Universities Quiet After Election but Criticized

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

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

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

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

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

New CEOs: Lessons for Communicating Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Debate and BCom Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Poppi Soda's Prebiotic Claims

Students can analyze Poppi’s claims to see whether they pan out. Spoiler alert: You can find better ways of getting fiber into your diet than drinking soda.

Poppi’s marketing campaign embraces the "soda” label. If we believe the ads, Poppi has “none of the bad stuff.” Previously, the can label read, “Be Gut Happy (and) Be Gut Healthy.”

A lawsuit argues that Poppi is essentially sugary water. According to the plaintiffs, with only a few grams of prebiotics in each can, someone would need to drink multiple cans to get the dietary benefit. The sugar content, which is unhealthy and causes digestive issues for some people, offsets any potential benefits. To be fair, 5 grams of sugar is much better than the 39 grams in a Coke, but it’s still 5 grams more than, say, water.

The company responded:

We are proud of the Poppi brand and stand behind our products. We are on a mission to revolutionize soda for the next generation of soda drinkers, and we have diligently innovated to provide a tasting experience that millions of people have come to enjoy. We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we will vigorously defend against these allegations.

Notice no mention of gut benefits in this statement—or in the ad, which is post-lawsuit. The suit is still pending, and Poppi may be downplaying previous claims, focusing instead on the taste, which is good. After all, it’s soda.

New Starbucks CEO's Offer Letter, With Big Perks

A public filing shows students a sample executive offer letter. In this case, the new Starbucks CEO gets benefits that raise questions of integrity.

Earlier, I wrote about the GLAAD executive chief’s benefits—in the $25,000 range for a summer place. Starbucks is grappling with optics on a different scale: a 1,000-mile commute for the CEO, which runs counter to the company’s sustainability image. A company spokesperson confirmed that Brian Niccol, rather than relocate, will make the trek from his home in California to Seattle three days a week, which is required by the company’s hybrid work policy.

Niccol’s offer letter indicates a $1.6 million annual salary, up to $7.2 million in bonuses, and up to $23 million in stock. All that isn’t (perhaps shockingly) outlandish considering other CEOs’ compensation. But the environmental impact is an issue of integrity. The company is making a big, visible decision inconsistent with its stated values. “Planet” is featured prominently on the Starbucks website and includes this promise:

Our vision for the future is to become resource positive—giving back more than we take from the planet. And we know we can’t do it alone. It takes all of us.

Does “all” include the CEO?

GLAAD and Crisis Management

GLAAD, an LGBTQ advocacy nonprofit, is in the news because of the chief executive’s “lavish spending.” With a particular eye on the nonprofit organization, an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review highlights what we teach in crisis communication classes.

Joan Gerry, a nonprofit leadership expert and coach, uses the GLAAD example to remind nonprofit leaders, including boards of directors, how to avoid similar crises. She offers advice in the the following areas:

1. The media loves scandals … and if you take on the powerful, prepare for backlash.

2. All decisions have optics. Optics matter.

3. Building leadership is about more than one person.

4. Board members must understand their role, and be ready to play it.

What differs in Gerry’s advice for nonprofits compared to for-profit businesses is that they often operate from a place of scarcity. For example, executive director recruitment may be more difficult, so extravagant packages may be offered. In addition, what might be commonplace in a for-profit company’s CEO package is scrutinized in a nonprofit leader’s package. The contrast between a staff member’s benefits and clients’/recipients’ needs can seem shocking. The disparity makes the “optics” worse for nonprofit leaders and raises questions of integrity.

Resignation Statements

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned after the assassination attempt of former President Trump, and President Biden decided not to run again for office. Students can compare both statements.

Despite the dramatic, marching-band resignations students might see on TikTok, job resignation letters should focus on goodwill. What’s different about these political messages is that the reasons are provided—sometimes.

Cheatle ended her term in a message to staff that became public. After a grueling hearing with lawmakers about the agency’s failure to protect former President Trump from a shooter, she may have had little choice in the decision. In her email, she wrote, “As your Director, I take full responsibility for the security lapse.” Her main objectives are to reassure staff and boost their confidence. She does this by praising their work and encouraging them to stay focused. Her resignation decision—the main point—is at the end instead of up front, as we teach for messages, including bad news, particularly when it’s obvious or expected.

President Biden’s (some would say long-awaited) decision to decline the Democratic party’s nomination came on X. Unlike Cheatle, he doesn’t give a reason. He makes no mention of the criticism about his debate performance and concerns about his mental and physical health, which is to be expected. He simply says, “I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term.” More significantly, he endorses Vice President Harris and includes a photo of them walking together, impeding other candidates’ chances of nomination.

