End the Long Email Chains

New research highlights problems with choosing text-based communication for complex or ambiguous tasks. In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, researchers published findings from five studies and concluded the following:

Findings suggest that communicators need to be aware that using text-based communication media, such as email for convergence tasks, can be tiring. As a result, they may not have the energy required to effectively deal with subsequent tasks requiring complex reasoning (e.g., writing a report) they may work on after they finish communicating.

Convergence tasks involve multiple perspectives and require creating a shared understanding, which is difficult to do by email or in Slack. When group decision making or negotiations, for example, starts a string of emails, the communication depletes our energy, making it harder to work on other complex tasks.

Study authors suggest what you might expect: choose a synchronous way of meeting instead. The authors acknowledge that meetings, particularly in person, are increasingly rare and challenging because of more remote work across time zones and varying schedules. But they say it’s worth the effort.

This advice is consistent with lessons in Chapter 1 of Business Communication and Character, which describes rich and lean media and reasons to choose one communication channel over the other. In-person meetings are best for complex decision making, building relationships, and emotional interactions.

Image source.

PGA Commissioner Sends Letter to Suspend Golfers

After a new golf tour has wooed Professional Golfers’ Association players, the association announced that they are no longer eligible to play in the PGA. The commissioner’s letter is an example of bad news for those who accepted the opportunity from the LIV Golf Invitational Series, a Saudi-backed organization, and it’s an example of persuasive communication for those who might consider doing the same.

In his letter, Commissioner Jay Monahan justifies the decision, using the word “regulations” several times. He mentions that players didn’t get proper releases for the conflict and blames players for making a “choice for their own financial-based reasons.” Monahan also appeals to a wide audience when he writes, “But they can’t demand the same PGA Tour membership benefits, considerations, opportunities and platform as you. That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners.”

Monahan uses strong language throughout and calls out specific players at the end of the letter, which players received while they were in the middle of a tournament. He demonstrates courage by facing some backlash, and he demonstrates some vulnerability by acknowledging, “What’s next? Can these players come back?”

The PGA is also holding players accountable, although not everyone agrees. In a statement, LIV Golf calls the decision “vindictive” and promises further action. The brief tweet is a notable counterweight to the PGA’s two-page letter. Students may analyze both in terms of tone, audience focus, content choices, and organization.

Another Elon Musk Email: Layoffs

Elon Musk has a unique way of announcing bad news. In an email to employees, which he sent to the New York Times and other news organizations, Musk is brief and direct.

To: Everybody
Subject: Headcount Reduction
Date: Friday, June 3, 2022

Tesla will be reducing salaried headcount by 10% as we have become overstaffed in many areas. Note this does not apply to anyone actually building cars, battery packs or installing solar. Hourly headcount will increase.

Elon

Business communication students can compare this message to principles in Chapter 8 for delivering bad news, particularly about jobs. Musk’s email doesn’t quite measure up. A better example is from Brian Chesky, Airbnb. Chesky tailors the message to his audience, letting them know why the decision was made, how it affects them, and what they can expect. He demonstrates vulnerability and compassion to those leaving—and to those staying.

McKinsey Testifies About Role in Opioid Crisis

McKinsey’s managing partner testified about what the U.S. Oversight Committee considers a conflict of interest and issue of integrity: consultants worked for drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma while working for the federal government. Several communication examples illustrate business communication principles:

The Committee’s full report, a 53-page analysis of the situation

The Committee’s press release about the hearing, which includes a summary of the report

Both persuasive communication examples use descriptive message titles throughout the report and provide evidence under each claim. The claims (main points) focus on McKinsey’s questionable actions, particularly how its private and public work may have influenced the other and how the company may have failed to disclose conflicts of interest.

Testimony during the hearing also illustrates persuasion communication. Here are two examples:

• Jessica Tillipman, Assistant Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies, George Washington University Law School    

• Bob Sternfels, Global Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company    

In addition to integrity, as Carolyn B. Maloney said in her opening, this situation is also about accountability and humility. Of course, compassion is a subcurrent throughout, with several impassioned comments about the toll of opioids, including Fentanyl.

