#Desperate to Work and Willing to Be Vulnerable

A Wall Street Journal article describes increasing popularity of the LinkedIn banner, “Desperate.” Students might discuss the value of vulnerability and whether they would use the banner given the tough job market for recent grads.

A few months ago, I wrote about the “Open to Work” banner, but the urgency to find a job has escalated for some seekers. The pink is glaring, and the message is clear, but as we might expect, the results are less clear, according to the WSJ report:

The #Desperate banner draws even more attention to someone’s need for a job. Recruiters say the tag could help people get noticed and hired. It also could backfire, because some hiring managers might see it as a signal that someone caused problems in their previous workplace.

Brené Brown has made vulnerability a household word, and we know the value. Allowing ourselves to risk emotional exposure inspires connection, and that may be true for job seekers. Those with the banner report receiving good support from others, if not full-time offers. One poster said, “I don’t think the desperate banner takes away my confidence or bravery,” while another said, “Frankly, as a victim of redundancy, I am desperate, and I don’t think that’s anything to be ashamed of.” 

My guess is that the banner will be short lived. The bold color and novelty draw attention that might fizzle the more we see it. I also hope the job market for this cohort improves, which would reduce the desperation and the need.

Image source.

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.

British Royal Family and the "Information Vacuum"

The British royal family (which, I just realized, has its own website), is facing pressure because of edited photos and secrecy about health issues.

News outlets have retracted a photo of the Princess of Wales, aka Kate Middleton, hugging her three children on U.K. Mother’s Day. The princess is an amateur photographer, as she explains in her apology, which came more than a long day after the news broke. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the retraction is unusual but happened because the photos were so obviously edited. The family didn’t share the original photo, raising questions about what exactly was changed.

The reporter described the family’s secrecy regarding recent health issues as well. The princess underwent “abdominal surgery,” while the king is undergoing treatment for cancer. The vague descriptions seem only to fuel speculation. As the WSJ reporter says and business communicators know happens, in an “information vacuum, conspiracy theories have come to rest.”

He also raises ethical and regulatory issues, reminding us that “this is a partly taxpayer-funded monarchy, and they have constitutional roles . . . to uphold.” They need to balance individual privacy with their obligation to keep the public informed about their health.

A Princeton sociology and public policy professor has a different take, questioning the “We pay, they pose” mentality. She also challenges a double standard between calls for Catherine’s privacy and no similar respect for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. These differences could be explored with students as well.

Still, the princess’s photo was an attempt to show that everything is alright, perhaps even perfect, which is why people doctor images—to delete imperfections. But her editing has revealed the opposite: that everything is, literally, not right. The situation raises issues of integrity and trust, integrity meaning wholeness and consistency. When the family releases photos in the future, they will be scrutinized more closely.

Stanley Responds to Lead Concerns

Stanley cups are all the rage, but a recent lead scare caused the company to respond. People are posting their home lead tests online, which raises questions about evidence.

The company responded to concerns with a short statement on its website, which students can analyze. The main point is somewhere in the middle, after the explanation. They acknowledge using lead according to industry standards but assure us that it’s “inaccessible.”

TikTokers and others are showing positive home tests, but a BBC article quotes NYU Public Health Professor Jack Caravanos, who confirms Stanley’s claim:

“There appears to be lead, according to the report, but I had trouble detecting it and wasn’t able to detect it using state-of-the-art equipment." He says this is probably because the lead was "too deep inside the unit," meaning it would be very tough to be exposed to it or ingest it.

He does express disappointment that Stanley is using lead at all. The company isn’t complying with California’s Proposition 65, which requires companies to disclose any amount of lead. In the statement and on the website FAQs, Stanley attests, “all Stanley items comply with Prop 65 and FDA requirements,” but they didn’t specifically disclose that products use lead—until they posted the statement addressing concerns.

