Fake Firing of Stressed Employees as a PR Move

YesMadam, an Indian home salon company, faced criticism for what may have been a PR campaign. Reports showed the owner firing employees for responding, on a survey, that they’re stressed.

According to a three-page statement on LinkedIn, no one was actually fired. The original message was part of “a planned effort to highlight the serious issue of workplace stress.” People are skeptical about whether that’s true—or whether employees had been fired, and then the company changed course. To me, the original message sounds false and, after all, YesMadam promotes wellness, including reduced stress. So the “joke” fits the brand.

Either way, the incident doesn’t reflect well on the company. This doesn’t seem like one of those, any-press-is-good-press-situations. The three-page statement is clearly promotional and includes language as though the company is considered a leader with “India’s first-ever De-Stress Leave Policy for employees.”

A marketing consultant told BBC:

It's crucial for brands to prioritise ethical marketing practices and avoid using people's emotions as a tool for self-promotion. While attention-grabbing tactics may work in the short term, they ultimately erode trust and damage brand reputation.

Here’s a related topic for student discussion: rage-baiting. Apparently, you get more clicks for rage than for joy.

McKinsey's Admission in a Settlement Statement

McKinsey may be the first consulting firm held criminally responsible for giving advice that led to a client’s criminal activity. As a result of the deferred prosecution agreement, we see a clear admission of guilt for the firm’s role in the opioid crisis. The statement offers an example of demonstrating accountability and compassion, particularly when compared to statements about previous settlements.

Pages from a McKinsey deck encouraging aggressive sales of opioids served as the introduction to Chapter 10 of the 11th edition of Business Communication and Character. Since then, McKinsey has settled other lawsuits, and each statement is posted on the firm’s website. Here are statements after other settlements for students to compare:

February 2021 (State Attorney Generals and others): Former CEO Kevin Sneader wrote:

We deeply regret that we did not adequately acknowledge the tragic consequences of the epidemic unfolding in our communities. With this agreement, we hope to be part of the solution to the opioid crisis in the U.S. . . . As I have said previously, we are determined to take the steps necessary to strengthen our firm’s risk management policies and culture. We will build on the steps we have already taken to learn from past mistakes, and ensure we consistently meet the high standards our firm has always aspired to.

Around that time, Sneader also wrote to staff:

Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.

March 2021 (Nevada): This statement repeats part of the February 2021 quote and includes this statement:

As we noted in connection with the prior settlements, McKinsey believes its past work was lawful and has denied allegations to the contrary. The settlement agreement with Nevada, like those reached in February, contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability.

September 2023 (Political subdivisions and school districts): This statement mentions another settlement with Native American Tribes but includes no quote. This one sounds more defensive:

As we have stated previously, we continue to believe that our past work was lawful and deny allegations to the contrary, and the settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing. The firm entered into this agreement to avoid the time and expense of protracted litigation and, in the process, to support the efforts of these political subdivisions and school districts to help those affected by the opioid epidemic.

December 2024 (Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice): The purpose of this $650 million agreement is to avoid criminal prosecution, although one partner will plead guilty to obstructing evidence (deleting documents). The statement starts with this paragraph, with no sign of the previous “deny allegations” language:

We are deeply sorry for our past client service to Purdue Pharma and the actions of a former partner who deleted documents related to his work for that client. We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma. This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.

This brings McKinsey’s settlement total to more than $1.5 billion in addition to the reputational damage. More significantly, other management consulting firms are now on notice. As U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy of Massachusetts said, “We will cut through the slick PowerPoints and the consultant speak and hold you accountable for your conduct if you engage in criminal violations.”

Image source.

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.

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.

McDonald's President Reassures Us After E. Coli Outbreak

McDonald’s president illustrates crisis communication strategies after the E. coli outbreak that, as of now, killed one person, left 49 sick, and contributed to a 5% drop in stock price, the biggest loss since 2020.