Messages About Twitter Purchase

After a month-long saga, Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, has an accepted offer to buy Twitter. The news release illustrates a positive message, which, like most, is also persuasive. I’ll also acknowledge that the news is not viewed positively by all.

Twitter’s news release includes the following quotes:

Bret Taylor, Twitter's Independent Board Chair, said, "The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon's proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing. The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter's stockholders."

Parag Agrawal, Twitter's CEO, said, "Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world. Deeply proud of our teams and inspired by the work that has never been more important."

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," said Mr. Musk. "I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."

Some users promise to leave Twitter, concerned that losing controls the company implemented over the past several years will create an unsafe environment. More conservative groups tout the move. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that “it will be fascinating to watch Mr. Musk try to break Silicon Valley’s culture of progressive conformity.”

Musk’s early moves will be particularly interesting to watch. Will he reinstate former President Trump’s account? The president said he won’t return to Twitter regardless. Will employees leave in droves, which could be a problem in a tight labor labor? CEO Parag Agrawal tried to quell fears in an all-hands meeting:

This is indeed a period of uncertainty. All of you have different feelings and views about this news, many of you are concerned, some of you are excited, many people here are waiting to understand how this goes and have an open mind ... If we work with each other, we will not have to worry about losing the core of what makes Twitter powerful, which is all of us working together in the interest of our customers every day.

These messages illustrate the uncertainty Agrawal acknowledges. Unlike Musk, he demonstrates compassion and humility. How the news affects Twitter’s culture—both for employees and its users—remains to be seen.

Image source.

Amazon Insults an Employee

Amazon’s Staten Island, NY, warehouse is the company’s first to unionize. The vote is momentous and could start a wave of activity in other Amazon facilities.

Similar to their response at other facilities, for example, Bessemer, Alabama, company leaders used aggressive tactics to fight the union. In this case, the employee leading the effort, Christian Smalls demonstrated all the markings of a courageous leader. But a leaked email from the general counsel shows the company’s response to him personally:

“He’s not smart, or articulate, and to the extent the press wants to focus on us versus him, we will be in a much stronger PR position than simply explaining for the umpteenth time how we’re trying to protect workers.”

“Not smart” is insulting and obviously inaccurate. “Articulate” is also highly inaccurate—and stings with racism. Amazon underestimated its employees, but the battle is not over.

Amazon is trying to get the decision overturned. Company leaders might demonstrate vulnerability and humility at this point instead.

image source.

Boeing's Scant Statement on Crash

As we wait for details about the plane crash in China, Boeing has issued a statement. The plan was a Boeing 737—not the Max that caused two crashes in 2019 and 2020. Still, the company has suffered greatly, taking longer than expected fixing problems and doing PR damage control in the meantime. This latest situation doesn’t help the company’s reputation.

At the same time, this crash is highly unusual, taking place during descent, during which only 3% of plane crashes occur. In addition, this plane had been operating for six years without issue. Both black boxes were found, so investigators will find more information. But, sadly, knowing the reason for the crash won’t change the fate of 132 victims and their loved ones.

Boeing’s statement is the bare minimum. The company follows its typical communication protocol, saying as little as possible and coming from no one in particular. I understand not taking responsibility at this point, but how about a little more compassion and authenticity? I wonder what lessons company leaders learned in the past two years about communication and character.

Boeing Statement on China Eastern Airlines Flight MU 5735

CHICAGO, March 26, 2022 – Boeing today released the following statement:

“We extend our deepest condolences for the loss of those on board China Eastern Airlines Flight MU 5735. Our thoughts and prayers are with the passengers and crew, their families and all those affected by this accident. Boeing will continue to support our airline customer during this difficult time. In addition, a Boeing technical team is supporting the NTSB and the Civil Aviation Administration of China who will lead the investigation.”

