Airbnb Criticized for "Touristification"

Airbnb is planning staged gladiator fights in the Roman Colosseum, which some consider disrespectful of the 1st century amphitheater. Students can discuss the ethics of similar types of tourism and how companies promote them.

The Event Promotion

Promoting a new movie, Gladiator II, Airbnb lures guests into one of its Experiences:

For centuries, the Roman Colosseum has been the stage for epic battles and legendary gladiators. Now, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the Colosseum returns to its original purpose as a venue for performances, inviting daring warriors to step foot inside the historic arena to forge their own paths and shape their destinies.

Language describing the event reminds me of what analysts are saying about the U.S. presidential election results:

• Suit up and unleash your inner gladiator inside Rome’s legendary arena.

• Discover if you have what it takes to conquer the Colosseum and emerge victorious.

Airbnb might have predicted criticism. The end of the promotion includes “Airbnb’s commitment to heritage”:

These special experiences at the Colosseum follow a series of measures and commitments by the platform to revitalize heritage tourism in Europe, including donations to heritage across Europe for over ten million dollars.

As part of this program, Airbnb is offering its support to the restoration and enhancement of Colosseum’s heritage, including an ongoing project to restore the permanent exhibition at the Colosseum.

The Response

Critics say, ”Rome is not Disneyland,” and call the event “a disgrace” and “touristification.” Local agencies, already struggling with tourism, called the event “a demeaning use of our historical-artistic heritage.”

Airbnb responded to criticism with a statement to news outlets, referring to “authorities in Rome,” who provided their own statement. The company promised to “enhance the historical and cultural heritage of the amphitheater through immersive activities in full respect of the monument, based on rigorous historical research,” with a focus on “conservation, education and innovation.” Federico Mollicone, a member of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, describes his support:

The archaeological park of the Colosseum did well to sign a memorandum of understanding with the historical re-enactment associations also guaranteeing tourists a gladiator show of high scientific quality coordinated by ministry officials of Culture. . . . We reiterate our absolute favor for the agreement between public and private in culture, through partnerships or sponsorships, provided that they support initiatives that are of scientific and cultural value approved by the Ministry of Culture.

Airbnb deflected accountability, although the company’s name is still associated with the event, and anyone will recognize Airbnb’s “innovation” in developing the idea. Another relevant character dimension is integrity—upholding integrity of the Colosseum, an ancient ritual, and tourism-saturated Rome.

Overtourism

This is certainly not the only case of potentially problematic tourism. Students can discuss their views on “poverty tourism,” “dark tourism,” and even “eco-tourism,” which could include virtue-signaling and potential environmental degradation. Perhaps “degrading” is a good word to consider in these discussions. What accountability do companies—and tourists—have when planning such vacations?

A useful class discussion also might include the etymology of vacation: “freedom from obligations, leisure, release" and “state of being unoccupied.” Some tourism types do seem to include a disconnection, rather than an engagement, with the place and people. Some lead to cultural appropriation, which we might call a vacation from our good sense.

What drives people to want to experience Airbnb’s Gladiator challenge? Do they want to connect with the history of the Colosseum? That is not how Airbnb is communicating the event.

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.

The Elephant/Donkey in the Room

At the 2024 International Association for Business Communication conference in Tulsa, I presented with my Cornell colleagues David Lennox and Christy McDowell about whether and how faculty might discuss U.S. election communications in their classes. Here’s the slide deck and a summary. You’ll see that we co-opted a title from the Southeastern region, which was catchier than our academic title.

We acknowledge that these conversations can be challenging and that faculty decide for themselves whether and how to engage. Tackling this topic requires courage and compassion—for instructors and for students.

Identify Benefits and Risks

We started the presentation with a few benefits about engaging the class to discuss election communications (for example, candidate debates and speeches, campaign emails and texts, ads). Faculty might see these classroom conversations as a way to model civil discourse—a training ground for students to engage others in their professional and personal lives. Faculty might want use election examples to illustrate business communication principles. In addition, faculty might feel personally motivated—a civic responsibility to discuss these messages, which students might not have an opportunity to discuss in any other class.