On a webpage titled, “Always Putting Food Safety First,” McDonald’s posted a video of President Joe Erlinger explaining the steps the company has taken. He focuses on isolating the crisis: listing in which products (only the Quarter Pounder) and states (only a few) where E. coli was found and blaming the onions. This strategy achieves two communication objectives: encouraging consumers to return to McDonald’s and shifting responsibility to a supplier.

The video is odd in that Erlinger demonstrates no compassion and offers no apology. Business communication students know that being a bit more human doesn’t imply culpability. His approach is strictly "an update . . . because food safety is so important to me and to everyone at McDonald’s.” Isn’t it time for companies (looking at you, Boeing) to stop saying how important safety is?

Erlinger also appeared on the Today show, saying, three times, that they took swift and decisive action—twice with active and once with passive voice. “Top priority” also got four plays during the short interview but was more appropriately used as anaphora. Clearly he received coaching. Following well-worn media strategies, he avoided speculation about other products impacted, and he transitioned a couple of times to “what’s important today” (the action they took).

The interview ended with a question about inflated prices and reputational damage. Erlinger recalled advice from McDonald’s founder, “If you take care of our customers, the business will take care of itself.” His objective is to inspire confidence, a word he uses twice at the end. But students will notice that he doesn’t sound or appear very confident. He’s a man managing through a crisis, and it shows.

A Late Tote Bag Isn't a Tragedy

A friend sent me this HelloFresh email with a note: “For your blog. Like I’m sitting here fretting over my free tote bag.” Sometimes communication and customer service people need better perspective.

The email is clear enough: The free tote bag is delayed. But I agree it’s a bit much for the transgression. The email reads as though something far worse has happened. Calling it an “isolated incident” and saying they’re “work[ing] through” issues is language best left to crisis communication strategists. That last bit—thanking the reader for understanding and patience—is overdone and, in my view, a bold assumption for any message.

Students might agree that customers should be notified, if only to avoid questions. But students could write a simpler, more appropriate email.

Although tempting, sidestepping the issue entirely—“Your free tote bag is on its way!”—doesn’t feel quite right either. I don’t know all the history, but it seems as though some apology/explanation/acknowledgment is appropriate.

Maybe an email could be as simple as this:

Your free HelloFresh tote bag will be delivered within 60 days. We apologize for the delay. [And then something uplifting. They could show a picture of it, offer a small discount, or say something cute like, “It’s worth the wait!”]

This is technically a bad-news message—but not that bad. Demonstrating compassion could include a recognition of other, far worse problems in someone’s life.

Employees Unhappy After Amazon's RTO Message

Andy Jassy’s latest message to employees is a good example for students to see a CEO’s update—a mix of good news, bad news, and of course, persuasion. Employees aren’t happy with the part that most affects them: a return-to-office (RTO) plan.

News reports highlight that most signification part—requiring staff to work five days a week in the office—but the message starts neutrally:

Hey team. I wanted to send a note on a couple changes we’re making to further strengthen our culture and teams.

Jassy provides his goals and views of the company, and then lays out two points:

Two areas that the s-team and I have been thinking about the last several months are: 1/ do we have the right org structure to drive the level of ownership and speed we desire? 2/ are we set up to invent, collaborate, and be connected enough to each other (and our culture) to deliver the absolute best for customers and the business that we can? We think we can be better on both.

The first directive comes in paragraph 8:

So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025.

The second comes in paragraph 10:

…we’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID.

He acknowledges, “We understand that some of our teammates may have set up their personal lives in such a way that returning to the office consistently five days per week will require some adjustments.” To solve this problem, he says, the implementation date will be January 2, 2025, which doesn’t seem like much time for families to reconfigure their lives.

Several surveys show employees’ negative reaction to the news. About 75% are “rethinking” their Amazon careers or looking for a new job. Speculators say attrition is a goal of returning to the office. If that’s the case, then Jassy’s message makes more sense. Presenting the change as insignificant and providing little support for employees to make the transition could be part of the plan. Employees can sign on for full-time office work—or leave.

