Reflections on Copyediting

I’m reviewing suggestions from a copyeditor on my new book (Recovery at Work: Using Twelve Step Principles for Professional Success—more about that later!) and have a few observations about the editing/proofreading process:

• Editing is not proofreading. We teach students the difference, and this should be clear in the Business Communication and Character text. Still, what is called copyediting, at times, seems to include only proofreading. Not that proofreading isn’t important! But I’ve had to change my expectations about the type of assistance I’ll get during the copyediting process.

• Editions change. The copyeditor for my book suggested I hyphenate email and coworker, which the Chicago Manual of Style stopped suggesting with the 17th edition back in 2017. Guidance for formatting references changed since then too.

• Copyeditors can be wrong. In addition to the edition confusion, the copyeditor has different ideas about punctuation. Here are three “corrections”:

  • Do we “walk the talk” and “practice what we preach?"

  • What starts small, affects people in future generations.

  • If this is your introduction to Twelve-Step programs, you’ll see how they have helped millions of people not only get and stay sober but live more peaceful, productive lives.

  The first two errors are obvious to business communication faculty. The third could be debatable but not if we follow CMOS guidance (see examples of “graduate student housing” and “high school diploma”). Misreading as 12 step programs is unlikely. I also chose to capitalize and spell out Twelve Step to follow program convention.

• I have work to do. My annoyance and impatience about the copyediting process remind me to continue working on my humility and perfectionism. The copyeditor is an imperfect human just like me. A friend and colleague suggested I recognize that errors are likely in printed books. I’m trying to accept that.

VP Harris Gives Presentation Advice

I’m looking for neutral (non-political) communications related to the U.S. presidential election and believe this fits. VP Kamala Harris offers young people advice about delivering a presentation.

In the video, VP Harris suggests, “It’s not about you.” Then she offers an analogy to the Titanic: If you’re the only one who knows the ship is sinking, you’re not going to worry about “how you look and how you sound.” It’s most important that people “know what you know.”

Clearly, she’s focusing on content, and I like the approach for these young people, who are typically self-obsessed. VP Harris is also offering a lesson in humility. (By the way, the girls are adorable in how they respond to her asking whether they learned about the Titanic. They launch into whether they saw the movie or it was their favorite—as though the Titanic is just a movie.)

Students could watch this clip and offer their own advice or analogies for young people to improve their public speaking. They also can use the tool I created, How To Feel Confident for a Presentation and Manage Speech Anxiety, to identify strategies to use before, during, and after a presentation.

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.

Bumble Apologizes for Celibacy Joke

Dating app Bumble apologized for ads that offended women. Students can assess the company’s response against principles for apologies.

In addition to the billboard shown here, an ad tells women, “Thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.” Women are not amused, with some feeling as though their choice of celibacy is being mocked and their autonomy questioned. Others question why the ad targets women’s behavior and not men’s.

Bumble responded on Instagram (text below). The company hits several of the marks for an effective apology identified in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character, 11e. Although they didn’t explicitly write, “We’re sorry,” they take responsibility upfront (“We made a mistake”). They also identified what they did wrong in the first paragraph and humbly list the reactions—how people were affected—in the second paragraph. Pulling the ads is the only rational thing to do.

For me, the donation seems patronizing and trivial, particularly without knowing whether the amount is significant and without evidence of a previous relationship with the organization. Offering the billboard space is at least relevant to the situation.

Students might speculate on how this happened. Did an external ad agency get carried away? If so, Bumble, appropriately, doesn’t blame them. Did they fail to test the ads with focus groups? We may never know, but Bumble seems to have learned the lesson and, overall, responded well.

---

TO OUR BELOVED BUMBLE COMMUNITY:

We made a mistake. Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite.

Some of the perspectives we heard were: from those who shared that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted; from others for whom celibacy is a choice, one that we respect; and from the asexual community, for whom celibacy can have a particular meaning and importance, which should not be diminished. We are also aware that for many, celibacy may be brought on by harm or trauma.

For years, Bumble has passionately stood up for women and marginalized communities, and their right to fully exercise personal choice. We didn't live up to these values with this campaign and we apologize for the harm it caused.

So, here's what we're doing:

We're removing these ads from our global marketing campaign. Bumble will be making a donation to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, among other organizations, as a part of our ongoing efforts to support the work being done around the world to support women, marginalized communities, and those impacted by abuse.

We will also be offering these partners this billboard space to display an ad of their choice for the duration of our reserved billboard time.