Then we described a risk assessment model (Kidder, Moral Courage) that includes evaluating potential ambiguity (for example, university mixed messages or unclear guidelines, whether we believe the discussion would be valuable, and perhaps, questions about our own facilitation skills). Faculty might also consider potential emotional exposure (for example, that we might get emotional or flustered during a class discussion or that we might hear student complaints). Finally, we might fear loss (for example, damaged relationships with students or colleagues, risks to tenure or promotion, or harm to students who speak out in class). We weigh the potential risks against the benefits to determine our classroom strategy.

Connect Election Communications to Course Learning Objectives

For faculty who choose to engage, we offered several course learning objectives, shown here, that connect to election communications. Closely tying any class discussion into course outcomes puts us on more solid ground, with a justifiable reason to bring examples into the classroom.

Explore Strategies to Engage with Students

Given these realities, we described strategies for approaching election communications. We all probably have ground rules, perhaps that students participated in creating. Depending on the course, these could include deeper, interpersonal guidance, such as, “Be open to others' views and appreciate differences,” and “Keep confidential discussions that the community has of a personal (or professional) nature.”

Next we applied a Rhetorical Sensitivity model to these potentially challenging classroom discussions. The rhetorically sensitive person (Hart and Burks, 1972):

• Tries to accept role‐taking as part of the human condition

• Attempts to avoid stylized verbal behavior

• Is characteristically willing to undergo the strain of adaptation

• Seeks to distinguish between all information and that information acceptable for communication

• Tries to understand that an idea can be rendered in multi‐form ways

Finally, we described Tango, a team game that Cornell Dyson students participated in during a first-year course. They had good results from the activity: “a statistically significant effect on students’ intent to get to know Cornell students of different political views.” Contact CEO Scott Warren at swarren@jhu.edu for more information about Tango.

How Presidential Candidates Are Using TikTok

Students might be interested in a Financial Times article about the presidential candidates’ TikTok strategies. The article recalls that the 2016 election was all about Facebook. This time, it’s TikTok, particularly for rallying young voters.

With 6.2 million followers, VP Harris’s page includes a video with 4 million views. She talks on the phone to a man’s granddaughter, Evie, and President Biden (still handsy!) joins in.

With 12.4 million followers, Former President Trump’s page includes a video with 13.8 million views. It’s a compilation of people I don’t know but students probably do endorsing him in Las Vegas. The song is by Nettspend, a 17-year-old rapper.

Of course, I’m cherry picking just two examples here that aren’t representative of the candidates’ social media strategies or presence. Students can draw their own conclusions based on their views.

The FT article quoted a get-out-the-vote creator: “Harris’s TikTok strategy is ‘aspirational for any brand, let alone a politician,’ where Trump’s feels ‘less native’ to TikTok and closer to traditional campaign material.” Students might identify the implications for (other) brands—a relevant topic for business communication classes.

This chart shows numbers of views, with more for Harris, despite having half the followers of Trump. This is at least partly because Harris is posting 20 times the number of videos. However, like the polls, I’m not sure their strategies or this data tell us anything about who will win the election.

New System for "Gate Lice"

American Airlines is testing a system to discourage people from crowding the gate before it’s their turn to board. Students can discuss the ethics and whether the company will achieve its objectives.

Apparently, “gate lice” is an industry term or, at least, used by American Airlines employees to describe people who jump the line. This group always baffled me: Why spend more time than you have to on the plane? According to a Washington Post article, “Experts in human behavior say travelers who mass at the gate ahead of their turn do so out of a tendency to conform —and out of a sense of competition.” More specifically, some might want to make sure they can stow (rather than check) their carryon and have it nearby if space is limited.

The new system flags these folks with an “audible signal.” One benefit is removing the responsibility of a busy gate agent, who might miss the group number or feel uncomfortable asking a passenger to step aside. However, the sound—and referring to someone as lice—seems shaming.