Students might imagine a different message, one that encourages employee retention. Paradoxically, the news might be frontloaded—presented as the main point, with details following about potential paths and highlighting the benefits of RTO. Would employees have more positive reactions to the news? I’m not sure, but the messenger might seem more compassionate and sincere.

Image source.

Crisis Comms Around Food Bank's Meth Candy

A New Zealand food bank unknowingly distributed candy with high concentrations of methamphetamine to local families. Students can analyze crisis messages from the organization and the candy manufacturer.

The Auckland City Mission has a clear, short message on its home page:

The organization is also reaching out to the 400 or so people who received the candy, which was likely part of a drug smuggling scheme. Fortunately, the “candy” tasted so bad that people spit it out immediately; still, three people were hospitalized.

For its part, the candy manufacturer, Rinda, published a statement on its website (text below). The message meets its objectives, which students might identify as expressing sympathy, maintaining the company’s reputation, and distancing itself from the incident. However, the message is bare-bones, as these go. It sounds corporate, meaning I don’t read it as an authentic recognition of harm done—it protects the company primarily.

Beginning with “Statement from Rinda…” and “the safety and well-being of our consumers is our highest priority,” the message might cause immediate eye-rolling. “It has come to our attention” removes the possibility of any potential emotion on the part of company leaders and leaves us feeling as though they are checking a box—writing a statement after consulting with their team of lawyers. As they admit, they want to “protect the integrity of our brand.” Well, of course. No one faults them for that, but they don’t have to say it explicitly.

Instead, they could show a little compassion for people who are unhoused and food insecure, some of whom have addiction issues. These families seek support and care from the Auckland City Mission, which also suffered reputational damage. Can people trust the organization to give them food that’s safe? Maybe, in addition to upholding its own brand, Rinda could include a statement for the agency as well.

---

Here’s the statement text:

Statement from Rinda Food Industries Sdn Bhd

At Rinda Food Industries Sdn Bhd, the safety and well-being of our consumers is our highest priority. It has come to our attention through recent news reports in New Zealand that our products may have been misused in connection with illegal substances, specifically methamphetamine. We want to make it clear that Rinda Food Industries does not use or condone the use of any illegal drugs in our products.

We recognize the seriousness of this situation and understand the concerns it raises. We believe that the New Zealand authorities are currently conducting an investigation into this matter, we will work closely with law enforcement and relevant authorities to address this issue and protect the integrity of our brand. Our company is dedicated to ensuring that our products meet the highest safety and regulatory standards.

We encourage anyone with information related to this situation to contact us directly or to reach out to the appropriate authorities.

Delta Refuses to Use "You"

Students will easily rewrite this Delta Airlines message by applying business writing principles. Using “you,” tightening, clarifying information, and reorganizing would improve the email. Delta’s reputation suffered greatly during the outage, and emails like this one to customers don’t help.

Here are a few changes students might make:

• Clarify the main point. The email subject was “Important Information About Your Upcoming Flight,” but the message has no information about the upcoming flight. The focus is something like, “How to Get Flight Updates and Rebook if You Need To.”

• Sharpen the first paragraph. This is a slog to read, partly because of the language but mostly because it’s giving mixed messages. Maybe change to something like, “Your flight is scheduled as planned. But outages have caused cancellations, and here’s what you need to do if your flight is cancelled.” Maybe move the bit about the app to a separate line with bold type. That’s the first thing customers should do.

• Use conversational language. Change “The operation of your flight” to “Your flight.” We know it’s operating—or not.

• Use “you.” The writer seems to avoid speaking directly to the audience. Change “When rebooked travel occurs” to “If you rebook your travel,” and “customers may cancel their reservation” to “you may cancel your reservation.”

• Eliminate bullets. Single bullets are not logical; bullets, like subheadings, divide something into multiple parts. A different visual design might be more appealing and more easily read.

• Eliminate numbering. Numbers indicate a hierarchy or sequence. Again, a different visual design might help.

