Using AI To Take Meeting Minutes

Lance Cummings, at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, provides guidance for using AI to summarize meetings. Students might find his tips useful for team and club meetings and in the workplace.

Lance’s blog is a treasure trove of AI guidance, and this recent post is particularly useful for saving time and allowing the facilitator/host to listen more attentively during meetings. If you know Lance’s work, you know he encourages prompts that include task, context, and content criteria.

For meeting notes, he suggests providing AI with the agenda, notes, and the transcript. He highlights content during the meeting (he calls them “breadcrumbs”) for AI to improve the output. For example, you might say, “That’s an important point. Let me repeat it.”

Read more, including his full prompt that defines the audience and other expectations.

Image by freepik.

The Debate and BCom Principles

The U.S. Presidential Debate is ripe with topics to discuss in class. Without getting into political alignments, students can analyze the following:

• The initial greeting: VP Harris approached former President Trump to shake his hand. Was this a good choice? How did the greeting appear?

• Voice: VP Harris’s voice was unsteady at the beginning but improved during the debate. How did that affect her message?

• Presence and nonverbals: How did the candidates’ appearance affect their positions? Some commenters wondered how they would appear on stage because of their height difference—and cited evidence about past election winners. How did they compare?

• VP Harris’s “baiting”: Analysts said VP Harris baited Trump, for example, by talking about people leaving his rallies. They said this was intentional to rattle him, and that it worked—he became more emotional and said things that hurt his position. Did students detect this strategy when it happened?

• Gun ownership: VP Harris said that she and Governor Walz own guns. How would students verify this? What are they used for—and does that make a difference? What was the purpose of this statement?

• CNN verification: A couple of times, reporters contradicted claims on the spot (e.g., about pets and abortion extended beyond birth). How did students perceive these moderator interruptions? Did they seem fair or biased?

• Answering questions: VP Harris was asked about changing her positions, for example, on fracking. She evaded the question. How did her approach work?

• Audience: The debate was held in Pennsylvania. How did that audience affect what the candidates said? Did they adapt their message? Was that appropriate, given that no audience response was allowed and the program was televised nationally?

• Memes: What memes have students seen after the debate? How do they react to them? Are they funny? Do students believe they influence voters?

• Taylor Switch endorsement: How do students perceive Taylor Swift’s endorsement? Why did she choose the timing, approach, and signature line? What could be the effect?

• Winner: Who “won” the debate? What does it mean to win the debate? Will it matter for the voters who already have a preferred candidate—or for those who were undecided?

My hope is that these questions are neutral, but my own political views may have seeped in—and I understand this is a challenging class discussion. The Southeast region of the Association for Business Communication hosted a Teaching Circle for faculty to explore whether and how to discuss election communications in our classes. I presented with my Cornell colleague, David Lennox, and we’ll present at the Annual International Conference in October with Christy McDowell. More to come.

Image source.

Zoom Leader Interview About Office Work

Zoom’s chief product officer supports meeting in person and shows how Zoom can help. The interview illustrates how company leaders keep their products relevant.

In a BBC interview, Smita Hashim explains that even Zoom employees work hybrid schedules. The article author explains the company’s goal:

According to the company, this means Zoom's business is about far more than video call. It wants to be regarded as a workplace company—and known for Zoom Workplace, its suite of collaborative tools.

Hashim knows she won’t convince people to WFH forever, so she needs to show the company’s adaptability. Her communication is best illustrated in the answer to this question:

How much is Zoom wanting to shake off the remote working tag? Do you want to be known more for hybrid working—or something else?

We love that Zoom is well known to so many, and they use us for connecting all the time. But we see the future of Zoom as really an AI-driven open collaboration platform that modernises the work experience. We've gone in this direction based on customer feedback. We've always had video calls, and built in phone infrastructure, chat capabilities and now Zoom AI Companion. Our AI works in the background to even recommend a desk for employees to sit near their teams for their office days.

