Another "I Wish You Well" Moment

Gwyneth Paltrow ended her headline-grabbing lawsuit with a whisper: “I wish you well.” Paltrow was sued by a retired optometrist for crashing into him on a ski slope. She defended herself, saying, “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity.”

After the quick verdict in her favor, Paltrow leaned in and said quietly to her accuser: “I wish you well.” He responded, “Thank you, dear.”

I’ve been curious about this expression, which former President Trump said of Jeffrey Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump defended his statement: “I'm not looking for anything bad for her. . . . I wish a lot of people well.” In other words, it’s just a nice thing to say.

But a Guardian article refers to Paltrow’s words as a “memorable kiss-off.” Urban Dictionary explains, “This is what privileged people say when they want you to forget you knew them. ‘I am sorry I have not responded. I have been very busy. I wish you well.’” A Quora user writes, “I use it only with people I never want to communicate with again. It's a hope they change, but I'm not going to stick around for it. It's a nice way of saying, ‘F#%# off.’”

Of course, tone and context matter. We don’t hear Paltrow’s voice, and the exchange is so short. Regardless, her accuser took it positively, as he described the exchange to reporters: “She said, ‘I wish you well.’” Then he said, “Very kind of her.”

We may never know whether she meant it a sincere wish for well-being. We do know that Paltrow was an actress before she started making Goop.

If you have nothing better to do today, you can read “The 9 Most Bizarre Moments” of the trial from The Hollywood Reporter.

"Love Letters" to Home Sellers Are Out

Letters to home sellers illustrate problems with bias and insincere persuasive communication. Home buyers try to increase their chances of landing a house by writing letters to sellers, but they cause problems. These persuasive communications seemed like a good idea in a tight housing market. In addition to offering a high price, often above asking, buyers would make emotional appeals, for example, by telling sellers about themselves, how much they loved the house, and how they would care for it.

These letters teach lessons about communication ethics, particularly integrity. One buyer lied by omission, failing to mention a pending divorce that would change the buyer’s ability to get a mortgage. Other problems include revealing race, religion, and other facts that a seller can use—consciously or unconsciously—to discriminate against a buyer, which violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act.

This “Barbie House” letter, written to sellers of a pink house, may have landed the deal (although the buyers also offered $25,000, so who knows). Maybe not in this case, but in others, letters appeal so much to emotions that vulnerable sellers are duped into taking lower offers.

The California Association of Realtors has since published these guidelines for letters, which discourage them entirely.

Four Charts About SVB Don't Tell the Whole Story

WSJ visuals illustrate the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and how four chart types are used for different purposes.

The first is this bubble chart comparing SVB to the next largest bank implosion since 2001: Washington Mutual Bank. The chart—and the article title, “Here is what the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history looks like in graphics”—might exaggerate the issue. Yes, the data and title are accurate, but SVB’s customer base was limited to “a very exclusive group of companies: tech startups and venture-backed health care companies,” as my friends at The Strebel Planning Group explain well. In other words, large, more diversified, and more cautious banks are not likely to fail, despite dramatic headlines.

The second visual, a bar chart (technically a column chart because the bars are vertical), effectively shows when inflows of money turned to outflows. The purple shows the steep, immediate decline, ending in $42 billion—hence, the “run on the bank” that SVB couldn’t cover.

The third graphic is a 2D, stacked area chart, which is used to show the magnitude of a change, something the WSJ clearly wants to emphasize. Again, the chart looks bad, and it is, but a joint statement by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC promised to cover all loses, even those not covered by FDIC insurance.

With a simple line chart, the last graphic (not shown here) illustrates how much SVB depended on bonds, which have lost value over time. The chart type is a good choice for showing a change, including a steep incline in 2021.

All these charts illustrate different types well but, at-a-glance, don’t tell the full story. Perhaps one or two more visuals that puts SVB in greater context of other banks would give a more complete picture of the banking industry’s potential exposure. This could ease public concern and maintain confidence in the system.

Salesforce CEO Addresses McConaughey Controversy

The Salesforce CEO responded to criticism about paying actor Matthew McConaughey (“a friend,” according to a WSJ report) more than $10 million while laying off 8,000 employees. In a video interview, Marc Benioff uses persuasive strategies to convince the audience that this is appropriate and not an ethical issue or, as the Barron’s interviewer asks, “Is that fair?”

Benioff started with a joke, which is surprising considering the situation. He interrupts the interviewer to say, “alright, alright, alright,” a classic line from McConaughey’s 1993 movie Dazed and Confused. By not taking the issue seriously, Benioff might have reduced his credibility.