Students might have their own experience with Stanley cups and can discuss how they reacted to videos. Are they swayed by them? Has fear driven them to discarded their custom-engraved, nail-polish-matched Quencher? Does a public health professor’s test change their opinion?

Despite the company’s lack of complete transparency, it would be unfortunate if sales take a hit because of false information. Maybe the dramatic sales increase for Stanley—a little-known thermos company turned $750-million internet craze—made it vulnerable to deceptive claims.

Image source.

Jelly Roll Speaks Out and Demonstrates Character

Not often do we see a rapper turned country music artist in front of congress. Students might be interested in discussing Jelly Roll’s character and analyzing his persuasive statement.

With a history of addiction, selling drugs, and jail time, Jelly Roll is open about his past. His hit “Save Me” (and others), his inspiring speech when he won the Country Music Award for New Artist of the Year, and his tearful video when he learned he received two Emmy nominations demonstrate his vulnerability and gratitude for his new life. We learn more about Jelly Roll during a CBS Sunday Morning interview, when he talks about being in therapy and says, “I think it’s cool to think about vulnerability that way—that we can all grow together, and that it’s OK to not have it figured out. . . .” Correspondent Kelefa Sanneh also noted his authenticity, among other character dimensions: “Songs like ‘Song of a Sinner’ and ‘Need a Favor’ make fans feel as if they really know him and believe in him.”

In his testimony to encourage lawmakers to pass a bill to sanction drug traffickers, Jelly Roll uses several persuasion strategies we teach in business communication classes. With a tattooed face, Jelly Roll started with a joke about having a microphone for performing. Then he captures attention with data about the number of people who will die from drug overdose during his five-minute testimony. He uses other logical appeals, including this poignant analogy about the average number of people who die every day in the United States of fentanyl overdose:

Could you imagine the national media attention it would get if they were reporting that a plane was crashing every single day and killing 190 people?

Students may have a lot to say about the speech, which demonstrates credibility, logical argument, and emotion appeal. In some respects, he risks little. He is vulnerable, speaking of his wife’s addiction and a past he might prefer to forget, but his advocacy is unlikely to affect his career negatively: he’s getting positive publicity and his role might endear people toward him. Still, he demonstrates integrity by being consistent in his music and in his life. He is making “living amends,” as people do in Twelve Step programs: taking positive steps when apologies aren’t possible or enough.

Image source.

Disclosing an Illness

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III delayed telling the White House about his prostate cancer, which raises questions about whether or when a corporate executive should disclose an illness.

At a news conference on January 9, Pentagon Press Secretary Gen. Patrick Ryder apologized for failing to notify proper channels when Austin was hospitalized:

I recognized that I should have tried to learn more and to press for an earlier public acknowledgement. So I want to offer my apologies and my pledge to learn from this experience. And I will do everything I can to meet the standard that you expect from us.

He also said, “Secretary Austin has taken responsibility for the issues with transparency.”

Leaders might naturally avoid disclosing an illness. A palliative care doctor said, “It’s very human to not want to have yourself sort of flayed open for the world to see.” He’s describing vulnerability, or emotional exposure. Others say it’s a coping mechanism, trying to control the uncontrollable. Compartmentalization—to a point—is a useful way to deal with a diagnosis. But experts warn that being too secretive can lead to isolation and may not get people the help they need.

Austin’s situation reminds me of others who have disclosed illnesses for good reasons. Alex Trebek, long-time Jeopardy! host announced is illness on air. He described his rationale for the message about his stage 4 pancreatic cancer diagnosis: to be “open and transparent” and to avoid “overblown or inaccurate reports.” His diagnosis has a particularly low survival rate, so the decision might have been easier for him, as he accepted his likely death. For different reasons, Senator John Fetterman revealed his mental health struggles, which was lauded as courageous and a way to normalize depression.