• Clarify fares. That last bullet refers to “end of ticket validity,” which sounds confusing. Some tightening might help here too: Do we need “applicable fare difference”? Maybe better language for #3 is something like, “If you can’t rebook [why introduce “reschedule” here? Or is that something different?] within __ [define], don’t worry. You have up to one year to use whatever part of a ticket you don’t use for this trip.”

• Skip the false politeness. Thanking customers for being patient or understanding assumes that they will be, which is unlikely in this situation. Maybe a sincere apology or an acknowledgement of the inconvenience (havoc!) would be better.

---

UPDATE: Contrast this message with a LinkedIn post from Shane Goronkin. He focuses on teamwork, sounds natural and sincere, and demonstrates compassion in the last two paragraphs (and defines IROP earlier):

Know that many of you have been impacted by this IROP and I am truly sorry. I heard countless heartbreaking stories over the weekend 😢. Really, really terrible.

We still have more work to do, but we will get back on track soon.

Costco Comms About Increasing Membership Fees

In a news release, Costco announced plans to increase membership fees in September but hasn’t yet notified customers directly. Writing an email to customers or posting information on the website would be a useful class activity or assignment.

The news came in a short release that includes June sales data and dividend plans. With investors as the primary audience, the message is straightforward:

The Company also announced that, effective September 1, 2024, it will increase annual membership fees by $5 for U.S. and Canada Gold Star (individual), Business, and Business add-on members. With this increase, all U.S. and Canada Gold Star, Business and Business add-on members will pay an annual fee of $65. Also effective September 1, annual fees for Executive Memberships in the U.S. and Canada will increase from $120 to $130 (Primary membership of $65, plus the Executive upgrade of $65), and the maximum annual 2% Reward associated with the Executive Membership will increase from $1,000 to $1,250. The fee increases will impact around 52 million memberships, a little over half of which are Executive.

A pre-recorded message with slides will be posted on July 17 for students to see another example of how the message is conveyed to investors. For investors, the news could be good (although the stock price still fell on the sales and membership fee news), but for customers, it’s certainly bad news.

Nothing is mentioned yet on the Costco membership page, and customers haven’t received direct notice. How would students announce the news to members? They might consider how other companies announce increased fees. In Chapter 8 of the textbook, students read how Netflix shared the news of increasing subscription prices with investors and customers. For customers, Netflix focused on more programming and other benefits. Students can find ways to take this same approach for the Costco message.

To guide their messaging for customers, students can read context from Yahoo! Finance and other general news outlets. They’ll read about rising inflation and membership fee increases by Sam’s Club and BJ’s in 2022. Costco waited a bit longer—seven years since its last price increase in 2017. But none of this likely matters to Costco customers. In addition, students might argue this is only $5, but of course, that’s significant to a lot of families, particularly on top of other increases.

Students can also consider message timing. We typically teach that customers should be informed first rather than find out bad news from the media.

Image source

Learning From Ghosting During Job Selection

Ghosting while dating raises ethical questions that apply to the job search. In both cases, students learn compassion and resilience.

Psychologists say the uncertainty of not hearing anything can be more painful than rejection. One therapist said the consequence is that people “start to question their reality.” They doubt their interpretation of a “good” date or an interview, wondering how their perceptions were off.

Of course, this might not be the case. A date or an interviewer may have felt just as connected at the time, but other candidates were better matches. Some interviewers also seem positive and encouraging during the selection process just to be nice—to make candidates feel comfortable, to allow candidates to represent themselves well, and to represent the company well. The opposite also happens: A candidate thinks an interview went horribly because the hiring manager was inexpressive, but that could be their personality, or they may fear implying an job offer, a questionable approach I’ve heard from several managers.

This Forbes article posits several reasons an employer might ghost a candidate, including hiring an internal candidate, changing budgets or hiring priorities, or discomfort with giving bad news. None are valid reasons when a candidate is left hanging. Discomfort in conveying bad news is the most illogical because no news is worse than a rejection that allows students to move on emotionally as well as practically.