Feedback from rule-following passengers so far is positive. But students might consider the long-term effects of the system. After all, this is another attempt to control the unruly passenger, which is a real issue. But could this disciplinary approach change behavior in the short term, while creating a more negative flying experience in the long run? Removing accountability from both the gate agent and the passenger inspires more policies and rules to guide good behavior. In the end, could this also remove common sense and good communication?

Image source.

McDonald's President Reassures Us After E. Coli Outbreak

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

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

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

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

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

Comms About the Internet Archive Breach

After a major breach, the Internet Archive founder sends casual bad-news messages.

The Archive, including the Wayback Machine, is home to more than 840 billion web pages. Last month, the BBC reported the Archive as a valuable and vulnerable resource, and this month, we’re seeing why. The article also describes controversy about the service offering books and other content for free, the subject of a lawsuit the organization lost in 2023.

Although user information for more than 31 million people was compromised, the founder’s message on X focused on what most concerned the public: the integrity of the content and when the site would be back up.

In addition to the message on X, I found only three short posts on Bluesky and Mastodon—all below and at right:

Update: @internetarchive’s data has not been corrupted. Services are currently stopped to upgrade internal systems. We are working to restore services as quickly and safely as possible. Sorry for this disruption.

A note on the website just says simply this:

Temporarily Offline

Internet Archive services are temporarily offline.

Please check our official accounts, including Twitter/X, Bluesky or Mastodon for the latest information.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

These aren’t the typical data breach emails from a CEO. Kahle doesn’t offer suggestions for users to, for example, change passwords, which others advise.

He sounds like someone who lives in a high-crime area and expects to be robbed: “Sorry, but DDOS folks are back . . .” Kahle says nothing about the group, but a Newsweek article reported that a "pro-Palestinian hacktivist movement” claimed responsibility for the attack. Kahle might be more cautious about accepting that claim—or might not want to give the group publicity, whether it is responsible or not.

Diet Mountain Dew Debate Ad Skirts Politics

Diet Mountain Dew capitalized on the VP debate but cleverly avoided any political opinions.

Apparently another area of agreement between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz is their love of the sugary stuff. So, “of course,” as a Forbes article says, Diet Mountain Dew placed an ad during the VP debate.

The ad effectively highlights the product’s moment of fame without choosing sides. Most Americans now think brands should stay out of politics, with Republicans and Independents feeling most strongly about the issue.

The 15-second commercial is simple and fun, with the bright green bottles in the limelight against grey tones. Guards want some but can’t have it, as though the product is exclusive, which students may recognize as the scarcity effect.

The ad is a good example of brands connecting with current events—to show their relevance and cultural sensitivity—without causing controversy. This reminds me of Marco Rubio’s awkward dip for water, which gave Poland Springs an easy advertising opportunity. The response was delayed, but the company eventually posted a cute picture of the famous water bottle on Facebook. This feels so old-timey now, before brands were expected to, and then shunned for, commenting on political issues.

Is Print Back? The J.Crew Catalog Is.

Inc. calls the return of J.Crew’s print catalog after seven years “old school” and “banal.” Students might relate to nostalgic brands and could expand their thinking about communication media choices.

Print rarely comes to mind as a go-to communication channel, but J.Crew is bucking a trend, hoping to attract new consumers. After filing for bankruptcy in 2020, sales are up, and the company is hoping they aren’t a fad like disposable cameras and vinyl records. The Inc. article explains the sales value of a catalog:

In 2023, direct mail advertising had the highest return on investment compared to other ad campaign mediums, including email and paid search. And increased privacy restrictions have made it harder—and therefore more expensive—for brands to see payoff from paid social campaigns.

Can students think of other ways to use print as a stand-out communication method? An interesting class exercise could invite students to observe print messages around campus: flyers, table cards, newspapers, etc. What is their value compared to online messages? How can print be part of a presentation—handouts, note cards, etc.?