Please keep speaking up and telling us how we can be better. We care about you and will always be here for you.

With love and sincere appreciation,

Bumble

VW's “Neutral” Response to Union

Volkswagen’s communication is another example of the changing tide in favor of unions. Students can compare messages from companies during and after unionization efforts.

The positive vote at the Chattanooga, TN, plant is significant because it’s the first union in an international automaker located in the South. Twice since 2010, when the plant opened, employees voted against the United Auto Workers (UAW), but this time the vote was overwhelmingly positive.

Management’s “neutral” stance is also significant. A CNN article explains:

The company said it is neutral in the election, only urging workers to vote however they want. That’s relatively rare in union representation elections, where management often lobbies workers to vote no at mandatory meetings, and sometimes takes action against union organizers. Even union supporters acknowledge that hasn’t happened in this case, however.

The company’s statement about the vote wasn’t exactly steeped in humility, as we saw in the Costco response earlier this year. But management isn’t antagonistic either; when a decision is clear, they might as well accept it. The statement is short, simply reporting the vote and closing with, “Volkswagen thanks its Chattanooga workers for voting in this election.”

Cultural differences may be at play. About half of German workers belong to unions, and trust in unions is twice as high in Germany as it is in the United States (see JEP_German_Model_of_Industrial_Relations_Primer.pdf). Whatever the reasons, the UAW is emboldened to pursue more unions as planned.

Image source.

Does a Brand Have a Soul? Does Starbucks?

Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz wrote a letter to Board about preserving the “soul” of the brand. Students can analyze his letter and discuss whether a company or a brand has a soul. Does Starbucks?

The context of Starbucks’ unionization efforts likely drove Schultz’s thinking. (All three Starbucks in Ithaca, NY, have come and gone because of unionization efforts, the company’s response, and local backlash. Costco may be a better role model for accepting and negotiating with unions. A useful project for students would be to analyze the effects of unions in the past several decades.)

Schultz writes that this definition of soul is from Webster, but it doesn’t match what I see in the dictionary listing, which is worth comparing. Here’s his list:

a) the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b) the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c) spiritual or moral force

Schultz then writes, “Webster did not anticipate the necessity to define soul in business terms for the very reason I am addressing it. It rarely exists, and it’s almost impossible to define.” Or, perhaps a business or brand cannot have a soul. Perhaps his view is an overreach, reflecting the exact arrogance for which Starbucks is criticized. After all, the company sells coffee. This is a cynical view, and students may believe, or feel, otherwise.

Also worth analyzing is the purpose of the letter. What are Schultz’s communication objectives? In addition to the Board audience, he forwarded the letter in an email to those of us on his former Schultz-for-president distribution list. After reading the letter, will the Board feel inspired, and if so, to do what, exactly?

Image source.

Expedia CEO Email About Bathroom Cameras

Facing an unusual company situation, Expedia CEO Peter Kern tried to reassure employees they are safe at work.

Although cameras were reported in December, security officers didn’t remove them, thinking they were a battery or music player. Employees were angry about the six-week delay between the time the cameras were reported and when they were notified. The cameras might have been planted by an employee who has a history of recording others and at least 33 devices in his home.

Kern’s email is below. I wonder whether he overuses “we” and “us.” Is he really concerned for his own safety? Does he use that bathroom or a private one?

What Kern does well is acknowledge employees’ feelings and the violation of trust. But he doesn’t address the company’s violation of trust because of its poor response—only the spying employee’s.

The third paragraph seems an odd mix of criticizing news reports about the company and allowing remote work. In this sentence, Kern equates employees’ frustration and disappointment with errant news reports rather than failing company actions. Lacking more accountability and humility, he doesn’t explain company actions—or admit failings. Without a paragraph break after this sentence, he seems to further correlate bad news reports with employees’ need for space and support.

I know that reading incomplete news stories about our team’s significant efforts to protect employees and identify the individual responsible has been frustrating and disappointing during a disturbing time.

What a strange situation for a CEO to have to address. I don’t think it’s related, but this incident comes during a transition back to a former CEO.

---

Dear Team,

I know this has been an incredibly challenging week for our Seattle campus community and those who have visited. The news that one of our own colleagues invaded our collective privacy is highly disturbing. It has left many of us angry and feeling vulnerable. There really are no words that I can offer to make those feelings go away for any of us — it has happened despite our vigilant efforts to make sure our people, our Seattle campus, and all our offices are safe places to work and visit. It happened because one of our own, whom we trusted, abused that trust. Our team identified and fired this former colleague, collaborated with law enforcement to bring them to justice, and gratefully the Seattle Police Department has arrested the individual responsible for the pain we are all feeling.

