information. I think companies like us would want to make sure we're handling that private user data very responsibly."

Framing verification as a privacy issue is a compelling argument but might contradict Bluesky’s knowledge of those between 13 and 18. What technology do they use to determine that age range? On a recent podcast episode, Scott Galloway asked Google Founder Eric Schmidt whether companies should practice “age gating”:

They should. And indeed Jonathan's [Haidt] work is incredible. He and I wrote an article together two years ago which called for a number of things in the area of regulating social media and we'd start with changing a law called COPA from 13 to 16. And we are quite convinced that using various techniques we can determine the age of the person with a little bit of work. And so people say, well you can't implement it. Well that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And so we believe that at least the pernicious effects of this technology on below 16 can be addressed.

Schmidt recommends 16 as the minimum, and students might discuss whether Bluesky should change its policy. They also can discuss what the spokesperson could have said differently. One option is to omit that safety cliché entirely. It was an unfortunate mistake the CEO won’t likely make again—and a signal for the company to pay more attention to concerns about users’ age.

AI-Generated Coca-Cola Ads Face Backlash

Coca-Cola ads from 1985 were reimagined using AI, causing complaints of “ruining Christmas.” Students can weigh in on the uses and limitations of AI in marketing. The situation raises questions of integrity, both of the “Christmas spirit” and of the company brand.

The company issued a statement to the New York Times:

“The Coca-Cola Company has celebrated a long history of capturing the magic of the holidays in content, film, events and retail activations for decades around the globe. This year, we crafted films through a collaboration of human storytellers and the power of generative A.I. . . . Coca-Cola will always remain dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology,”

The head of generative AI said, “If I want to go very realistic, maybe it’s difficult, but if I want to go hyper-realistic and fantastical, A.I. is actually a much better tool.”

For their part, the ad agency emphasizes “AI, combined with human creativity.” We read about Silverside’s “team of art directors, artists, animators, and musicians” with a clear view of the team leading and AI assisting, although they acknowledge reducing the creative time from 12 to 2 months, so staff does spend less time. Critics say the drive towards efficiency is causing bad decisions and fake-looking commercials.

Students could watch this opinion video. I don’t see how one ad ruins Christmas no less “their entire brand.” An interesting class discussion could center around the differences among exaggeration, logical fallacies, and hyperbole.

The situation raises important questions about AI and nostalgia. Of note, the polar bear first appeared in a Coca-Cola print ad in 1922—and it was never a real polar bear.

Airbnb Criticized for "Touristification"

Airbnb is planning staged gladiator fights in the Roman Colosseum, which some consider disrespectful of the 1st century amphitheater. Students can discuss the ethics of similar types of tourism and how companies promote them.

The Event Promotion

Promoting a new movie, Gladiator II, Airbnb lures guests into one of its Experiences:

For centuries, the Roman Colosseum has been the stage for epic battles and legendary gladiators. Now, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the Colosseum returns to its original purpose as a venue for performances, inviting daring warriors to step foot inside the historic arena to forge their own paths and shape their destinies.

Language describing the event reminds me of what analysts are saying about the U.S. presidential election results:

• Suit up and unleash your inner gladiator inside Rome’s legendary arena.

• Discover if you have what it takes to conquer the Colosseum and emerge victorious.

Airbnb might have predicted criticism. The end of the promotion includes “Airbnb’s commitment to heritage”:

These special experiences at the Colosseum follow a series of measures and commitments by the platform to revitalize heritage tourism in Europe, including donations to heritage across Europe for over ten million dollars.

As part of this program, Airbnb is offering its support to the restoration and enhancement of Colosseum’s heritage, including an ongoing project to restore the permanent exhibition at the Colosseum.

The Response

Critics say, ”Rome is not Disneyland,” and call the event “a disgrace” and “touristification.” Local agencies, already struggling with tourism, called the event “a demeaning use of our historical-artistic heritage.”

Airbnb responded to criticism with a statement to news outlets, referring to “authorities in Rome,” who provided their own statement. The company promised to “enhance the historical and cultural heritage of the amphitheater through immersive activities in full respect of the monument, based on rigorous historical research,” with a focus on “conservation, education and innovation.” Federico Mollicone, a member of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, describes his support:

The archaeological park of the Colosseum did well to sign a memorandum of understanding with the historical re-enactment associations also guaranteeing tourists a gladiator show of high scientific quality coordinated by ministry officials of Culture. . . . We reiterate our absolute favor for the agreement between public and private in culture, through partnerships or sponsorships, provided that they support initiatives that are of scientific and cultural value approved by the Ministry of Culture.

Airbnb deflected accountability, although the company’s name is still associated with the event, and anyone will recognize Airbnb’s “innovation” in developing the idea. Another relevant character dimension is integrity—upholding integrity of the Colosseum, an ancient ritual, and tourism-saturated Rome.