Our job as faculty is to help students take ghosting in stride. As the Forbes article states, “The reality is that ghosting has become unofficial standard operating procedures.” Redditors describe the emotional toll, but unfortunately, it’s expected, so students should do their best to brush it off and not take it personally.

We can coach students to follow up a couple of times with enthusiastic-sounding emails and voicemails, and then they have to practice letting it go. They certainly shouldn’t hold up their search waiting for a response. Resilience has its limits; knowing when to quit is also an important skill. Ruminating about what they did wrong could lead to losing hope or feeling resentments that could sour their search. Instead, reframing ghosting as an unfortunate but expected part of the selection process could help.

Image source.

Boeing CEO's Rough Senate Hearing and Safety Plan

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun faced lawmakers during the senate committee hearing bluntly titled, “Boeing’s Broken Safety Culture.” The investigation offers lessons in answering difficult questions and demonstrating compassion, humility, integrity, and accountability. In addition, students can see a sample report: “Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan.”

Taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s impromptu facing of families during the senate hearing about social media harm, Calhoun began his opening statement by turning around and addressing families who lost people in Boeing plane crashes dating back to 2018. Like Zuckerberg, who was prompted by Senator Hawley, Calhoun had little choice. He was in room full of people holding photos of lost loved ones, with several shouting as we see and hear cameras flash. The pain is palpable, and Calhoun is visibly shaken, playing with his glasses, until the hearing is called into session.

Senator Richard Blumenthal begins by acknowledging families and asking them, by name, to stand with their photographs. He also acknowledges the family of the Boeing whistleblower who died by suicide. I cried. I believe we’re seeing a more compassionate approach to these hearings, keeping the focus on the impact of wrongdoing and on the responsibilities of our corporate and political leaders. But I wonder whether the face-the-victims’-families apology will become routine in these types of hearings and at what point—maybe already—it feels perfunctory.

Blumenthal had harsh words for Boeing, saying the “once iconic” company has “lost its way,” having put “stock price over people.” He said he’s pursuing prosecution and that Calhoun hasn’t kept the company’s promises. Predictable questions were about Calhoun’s salary and his decision not to resign. Throughout the hearing, Calhoun tried his best to convince lawmakers (and families, investors, airlines, and passengers) that they are making changes. Lawmakers didn’t seem to buy it.

Character was on display throughout the hearing. For example, demonstrating an issue with integrity, or inconsistency, at around 26:00, Blumenthal challenged Boeing’s nonretaliation policy with recent charges of threats and harassment against several whistleblowers. Calhoun said that he listens to people and that “something went wrong” [in these cases]. Without specific action on specific cases, his response sounded hollow. The follow-up question about firings based on retaliation elicits no specific information. Calhoun might have prepared this information, knowing it would be a major line of questioning.

Blumenthal’s criticism of Boeing’s data submission and Calhoun’s response, starting around 30:30, are worth watching. He asks whether Calhoun can make sense of the information—a page without any formatting—and he says, “No, sir,” and agrees when the senator says, “complete gobbledygook.” It’s shocking that Calhoun didn’t review what was sent. At first, he said not “line by line,” but it wasn’t clear he reviewed any of the documentation. One explanation is the stress and challenge of preparing for such a hearing, and I acknowledge that. But business communicators, both those preparing the documents and those standing up for them, can do better.

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.

Bad-News Lessons from Kabosu

Business communication students probably won’t write an obituary for a dog, but messages about the Dogecoin icon offer lessons for conveying bad news.

Kabosu, a Shiba Inu, inspired “doge” memes starting in 2010, after Atsuko Sato, a kindergarten teacher near Toyko, posted her picture. Dogecoin, created as a joke, became a popular cryptocurrency.

Messages announcing Kabosu’s illness and death are clear and simple, nodding to those she impacted:

• Dogecoin posted on X about the joy Kabosu brought. In what might be a stretch, the writer says she “knew only happiness and limitless love.”