Some of you may have observed or heard that Seattle police were in the office yesterday to execute an additional search to make sure there was no other relevant evidence to the case. They did remove some items that may be relevant to the case (mentioned in our Chief Security Officer Kurt John’s message), but no additional recording devices were found. With that done we will be closing the Seattle campus this weekend through Monday to take additional security precautions as our teams continue to work to prevent anything like this from happening in the future. We’re closing campus as we do this work as an additional precaution. The best thing we can do now is help the authorities in every way possible, use resources to heal, and learn from this experience to put additional preventative measures in place.

Let me just end by saying that while we are not the first nor sadly the last company that will likely face something like this, the violation of our collective trust is real and will take time to heal. I know that reading incomplete news stories about our team’s significant efforts to protect employees and identify the individual responsible has been frustrating and disappointing during a disturbing time. While everyone responds to events like this in their own way, I want to reassure you that if you need some time and space, we understand and want you to care for yourselves. If you need some additional time to work remotely you can do so, including during Expedia Week. I urge you to use all the resources we are making available as we continue to ensure you are supported.

I am sorry for any distress this has caused you and can only say that our teams are working tirelessly to make sure you all feel safe and secure on our campuses.

Peter

Image source.

Niecy Nash Thanks Herself in an Emotional Speech

The Emmy award audience and viewers love watching emotional speeches. Niecy Nash thanked herself in her acceptance speech, which students can analyze, given the context.

Nominated for five Emmys for her work in 2023, Nash won for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie for Dahmer—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. When we assess character, particularly an aspect of character like humility, we consider the entire context. Nash is crying as she begins her speech, saying, “I’m a winner, baby!” She was nominated for several Emmy awards over the years and won the last one in 2010. It’s been a while.

During her interview with Gayle King and Charles Barkley on CBS, she got emotional describing the work it took for her to be successful and how she felt proud of herself. Her difficulty is clear from her speech, too, when she thanks her “better half, who picked me up when I was gutted from this work. Thank you.” Then she says, “And you know who else I want to thank? I want to thank me.” She describes believing in herself and closes by acknowledging Black and brown women who went “unheard but over policed.” She mentions a few by name.

The context of her speech also is the historic underrepresentation of women of color in film, in TV, and as entertainment award winners. Humility can be defined as being neither below or above others. Nash expresses gratitude for being at a high competitive level and for being rewarded as she deserves to be. From another actor, the speech could certainly sound arrogant. But hers is taken well, and we see the audience enthusiastically applauding her.

Costco Accepts the Union with Humility

In a great display of humility, Costco management wrote to employees about the new union—a good, positive message to share with students. The CEO and president co-signed the letter to acknowledge the union and reinforce their values, which, they admit, may not have been upheld:

[W]e’re disappointed in ourselves as managers and leaders. The fact that the majority of Norfolk employees felt that they wanted or needed a union constitutes a failure on our part.

The Costco leaders made a good choice if for no other reason that the vote is done, so they might as well accept it. Also, they’re right about the reason for all union activity: employees aren’t getting what they want or need from management and seek outside help.

But few leaders admit this. Starbucks and Amazon, in particular, fought union activity to the extent that the National Labor Relations Board accused Starbucks of interfering with employees’ rights and Amazon of not bargaining in good faith.

Microsoft hasn’t been entirely antagonistic against union activity. After acquiring Activision Blizzard last year, it entered into a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America. This meant that employees were free to choose a union without management’s interference (although that is the law). Employees did vote for the union, Microsoft’s first in the United States, and a spokesperson commented:

In light of the results of the recent unionization vote, we recognize the Communications Workers of America (CWA) as the bargaining representative for the Quality Assurance employees at ZeniMax. We look forward to engaging in good-faith negotiations as we work towards a collective bargaining agreement.

A tech writer made a good point about who defines “good faith.” In response to a similar (but more defensive) Apple statement about its union, he wrote:

To some extent, it could be said that Apple now has a spotlight on its actions at the negotiations—whether it meets the union on the union’s definition of good faith negotiations, or whether it continues to stand on its own record of positive remuneration in spite of the union’s negotiating position.

We’ll see more company responses as union activity gains speed for the first time in decades, particularly in tech and retail industries.