Contact
Boeing Communications
media@boeing.com

Will Smith's Apology

The 2022 Academy Awards ceremony was eventful, with Chris Rock referencing Jada Smith’s appearance and her husband, Will Smith, hitting Rock on stage. Jada Smith has spoken openly about having alopecia, a hair loss condition. Rock’s joke clearly hit a nerve with her husband.

From the audience, Smith cursed at Rock, who continued with his presentation. Later, Smith gave a tearful acceptance speech for Best Actor in a Leading Role, comparing himself to the character he played, Serena and Venus Williams’ father: they both protected their family. He apologized to his fellow nominees and the Academy but not to Rock. The next day, he posted a fuller apology on Instagram, mentioning Rock first.

The Academy tweeted a pat response, “The Academy does not condone violence of any form. Tonight we are delighted to celebrate our 94th Academy Awards winners, who deserve this moment of recognition from their peers and movie lovers around the world.” I don’t see any response from Rock yet.

The rest of the ceremony was awkward, and host Amy Schumer made a joke, “Did I miss something? There's like, a different vibe in here....” Her idea was probably to call out what was obvious.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the situation. Was Rock’s joke about “G.I. Jane 2” over the top? Was Smith’s response appropriate? Should he have been prevented from speaking after that point? Should the Academy do more?

The situation is complex and calls us to explore issues of character, for example, compassion, courage, authenticity, accountability, and vulnerability.

Confusing Airbnb Message

Informational messages should be straightforward, but Airbnb sent one that confused hosts and former hosts. I received this email about taxes with the subject, “Action required: Provide missing taxpayer info.” The tone is threatening, and I wasn’t sure whether this applied to my recent international booking or a remnant from my hosting days, although I stopped in 2018.

Apparently, I wasn’t alone. Within two days, I received the second message, “Clarification regarding taxpayer information request.”

My guess is that the message inadvertently went to people who are no longer hosting. The second message could have admitted the mistake but didn’t. Instead of demonstrating accountability and humility, the author wrote, “We wanted to clarify that this action is not required for everyone.”

Shaming Doesn't Work

A recent study explores companies’ responses when an employee falls for hacking. Turns out, shaming doesn’t work.

When an employee causes a cybersecurity breach, company leaders may want to single out that employee by “blaming and shaming.” The intent is to prevent future breaches, but the results can be devastating, as the author explains:

“Shame is similar to a boomerang that will come back to hurt the organization, as well as harming the employee. Managers should deal with the mistake, but not reject the employee. If employees feel that their personhood is being attacked, they will respond defensively. Shaming results in a lose-lose outcome.”

I can’t think of a situation when blaming and shaming works. In the case of a hack, the employee already feels bad and won’t likely make the same mistake. Instead of causing disloyalty, leaders might try demonstrating compassion.

Image source.

Company Responses to the Russian War on Ukraine

Whether and how companies respond to the Russian war on Ukraine presents a case study in leadership character and communication. A New York Times article describes a Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister’s messaging to persuade companies to take action. Mykhailo Fedorov is using social media to call out specific companies—sometimes complimenting their response, for example, closing stores or cutting off services to Russian citizens, and sometimes calling for them to do more.

Fedorov’s tweets, particularly, chronicle what companies are doing and what, in his opinion, is left to do. The NYT article summarizes Fedorov’s strategy:

“The work has made Mr. Fedorov one of Mr. Zelensky’s most visible lieutenants, deploying technology and finance as modern weapons of war. In effect, Mr. Fedorov is creating a new playbook for military conflicts that shows how an outgunned country can use the internet, crypto, digital activism and frequent posts on Twitter to help undercut a foreign aggressor.”

The Ukrainians are using every weapon they can. Technology and persuasive communication, including questioning leaders’ character, are now front and center.

For examples of how companies are supporting Ukraine, see Anthony Winslow’s LinkedIn article.

Advice for Resignation Emails

A Wall Street Journal article suggests ways to resign from your job gracefully. With a wave of post-pandemic departures, we’re seeing all sorts of resignation messages, some more appropriate than others. The string of emails can be disheartening for people who decide to stay, and leavers should be mindful of burning bridges they may want to walk across in the future.