Overtourism

This is certainly not the only case of potentially problematic tourism. Students can discuss their views on “poverty tourism,” “dark tourism,” and even “eco-tourism,” which could include virtue-signaling and potential environmental degradation. Perhaps “degrading” is a good word to consider in these discussions. What accountability do companies—and tourists—have when planning such vacations?

A useful class discussion also might include the etymology of vacation: “freedom from obligations, leisure, release" and “state of being unoccupied.” Some tourism types do seem to include a disconnection, rather than an engagement, with the place and people. Some lead to cultural appropriation, which we might call a vacation from our good sense.

What drives people to want to experience Airbnb’s Gladiator challenge? Do they want to connect with the history of the Colosseum? That is not how Airbnb is communicating the event.

One Wicked Typo

Mattel issued a short apology for an embarrassing typo on the new Wicked doll packaging. Students can analyze the company’s response and consider how to prevent URL typos.

The dolls coincide with the launch of Wicked, a popular Broadway musical made into a two-part movie. On the packaging, we see that the intended website, www.wickedmovie.com is missing the word “movie” and directs to a porn site.

The company sent a statement to news outlets—the same they posted on Instagram, shown here. A post on X about the typo received 26.1 million views but no response from Mattel, which last posted on X in January 2019. Students might weigh in on whether Mattel should still have a presence on X if the account is inactive.

Mattel’s statement reads quite “corporate” for a toy company. Of course, they need to address the error with an appropriate, serious tone, but that first long sentence, with its passive voice and unclear reference doesn’t seem fitting to the occasion. What is the “immediate action to remedy this”? The deed is done. “Consumers” creates a distance between the company and kids and parents. Also curious is the invitation to contact customer service. First, it doesn’t feel genuine without a phone number or email. Second, what could possibly be the “further information”?

We don’t see a response to the question below Mattel’s statement, asking about quality control. That’s not a question the company could reasonably answer on Instagram, but students might consider what went wrong. I can imagine that one or more people proofread the box text but didn’t follow the link. This is a good reminder for students, if only to ensure that links work. The challenge here is that the link can’t be clicked on; proofreading requires an extra step of typing it into a browser, which, apparently, no one did.

How to Introduce People via Email

A Financial Times article offers advice for introducing people by email. Students can reflect on their own experience introducing others or getting introduced.

Most important: Before introducing anyone, ask their permission. Otherwise, revealing an email address and setting an expectation that the person will respond could be awkward. If someone doesn’t want to meet, they’re left with a tricky decision of whether to go through with it anyway, ignore the email and a possible follow-up from the other person, or respond and decline the invitation, which could feel hurtful. For the latter, the receiver could cite deadlines, other pressing priorities, or something perhaps more truthful, for example, “It sounds like you have a lot of interesting work in progress. I find my own interests moving away from xx but wish you the best of luck with your projects.” Maybe students could talk about how they might react to that type of email—or draft their own polite decline, as we talk about in business communication textbooks.

The article gives an example of not asking permission: when someone knows the person very well and sends a thoughtful, complimentary email. Students might agree, particularly if they are looking for work and an introduction gets them close to a potential hiring manager.

The author raises the question of how long to keep the introducer on the email chain. I suggest including the introducer on one email from each responder. “Thanks, Jamie, for the introduction! Matt, I’m glad to meet you . . .” As the introducer (which I was recently, after getting permission from both parties, of course), I like to see that the people responded. But that’s enough. I don’t need to be involved in plans for a lunch to which I’m not invited.

Universities Quiet After Election but Criticized

Compared to the 2016 election, university leaders are saying little about President-elect Trump’s victory, which tracks with decreased CEO activism and statements over the past couple of years. But universities are criticized for “coddling” students.

In May, Harvard clarified its communication strategy related to world events, and this week was a chance to put the plan in place. Other universities have followed suit, but a Chronicle of Higher Education article identifies a few statements (from more liberal universities) that student can compare—in addition to their own school’s response or lack of: American University, Emerson College, and Morgan State University.

None of these are as bold as that of Wesleyan President Michael Roth. Having spoken against neutrality, Roth writes openly against Trump’s policies and stance on deportation, DEI, and “attacks on higher education,” which he describes in a paragraph towards the end:

The attacks on higher education, on democracy, on the rule of law, threaten to sweep away freedoms that have been hard-won over the last 100 years. Education is a process through which people develop their capacities for exploration, collaboration and creative endeavors. They learn to treat new ideas with curiosity and respect, even as they are also taught to critically evaluate these ideas. They learn skills that will be valued beyond the university and habits of mind and spirit that will help them flourish throughout their lives. They work to think for themselves so that they can be engaged citizens of a democracy rather than mere subjects of an authoritarian regime. That work has never been more important.