WSJ’s Analysis of Spotify’s Layoff Email

The Wall Street Journal analyzed Spotify’s layoff email announcing a 17% workforce cut—about 1,500 people. For the most part, comments align with what business communication faculty teach about writing bad-news messages.

Here are a few notes about the WSJ comments. Students could use these components to compare the four company messages the WSJ mentions—Amazon, Meta, and Salesforce in addition to Spotify’s.

• Subject line: The WSJ is right that most of these emails have a subject line that sounds “innocuous”; all four have “update” in the title. (The Journal writer calls it a “title” because that’s what we see online, but to employees, it’s an email subject.) What’s more relevant about the use of “update” is the organizations’ reminder that bad news is coming. Layoffs should not be a surprise, and company leaders want all stakeholders to know that they have properly prepared employees.

• When the news is broken: Older communication principles taught the indirect organization style for bad-news messages (with context/reasons first), but we have little evidence to support this structure, which tends only to make the writer feel better (for example, see Microsoft Layoff Email). In these four email examples, the news (including a workforce percentage) is clearest in the second paragraph. An interesting study would assess how quickly employees read the first paragraph, scanning for the bottom line.

  Yet, the second paragraph is probably “upfront” enough given that the layoffs should be expected. But the news tends to come at the end of that second paragraph, an indirect paragraph structure in itself. In 2020, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky broke rank and wrote in the first paragraph (albeit at the end): “today I have to share some very sad news.”

• How context is explained: What’s interesting to me is whether the leader takes responsibility for the need to layoff, say, 17% of the workforce. I’m impress by Marc Benioff’s accountability and humility (learning from mistakes) at Salesforce: “we hired too many people leading into this economic downturn we’re now facing, and I take responsibility for that.” Andy Jassy at Amazon admits, “we’ve hired rapidly over the last several years.” Mark Zuckerberg focuses on “efficiencies," leaving us to wonder where the inefficiencies came from. The Journal writer notes, “executive mea-culpa has become another staple of the layoff letter,” but I don’t see many as explicit as Benioff. Others point to changing conditions that were difficult to predict. Although that may be true, exuberant hiring was still a mistake, by definition, given the negative results. A leader could own it.

• Balancing those leaving and staying: The Journal writer points out a difficult part of writing layoff memos—the tone for each group: “Executives want to acknowledge the contributions of the laid-off employees, while quickly then pivoting to explain why the company will be fine without them.” This is why one massive email to multiple audiences is an imperfect approach. But it’s probably best for consistent, timely, and transparent communication.

• How people are affected: Let’s face it: what employees reading these emails care most about is, what about me? Spotify is clear about what to expect next: “If you are an impacted employee, you will receive a calendar invite within the next two hours from HR for a one-on-one conversation.” A tech, rather than a personal, contact isn’t great, but, again, it’s best for quick, consistent communication.

• Compensation and benefits for people leaving: I used to think this was inappropriate to include in layoff emails sent to people not affected, but I’ve warmed up to the idea. Now that these emails are made public, the company needs to assure all stakeholders that they are being fair, if not generous. Spotify received accolades for its process from people like Dave Lehmkuhl, whose LinkedIn post got more than 57,000 likes so far.

• Jargon: The Journal writer jokes, “Ding, ding, ding: If you had ‘right-sized’ on your corporate-layoff-memo bingo card, you’re a winner.” Students will find other jargon in these emails, but not an abundance of it. CEOs and their writers want to avoid the likely ridicule.

• Rallying those remaining: Does that last email section describe a place where those left behind want to work? Ending on a positive note is critical, particularly if the message is public for shareholders and consumers to read. But only the primary audience, employees, can answer the question—and perhaps only in a year from now will they know for sure.

Image source.

Musk Apologizes and Curses Advertisers

After losing major advertisers on X, Elon Musk illustrates communication lessons about apologies and rebuilding image. At least two parts of an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin are worthy of class discussion.

Starting Around 8:15
The first relates to Musk’s agreement with an X post about a antisemitic conspiracy theory. Musk tried to backtrack by posting explanations, which he said were “ignored by the media. And essentially, I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me and to those who are antisemitic, and for that I am quite sorry.” Entwined in his apology is Musk as victim, which typically doesn’t play well in rebuilding image. Apologies focus on those affected—not the actor.