For corporate CEOs, the decision to disclose health issues is complicated because of the potential impact on customer, employee, or investor confidence. Famously, Steve Jobs downplayed and delayed disclosing his pancreatic cancer and other health issues, which was highly criticized for its impact on, for example, investor decision making, and was a troubling situation for some board members.

According to this Harvard Law article, “Best Practices for Disclosing Executive Health Issues,” the obligation for public disclosure is limited:

If a senior executive is incapacitated and therefore unable to perform his or her duties, disclosure is required (particularly if the executive performs certain roles [9] or is otherwise reasonably believed to be critical to the success of the company).

In addition to reviewing the risks and approaches, including a communication plan, the article authors provide examples of companies that gave full disclosures, mixed disclosures, and “The Silent Treatment.” They conclude: “Most risk arises from partial disclosures or “half-truths”—which should be avoided. Sometimes silence with respect to executive health is the best policy.” Maybe, but I’ll also quote a university communication executive: “The trust will come out.”

Corporate executives have difficult choices in these situations. In this case, Austin didn’t really have a decision to make: he should have followed protocol and did not.

Image source.

Communication Issues Around Harvard President Resignation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

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.

Is Snoop Dogg Vulnerable or Self-Promoting?

Snoop Dogg’s November 16 announcement that he’s quitting “smoke” sounds as though he’s struggling with a marijuana addiction. But further inspection raises questions about his intentions.

Snoop Dogg has a few cannabis-related businesses. He owns the marijuana brand Leafs by Snoop and Uncle Snoop’s, which launched Snazzle Os, onion-flavored, infused crispy snacks. Other planned projects include virtual cannabis items “authenticated by non-fungible tokens [NFTs].” A partnership with Martha Stewart produced Best Buds Bags, fancy bags to hold the duo’s BIC EZ Reach lighters on the outside.

One day (November 15) before his giving-it-up announcement, Snoop was quoted about the bag:

“This bag’s got it all. From my favorite lighter, favorite color, and dime-sized secret stash pockets to stash my favorite herbs.”

On November 19, he announced that he’s partnering with a smokeless fire pit maker, Solo Stove:

I love a good fire outside, but the smoke was too much. Solo Stove fixed fire and took out the smoke. They changed the game, and now I’m excited to spread the love and stay warm with my friends and family,

Vulnerability is great unless it’s used for personal gain; then, it’s inauthentic and more like persuasion or manipulation. To be fair, he didn’t specify what kind of smoke he was quitting, but X replies indicate I’m not the only one who drew the cannabis conclusion. Maybe this was intended as a joke, but I didn’t find it funny.

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.

The Art of the Business Leader Interview

David Rubenstein’s Peer to Peer show on Bloomberg TV is a window into business and political leaders’ lives—and how to approach such an interview. The website, also a YouTube channel, has dozens of interviews. I wish the representation were better, but students can watch someone who interests them and analyze the questions and answers.

In one recent clip, Galaxy Digital Founder and CEO Mike Novogratz refers to Sam Bankman-Fried as a “sociopath.” This segment illustrates how a leader admits his own failings: although he didn’t invest with with SBF, Novogratz acknowledges doing business with him and losing money. Then again, he says, “I just never assumed I’m dealing with a sociopath. It’s hard to risk-manage against that.”

Instructors might ask students to identify ways in which leaders demonstrates character dimensions, for example, authenticity, humility, integrity, and vulnerability.

Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication

A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.

By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.

Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.

AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.

I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.

This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.

A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.

At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.

Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide

In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.

Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.

The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.

Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.

The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.

But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.

---

We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.

April 30, 2023

The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.

As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.

Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.

In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.

In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.

Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.

Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:

• Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.

• Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.

• Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.

• Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.

• Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.

• Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.

There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.

"Intense" Google All-Hands Meeting

A window into a Google employee meeting reveals strife within the company and how executives are responding by redefining/clarifying strategy and downplaying problems. Employees are still frustrated about the embarrassing introduction of Bard, Google’s AI competitor to ChatGPT. In the exchange, below, Bard product lead Jack Krawczyk tried to distinguish the engine from search, which employees say differs from the initial strategy. A new feature, “Search It,” is newly built for internal use for this purpose.