That last sentence seems odd but is explained by Zoom’s new AI-enabled Intelligent Director. Cameras are placed around a room, so people sitting together at a table appear as though they’re on individual laptops. Seems weird. I’ve certainly been in meetings with people who are on laptops and Zoom, so the effect seems to be the same.

In addition to analyzing how well Hashim met her objectives, students might talk about how they have used Zoom in the office and how it could be used more effectively.

Image source.

The Value of MBWA for Students to Consider

Managing By Walking Around (MBWA) is getting new attention because of a field study at a Latin American bank. The authors conclude what business communicators know: It’s good for managers to actually speak with their employees.

A concept from the 1980s, MBWA means leaving one’s office and visiting employees throughout the workspace. This study found positive results; as one author says, “The pattern of our results points to MBWA working through improved employee motivation, instead of any monitoring or employee learning effects.”

The study methodology and conclusions raise a lot of questions for me. But a useful class discussion might focus on students’ reflections on management behavior in past jobs and internships. Did they appreciate a manager’s presence? Under what conditions did visits improve or decrease their motivation? What did the manager do—speak informally with employees, or just walk around? Did the manager’s personality or the student’s relationship with the manager affect how they perceived the visit? What if a manager spends time with some employees but not others?

In addition, how could MBWA be replicated in a virtual environment? I don’t know anyone who likes surprise Zoom or Team meetings. But, how else can managers “pop in” on employees to demonstrate support and reinforce good performance rather than appearing to monitor or criticize?

Image source.

Using "We" for Negative Feedback?

A Wall Street Journal article cites social psychology research about using “we” instead of “you” to increase receptivity to negative feedback. The title and subtitle of the article are “The Secret Power of Using ‘We’ During Difficult Conversations: Bosses who use ‘we’ instead of ‘you’ are more likely to get employees to listen to negative feedback, according to new research.” Based on the research, this conclusion is an overreach.

The authors, whose research was published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, acknowledge that using “you” can increase feelings of connection and relatability and facilitate persuasion, as we teach in business communication classes. However, they note that these uses are in non-adversarial situations. For adversarial situations, they explain the value of “we”: “If you seem like you’re an open-minded person yourself, people naturally want to reciprocate that. Changing the pronouns you use from ‘you’ to ‘we’ can make your audience more open to your message. It’s kind of a secret power.”

The research includes several wide-ranging studies, including Reddit comments, pitches, and political speeches. Only one of the studies dealt with negative feedback. Respondents were told they are part of a team reading feedback that one team member had written about another:

You Condition: Sam, you should have made more progress faster. Your timeline was too relaxed, and you kept making errors along the ways that delayed the project. You could have worked harder early on to ensure you had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, you should make sure that your timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

We Condition: Sam, we should have made more progress faster. Our timeline was too relaxed, and we kept making errors along the ways that delayed project. We could have worked harder early on to ensure we had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, we should make sure that our timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

This is quite a different situation from what the WSJ reporter implies in the article subtitle—which could include managers giving feedback to their direct reports. I can think of many situations in which using “we” would sound terribly condescending. True, in business communication classes, we teach that “you” should be avoided when criticizing, as the above example illustrates. But the “we condition” could sound patronizing coming from a manager who wasn’t part of the team. Doctors and teachers sound patronizing when they say, “How do we feel?” or “We don’t talk when others are talking.” Also, although the “you condition” is harsh, saying something like, “we kept making errors,” when it was only Sam who made the errors is also patronizing—and false. In addition, context always matters. This is a difficult study to extrapolate from when respondents don’t have a stake in the situation.

The danger is conveying the “royal we,” or nosism—using the plural to refer to ourselves. Here’s the history:

The practice has been associated with the English monarchy since the 12th-century rule of Henry II, who used the pronoun “we” to signify that because he ruled by divine right, he represented both himself and God simultaneously.