Another good lesson for business communication students is Musk’s regret. He said he “should not have replied to that particular person, and I should have written in greater length as to what I meant.” A leader should know that even liking a post, no less writing, “You have said the actual truth,” carries tremendous weight. Perhaps X, with its entire founding based on short posts, is not the best medium to discuss theories of race. [Side note: Musk clarified during the interview that “tweets” were more appropriate when Twitter allowed only 140 characters. He prefers “posts” now.]

Musk visited Israel, a trip he said was planned before the X post incident. Still, the visit looked like, as Sorkin said, “an apology tour.” Musk denied the accusation, repeating the phrase “apology tour,” despite what crisis communicators might advise. Musk posted, “Actions speak louder than words." Yes, they do, so the post itself is odd. People can draw their own conclusions about his visit to Israel. The Washington Post reported that few advertisers have been positively moved by his visit.

Starting Around 11:15
When Sorkin started speaking about advertisers, Musk interrupted to say, “I hope they stop [advertising].” Understandably, Sorkin looked confused, but Musk continued, “Don’t advertise. . . . If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f—- yourself.” Sorkin was speechless at this point, and Musk repeated the command and asked, “Is that clear? I hope that it is.” We hear titters in the audience, a mix of shock and embarrassment.

Where’s the line between confidence and arrogance? Students certainly will have opinions on that topic. In fairness, Musk gets quite philosophical later in the interview. He comes across as authentic and somewhat vulnerable, revealing his personal struggles as well as his commitment to the environment and his business plans. He also expressed disappointment about OpenAI, having named the platform, which he said “should be renamed super-closed source for maximum profit AI.” That got a genuine laugh.

FDIC's "Toxic Workplace" and an Activity

As Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg faces pressure to resign, students can explore what a “toxic workplace” looks like. Without getting too detailed, they could describe their own experiences—when they have felt uncomfortable during jobs and internships.

In my persuasive communication and organizational behavior classes, I used a variation of an activity from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values that could be useful as you discuss the FDIC example. In the FDIC situation, speaking up didn’t make a difference. Still, reflecting on students’ own experience may inspire them to take action and have an impact in the future.

A Wall Street Journal investigation revealed multiple leadership problems dating back to at least 2008 at the FDIC. Complaints went unresolved and sometimes resulted in promotions of those accused. Although Black employees won a $15 million class action suit in 2000, discrimination complaints continued. Workers claim that sexual harassment and bullying is part of the culture.

FDIC leadership is taking no accountability and saying little in response to the published investigation. An official told the WSJ that the agency "has no higher priority than to ensure that all FDIC employees work in a safe environment where they feel valued and respected. Sexual harassment or discriminatory behavior is completely unacceptable. We take these allegations very seriously." Students will recognize this as meaningless boilerplate. Because the story is so visible and the reporting is so clear, the agency is better off demonstrating humility—recognizing failures and, if nothing specific at this point, at least describing plans for corrective action.

---

Taking Action

For this activity, you’ll compare two examples from your work or other experience.[1]  The purpose of this exercise is to see how you have taken action in a situation that conflicted with your values. Then, you will analyze a time when you didn’t take action to see how you could have handled the situation differently.

Individual Planning Questions

First, think of a time when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values, and you spoke up or acted in some way to address the situation.

• Briefly describe the context.

• What inspired you to do something?

• What did you do and how did it impact others?

• What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?

• In retrospect, how did you do? You don’t need to be too self-critical, but think about what would have been ideal in the situation.

Next, think of another situation in which you did not speak up or act when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values or ethics.

• Briefly describe the context.

• What prevented you from speaking up? What would have motivated you to take action?

• What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?

• In retrospect, what could you have done differently?

Partner Feedback

If you can work with a partner, discuss your responses and learn from each experience.

When talking about your own situation, you don’t need to defend your actions or be too critical. When you listen to your partner’s situation, you can ask clarifying questions or share similar experiences, but try not to judge the decision. Like you, your partner may be sensitive about actions taken or not taken.

At the end of your conversation, summarize the main learning points. What would you like to do more of in the future to develop leadership character?

[1] This activity is adapted from Mary Gentile, Giving Voice to Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 51–53.

Image source.

Emotions Drove a Football Manager's Comments

A football writer offers a lesson for all business communicators: “Maybe managers shouldn’t give interviews straight after games.” Similar to other business situations, emotions run high, and people need to take a beat before they speak or write. Student athletes and fans will be particularly interested in this story, but the example is for anyone who reacts before thinking through the consequences.