• Sato announced Kabosu’s death on Instagram:

  “Kabochan passed away in a deep sleep on the morning of May 24th. She passed away peacefully,
  without any pain, as if she was sleeping, while being stroked by me. Thank you so much to everyone who loved Kabosu for so long . I think Kabochan was the happiest dog in the world. And I was the happiest owner in the world. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who gave me so much love. To all of you who loved Kabosu, on the morning of the 24th of May, Kabosu crossed the rainbow bridge. Thank you all so much for your support over the years. She went very peacefully without suffering, as if falling asleep while feeling the warmth of my hands petting her. Thank you all so much for loving Kabosu all these years. I am certain that Kabosu was the happiest dog in the world. That makes me the happiest owner in the world. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to everyone who has sent us much love to us. #WalkingwithKabosu #Doge #ShibaInu # ShibaInu18yearsold #SeniorDog #Cat #Pet #LivedoorInstablogger”

• Translated, Sato’s blog post is titled, “Thank you, Pumpkin!,” and describes her passing poetically.

• Sato’s posts during the past two years prepared Kabosu’s fans, letting them know that she was being treated for leukemia and liver disease.

Kabosu’s death is sad to those who followed her (and used her image). But her age (18 years old) and Sato’s posts ease the bad news. Deaths are often easier to accept when we’re prepared for them.

Image source.

Wells College Closing Statement

If your school is vulnerable, this could be a painful topic. Otherwise, Wells College offers an example of a bad-news message, closing the school. Wells is just up the road from me in Aurora, NY, set above Cayuga Lake, where I hunt for sea glass near the boathouse. With a population of less than 14,000, Aurora is dominated by the school and may suffer great economic loss as a result of the closing, at least in the short term.

The decision is terrible for students. Although only 357 are currently enrolled, they will finish their degree at “teach-out” partners such as Manhattanville University, 250 miles away with its own financial struggles. The college will close in just two weeks, after students were admitted for the fall and possibly too late for them to accept other college offers.

A letter from the board chair and president announces the news. As it should be, the news is upfront—both in the heading and in the first sentence. Delaying the obvious would serve no one. Administrators blame “financial challenges,” which they write were “exacerbated by a global pandemic, a shrinking pool of undergraduate students nationwide, inflationary pressures, and an overall negative sentiment towards higher education.” As we might expect, the statement includes a list of attempts to save the college—the “strategic plans,” “fundraising campaigns,” and “innovative new programs.” They don’t mention the most controversial decision specifically: to accept men starting in 2005 to try to increase enrollment. Perhaps that is too obvious to state, and of course, it wasn’t enough.

The letter serves its purpose. The news isn’t terribly surprising for the 156-year-old school, which has seen enrollment steadily decline. With a decisive tone and a good dose of compassion for those affected, the writers take responsibility for the decision, explain reasons for the bad news, describe plans for current students, and communicate as much as they know. They meet their objectives for their main audiences. Although they don’t mention effects on the town, residents aren’t a primary audience of the school; I suppose that group will be addressed separately in collaboration with local officials.

The website that includes the letter is well organized. FAQs address questions, for example, Why weren’t alumni notified earlier in order to raise funds to save the college? and What steps did Wells College take to address its financial challenges? In addition, buttons link to more detailed information clearly organized by affected group: students, staff, faculty, alumni, and teach-out partners. The FAQs for faculty reflect common questions about pay, benefits, grades, graduation, etc., but the responses are vague. A question about how to get more information instructs faculty to “Please watch for communications coming out from HR and the FAQ for employees and faculty. The VPASA office will also reach out with additional faculty-specific information.” Clearly, many details are still unknown, and administrators are trying to stave off contact for now. I don’t blame them.

Image source.

Accenture Case About ADHD

A London lawsuit against Accenture raises issues of neurodiversity in the workplace. The nuance and ambiguity in the case touches on business communication.