But Benioff then used an effective crisis communication strategy of distancing the current time: “Years ago, we signed a contract with Matthew . . . ” A better choice might have been to avoid using only his first name, which stresses his personal relationship. But the time period does separate the decision from the recent cost-cutting.

Directly addressing the question, Benioff said, “Putting those two things together, I don’t think is fair,” and “it’s not related to our layoffs.” Another strategy Benioff used was providing context. First, he explained that the company ramped up and then faced currency and inflation issues that required reductions. Next, he said, “Do we have to take an employment action [layoffs]? Well, I think every company is.” Acting in line with other companies makes the layoffs sound reasonable—even necessary—without requiring other cuts, such as marketing.

Of course, Benioff doesn’t address the possibility of cancelling McConaughey’s contract, and he doesn’t provide evidence of McConaughey’s “great work” that would warrant maintaining the expense. But overall, Benioff does a good job pushing back on the criticism.

Lesson Learned: Don't Use AI in Sensitive Situations

The Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, used ChatGPT to generate an email about the Michigan State campus shooting, and it wasn’t received well. This story illustrates issues of accountability (administrators taking responsibility), but failing compassion in a time of tragedy and failing integrity (consistency).

The email referred to “shootings,” which is not accurate. Otherwise, it sounds like boilerplate, but not that much different from typical emails a campus community receives in these types of situations. Compare that email to one sent from the vice provost and dean of students, which sounds more emotional but is still common.

Perhaps the only giveaway was a line at the bottom:

(“Paraphrase from OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI language model, personal communication, February 15, 2023.”)

On the one hand, I admire the writers’ honesty, doing what faculty are increasingly asking students to do: to identify whether and how they use AI for their writing. But of course, the choice reflects poor judgment.

Student backlash was swift and fierce. Using words like “disgusting” and “sick and twisted,” students called on administrators to “Do more. Do anything. And lead us into a better future with genuine, human empathy, not a robot.” A senior said, “Would they do this also for the death of a student, faculty, or staff member? Automating messages on grief and crisis is the most on-the-nose, explicit recognition that we as students are more customers than a community to the Vanderbilt administration. The fact it’s from the office of EDI might be the cherry on top.”

University officials responded quickly. In a follow-up email to students, an EDI dean wrote, “While we believe in the message of inclusivity expressed in the email, using ChatGPT to generate communications on behalf of our community in a time of sorrow and in response to a tragedy contradicts the values that characterize Peabody College. As with all new technologies that affect higher education, this moment gives us all an opportunity to reflect on what we know and what we still must learn about AI.” Could ChatGPT have written that too?

This is a precarious time for universities, as faculty grapple with how to use AI tools and what policies best serve students and academic goals. Using AI as a starting point for such a sensitive message may never be acceptable, and it’s certainly too soon now. Faculty will have a difficult time enforcing AI policies if they use tools in ways that contradict the spirit of their own guidelines.

Do Better than “CFBR” for Social Support

A WSJ article describes the increased use of “CFBR,” meaning commenting for better reach, a way to elevate a social media post. A popular way of giving laid-off employees more visibility during their job search, the approach raises questions of authenticity and true compassion.

Hootsuite’s definition makes it sound careless:

CFBR, or Commenting For Better Reach, is a popular comment used on platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook.

Since most social media algorithms favor content with high engagement, “commenting for better reach” is a way to offer an organic boost to a post you think should have more exposure. When you comment on someone else’s post, that post is more likely to show up in your followers’ feeds.

This tactic may be effective, but it’s a little spammy. If you want to take a more thoughtful approach, we recommend leaving an authentic comment that engages with the post’s content—or even resharing that post with your followers.

Typing CFBR may be the “Good luck!” of social media posts despite heartache shared in the original post. I wonder how students view and use the comment. Maybe they can find better ways to support their peers.

Image source.

Google “Word Mangles” Shared Office Space

A message to Google cloud employees illustrates challenges with communicating bad news with integrity. The gist of the message is this: “Most Googlers will now share a desk with one other Googler.” Employees within departments will be organized into “neighborhoods“ and will negotiate their space: “Through the matching process, they will agree on a basic desk setup and establish norms with their desk partner and teams to ensure a positive experience in the new shared environment.”

The announcement would be unwelcome news at any time but has an extra sting after the 11,000 layoffs in January. Employees also expressed frustration with the “corpspeak.” The CNBC article reports one example:

Internally, leadership has given the new seating arrangement a title: ‘Cloud Office Evolution” or “CLOE,” which it describes as “combining the best of pre-pandemic collaboration with the flexibility” from hybrid work.

In one meme, an employee wrote, “Not every cost-cutting measure needs to be word mangled into sounding good for employees. A simple ‘We are cutting office space to reduce costs’ would make leadership sound more believable.”