Arsenal Football Club (soccer to Americans) manager Mikel Arteta took an interview after a disappointing game. He disputed a goal call:

We have to talk about the result because you have to talk about how the hell this goal stands up and it’s incredible. I feel embarrassed, but I have to be the one now come here to try to defend the club and please ask for help, because it’s an absolute disgrace that this goal is allowed. . . .It’s an absolute disgrace. Again, I feel embarrassed having more than 20 years in this country, and this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world. I am sorry.

Critics called Arteta’s reaction “disproportionate.” Such language as “how the hell” and “absolute disgrace” reflect a far greater injustice. I’ll leave the analysis to sports enthusiasts, but it seems like a questionable call—not an outrage.

The trouble worsens when the Arsenal Football Club defends Arteta in a statement, which included unequivocal support: “Arsenal Football Club wholeheartedly supports Mikel Arteta’s post-match comments.” The Athletic describes what business communication faculty would conclude, comparing the response to a crisis situation:

But for a football club to release an “official statement,” once upon a time the sort of thing reserved for managerial dismissals and so forth, about a marginal refereeing decision they disagree with, is extraordinary.

Over-reactions are difficult to withdraw. Arsenal supported the manager, which generally is a good corporate practice, but doubling-down on exaggeration makes management look defensive and lacking humility, as if they know a wrong was committed but are stuck.

Of course, a better approach for Arteta is to have waited a bit, as the writer suggests. It’s the same for business communicators. Write an email while angry but don’t send it until a day or so later. During a difficult interaction, pause and step away if you need to. Most often, an immediate response, as this situation shows, isn’t needed.

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.

University-Related Communications and the War

If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.

Protests and Free Speech

In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.

• Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”

• Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)

• Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:

Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)

Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)

Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).

Donors Pulling Funding

Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?

Joint University Statement

Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.

Firms Denying Jobs

Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.

Fake Fetterman and Intellectual Humility

Psychology research suggests that susceptibility to conspiracy theories is caused by a failure of analytical thinking—and intellectual humility. To some, Senator John Fetterman’s improved speech, altered facial hair, and concealed tattoo can mean only one thing: he has a body double (despite his hard-to-match six-foot-eight frame). The research behind conspiracy theories relates to business communication learning objectives about how people decide to believe or deny evidence.

Although people who tend to believe conspiracy theories pride themselves on being “unique” or “too special to be duped,” new research cited in an MSNBC article paints a different picture. From studies published last fall, authors conclude, “[P]eople may believe conspiracies partly because they fail to engage in analytic thinking and rely too much on their intuition.” More recent studies, yet to be published, from a Cornell University psychology lab, conclude:

[C]onspiracy believers not only relied more intuition, but also overestimated their performance on numeracy and perception tests (i.e. were overconfident in their own abilities).

When students scroll through their social feeds, do they generally believe what they read? This question also raises the idea of intellectual humility, a topic I discuss in Building Leadership Character. Psychologists developed this scale, which could be useful to share with students:

• I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong.

• I reconsider my opinions when presented with new evidence.

• I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own.

• I accept that my beliefs and attitudes may be wrong.

• In the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.

• I like finding out new information that differs from what I already think is true.

The paradox is that conspiracy theorists believe they are going against conventional thinking—for example, disbelieving mainstream media reports. But partly because of arrogance, they too quickly and without enough evidence accept other ideas.

Murdoch's Email to Employees

In his email to employees, Rupert Murdoch announces his “transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News,” but he fails to mention what he’s leaving: both Boards of Directors.

His message confirms what news reports say: he’s going nowhere and will continue to wield influence. A Guardian columnist focuses on Murdoch’s “toxic legacy” and the political overtones of his note in which he criticizes “elites” “in cahoots” with the media. (Cahoots strikes me as an outdated term along the lines of no-goodnik. Both might be new to students.) With more defamation lawsuits pending against Fox, Murdoch also, again, defends the company’s reporting.

A New York Times article chronicles his successor’s “On-Again, Off-Again Relationship With the Family Business.” Unusual for these types of announcements, Murdoch says only about his third child, Lachlan, “[We] have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan” and that Lachlan “is absolutely committed to the cause [of freedom].”

Murdoch writes, “Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities.” Yet real humility is an admirable quality—and required for a leader to step aside and let others lead. Instead, like Logan Roy in HBO’s Succession, Murdoch will hover until he dies.

Image source.

