Comparing Stock Charts for Perspective

This was a bad week for the U.S. stock market, but graphics make the news look worse than it is. Students can compare charts to see how truncated axes affect perception.

Yahoo!’s monthly chart has a short range: 41,000 to 44,000 for this monthly line chart. With the red line and shading, the results look awful. Noting the 6.87% drop is helpful—it’s not great but not devastating either. For the 62% of Americans (varying largely by demographic group) who own stock in some way, their portfolios are unlikely to be invested 100% in DJIA stock, so their personal losses are probably smaller.

This one year chart, also Yahoo!’s, shows a more complete view of the market. Over a year, stocks were still in positive territory—green(!)—and the recent dip is in clearer perspective. Not that short-term investors and perhaps retirees shouldn’t be concerned, and we might be headed into a recession, but this chart recognizes the extraordinary gains in the past year as well as the recent losses.

Students can find longer-term charts to see an even fuller picture of U.S. stock market returns. They might also find, or need to create, charts with a Y-axis starting at 0.

As always, the data visualization depends on the audience and purpose. If your audience is television viewers, and your purpose is to engender fear, then short time frames and truncated axes do the trick. If you’re a financial advisor, and your audience is a client who is a long-term investor with a balanced portfolio, you would probably not show these charts at all and instead focus on their portfolio returns over time.

Musk Email Lands in Italy

Elon Musk’s five-bullet-points email didn’t go over well in the U.S., but the reaction is worse in Italy, raising questions about intercultural communication for students to discuss. The email asks government workers to list five accomplishments in the past week.

With the subject, “What did you do last week?,” these emails were met with mixed reactions in the U.S., with some agencies instructing their employees not to respond. But when Italian workers at Aviano Air Base received the email, the negative reaction was stronger.

Students can explore cultural differences. One framework to explain the different reactions is Hofstede’s model, particularly the dimension of individualist / collectivist society. As one Italian union representative said, Italy “is not the Wild West like the U.S.” This country comparison tool website describes individualism as follows:

The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people's self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “W.” In Individualist societies, people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to “in groups” that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

The differences, shown here according to the comparison tool, aren’t as great as we might think, but Italian unions represent a higher percentage of the population, are more highly centralized, and provide broader protections than U.S. unions do.

Students may find other differences driving these reactions. For example, this past week, Italian President Sergio Mattarella declined a meeting with Musk about a potential $1.5 billion deal for Starlink, the satellite internet service. The request raised concerns about a public institution negotiating with a private entity. All this might be intensified by Europe’s reaction to the U.S. political situation at the moment.

Southwest's Failed Attempt at Humor

When affecting people’s pocketbooks, use humor cautiously. This is a lesson Southwest learned this week after announcing bag fees for this first time in the airline’s history.

The message communicating the bad news is vague. This Instagram post describes what the company will do—offer free bags for certain customers—but omits the obvious change, a significant one for the company that always touted “bags fly free.”

Investors responded well, lifting the stock price in a show of support for potentially greater profits. But customers, as expected, are unhappy.

Although Southwest is known for its folksy way (the stock symbol is LUV), maybe now was not the best time for jokes. The post downplaying the news by comparing it to the NBA trade that outraged fans didn’t go well.

We might see this as a failing of character in two ways. First, a lack of compassion minimizes the impact on customers and, in a way, takes advantage of their loyalty. Second, although consistent with the brand, humor detracts from the bad news and seems like a lack of integrity—inconsistency with the message.

We’ll see how the change affects flying decisions, particularly whether loyalty extends beyond this perk.

Pew Study Shows Workers Worried About AI

A new Pew Research Center Study presents an opportunity to talk with students about their hopes and fears about AI. The report title, “U.S. Workers Are More Worried Than Hopeful About Future AI Use in the Workplace,” puts the main point squarely up front.

Of the American workers surveyed in October 2024, 81% were considered “non-AI users.” Seventeen percent hadn’t heard of AI use in the workplace.

In addition, “about one-in-ten workers say they use AI chatbots—such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot—at work every day or a few times a week; 7% use them a few times a month.” Chatbot is a limited term; more accurately, this and other questions seem to be about generative and other AI, with functionality beyond simple chatbots. What do people—particularly those who don’t use or haven’t heard of how to use AI—think AI means? Also, a lot could change in a few months, so it will be interesting to see similar surveys as they emerge.

Given these low usage rates, it tracks that people are worried about AI. Without experience, people may be more fearful—and perhaps fear keeps them away. When we use AI more, we can understand the possibilities as well as the limitations and see how we need to maintain authority over our work.

Scott Galloway (Prof. G) answered a wealth manager’s question about whether AI could take his job. His recommendation was for the young professional to learn how to use AI—that the differentiator is how well he can use AI tools to improve his work in ways that the competition hasn’t yet learned. We might teach the same to our business communication students: use AI to your advantage, but don’t let it replace you, or your writing.

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.

Image source.

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.

Image source.

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.

Image source.

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.

Image source.

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.