A law career coach advises that people “Let it rip. Let everything out”—in a document that you don’t send. Then, send an email that respects the workplace and the people you’ll leave behind:

“For the real deal, be gracious and express gratitude. Include up to three career highlights. (Any more and you risk being seen as a braggart.) And skip the passive-aggressive jabs.”

I hadn’t thought about including career highlights, and I wonder whether coworkers would appreciate reading them. Instead, I suggest observing what other resignation emails include and following suit. Every workplace has its own norms around these types of messages.

I do agree with this advice:

“By giving your notice, ‘the power dynamic has been leveled.’ Use that new sense of control and confidence to share more authentically about yourself, not torpedo your relationships on the way out the door.”

The coach is right: you made your decision and are burdening your manager and coworkers who will pick up the slack. Now’s the time to demonstrate humility instead of rubbing it in and causing more hurt feelings.

Deception in the Hiring Process

A New York Times article surprised me. During a video job interview, someone else answered “technical questions while the job candidate moved his lips onscreen.”

All applicants present themselves in the best light. We describe our accomplishments and may push the limits of our expertise. We also “cover” parts of ourselves that we fear may be undesirable to an employer.

But having a friend interview for a candidate is out of bounds. In this example, the interviewer wondered, “What did he think was going to happen when he moved across the country and realized he couldn’t do the job?” The article concludes with a quote from a deceptive candidate who felt relieved when she didn’t get the job. Of course, that’s a better outcome than suffering the embarrassment of failure.

This situation is a clear example of integrity—misrepresenting oneself, claiming to be someone they (intentional plural) are not. Today, we have a particularly strong job market; I would hope that candidates can find a job for which they’re qualified.

Image source.

Tesla Accuses SEC of Harassment

In a letter to a U.S. District judge, an attorney for Tesla describes how the SEC tries to “muzzle and harass Mr. Musk and Tesla.” Tesla claims that the SEC monitors Elon Musk’s Twitter, yet hasn’t distributed settlement funds to shareholders.

We see strong language throughout the letter, for example, “gone beyond the pale,” “formidable resources,” “endless, unfounded investigations,” “broken its promises,” and “police.” The last paragraph reads as follows:

“Enough is enough. Mr. Musk and Tesla write in the hope that the Court can bring the SEC’s harassment campaign to an end, while ensuring that the SEC finally delivers, at long last, on its commitment to Tesla’s shareholders and this Court.”

The letter is an example of persuasive communication, with the lead strategy emotional appeal. Although logical arguments are included, the language and medium emphasize what the company perceives as irrational. We get the sense that Musk is personally targeted. We’ll see whether the letter gets the desired results.

Zillow's Letter to Shareholders

Zillow ended its failed iBuying business, but is recovering well, as the latest letter to shareholders explains. A foray into the home-flipping business didn’t pan out for the company, resulting in losses and layoffs.

The company’s letter demonstrates accountability, humility, and vulnerability, yet express optimism, as the CEO and CFO write in the closing:

“We want to acknowledge the past few months have been challenging for us all — Zillow leadership, employees, and investors — but innovation is a bumpy road. Big swings are core to Zillow, and they are what make our company so unique. We are excited about the opportunity in front of us. Thank you for joining us on this journey.”

In addition to describing plans, the leaders want readers to take away that performance was “better than expected.” “Better” is used 13 times in the 20-page letter. The approach seemed to work. As a CNBC article summarizes, “Zillow soars on upbeat outlook and faster-than-expected selloff of homes in portfolio.” However, for perspective, the article reports that the stock increased 20% after the letter was published, yet “the stock has lost three-quarters of its value since reaching a record almost a year ago.” Zillow’s leaders have more work to do.

Spotify CEO's New Statement

Following new allegations against Joe Rogan, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek apologized to staff, yet reinforced his commitment to the podcast host. A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur caused new criticism and calls for Spotify to take action. Rogan apologized, explaining that some recordings were from many years ago and were taken out of context.