The J.Crew catalog looks more like a magazine. Featuring people from the 80s like Demi Moore (do students know who she is?), it has a classic feel, which seems “old money” and attractive to young consumers. One page is titled, “At Home on the Coast,” and a collection is called “Sussex.” Sort-of related: This reminds me of the social media trend, “I’m looking for a man in finance, trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes.” (More here.)

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.

Crisis Comms Around Food Bank's Meth Candy

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Here’s the statement text:

Statement from Rinda Food Industries Sdn Bhd

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

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

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

Proposed New Rules on Political Robocalls and Texts

The Federal Communications Commission is proposing tighter guidelines for AI-generated political campaign messages. Students can identify the objectives and assess whether they think the plan will work.

With the U.S. presidential election three months away, candidates are sending more robocalls and robotexts. According to FCC rules, these require consent, but messages sent manually do not.

New proposed FCC guidelines include the following areas:

The proposal seeks comment on the definition of AI-generated calls, requiring callers to disclose their use of AI-generated calls and text messages, supporting technologies that alert and protect consumers from unwanted and illegal AI robocalls, and protecting positive uses of AI to help people with disabilities utilize the telephone networks.

Of particular interest to the FCC are technologies used to mislead, for example, voice cloning and caller ID spoofing, which falsifies a caller’s origin.

Citizens can eliminate (or maybe just reduce) unwanted calls:

• Reply “STOP”

• Forward texts to 7726 (or "SPAM")

• Silence unknown callers

• Report texts as junk

I’ve been doing the latter on political texts to no avail. I imagine that robotext comes from a different source, so my efforts are equal to deleting each without the “report junk” part.

Students might have other ideas and their own experiences to share. Do they get a barrage of messages? Are they concerned about election misinformation?

Image source.

Google Pulls Gemini Ad

Google's decision to pull its Gemini ad offers lessons for how students might interact with LLMs. The big question is, Does the girl need help?

In the ad, which is still on YouTube but no longer runs during the Olympic games, a father asks Gemini (formerly Bard) to help his daughter write an appreciation letter to U.S. hurdler and sprinter Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.

Professor of Advanced Media Shelly Palmer's blog post explains the many issues with the Gemini ad. The post itself is an argument students can analyze. To me, his most influential point is the overstatement of LLMs' ability to convey human thoughts and feelings—and a lack of confidence in a young girl's ability to express herself without the help of technology. As Palmer says, "Give me a heartfelt message over a grammatically correct, AI generated message any day."

In response to controversy, a Google representative said, “We believe that AI can be a great tool for enhancing human creativity, but can never replace it. Our goal was to create an authentic story celebrating Team USA,” and “While the ad tested well before airing, given the feedback, we have decided to phase the ad out of our Olympics rotation.” We don’t hear a lot of regret, apology, or learning from this response. I wonder how the disconnect happened between the ad testing and public response. That is one lesson Google could take away from the incident.

Ingrid Andress's Apology

Country singer Ingrid Andress promises to go to rehab after her off-key national anthem rendition at a Major League Baseball event. Are her apology and commitment enough?

Andress’s statement came quickly on Instagram. Looking at the criteria for apologies, students will see that Andress hit many of them—briefly: showing remorse (for example, saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” instead of “I regret”), accepting responsibility (for example, saying, “It’s my fault,” or “I failed to”), saying what you did wrong, explaining what happened, acknowledging the impact, offering to fix it, saying what you’ll do differently, and requesting forgiveness.

She uses conversational language, which is probably appropriate in this situation. A legalistic statement never goes over well, and Andress sounds authentic. However, “that wasn’t me” isn’t typically well received. In a sense, this is the classic crisis communication strategy of distancing oneself, as we saw Microsoft do in the CrowdStrike situation this week. We could say that someone inebriated “isn’t herself,” but this part weakens her apology.

In response to Andress’s post, we see the expected, mean comments questioning her singing ability without alcohol and criticizing her quip about rehab being fun. Does the joke at the end diminish the seriousness of her message? I don’t think so, but students may have a different view.

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.

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.”

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.

Accenture Case About ADHD

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

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

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

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

Image source.