If managers use the term to speak for God, no wonder it comes across as patronizing.

An exception may be in languages that distinguish between formal and familiar pronouns, for example tu and vous in Spanish. This needs more evidence, but a Wikipedia entry refers to the “nonconfrontational we” and claims that “we” is often used in recipe instructions and to avoid the overly informal (for example, ¿Cómo estamos? which means, How are we?). Some consider this a sign of respect.

Still, in American work environments, managers should avoid “we” when they mean “you.” Without using any pronoun, managers will sound respectful and appropriately direct. They can focus on the work and express first-person observations to convey the impact of the behavior, for example, “I saw [the client] close the deck after she noticed the miscalculation on page 4,” or “I wonder how Noah will react to your question about other proposals. What do you think?” In the research example, a team member could say about Sam’s performance, “I noticed and fixed several errors that delayed the project.“

(More about the editorial we here from a near-classic NY Times editorial.)

Image source.

Vatican Press Emphasizes "Closed Door" in Apology

Pope Francis apologized for using an offensive term to refer to gay men. The statement sounds defensive.

Some say the pope misunderstood and misused the term, but others recall this isn’t the first time he used derogatory language to describe gay people—and, although he was raised in Argentina, Italian was spoken in his home.

Pope Francis apologized in a statement translated by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Matteo Bruni:

Pope Francis is aware of the recent articles regarding a closed-door conversation with the bishops of the CEI [Italian Bishops' Conference]. As he has stated on many occasions, “There is room for everyone in the Church, for everyone! No one is useless; no one is superfluous; there is room for everyone. Just as we are, everyone.” The Pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others.

Business communicators might identify at least two issues with this apology. First, the squirrely language focuses on the intent rather than the impact, failing to acknowledge the harm caused and apologizing to “those who felt offended,” as though “those” people might just be super-sensitive.

Second, twice this statement references the private meeting: “a closed-door conversation with the bishops” and “as reported by others,” as though the real offense is the press leak. But, in some ways, the exclusive nature of the meeting makes the comment worse, leading us to believe it represents the pope’s true feelings despite more generous comments he has made in public—illustrating a lack of integrity, or consistency. In addition, although the news may have been leaked by one person, news agencies cite “numerous sources,” perhaps a swell of people within the walls who felt it was wrong.

Slur aside, this report may align with the pope’s views about gay men: They are welcomed at church but not in seminary to train for the priesthood.

Image source.

Problems with Medical "Professionalism"

The challenge of what professionalism means and how definitions affect different groups has met the medical profession. The topic may interest business communication students, who will see similar issues in their own fields.

Professionalism as a work standard has been criticized for some time for its vagueness and disparate impact. Ideas about professionalism, for example, focusing only on work and not bringing personal (non-work) issues into the workplace, vary by culture and may be unevenly applied to women and men. Others think of professionalism as sameness or conformity and lash out at the inherent privilege and impact of demands about “image, dress, politeness and emotional regulation” on the working class. Some view professionalism as a racial construct, for example, in the legal profession: “While professionalism seemingly applies to everyone, it is used to widely police and regulate people of color in various ways including hair, tone, and food scents.”

A retracted article illustrates the issue in the medical profession. The October 2019 Journal of Vascular Surgery article, “Prevalence of Unprofessional Social Media Content Among Young Vascular Surgeons,” was retracted in August 2020. The retraction notice includes this explanation:

In addition, the methodology, analysis and conclusions of this article were based on published but not validated criteria, judging a series of behaviors including attire, alcohol consumption, controversial political and religious comments like abortion or gun control, in which significant conscious and unconscious biases were pervasive. The methodology was in part predicated on highly subjective assessments of professionalism based on antiquated norms and a predominantly male authorship supervised the assessments made by junior, male students and trainees. The authors did not identify biases in the methodology, i.e., judging public social media posts of women wearing bikinis on off-hours as “potentially unprofessional.” The goal of professionalism in medicine is to help ensure trust among patients, colleagues and hospital staff. However, professionalism has historically been defined by and for white, heterosexual men and does not always speak to the diversity of our workforce or our patients.