Accenture’s Chair and Chief Executive Julie Sweet is accused of mistreating Peter Lacy, Accenture’s former head of sustainability and global management committee member. Lacy, who is diagnosed with ADHD, post-traumatic stress, and depression, claims that he was “shamed” and “belittled.” He gives examples of being cut off during senior-level and other large meetings, for example, by being told, “Peter you need to stop now.” Lacy says another executive “engaged in a 15-minute tirade against [Lacy] in respect of a piece of work . . . for no apparent reason.” Lacy says these situations, in addition to the long work hours and stressful work environment, exacerbated his symptoms and led to his wrongful termination. Accenture defends the dismissal as part as a larger layoff, as employers often do.

One sticking point is whether Lacy’s disability was apparent, which he claims but the Accenture team denies. This is an interesting question for business communicators: When does speech or presentation obviously convey a disability? A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about “professionalism,” which tends to box people into norms and excludes people who don’t fit conventional standards. Is this such a case? Or was Lacy simply out of line and inappropriate? Whether someone has a disability or not, how much leeway—or to use the legal parlance, accommodation—should an organization provide related to communication? Where’s the line to determine when disruption affects others or prevents business from moving forward?

It strikes me that business communication faculty deal with this issue every day in class. We expect students to behave in certain ways and accommodate those who don’t or can’t—to a point. This case seems to be about that tipping point. The case will be interesting to watch because of its implications for the increasing numbers of neurodiverse employees.

Image source.

Letter from Founder of World Central Kitchen

I’m posting this hoping it’s not perceived as “political” but as a beautifully written letter by an organization leader about his work and his staff. I know that the facts in the letter are disputed.

José Andrés is the founder of World Central Kitchen, whose seven aid workers were killed while trying to deliver food to the people in Gaza. His letter was published in The New York Times with the title, “Let People Eat,” and in ynetnews, an Israeli news source, with the title, “The Probe Into Death of WCK Volunteers Needs to Start From the Top.”

This is a persuasive message, as we define it in business communication, but to me, it’s more usefully viewed as an example of leader integrity and compassion. Andrés demonstrates integrity by focusing on his own and the organization’s mission and values, which he says transcend particular groups or situations. He demonstrates compassion by giving names to those lost and describing his personal connections and appreciation of them and their work.

Update: Here is IDF’s response to the incident.

Baltimore Bridge Crisis News Conferences

The collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore offers crisis communication examples for students to analyze. Sadly, the incident cost the lives of six workers from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras who were working on the bridge at the time.

Typical news conferences for crisis situations cover the following points, against which students can analyze this one:

• After brief context, give condolences first if people are affected

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

• Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)

• Provide investigation process/status

• Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Compassion typically comes first, and then explanations and plans.

The news conference also illustrates the players’ roles and responsibilities—and their audience and communication objectives—when a public crisis happens:

• Governor Wes Moore: First up, Moore’s focus is on local response. His primary audience are local responders and Baltimore residents. His attention is on gratitude to those working on rescue. He also wants to reassure people that they are safe. He says that this is most likely an accident and that “we haven’t seen any credible evidence of a terrorist attack.” This surprised me given that the ship pilot reported lost power, but he is warding off potential conspiracy theories. At the end, he expresses sympathy for the victims and their loved ones, which might have also come at the beginning. As expected, he talks about “Maryland spirit” (“We are Maryland tough, and we are Baltimore Strong”) with some nice anaphora at the end too: “That’s what we’ve always done. That’s what we’ll continue to do. And that’s what we’re doing to get done together.”

• Senator Chris van Hollen: Although he adds little substance, he expands the gratitude and demonstrates the response of the federal government. His sympathy is first, and he talks about all the agencies that are already on the scene or will be soon. He admits his limited role: “I’m just here to say, together with [other senators and congressmen]. . . . we’re with you, we love you, and we’ll get through this together” (more anaphora). Like a lot of tragedies for politicians, this one is a photo op. He does what’s expected.

• Next up are the secretary of transportation and representatives from FBI and the Coast Guard.

The Q&A portion is predictable for this early conference. “We have no further information” and “We have no estimates on time lines” are common themes. The focus is on rescue at this point. However, the governor gets a bit emotional around 11:30 talking about the Key Bridge and the impact of the bridge loss on local lives. The questions, and the answers, are a bit of a dance at this point. The governor talks about rebuilding, but people died and are still missing, so he’s balancing hope for the future with compassion.