---

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to let you all know that I have decided to transition to the role of Chairman Emeritus at Fox and News. For my entire professional life, I have been engaged daily with news and ideas, and that will not change. But the time is right for me to take on different roles, knowing that we have truly talented teams and a passionate, principled leader in Lachlan who will become sole Chairman of both companies.

Neither excessive pride nor false humility are admirable qualities. But I am truly proud of what we have achieved collectively through the decades, and I owe much to my colleagues, whose contributions to our success have sometimes been unseen outside the company but are deeply appreciated by me. Whether the truck drivers distributing our papers, the cleaners who toil when we have left the office, the assistants who support us or the skilled operators behind the cameras or the computer code, we would be less successful and have less positive impact on society without your day-after-day dedication.

Our companies are in robust health, as am I. Our opportunities far exceed our commercial challenges. We have every reason to be optimistic about the coming years - I certainly am, and plan to be here to participate in them. But the battle for the freedom of speech and, ultimately, the freedom of thought, has never been more intense.

My father firmly believed in freedom, and Lachlan is absolutely committed to the cause. Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.

In my new role, I can guarantee you that I will be involved every day in the contest of ideas. Our companies are communities, and I will be an active member of our community. I will be watching our broadcasts with a critical eye, reading our newspapers and websites and books with much interest, and reaching out to you with thoughts, ideas, and advice. When I visit your countries and companies, you can expect to see me in the office late on a Friday afternoon.

I look forward to seeing you wherever you work and whatever your responsibility. And I urge you to make the most of this great opportunity to improve the world we live in.

Analyzing BP's CEO Resignation Announcement

BP’s communicators addressed sensitive “relationship” issues in the company’s announcement about the CEO resignation. I’ve analyzed the British energy company’s message by paragraph.

BP plc announces that Bernard Looney has notified the Company that he has resigned as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect. 

Murray Auchincloss, the Company’s CFO, will act as CEO on an interim basis. 

The message—some might call it “bad news,” others “positive”—is intended to be persuasive, with the goal of convincing audiences (likely investors primarily and the press/employees secondarily) that BP is an ethical company that stands by its values. The news is right up front, with an interesting few extra words.: “BP plc announces that” seems superfluous, and yet, the company intentionally leads with its own action, if only “announcing.” This reflects an attempt to demonstrate accountability, a subtle way of saying that the “resignation” is more of a technicality and likely was demanded.

The CEO replacement, even an interim one, is announced immediately to convey confidence and smooth operations.

In May 2022, the Board received and reviewed allegations, with the support of external legal counsel, relating to Mr Looney’s conduct in respect of personal relationships with company colleagues. The information came from an anonymous source.

A little history is good, but this seems misplaced. At first, I misread that it took the Board more than a year to take action. A short statement about the recent situation, which led to the resignation, before this part would be clearer. Also, “personal relationships with company colleagues” sounds icky, but I can’t think of anything better. It is icky. Stating “anonymous source” is relevant because the report didn’t come from Looney, increasing the ethical questions about his behavior and supporting the Board’s actions.

During that review, Mr Looney disclosed a small number of historical relationships with colleagues prior to becoming CEO. No breach of the Company’s Code of Conduct was found. However, the Board sought and was given assurances by Mr Looney regarding disclosure of past personal relationships, as well as his future behaviour.

“A small number” raises more questions than it answers. Whatever the number is, I’m thinking of something higher. “Historical” is an attempt to create greater distance than “prior to becoming CEO” implies. Mentioning the Code of Conduct is important—both that the company has one and that Looney didn’t, for example, have a relationship with someone who reported to him (which is what this implies). The last sentence uses “the Board” again as the actor, emphasizing its due diligence. But “However” seems misplaced after the previous sentence, and “given assurances . . . regarding . . .” is vague. More precise wording would convey that he said he had disclosed ALL past relationships (but hadn’t) and committed not to pursue additional relationships (which is odd and could probably be omitted).

Further allegations of a similar nature were received recently, and the Company immediately began investigating with the support of external legal counsel. That process is ongoing.  

Here’s the real reason for his “resignation.” Using passive voice for the first independent clause of the sentence, the company downplays the Board. With active voice in the second independent clause, the Company springs into action. But despite an “ongoing” investigation, they have apparently, finally, had enough.

Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures.  He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.

In other words, he lied by omission. The language choices are odd here too: he “informed” the Company that he “accepts” (twice) that did not fully disclose information. In case it wasn’t clear earlier, at this point, we might conclude that his resignation was, indeed, forced. Or, in today’s parlance, he was “released.”