[Employee Question] “Bard and ChatGPT are large language models, not knowledge models. They are great at generating human-sounding text, they are not good at ensuring their text is fact-based. Why do we think the big first application should be Search, which at its heart is about finding true information?”

Krawczyk responded by immediately saying, “I just want to be very clear: Bard is not search.”

“It’s an experiment that’s a collaborative AI service that we talked about,” Krawczyk said. “The magic that we’re finding in using the product is really around being this creative companion to helping you be the sparkplug for imagination, explore your curiosity, etc.”

But Krawczyk was quick to follow up by saying, “we can’t stop users from trying to use it like search.”

CEO Sundar Pichai stressed improvements over time, downplaying Bard’s factual error, which overshadowed the rollout and caused Alphabet’s 9% stock decline. He said, “It’s important to acknowledge that it’s experimental, and “Products like this get better the more the people who use them. It’s a virtuous cycle.”

At some point, Pichai acknowledged, “It’s an intense time.” The meeting sounded rough, showing us the difficulty of facing employees in real time. All-hands meetings like this take leaders’ patience and sometimes call for vulnerability, which isn’t apparent from these quotes. From the reported excerpts, it’s difficult to gauge how employees responded, but the intensity, as Pichai said, is clear.

Comms About Dilbert Cancellation

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

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

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

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

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

Fetterman Admits Depression

Newly elected Senator John Fetterman went public about his depression, and his wife is contributing to the messaging. Months after his stroke and a tight run-off election, Fetterman’s health may be a more prominent news topic than he would like. His decision illustrates character dimensions of vulnerability and courage—and offers opportunities for compassion. According to news reports, reactions are favorable, overall.

John Fetterman’s wife, Gisele, tweeted this note and the official statement from the senator’s office. The message is short and, despite the unfortunate line spacing error, says what it needs to say.

Gisele Fetterman also tweeted, “Thank you for sharing your personal challenges and being so vulnerable with us over the past couple of days. This one felt really important to pass on.” She posted the anonymous note:

I just wanted to say this: today I went to therapy for the first time in my life. It’s been over a decade since I was diagnosed with depression, but I never wanted to ask anyone for help with it. But seeing that one of the toughest people I’ve ever talked to did the same thing today reassured me that I was making the right choice.

Students might see positive results from being vulnerable despite the risks. In a pinned tweet, Giselle Fetterman wrote, “Pennsylvania, the spouse of your new senator is a formerly undocumented immigrant. Thank you.”

Toyota's Messages as Intercultural Comm Examples

Toyota’s messages about executive changes are good examples of how these announcements vary by culture. CEO and President Akio Toyoda (the family name spelling) has served in the position for 13 years. Unlike Reed Hastings, who served for 25 years at Netflix and also announced his move to chairman this week, Toyoda wasn’t a company founder, but his grandfather was, so his tenure is important. And yet, we see what looks like fanfare compared to the Netflix announcement. Here are the communications, and I’ll comment below:

• TMC Announces Changes to Executive Structure. A webpage includes links to other communications and handy “current” and “new” tables showing changes.

• Toyota Times News Special Live Broadcast. For more than an hour and a half, outgoing and incoming executives discuss the decision.

• Passing Toyota's Presidency Baton from Akio Toyoda to Koji Sato. Another page includes remarks from the incoming and outcoming CEOs, transcribed from the video.

Here are a few ways the remarks differ from typical U.S. messages, and I’m sure that students will find more:

• In the introduction and in his remarks, Akio Toyoda says the decision was “triggered by Chairman Uchiyamada’s resignation.” This is a way for the outgoing CEO to save face—as though his removal is based on a board opening.