Ek’s statement is addressed to Spotify employees, but of course, the secondary audience is intended to be the public. The message includes Rogan’s decision, apparently in consultation with the Spotify team, to remove 113 episodes. Although Ek writes that the choice was Rogan’s, we don’t know how much pressure he received.

Ek’s note is a good example of a persuasive communication that tries to balance the needs of many stakeholders. He demonstrates compassion to employees, vulnerabiiity in how the situation affects the company, and integrity in his $100 million commitment to artists and in holding firm to what he sees as a core value of the platform. We could see more personal vulnerabiity and authenticity. Unfortunately, leader will never satisfy all parties in this type of situation.

Spotify Team,

There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you. Not only are some of Joe Rogan’s comments incredibly hurtful – I want to make clear that they do not represent the values of this company. I know this situation leaves many of you feeling drained, frustrated and unheard.

I think it’s important you’re aware that we’ve had conversations with Joe and his team about some of the content in his show, including his history of using some racially insensitive language. Following these discussions and his own reflections, he chose to remove a number of episodes from Spotify. He also issued his own apology over the weekend.

While I strongly condemn what Joe has said and I agree with his decision to remove past episodes from our platform, I realize some will want more. And I want to make one point very clear – I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer. We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope. Looking at the issue more broadly, it’s critical thinking and open debate that powers real and necessary progress.

Another criticism that I continue to hear from many of you is that it’s not just about The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify; it comes down to our direct relationship with him. In last week’s Town Hall, I outlined to you that we are not the publisher of JRE. But perception due to our exclusive license implies otherwise. So I’ve been wrestling with how this perception squares with our values.

If we believe in having an open platform as a core value of the company, then we must also believe in elevating all types of creators, including those from underrepresented communities and a diversity of backgrounds. We’ve been doing a great deal of work in this area already but I think we can do even more. So I am committing to an incremental investment of $100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups. This will dramatically increase our efforts in these areas. While some might want us to pursue a different path, I believe that more speech on more issues can be highly effective in improving the status quo and enhancing the conversation altogether.

I deeply regret that you are carrying so much of this burden. I also want to be transparent in setting the expectation that in order to achieve our goal of becoming the global audio platform, these kinds of disputes will be inevitable. For me, I come back to centering on our mission of unlocking the potential of human creativity and enabling more than a billion people to enjoy the work of what we think will be more than 50 million creators. That mission makes these clashes worth the effort.

I’ve told you several times over the last week, but I think it’s critical we listen carefully to one another and consider how we can and should do better. I’ve spent this time having lots of conversations with people inside and outside of Spotify – some have been supportive while others have been incredibly hard, but all of them have made me think.

One of the things I am thinking about is what additional steps we can take to further balance creator expression with user safety. I’ve asked our teams to expand the number of outside experts we consult with on these efforts and look forward to sharing more details.

Your passion for this company and our mission has made a difference in the lives of so many listeners and creators around the world. I hope you won’t lose sight of that. It’s that ability to focus and improve Spotify even on some of our toughest days that has helped us build the platform we have. We have a clear opportunity to learn and grow together from this challenge and I am ready to meet it head on.

I know it is difficult to have these conversations play out so publicly, and I continue to encourage you to reach out to your leaders, your HR partners or me directly if you need support or resources for yourself or your team.

Daniel

Arguments in the Joe Rogan, Spotify Situation

A few musicians and podcast creators are leaving Spotify over controversy about “The Joe Rogan Experience,” a popular show that has included misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations. Comparing messages from different points of view is an interesting look at persuasive arguments and raises issues of character. Here are a few to explore:

• Spotify’s stance is explained in this statement and may be summarized as follows from the chief executive and co-founder: “I think the important part here is that we don’t change our policies based on one creator nor do we change it based on any media cycle, or calls from anyone else.” Spotify also created a COVID information hub.

• Neil Young removed his music, which had hundreds of millions of views, and explained his rationale in a letter (since removed from his website): “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.”