President Biden’s comment about Cheatle’s resignation is notable: “As a leader, it takes honor, courage and incredible integrity to take full responsibility for an organization tasked with one of the most challenging jobs in public service.” Modifier issue aside, he compliments the character dimensions many hoped he would have demonstrated since the debate debacle.

I’m categorizing these examples under “bad-news message,” although many see both as good news, which is often the case.

AI Tools Help (a Lot) During Interviews

A Business Insider article says we shouldn’t call it “cheating,” but using these interview AI tools seems like cheating to me.

Final Round AI will revise a resume, generate a cover letter, and run mock interviews. After an interview, it will summarize, follow up, and somehow—coming later this year—negotiate a salary. But wait, there’s more: Its Copilot product (no relation to Microsoft’s) will transcribe the interview and, in real time, provide sample answers to questions. Cofounder and CEO Michael Guan says, "It can prompt the candidates with the right thing to say at the right time. Like a magical teleprompter, using AI."

Although intended only as a meeting transcription service, Otter.AI is being used as a "proxy interview" tool. This could involve the candidate lip-syncing as someone else answers questions for them. Other tools, like Interview Buddy, provide sample responses or bullet points for the candidate, but Interview Buddy stops short of technical questions, which the CEO says would be "kind of crossing the line, where it's not actually in the interest of the candidate or the employer if they're getting information that they don't actually know."

Students should consider ethical issues of using these types of tools. Where does AI assistance cross a line so that students are no longer representing themselves, which raises questions of integrity and authenticity? How would students answer questions from the Framework for Ethical Decision Making (Chapter 1 of Business Communication and Character, Figure 7)?

From a practical perspective, are students setting themselves up for failure in a job? Guan says using AI reflects a candidate’s “ingenuity,” and he isn’t concerned about results on the job: "If they can use AI to crush an interview, they can for sure continue using AI to become the top performer in their daily jobs.” Can they? Any job? Maybe they can perform only the type of job that is increasingly rare because AI is already doing the lower-end work.

PNC Bets on "Boring”

PNC Bank is betting on boring to attract customers. The campaign illustrates persuasive strategies, and a CEO interview is on-brand.

With an ad labeled “Boring Is Essential,” PNC is appealing to customers living in turbulent times. Given the recent inflation, tight housing market, political uncertainty, and climate change, it’s a compelling message.

During a Bloomberg interview, Chairman and CEO Bill Demchak said, “Banking shouldn’t be drama for our clients. It ought to be predictable, consistent, stuff works, their money’s safe. . . .” Although he also says, “I don’t necessarily like to think of myself as a boring person,” his office setting and demeanor might communicate otherwise—and maybe that’s not a bad thing these days.

PNC is not alone. During the interview, we see a chart showing the number of times bank management used the word “boring” during calls in the past couple of years.

Students will draw connections with business communication course concepts, for example, credibility and trust. PNC is selling its history and stability, ensuring customers that their money will be safe.

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.

Harvard's New Stance

In a short report, Harvard has clarified when it will, and will not, speak out about world events. One question is what neutrality means in practice.

With this report, a faculty working group provides guidance to university administration. Other universities, such as Northwestern and Stanford, have taken similar positions—that is, to avoid having one. The Harvard group steers clear of condoning “institutional neutrality,” but their stance is similar to the others’: to weigh in only on matters related to the “core functions” of the university, for example, affirmative action and education taxation. This seems a bit obvious but may be important to specify.

The report is uncharacteristically short for an academic paper—a mere three pages including more than a half-page of credits. The main point is in the fifth paragraph: “The university and its leaders should not, however, issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.” At the center of the decision is the integrity of the university: speaking up in accordance with its values and mission. Otherwise, as administrators have learned the hard way, an administration can never represent all views; they don’t, and shouldn’t, speak for everyone. Students might analyze the report and interview responses from the faculty who chaired the committee.

As we might expect, the policy provides cover for administrators. The report authors are explicit about this benefit: “When pressure builds on the university to make an official statement, as will sometimes happen, the university should refer publicly to its policy.”

This quieter approach follows the practice of corporations and nonprofit organizations, who learned their lessons sooner and less publicly than universities did. Today, we hear little about world events from company leaders. During an interview this week with Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, the interviewer observed, “corporate activism is on its way out.”

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.

OpenAI and Johansson Comms

In what The New York Times refers to as a “lengthy statement,” actress Scarlett Johansson describes OpenAI’s use of a voice that sounds like hers. This situation offers much to explore with students, for example, integrity, brand reputation, voice recognition, deepfakes/synthetic media, and of course, writing.

Apparently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman asked Johansson whether the new ChatGPT could use her voice. She declined, but the company may have used it, anyway. Altman seemed to confirm doing so in a post that refers to the movie Her, which starred Johansson as an affectionate virtual assistant. OpenAI agreed to pull her voice, and Altman tweeted, “also for clarity: the new voice mode hasn't shipped yet (though the text mode of GPT-4o has). what you can currently use in the app is the old version. the new one is very much worth the wait!”