If students don’t relate to the potentially discriminatory impact of a professionalism standard, they might feel the effect of their social media accounts being used to determine whether they measure up. As we encourage students to be their authentic selves, this story highlights some of the potentially negative consequences.

Image source.

Soccer Players "Walking Off" After Racist Comments

Not a sports watcher, I’m fascinated reading how soccer players handle racist comments during the game. Some players are walking off the field amid calls for greater penalties.

A writer for The Athletic explains what led to the AC Milan (the football team) to walk off:

[Mike] Maignan led his AC Milan teammates off the pitch at Udinese on Saturday after being racially abused twice from the stands. [Kasey] Palmer was racially abused by a Sheffield Wednesday fan towards the end of Coventry City’s 2-1 win at Hillsborough.

AC Milan posted support on X: “There is absolutely no place in our game for racism: we are appalled. We are with you, Mike. #WeRespAct”

Of his experience, Palmer said, “I’m black and proud, and I am raising my three kids to be the exact same. I’ll be honest, it feels like things will never change, no matter how hard we try,” and “Couple fans doing monkey chants don’t define a fanbase. I appreciate all the love and support I’ve received.”

Maignan called on authorities to do more. He also posted these thoughts on X:

It was not the player who was attacked. It's the man. He's the father of the family. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. And I'm not the first this has happened to. We issued press releases, advertising campaigns, protocols and nothing has changed. Today, an entire system must take responsibility. . . .

The FIFA president made a statement condemning racism, including, “No to racism! No to any form of discrimination!” But many are calling for harsher punishments in addition to the current process:

FIFA’s guidance follows a “three-step” policy: at the first incident of racism, the referee should report it to the “home club safety officer via the fourth official”; at the second, the referee may suspend the match “allowing the safety officer and police to deal with the perpetrators”; it’s only at the third incident that the referee is empowered to abandon the match.

As we can expect, not everyone agrees, with some calling for players to do the equivalent of “man up” but with more literal expressions I had to look up and won’t write. Students could weigh in on this situation, and a discussion could lead to, but doesn’t have to, what’s acceptable on college campuses.

This situation raises issues of integrity for the league. A writer for The Athletic says of FIFA’s president, “Now it’s time for him to follow up his words with action.” This is a call for words and deeds to match, or for consistency, a key component of integrity.

Communication Issues Around Harvard President Resignation

Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned after weeks of pressure and speculation. The communication issues around this situation are too weighty to properly cover in one blog post. But here are a few angles if faculty want to venture into the topic with students.

• Bill Ackman’s calls for Gay’s resignation were the most fierce, and his antagonism started before October 7. His long, celebratory post provides his version of Harvard’s failings, including its DEI programs, and suggests that the entire Board resign. We see his business perspective, comparing university growth to business standards. He also writes, “I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president.” I don’t categorically disagree, but I wonder whether he has anyone in mind.

• Gay’s resignation letter is short and polite. She shares “Personal News” and closes with a forward-looking sentiment:

  “As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity—and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for—and to our capacity to serve the world.”

• The Corporation’s letter is similarly diplomatic, thanking Gay for her “deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence.” They criticized her attackers:

  “We do so with sorrow. While President Gay has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them, it is also true that she has shown remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks. While some of this has played out in the public domain, much of it has taken the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls. We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.”

• Al Sharpton is one of many who also defended Gay and criticized Ackman directly, announcing a protest outside his office. He blamed racism: “This is an attack on every Black woman in this country who’s put a crack in the glass ceiling. It’s an assault on the health, strength, and future of diversity, equity, and inclusion . . .”