• Crosby, Stills, and Nash followed suit and posted their reason on Twitter: “We support Neil and agree with him that there is dangerous disinformation being aired on Spotify’s Joe Rogan podcast. While we always value alternate points of view, knowingly spreading disinformation during this global pandemic has deadly consequences. Until real action is taken to show that a concern for humanity must be balanced with commerce, we don’t want our music—or the music we made together—to be on the same platform.”

• Roxane Gay explained her decision to remove “The Roxane Gay Agenda” in a New York Times opinion letter. In closing, she wrote, “I am not trying to impede anyone’s freedom to speak. Joe Rogan and others like him can continue to proudly encourage misinformation and bigotry to vast audiences. They will be well rewarded for their efforts. The platforms sharing these rewards can continue to look the other way. But today at least, I won’t.”

• Bréne Brown “paused” her two podcasts and wrote that she is waiting for more information: “I’ve enjoyed the creative collaboration with Spotify, and I appreciate how the leadership has shown up in our meetings over the past week. Now that Spotify has published its misinformation policy, and the policy itself appears to address the majority of my concerns, I’m in the process of learning how the policy will be applied. I’m hopeful that the podcasts will be back next week.” As you might expect, Brown demonstrates vulnerability, including negative, personal comments she has received about the issue.

• Joe Rogan apologized in a 10-minute Instagram video, promising to “balance out viewpoints with other people’s perspectives.”

UPDATE: A video compilation of Rogan using a racial slur has emerged, and he apologized—again.

Apology for Meatloaf Recipe

The folks at Weber Grill didn’t realize that singer Meat Loaf died on the day they published a meatloaf recipe. Had the company used the rock star’s death as a way to promote its products, that would have been in poor taste, but the email with a BBQ recipe was an unfortunate coincidence.

After some predicable backlash, the company quickly apologized for the mistake. Fortunately, just as the initial email made the rounds, so did the company’s apology.

The apology is simple and works well. The company didn’t need to apologize for insensitivity because the mistake was unintentional. In these situations, customers typically are more forgiving, and in this case, demonstrating compassion and humility was enough.

Misrepresenting COVID-19 Study Findings

A study about COVID testing in schools is criticized for its authors’ conclusions. Researchers at Duke, in collaboration with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, studied the “test-to-stay” approach for schoolchildren. With this approach, if a child tests negative after being exposed to someone who tests positive, that child can go to school. Researchers found this strategy to be effective in getting kids back to school—without increasing COVID transmissions.

The trouble, described in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, is that authors concluded, “in schools with universal masking, test-to-stay is an effective strategy.” The writers explain their thinking:

“That invites readers to assume that test-to-stay doesn’t work without forced masking. But since they studied no unmasked schools, this conclusion is baseless. An honest report would either have said so or not mentioned masking at all.”

The writers believe that study authors are pushing their own agenda for schools to require masking. This is a good example of a study interpretation that is technically correct but omits important information for a fair comparison. In such cases, researchers might hurt their own credibility. On the other hand, do people assume, as the writers say, that “test to stay” doesn’t work in schools without mask mandates?

Chris Noth and Peloton Respond to Sexual Assault Accusations

Peloton can’t seem to catch a break. Chris Noth, who played Mr. Big on the Sex in the City revival, first died on the show after using the bike, and then, after appearing in what seemed like a victorious response commercial, was accused by three women of sexual assault.

In a statement, Noth vehemently denied the claims:

"The accusations against me made by individuals I met years, even decades, ago are categorically false. These stories could've been from 30 years ago or 30 days ago—no always means no—that is a line I did not cross,” and

"The encounters were consensual. It's difficult not to question the timing of these stories coming out. I don't know for certain why they are surfacing now, but I do know this: I did not assault these women.”

Peloton removed the ad, and a spokesperson said, "Every single sexual assault accusation must be taken seriously. We were unaware of these allegations when we featured Chris Noth in our response to HBO's reboot. As we seek to learn more, we have stopped promoting this video and archived related social posts.”

I’m guessing that HBO is glad the writers killed off Noth’s character. For Peloton, the news is probably more attention than the company wants. It’s certainly more than Chris Noth wants.

Image source.