FoxNews reported on universities offering students a “self-care suite,” milk and cookies, hot cocoa, Legos, and coloring games. Showing groups of crying students, the article mocks these practices as well as the cancellation of classes and quizzes. Students can weigh in on these practices, the criticism, and how people might react differently, for example, if they come from immigrant families.

The Elephant/Donkey in the Room

At the 2024 International Association for Business Communication conference in Tulsa, I presented with my Cornell colleagues David Lennox and Christy McDowell about whether and how faculty might discuss U.S. election communications in their classes. Here’s the slide deck and a summary. You’ll see that we co-opted a title from the Southeastern region, which was catchier than our academic title.

We acknowledge that these conversations can be challenging and that faculty decide for themselves whether and how to engage. Tackling this topic requires courage and compassion—for instructors and for students.

Identify Benefits and Risks

We started the presentation with a few benefits about engaging the class to discuss election communications (for example, candidate debates and speeches, campaign emails and texts, ads). Faculty might see these classroom conversations as a way to model civil discourse—a training ground for students to engage others in their professional and personal lives. Faculty might want use election examples to illustrate business communication principles. In addition, faculty might feel personally motivated—a civic responsibility to discuss these messages, which students might not have an opportunity to discuss in any other class.

Then we described a risk assessment model (Kidder, Moral Courage) that includes evaluating potential ambiguity (for example, university mixed messages or unclear guidelines, whether we believe the discussion would be valuable, and perhaps, questions about our own facilitation skills). Faculty might also consider potential emotional exposure (for example, that we might get emotional or flustered during a class discussion or that we might hear student complaints). Finally, we might fear loss (for example, damaged relationships with students or colleagues, risks to tenure or promotion, or harm to students who speak out in class). We weigh the potential risks against the benefits to determine our classroom strategy.

Connect Election Communications to Course Learning Objectives

For faculty who choose to engage, we offered several course learning objectives, shown here, that connect to election communications. Closely tying any class discussion into course outcomes puts us on more solid ground, with a justifiable reason to bring examples into the classroom.

Explore Strategies to Engage with Students

Given these realities, we described strategies for approaching election communications. We all probably have ground rules, perhaps that students participated in creating. Depending on the course, these could include deeper, interpersonal guidance, such as, “Be open to others' views and appreciate differences,” and “Keep confidential discussions that the community has of a personal (or professional) nature.”

Next we applied a Rhetorical Sensitivity model to these potentially challenging classroom discussions. The rhetorically sensitive person (Hart and Burks, 1972):

• Tries to accept role‐taking as part of the human condition

• Attempts to avoid stylized verbal behavior

• Is characteristically willing to undergo the strain of adaptation

• Seeks to distinguish between all information and that information acceptable for communication

• Tries to understand that an idea can be rendered in multi‐form ways

Finally, we described Tango, a team game that Cornell Dyson students participated in during a first-year course. They had good results from the activity: “a statistically significant effect on students’ intent to get to know Cornell students of different political views.” Contact CEO Scott Warren at swarren@jhu.edu for more information about Tango.

Two Examples of Personal, Handwritten Notes

Two recent examples illustrate the value of handwritten notes described in Business Communication and Character, Chapter 6: messages on Starbucks coffee cups and get-out-the-vote postcards.

New Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol is bringing back the personal notes on cups to lure customers who have left. Armed with 200,000 Sharpie markers, baristas will write names or messages on cups, a practice that stopped in 2020 during the pandemic. His other ideas are the condiment bar and cushy furniture to recapture the “second place” that Starbucks used to be. I wonder how baristas feel about the change, which will likely add time to each order. Were baristas involved in this decision? See my other post about communicating change.

The second example of a handwritten message is the get-out-the-vote postcard. Studies show a higher turnout rate when people receive these cards, depending on the audience and the type of postcard and message. Although from 2018, one project used six different postcards to determine impact. They found that a partially printed postcard with a handwritten message did just as well as a fully handwritten message and that neat, legible handwriting is important to the recipient.

Students will have their own examples of personal, handwritten notes, although perhaps few of them. This is an opportunity to talk about when and how to write notes during the job selection process.

Image source.

Bezos Explains His Decision

Amazon CEO and Owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos decided that the paper, for the first time since 1988, will not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate. Bezos explained his decision in an opinion piece students can analyze as an example of a persuasive message.

After The Post lost about 200,000, or 8%, of its subscribers, and three editorial board members resigned, Bezos was compelled to respond to the criticism. He frames his argument as, “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media,” citing the Gallup Poll about trust in the media, which has declined.

In this section of the piece, students can identify persuasive strategies they learned in class:

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction.

First is a claim that endorsements influence no one. We don’t see evidence for this claim, and saying “none” may render the argument fallacious. Second, he claims that endorsements “create a perception of bias.” Maybe, but the larger point is that the paper (media) itself is perceived as biased. How does he know that an endorsement increases that perception? In the last sentence, he argues that resisting an endorsement will build trust. Again, how does he know? What did he think during the past two elections when The Post did endorse a candidate? What’s different now?