• Gay’s opinion essay in the New York Times describes racist attacks against her and the bigger picture of her experience. She defends her scholarship, emphasizing that her research and the contribution of her work were never at question. She discusses courage, a character dimension worth talking with students about in their own communication.

• Gay’s plagiarism might deserve class attention. Examples of minimally rewritten passages in her work could serve as a teaching tool about standards for business communication and other students. This might also serve as an opportunity to put the criticism in context, as she does herself in the NYT piece.

Image source.

Tools for Managing Through Interpersonal Conflict

As students protest across campuses, faculty can help them manage through conflict. Here are two tools from the text chapter, “Communicating Across Differences,” and a few thoughts about character.

This matrix, adapted from other sources (see below), shows students how to move from debate to dialogue—and through emotional involvement, my addition for more personal and community conflicts.

Students may practice reflection after presentations or activities, but reflecting “in action” is a way to zoom out and get perspective during an interaction that isn’t going well. Questions about emotional and physical reactions deepen students’ typical intellectual reflections in the classroom and encourage students to take action—even to support those who disagree with them.

Students also will learn from discussions about character. When they stand for their beliefs, they demonstrate courage, but changing their beliefs also takes courage (and humility). Protests also may veer from challenging injustice to self-righteousness, an extreme of courage that looks like moral superiority and absolute certainty.

Protesting demonstrates compassion for one side, but so does seeing the other side’s pain. In addition, students are vulnerable when they protest: they risk emotional exposure and being “doxxed,” identity exposure they might consider unbearable.

---

Figure 6 is adapted from “Creating Community Across Difference,” Intergroup Dialogue Project, Cornell University, 2018, which is adapted from University of Michigan Program on Intergroup Relations, 2008. Original source: Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). Adapted with Eric Clay, multi-faith and secular chaplain.

Small Talk Phrases

Matt Abrahams promotes his new book in an attention-grabbing CNBC headline: “The No. 1 phrase people who are good at small talk always use, says Stanford public speaking expert.” Of course, I was curious about the phrase, and it is . . . “Tell me more.”

Although the headline is hyperbolic (“No. 1” and “always”), Abrahams is encouraging what any business communication faculty member would encourage: use open-ended questions and phrases. He also recommends, “What excited you about that?” or “Wow, what happened next?” or “How did you feel when that happened?” Abrahams’ point is to avoid “shifting” the conversation to yourself. However, sometimes it’s useful to relate to a speaker by sharing your own experience. Also, these phrases are useful when, at times, you’re not sure what to say in response.

Students might choose phrases that feel more natural to them, for example, “I’d like to hear more about __,” “Say more about that,” or, simply, “Really?” I recently heard, “Can you take that thinking further along the track for me?” I liked that approach given the situation (a complex political idea). In similar situations, I’ve heard others offer a noncommittal “Interesting,” which felt like a polite, “Please stop talking now.”

In addition to “small talk” situations, students could practice these phrases during presentation Q&As.

Image source.

New Euphemism for "Feedback"

A WSJ article reports that “feedback” causes anxiety, so companies are using “feedforward” instead. The latest in corporate euphemisms, feedforward could soften comments on students’ writing and presentations, but I’m skeptical.

Attempts for gentler language for “negative” feedback are nothing new. Managers (and business communication faculty) typically use “areas for improvement,” “development areas,” or “constructive feedback.” Now, apparently, “feedback” is itself causing problems.

Other terms are emerging. Microsoft is using “perspectives” instead of “feedback,” “performance development” is replacing “performance management,” and “connect” session is replacing a “review.” How long before the patina of these terms wears off and they, too, become anxiety producing?

What’s the problem companies are trying to solve with new terms? On the surface, ”feedforward” is more accurate, emphasizing changes for the future, so I get it. But I have to question whether the term is the issue. Aren’t the real issues that people have difficulty facing what needs to change and that managers continue to struggle with delivering feedback? I’m a fan of Kim Scott’s work and book, Radical Candor, which encourages a supportive environment that makes difficult feedback easier to swallow.