• He also demonstrates humility and vulnerability in ways we don’t typically see from an outgoing U.S. CEO. He mentions, “I was appointed president immediately after our company’s fall into the red due to the global financial crisis,” and “Following that, our company faced a series of crises that threatened our survival, such as the global recall crisis and the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Although the financial crisis and earthquake were out of the company’s control, the recalls were self-inflicted, and I’m surprised to hear him remind the press. At the same time, that crisis was early in his tenure and rather unforgettable, including testimony on Capitol Hill.

• Toyoda also says, ”There was a time when Mr. Sato was struggling with what he should convey at a Lexus dealer convention.” Toyoda advised, “Rather than try to be like me, I want you to value your individuality.” Toyoda tells the story to illustrate Sato’s “love” for company products. Still, I wonder whether a U.S. CEO would reveal such a vulnerability—”struggling” was the translation—of an incoming executive.

• Twice in his short speech, Toyoda mentions Sato’s “youth,” and he says, “Being young is itself a key attribute.” This comment would be highly unlikely in the U.S., where age discrimination laws might cause older executives to immediately call their lawyers. (Also surprising: Toyoda is 66, while Sato is 53.)

• Only once do either of the executives mention EV, which is arguably the real reason Akio Toyoda is stepping down. He has resisted the move to EV and, as a result, Toyota is behind other car companies. In his closing remarks, Sato refers to “accelerating the shift to electrification”—a funny, but translated and probably unintentional car reference.

New Zealand PM Resignation

Jacinda Ardern’s announcement of her resignation as the prime minister of New Zealand is a good example for students to analyze. In addition to the obvious discussion about delivery skills and script writing, Ardern demonstrates several character dimensions, for example, humility, vulnerability, authenticity, and integrity. Her decision also raises issues of gender roles, as this opinion article explains.

Southwest Communications

This week’s debacle will make a great case study. As other airlines recovered from the storms, Southwest lagged. Here are a few communications for students to analyze and compare. For an assignment, students could act as consultants advising the company on their messaging or assessing the ethics and character issues demonstrated throughout this time.

CEO Bob Jordan’s video message. Students have a lot to analyze in this example: the apology, explanation of what went wrong, audience perspective, communication objectives, plans for the future, delivery style, etc. The persuasive video raises questions of accountability, compassion, humility, vulnerability, and other character dimensions. Students can identify which Jordan demonstrates and which are lacking.

Southwest webpage. A link to this page is prominent on the Southwest homepage. Customer can find “Travel disruption information,” including how to request a refund and locate baggage. Students can analyze how well the site is organized and how easily users can find what they need.

Employee interview on Democracy Now! What are the character and ethical issues associated with an employee defending staff yet speaking out against the company? The interviewed employee blames Southwest’s technology and says union employees have been asking for changes for years. This raises integrity issues for airline management.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg interview. Buttigieg gave several interviews distinguishing Southwest’s performance from other airlines that struggled but recovered. He defended the Department of Transportation’s recent push for airlines to do right by customers. Critics say the secretary is using the moment for political gain.

Public Talk of Layoffs

I remember when people where ashamed of being laid off. Old movies show men leaving for “work” months after they no longer had a job.

Today, people find community in discussing their fate, and they use their favorite platform—sometimes their former employer—to share their stories. Partly, the shame is lifted because of the numbers: 11,000 at Meta; 10,000 at Amazon; 3,700 at Twitter; 950 at Salesforce; and many others. In a colorful, but mostly unreadable chart, TrueUp logged 192,997 so far in 2022. (Maybe the logos could be scalable?)

The unfortunately named Blind app connects employees in several industries, particularly tech (95% of Twitter employees signed up). Students can review comments for an inside scoop just as they do on Glassdoor.

I feel encouraged by the public postings. In addition to the obvious compassion and vulnerability, the stories—good and bad about the layoff process and communication—keeps employers on their toes. Also, people are finding new jobs, and this will get easier as the market, once again, opens up.