The Company has strong values and the Board expects everyone at the Company to behave in accordance with those values.  All leaders in particular are expected to act as role models and to exercise good judgement in a way that earns the trust of others.

Well, of course. But without this assurance, the statement would be incomplete. This is the kind of boilerplate we expect to see in these situations.

No decisions have yet been made in respect of any remuneration payments to be made to Mr Looney.  In accordance with section 430(2B) of the Companies Act 2006, particulars of any such decisions will be disclosed at such times as, and to the extent that, any such decisions are made.

This legalese is likely for investors who want to understand the financial impact. Or maybe it’s for people like me, shaking my head as I think about the millions in compensation that might accompany his departure.

This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) 596/2014 of 16 April 2014 (MAR) as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Ditto about the legalese. This would be an unusual ending for an American company’s statement, which might end on a more forward-looking, positive note.

---

This crisis communication example raises issues of integrity (honesty and transparency in communication) and humility (learning from mistakes). Maybe this story offers a lesson for others, as a university communication professional once told my Corporate Communication class: “The truth will come out.” As these cases often go, covering up unethical behavior is often worse than the behavior itself.

3M's Defensive Settlement Comms

3M’s statement and the investor call (and associated deck) about settling lawsuits for damaging earplugs sound defensive and deny responsibility. In these crisis response situations, companies choose between demonstrating accountability, compassion, and humility and taking 3M’s route of deniability.

In the statement, 3M does the minimum: states the settlement reason and amount, describes the process going forward, and tries to put a bow on it. The intent is to end the lawsuits. That’s all in three short paragraphs; the rest is a bunch of words—the typical boiler plate of financial considerations, the investor teleconference, and long forward-looking statements. The earplug situation involves Aearo Technologies, the product maker acquired by 3M in 2008, so 3M could shift blame, although the leaders wisely chose not to use that losing strategy.

On the investor call (here are the deck and transcript), all statements, questions, and answers focus on the financials. Of course, it’s an investor call, so participants are most interested in the financial impact to the company. We hear fear, including questions about insurance, the potential for additional claims—and the Big Question about pending lawsuits for a different issue—“forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or FPAS) in drinking water. Legal fees could mount to $30 billion in those cases.

Still, is there nothing to learn from the situation? 3M says some lawsuits were fraudulent, brought by U.S. veterans who did not suffer damages. Still, is there no compassion for those who clearly did? The answer seems to be no, that the company’s primary audience is investors, and that is not their immediate concern.

Students could compare these communications to those of McKinsey about their role in the opioid epidemic, a better example of taking responsibility and acknowledging damage done. Although not perfect, McKinsey’s messages indicate that the company might make changes as a result of the litigation, which is often more important to litigants than the settlement money.

NYC Message About ChatGPT Demonstrates Humility and AI Shift

Back in May, the New York City school chancellor changed the policy to ban ChatGPT. The message is a good example of humility—and a summary of what educators have learned about AI.

David Banks’ message, titled, “ChatGPT caught NYC schools off guard. Now, we’re determined to embrace its potential,” describes how teachers’ thinking has evolved. He admits, “[O]ur best-laid plans are sometimes disrupted by the advance of technology and innovation.”

Banks demonstrates humility (learning from mistakes) and vulnerability (risking emotional emotional exposure):

The knee-jerk fear and risk overlooked the potential of generative AI to support students and teachers, as well as the reality that our students are participating in and will work in a world where understanding generative AI is crucial.

To gain credibility, he provides examples of how faculty are using AI now, particularly by exploring ethical issues.

Business communication faculty are going beyond this exploration and are experimenting with using AI in the writing process and to support faculty work. The 2023 Association for Business Communication conference has a robust line-up of presentations about incorporating AI into our classes. I’m working with a colleague to experiment with ChatGPT as a peer reviewer.

It’s an exciting—and nerve-wracking—time. But the chancellor has learned what business communication faculty knew from the beginning: we have no choice but to embrace ChatGPT and other AI tools. Maybe higher-ed faculty recognize that we have little control over students, which K-12 faculty needed more time to acknowledge. We also see how businesses already use use AI as an integral part of work, and we embrace our responsibility to prepare students for this reality. In addition, our students have better foundational critical thinking and writing skills than young kids, so maybe the risks of using AI seem lower. Regardless, seeing parallels as well as divergent paths of how business communication and K-12 faculty use AI will be interesting to watch.