For now, I think our student “tutorials” or “coaching sessions” are safe.

Image source

Troublesome Article Headline About Women's Communication

A New York Times opinion piece by Adam Grant titled “Women Know Exactly What They’re Doing When They Use ‘Weak Language’” has been gnawing at me. What troubles me is not the advice but the headline, which sounds like women are purposely manipulating the situation—perhaps more so than any person would in a similar situation. I may be overly sensitive (disclaimer! weak language!), but “women know what they're doing" reminds me of a sexist throwback. Google the phrase and you’ll find references to leaning over a table for tips and other examples of how women dress and behave around men (for example, see this ESPN story).

Otherwise, Grant’s points are worth sharing with students. He summarizes:

Disclaimers (I might be wrong, but …), hedges (maybe, sort of), and tag questions (don’t you think?) can be a strategic advantage. So-called weak language is an unappreciated source of strength. Understanding why can explain a lot about the way women acquire power and influence — and how men do, too.

Grant offers good advice and cites several studies about hiring and promotion decisions:

By using a disclaimer (“I don’t know …”) and a hedge “(I hope …”), the women reinforced the supervisor’s authority and avoided the impression of arrogance. For the men who asked for a raise, however, weak language neither helped nor hurt. No one was fazed if they just came out and demanded more money.

I’m guessing that the headline-writer’s intention (not Adam Grant’s doing) was to capture attention—and perhaps the phrasing was harmless, complimenting women on using a strategy, whether purposeful or not, that works. But the phrase has a history, which is why I saved the article in a browser tab for more than a week.

One person who commented on the article pointed out inherent problems with the word “weak”:

I recommend we find an alternative to the phrase “weak language.” Weak language according to whom? A patriarchal world view? Let’s give it more dignity, the dignity it deserves. How about calling it “sensitivity to relationship” or “sensitivity to connection.” Something we need so much more of in our world today. (Anne Yeomans)

Others suggested “respectful” language. Some women lament being “between a rock and a hard place”—too weak or too assertive, nothing gets their voice heard.

Students will need to navigate these contradictions. Perhaps the best advice is to adapt to the industry, situation, and person—the same advice business communication faculty give to all students: to tailor to the context and audience as best they can.

Image source.

Comms Related to the Supreme Court Decision

Business communication faculty brave enough to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to restrict affirmative action in college admissions will find many communication examples for students to analyze. Here are a few to consider, and each requires careful facilitation. The first two are probably the easiest to manage and the most relevant to our courses.

• Corporate responses: This article provides a few examples for students to analyze, considering the industry, customer base, mission, and other factors driving the response.

• University responses: Cornell University’s president published a statement, and I imagine other university leaders have done the same. Students can analyze and compare messages.

• Full text of the decision: This 237-page document is a bit overwhelming, but the document, in its entirety, illustrates one persuasive genre for a professional group.

• Dissenting opinions: For more manageable reads, these two dissenting opinions serve as good examples of persuasive arguments.

• Opinion letters: The WSJ and NY Times editorial board opinions offer useful contrasts. Students might find their own opinion articles to analyze.

Image source.

“Rainbow Capitalism” and Integrity

Brands walk fine lines this month, perhaps genuinely wanting to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, but finding critics at all turns. June is Pride Month, when some companies engage in what may be called “rainbow capitalism” or “rainbow washing,” advertising or selling merchandise without any substance behind it. Memes joke about companies’ gratitude at the end of the month.

This year, Target and other companies removed merchandise, for example, as a swimsuit for trans women, after conservative backlash. Target published this statement after receiving bomb threats:

For more than a decade, Target has offered an assortment of products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. Since introducing this year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team members' sense of safety and well-being while at work. Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.

In other words, we’ll support people, as we always have, but can’t risk safety. They could say more about the threats and their “commitment” to convince customers that removing merchandise was the right decision and is still in line with their “inclusivity” values.