A few days later, OpenAI published a statement about how voices are selected and explained that the likeness to Johansson’s was just that, a likeliness, recorded by an unnamed actor. Even so, Altman’s post seems to fuel the controversy.

I’m stuck on the NYT description of Johansson’s statement as “lengthy.” It’s 312 words. Business communication students can identify the communication objectives and decide whether they agree with this characterization. If it’s too long, what could be omitted? I’m not finding much fluff in her explanation of what happened and the significance.

Maybe the comparison is to Altman’s single-word Her, which might be enough to hit his own communication objectives. One writer’s view is that this situation illustrates OpenAI as ”a company with little regard for the value of creative work led by a scheming, untrustworthy operator.” The story may have raised the profile of ChatGPT but hasn’t helped OpenAI’s reputation.

Lawyer Speaks Out Against Musk Pay

A lawyer who spoke against Elon Musk’s Tesla salary claims he was ousted by the company as a result. The situation illustrates persuasive communication and character.

Retired law professor of corporate governance Charles Elson of the University of Delaware planned to submit a legal brief to dispute a $56 billion package for Musk. Students can analyze the legal brief, which the judge referred to as “persuasive.” For a legal document, it’s an unusually fun read, including the footnotes, the first of which clarifies, “Musk did not actually found Tesla, but he was a very early investor and its fourth CEO.”

Here’s an excerpt:

Elon Musk is not unique. Musk is an archetype that we have seen before and will see again: a confident, charismatic founder¹ with world-class sales ability and a “reality distortion field”² that inspires outsized enthusiasm in customers and employees alike. Musk is very special, but he is not a one of a kind.

Bill Gates. Jeff Bezos. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Brin. Sergey Page. Not one was an “ordinary executive” or “typical CEO.”³ Each was “intimately involved in all aspects of [their companies’] operations,” and “instrumental in transforming” it.⁴ Each had “a proven track record of visionary, transformational leadership[.]”⁵

None was paid like Elon Musk.

Elson says that Tesla threatened to drop him as a legal consultant if he filed the opposing letter. Elson struck back, calling the move “extraordinary and appalling” and “a fig leaf for Musk, acting through Tesla, to try to bully a law professor by making a serious economic threat to a law firm with which the professor had a consulting relationship.” He also said, “I was shocked by the whole thing,” but if you have to choose between your job and your integrity, you choose your integrity every time.” The law firm denies being pressured by Tesla to remove Elson, instead staying that his views were “inconsistent with the firm’s obligations to its client.”

For his part, Musk threatened to move the business to Texas if his compensation isn’t approved. Musk is not known for his humility.

Image source.

Arguments About the Noncompete Clause

As students sign employment agreements, they might be interested in researching arguments for and against the noncompete clause. Here are a few sources for students to explore:

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated a new rule that U.S. employers can no longer include noncompete clauses:

  • The 570-page “Final Rule” document

  • Summary “Fact Sheet” that quantifies benefits of reducing healthcare costs, allowing new businesses, increasing innovation, and increasing worker earnings

  • CNN interview with FTC Chair Lina Kahn, who claims that the FTC has “clear legal authority” to institute the ban

The FTC rule distinguishes between “senior executives” (who earn more than $151,164 per year and make policy decisions) and the rest of us. Noncompete clauses may remain for executives and not for the many bartenders, hairstylists, and others who are currently subjected to these contract restrictions. Still, business associations aren’t happy with the FTC rule.

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit against the FTC. The organization focuses on “reasonable noncompete agreements,” not those that, for example, limit people from working within “hundreds of miles away or many years after leaving a job.” The suit questions the FTC’s authority and claims “irreparable harm to businesses and employees” and argues for delaying implementation.

• Ryan, a tax company in Texas, also filed suit, announced in this news release. The firm’s focus is on damage to “IP protections and talent development and retention.”

Students will find additional arguments—and will have their own experiences and ideas to share. If they have signed employment contracts, they could compare the noncompete clauses, and they might reconsider signing such an agreement in the future.

Image source.

Activist Investor Letter and Railroad's Response

As activist investor Ancora tries to change Norfolk Southern railroad’s leadership, students can analyze persuasive communications from both sides.

The Ancora letter to shareholders itemizes what they consider “failures of governance” and "the Board’s poor judgment.” Many of the points relate to the hiring of a new COO—the third in the past two and a half years—whom they think is unsuitable, partly because of accusations about his “abusive behavior and serious misconduct.” The activists say the railroad held an insufficient search and overpaid the chosen candidate. Students can analyze the letter in terms of organization (main points in the introduction?), formatting (excessive underlining!), and evidence.