Other communications are of interest to business and crisis communicators:

• Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott: In a separate news conference, we see the chief of police introduce the mayor. He is brief and all about compassion and gratitude, asking people to pray for everyone affected.

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy: The only woman I’ve seen in the communication mix, Homendy is responsible for investigating the crash. Her objectives are to reassure the public that they will determine the cause. She emphasizes the work of her team—24 investigators, which I guess is supposed to sound like a lot, or at least, enough to do the job.

• Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg: He’s asked about bridge safety across the country, and his job is to reassure us that infrastructure is strong. He says, “This is a unique circumstance. I do not know of a bridge that has been constructed to withstand a direct impact of a vessel this size.” This is a classic communication strategy: to isolate the situation.

• The ship’s captain will be under scrutiny in the coming months. The head of the American Pilots’ Association is already defending the pilot: “These are among the most highly trained mariners in the world.”

• President Biden spoke about the tragedy, and political leaders have begun to question bridge safety as part of larger, political infrastructure issues, which Buttigieg (somewhat) addressed.

ChatGPT Accepted My Apology

New research shows that being polite to LLMs gets better responses. I’ve struggled with prompts that don’t include “please” but reminded myself that AI wasn’t influenced by niceties. I was wrong.

The study explores a range of responses in different languages. Authors conclude that rude prompts yield poor responses—or refusals to answer. But “overly polite” prompts don’t necessarily yield better responses.

In one regard, the conclusion isn’t a surprise. Humans train AI, after all. But Ethan Mollick, who writes extensively on AI, suggests more research to test more examples of politeness. One LinkedIn commenter on Mollick’s post suggests that overly polite prompts might not be clear, and she could be right. When we look at the study prompts, the prompt rated most highly for politeness doesn’t ask for reasons.

Of course, I never called it names, but I apologized to ChatGPT for failing to say “please” in my prompts. It was gracious, as proven by the multiple exclamation marks:

No need to apologize! As an AI, I don't have feelings or emotions, but I'm here to assist you in the best way possible. Politeness can indeed influence human interaction positively, even if it's just with an AI. If there's anything else you'd like assistance with, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to help!

By coincidence, my next prompt was about ingratitude for a new book I’m working on. I did say “Thank you.”

Videos of the Layoff

First, we read employees’ public posts about their layoff, commiserating with others. Now, we watch videos leading up to and during layoff.

In one video with 3.8 million views, we see jewishmillenial, a tech employee, await her layoff meeting at home. What’s useful to organizational leaders is to see the other side of the process—the employee’s perspective. We see her dread after receiving a “mysterious” 30-minute meeting scheduled with her boss’s boss and others in her group, one by one, “disappearing off of Teams.”

She gives us a periodic countdown to her being laid off, at one point, wondering why the company doesn’t just schedule a meeting for everyone instead of multiple individual meetings they have to wait for. Others complain about mass layoff meetings and having all technology immediately cut off. They believe the layoff is “inconsistent” or random and not performance based.

No one approach is perfect for everyone. A performance-based layoff at Cloudfare and other companies are also criticized. The Cloudfare one didn’t include the employee’s manager—just HR people—so that didn’t go over well. The HR representatives couldn’t answer her questions about why she was laid off or what the performance metrics are. The CEO did admit that managers should be involved in these meetings and that employees shouldn’t be blindsided by news of their underperformance. Of course, we don’t know how clearly performance feedback has been communicated in these cases, but we could say that the immediate manager lacks accountability. More typically, managers are involved in these meetings, whether performance based or not.

What makes us watch these videos? The voyeuristic pleasure of the layoff meeting is undeniable, and perhaps we feel a mix of empathy for the person, gratitude for still having a job, and fear of losing our job. For business communicators, they’re a reality show for one of the more difficult meetings a manager (or HR) will have, and we can learn how to plan and facilitate these interactions better.