Ford, GM, and other companies’ plans are described in this article, which might make good class reading. Students could choose a brand and compare its Pride products and advertising to its policies and determine whether behavior matches ideology—an issue of integrity, or doing what they say they’ll do. Critics say companies will wave a flag but not offer employees gender-affirming insurance or allow employees to use preferred pronouns.

Students also can discuss why this year is different from others. Although a political topic, the context is important to assessing why brands may have scaled back their participation and whether that was the right thing to do. Of course, industry, location, product mix, customer base, and other factors are relevant too.

Employees Protest RTO Policies

As companies push for employees to return to the office after working remotely during the pandemic, employees are pushing back. In their arguments, we see different approaches—some more effective than others.

Here are a few employee messages against return to office (RTO) plans:

Apple: This powerful message directly argues against points the executive team made to inspire people back to work. It’s a compelling persuasive example. One of the strongest arguments is that the RTO policy “will make Apple younger, whiter, more male dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied, in short, it will lead to privileges deciding who can work for Apple, not who’d be the best fit.” Although the writers don’t provide a lot of evidence, the potential impact reflects reasons employees give for refusing to go back to an office. Less diversity as a result of RTO is clearly inconsistent with Apple’s inclusion and diversity mission, but the employees don’t mention that. This is a good lesson for our students who cite a company’s mission in their presentations; this approach may be too obvious and pedantic for internal arguments.

Starbucks: This message also disputes claims made by senior management and more explicitly identifies contradictions with the company mission, “One cup, one person, and one neighborhood at a time.” The logic is loose, and it sounds shallow. Later, employees hit hard: “Morale is at an all-time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk.” Those are big, bold statements that might cause executives to be less, instead or more, sympathetic.

Black & Veatch: Writers of this petition for a construction engineering company use survey data as their primary source of evidence. The message cites the “Working in New Ways” policy that allowed for remote work. Employees use criteria reasoning (and question the executives’ integrity): “Positions were advertised and professionals hired with the expectation their positions would remain permanently virtual.” Sadly, this message highlights the dangers of an employee survey: the data could be used against the company.

I can’t find an employee statement, but Amazon made news this week when they resisted CEO Andy Jassey’s RTO message. Jassey makes the usual arguments about culture, collaboration, learning, and connection, relying on what he and the rest of the “s-team” (senior management team) has observed. Students can analyze his argument and may find weak evidence.

At Amazon, employee walkouts may or may not influence the decision, but solidarity among corporate and warehouse employees is refreshing. Although warehouse employees never had remote work options, they seem to support the corporate staff’s flexibility, with one explaining, “It’s just showing us that Amazon has a problem with workers and listening to us.”

Companies Reconsider Alcohol

Companies are finding alternatives to alcohol at social gatherings. The news raises issues of inclusion, and students who live on campus may find this topic relevant to their own experience.

U.K. organization Chartered Management Institute (CMI) is warning companies about the dangers of alcohol at work parties. The group’s recent survey of 1,000 managers shows that people often experience alcohol-fueled inappropriate behavior and harassment. Although work events are important for team building, particularly since the pandemic and the rise of remote work, 42% of respondents said parties “should be organised around activities that don't involve alcohol.” Companies that serve alcohol at events also open themselves up to liability because of drunk driving in addition to behavioral transgressions.

In addition to these issues, some employees don’t drink, and events designed around alcohol can be awkward. Some people choose not to drink, while others can’t because of medications, addictions, or other issues. Some people find it difficult to be around alcohol at all. What is management’s responsibility to these employees? If a company touts DEI values and belonging at work, then shouldn’t all employees be considered when planning parties?

A few companies have banned alcohol entirely. For example, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff wrote to employees, “Alcohol is a drug, and having alcohol on a Salesforce premise is simply unfair to the Ohana [employees] who either do not want it or are intolerant of it.” He included drinking during work hours, which was more common at tech companies in the past.