Calling upon Eugene Meyer’s position is useful, but students might have questions about Meyer’s background and the historical context of the time. Also, Bezos damages his credibility having allowed two previous endorsements during his ownership. He uses variations of “principle” four times in the piece, which is part of one’s integrity, or consistency. Bezos also says he wishes they (he?) had made the decision earlier, but he doesn’t explain the hold-up other than “inadequate planning.”

Bezos addresses the potential conflict of interest directly. He writes that the timing of the chief executive of one of his companies meeting with President Trump—on the day of the announcement—was coincidental and unknown to him. This sounds believable but is certainly unfortunate timing. Of course, a coincidental meeting also doesn’t mean there isn’t a conflict of interest. Bezos denies using his wealth and power to influence decisions at the paper and admits that he’s a “complexifier” for The Post, as The Post is for him. This is certainly true, and his invented word is fitting.

Others cite media fear of retaliation after the election. Is it best for the paper (and the LA Times) to remain neutral and, perhaps, better whether the storm after this highly controversial and possibly contested election? If he had addressed this issue as directly as the potential conflict of interest, would that have increased his credibility?

However students analyze Bezos’s argument, the situation creates a “bad PR look” for The Post and might harm, rather than help, trust in the media.

Image source.

New CEOs: Lessons for Communicating Change

A Wall Street Journal article describes expectations for new CEOs at Boeing and Starbucks: communicating early and often. The article raises questions about communicating change.

Early communication represents a shift from the “listening tours” and roundtables CEOs held in the past. We seemed to expect a leader to hear from employees and learn the business before taking action. But now, maybe particularly for Boeing and Starbucks leaders, who are facing critical tests, people have little patience for the learning curve.

Boeing faces challenges of safety issues and labor strikes. Starbucks faces staffing issues and declining sales. But the CEOs have a similar message, as the WSJ reports:

“First, we need a fundamental culture change in the company,” Ortberg wrote to Boeing staff on Wednesday. A day earlier, as Starbucks suspended its financial guidance and disclosed weak results for its fourth quarter, Niccol said in a video message: “We need to fundamentally change our recent strategy.” 

Students might discuss the implications of these recent leaders determining a new direction or making promises before more investigation. Some questions are, how do they build trust and buy-in quickly, what is enough information, and how do they take decisive action while allowing for revision if a strategy fails?

This Change Management Toolkit from Berkeley staff shows how communication is too often an afterthought, is only in service of the project as already defined, and considers little of what we know about emotional reactions to change. The chart mentions communication during the first stage, Pre-Implementation: “Communicate expected project benefits to impacted stakeholders.” But who determined the benefits? Were stakeholders involved in the goal setting and planning? During the second stage, Implementation, again, the communication seems to be about telling people and getting input on what was already done. Post-Implementation, once again, “celebrate[s]” benefits.

Where are those affected by change? What about their ideas about changes and their potential reactions? Without addressing employees’ fears and concerns about change, leaders might not get the buy-in they desire.

The toolkit does include a “Change Communications Plan Overview,” starting on page 41 of the 50-page document, but it feels like an afterthought, as communication often does during organizational change. In fairness, a section before this offers suggestions for getting feedback, but still, this is all after the change is implemented.

Students might discuss their own experiences of a new manager and an organizational change. They also might consider what the new Boeing and Starbucks CEOs should communicate—before they implement initiatives to “fundamentally change” anything.

How Presidential Candidates Are Using TikTok

Students might be interested in a Financial Times article about the presidential candidates’ TikTok strategies. The article recalls that the 2016 election was all about Facebook. This time, it’s TikTok, particularly for rallying young voters.

With 6.2 million followers, VP Harris’s page includes a video with 4 million views. She talks on the phone to a man’s granddaughter, Evie, and President Biden (still handsy!) joins in.

With 12.4 million followers, Former President Trump’s page includes a video with 13.8 million views. It’s a compilation of people I don’t know but students probably do endorsing him in Las Vegas. The song is by Nettspend, a 17-year-old rapper.

Of course, I’m cherry picking just two examples here that aren’t representative of the candidates’ social media strategies or presence. Students can draw their own conclusions based on their views.

The FT article quoted a get-out-the-vote creator: “Harris’s TikTok strategy is ‘aspirational for any brand, let alone a politician,’ where Trump’s feels ‘less native’ to TikTok and closer to traditional campaign material.” Students might identify the implications for (other) brands—a relevant topic for business communication classes.

This chart shows numbers of views, with more for Harris, despite having half the followers of Trump. This is at least partly because Harris is posting 20 times the number of videos. However, like the polls, I’m not sure their strategies or this data tell us anything about who will win the election.