In an interview on CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Cramer, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw defended the decision. Cramer challenges him a bit about the COO but, overall, the interview is favorable. Clearly, he’s a fan, supporting what Shaw says about delivering on promises during his short time with the company. As any CEO would, Shaw minimized the February 2023 train derailment in Ohio, which released toxic chemicals. He said, “Yeah, we had a challenge last year, but we met that challenge head on.” Later, he refers to it as “East Palestine” (typonym rhetorical device?), which makes the incident feels unspeakable.

Cramer is indignant when he learns that the railroad offered Ancora two board seats, and the activists didn’t accept them. Ancora doesn’t mention this in its letter. The activists want what Shaw describes as “wholesale change,” which he believes would be too disruptive. Cramer compares the situation to Disney, which students also can research.

For more, see this “fireside chat” with Shaw, another interview ahead of the shareholders meeting on May 9.

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.

Chick-fil-A's New "Chicken Commitment"

Chick-fil-A had a difficult announcement to make, changing its No Antibiotics Ever (NAE) policy to some antibiotics. Students can analyze the message for its audience focus, persuasive strategies, and issues of integrity.

The message begins with the reason: “To maintain supply of the high-quality chicken you expect from us.” The opening implies that, without this new strategy, consumers might not get good chicken, setting the reader up to agree with whatever the company needs to meet that standard.

The change is right up front: from no antibiotics to some. Although this is jarring at first—“No Antibiotics Ever (NAE)” is quite a “commitment”—the message is clear. Chick-fil-A admits and focuses on the change. Maybe the NAE plan wasn’t realistic to begin with. They could say more explicitly that NAE was established in 2014, and new threats require reevaluating the policy.

But the message audience is likely not consumers. The acronyms NAE and NAIHM mean something only to Chick-fil-A and industry insiders. I wonder how much consumers even care about the decision. Do they choose Chick-fil-A because they don’t (or haven’t until now) used antibiotics in the chicken, or do they go because it tastes good, and they like the service, speed, or fries and other sides?

Regardless, the frame is now about “restricting the use of those antibiotics that are important to human medicine”; in other words, only the necessary kinds for chicken. The focus is on limiting, and the message downplays that yes, they will now use antibiotics. They also don’t explain the difference between human medicine and other animal antibiotics. In this Northeastern University article, a food expert describes concerns about using any antibiotics and calls the move a “dangerous precedent for other food companies to follow.” He also challenges Chick-fil-A’s focus on supply and says the decision is, no surprise, really about profits:

They’re saying that the availability of the supply is not there; it is there, apparently. It’s just the availability at the price point they’re willing to pay is not there to maintain their profit margins. When they’re trying to defend their actions, they’re not talking about science and medicine and health.

The message raises issues of integrity because of what’s missing—lying by omission. Without more explanations, the company fails to acknowledge the potential downsides of the decision and focuses on restrictions instead of actual use. And yet, this is what we expect companies to do: to present themselves in the best possible light.

After the introduction shown above, the message identifies three short explanations about quality, animal well-being, and continuous evaluation. I admire Chick-fil-A’s candor in lines like this: “Like other chicken in the United States, ours contains no added hormones.” They’re not trying to distinguish themselves. On the contrary, the entire message, with large font, is so short and colorful that the words draw little attention.

Kate Middleton's Health Announcement

After weeks of silence and the predictable conspiracy theories, the Princess of Wales announced her cancer diagnosis in a video. Students can analyze the message and discuss issues of privacy and integrity, which I raised last week.

Kate Middleton likely chose a video message instead of the typical written statement because of rumors about her failing marriage and death. Royal family PR experts view the message positively, a way to take back the narrative. In part, her message explains her silence:

As you can imagine, this has taken time. It has taken me time to recover from major surgery in order to start my treatment. But, most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that is appropriate for them, and to reassure them that I am going to be ok.

Where are the lines between privacy and public responsibility? We might see an analogy to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s reluctance to disclose his health issues. Like most analogies, this one is imperfect. Secretary Austin has, dare I say, clearer job responsibilities with greater potential consequences than does Kate Middleton. The royal family’s silence seems to hurt only themselves, similar to the situation when Princess Diana died. Still, they are all public figures, paid by taxpayers.

Yet speculation about Kate Middleton has been brutal, and no one deserves that. Her appearance takes speculators to task. She demonstrates vulnerability as a strength, owning her illness and asking for what she and her family needs:

We hope that you will understand that, as a family, we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment. My work has always brought me a deep sense of joy and I look forward to being back when I am able, but for now I must focus on making a full recovery.

Her request is reasonable and, now that she has broken the silence, should be respected, but we’ll see.