Students may have a lot of opinions on this topic. Some universities are increasing “late-night programming,” alternatives for students looking for something to do without alcohol. How do students believe alcohol affects feelings of belonging on campus?

Image source.

Cornell Messages About Trigger Warnings

Cornell University’s Student Assembly voted unanimously for faculty to include trigger warnings, but the Administration rejected the mandate. Business communication students can analyze the Cornell students’ resolution and the university’s email response.

The student resolution states: “Urging university officials to require instructors who present graphic traumatic content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to provide advance notice to students and refrain from penalizing students who opt out of exposure to such content.” Evidence includes research about PTSD and discussion about the value of advanced warnings. The resolution concludes: “Student Assembly implores all instructors to provide content warnings on the syllabus for any traumatic content that may be discussed, including but not limited to: sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm, suicide, child abuse, racial hate crimes, transphobic violence, homophobic harassment, xenophobia.”

In the Administration’s response, President Martha Pollack and Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff reject the recommendation because it “would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education.” They link to the university’s value of “Free and Open Inquiry and Expression” but acknowledge that certain warnings are “common courtesy” and that “contextualizing” content may be appropriate.

Conservative news organizations supported the Administration and criticized students for the proposal. With its own evidence, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote an opinion piece, not missing a chance to denounce DEI efforts: “Cornell’s position is good news, but these bad ideas will recur as long as the diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy governs academia, pushing the notion that honest speech and debate are traumatic. If universities want to reclaim real intellectual openness on campus, they have to help students get comfortable with being uncomfortable.” Cornell’s Administration might agree with the last part of that argument.

Several character dimensions are illustrated in these examples. We might say that students demonstrated courage with their resolution, and the Administration demonstrated integrity by being consistent with university values. Some might believe Administrators lack compassion for students and are failing to hold faculty accountable, while others might say the university holds everyone accountable for inquiry and learning. It’s complicated and could lead to a good class discussion.

Comms About Dilbert Cancellation

A class discussion about Dilbert creator Scott Adams’s “racist rant” in a YouTube video can take many directions, including whether what he said was truly racist and whether media outlets did the right thing. Putting making the decision aside, a safer approach is to compare statements communicating the decision. Here are three examples for students to analyze:

• Cleveland.com. In a letter announcing the change in The Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper, the editor wrote, “This is not a difficult decision.” The editor incudes excerpts from the video to get ahead of criticism: “I hate to quote him at all, but I do so to dissuade responses that this is a ‘cancel culture’ decision.” For context, the editor also cites an article noting that 77 other outlets cancelled Dilbert in September after he introduced the first Black character, as critics said, "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."

• USA Today. The newspaper, with the largest circulation in the United States, kept it simple with this tweet.

• Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Between these two examples, is a short statement that includes a caveat: “While we acknowledge his right to free speech and expression, he does not have a right to the AJC’s financial support or our platform.”

Students might also analyze Adams’s response in a tweet and video in which he said, "Most of my income will be gone by next week . . . My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed. You can't come back from this, am I right?” This warrants another class discussion: can people redeem themselves after a crisis? I would argue that the first step is vulnerability, but that’s for another post.

"Latinx" Is Out

One downside of writing a textbook is how quickly things change between editions. In Business Communication and Character, 11th edition, I followed the American Psychological Association (APA)’s advice and other sources to describe Latinx as a gender-neutral term. That may have been a blip in time.

In a poignant opinion on the topic, a journalist and author wrote:

“As a Los Angeles-born son of Mexican immigrants, I prefer Latino to Hispanic, a federal bureaucratic invention. Folks can call themselves any damned fool thing they want, but the people who coin terms like Latinx don’t get how language naturally develops and evolves. It spontaneously bubbles up from the street over time and is seldom handed down from the ivory tower or the tony streets of Santa Monica.”

I regret the decision and stand guilty of following primarily academic sources.

Image source.