For students, this example illustrates the value of straight talk and integrity. Particularly when the business purpose of the decision is obvious, transparency is a better approach for messages that impact people negatively.

Image source.

Student Handout: Tips for Using ChatGPT

This handout guides students through using ChatGPT responsibly. I take a realistic approach, assuming that students will use the program regardless of our insistence not to.

Revise and use as you wish; you can also download this Word document. I would appreciate knowing what changes you make, so I can consider revisions.

Tips for Using ChatGPT for Your
Business Communication Assignments

Ask ChatGPT for help generating ideas.

If you’re having trouble coming up with or honing an idea for a writing assignment or presentation, ask ChatGPT. The program can help you move past writer’s block, clarify your thinking, and narrow down a topic. Practice asking follow-up questions until you get better responses.

Think of ChatGPT as a writing partner.

Imagine that the program is a tutor or writing center consultant, who would ask you questions and give you ideas and feedback—not write for you. Use ChatGPT as part of an iterative thinking process.  

Use your natural, authentic voice.

ChatGPT is a robot and sounds like one. You’re taking this class to find your own personal writing and speaking style. If ChatGPT writes for you, you’re missing the opportunity to convey your personality. What differentiates you at work is your character—who you are as a person. No AI technology can ever match your sense of humor or style. 

Adapt writing to your audience.

Every assignment in this class has a defined audience. ChatGPT can’t build a relationship; only you can do that. You’re more likely to inspire or persuade someone when you use your emotional intelligence to understand what moves and motivates someone, and then tailor your writing to that person.   

Beware of misinformation.

ChatGPT tends to “hallucinate”—invent information that doesn’t exist, particularly sources like books and journal articles. If you ask the program to provide evidence to support claims, check everything and add sources after 2021, which ChatGPT can’t access. For your own credibility, do your own research.

Learn from ChatGPT’s corrections.

If you ask ChatGPT to correct your grammar, ask it to explain the mistakes it corrected and the grammar rules, so you can learn for the future.

Plan ahead and expect change.

As of now, ChatGPT is often overloaded, so you’ll need to plan ahead if you rely on it. Also, these suggestions are based on ChatGPT as of January 2023. The program will evolve.

---

Developed by Amy Newman, February 2, 2023. Revise and use as you wish.

Inspired by Lance Cummings, @LanceElyot, “Student Contract for AI Creativity (draft),” Twitter, January 10, 2023.

Greenwashing Gets Sophisticated

Greenwashing—making false or exaggerated claims about sustainability or positive impacts on the environment—is nothing new, but companies may be getting more subtle. A recent CNBC article warns consumers, “For a company to say they’re ‘100% sustainable’ or they’re ‘eco-conscious’ . . . doesn’t mean anything.” Those seem to be obvious empty statements.

But a Euronews article offers six more sophisticated ways companies greenwash. The article gives examples of each, and students can find their own:

• Greencrowding: hiding within a group or being the slowest adopter within a group.

• Greenlighting: emphasizing a green aspect of the company to detract from negative impacts.

• Greenshifting: blaming the customer for environmental problems (example shown here).

• Greenlabelling: calling something green or sustainable that isn’t really

• Greenrinsing: changing goals before they’re achieved.

• Greenhushing: downplaying or hiding green activities to avoid attention.

Both articles suggest investigating companies’ credentials; the CNBC article also suggests looking at metrics and the company’s history. But let’s face it: that requires work. We’re easily swayed by labels and soundbites. Perhaps students can identify what affects their purchase decisions, which of course, is what drives greenwashing in the first place.

George Santos Resume

In case you didn’t see it, here’s the resume of now U.S. Representative George Santos. Although we’ve been hearing for weeks about his fake jobs at Goldman Sachs and Citi and his fake education at Baruch, it’s quite shocking to see it all in print.

Students might enjoy reviewing his resume, finding errors and other ways to improve his employment communication. For example, the summary and list of skills at the top are jargony and sound like boiler plate; I’m surprised to see so little tailoring to a political position. Students will find other issues, for example, unparallel bullets, an odd page break, misaligned spacing, a lower-case i, missing periods, a missing end parenthesis, and acronyms that readers might not know.

Another fun discussion with grammarians in your class: I’ve avoided writing “Santos’s resume” as did The New York Times. The paper titled the article, “The Résumé of George Santos.” I chose the modifier form instead. And I’ve given up on the accent marks in résumé because I rarely see them in business job descriptions.

Steve Jobs Email Blast from the Past

We get a window into executive decision making with Internal Tech Emails. This 2005 thread starts with Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin telling his team that Steve Jobs called, angry about Google “recruiting from the safari team.” Without ever hitting the caps key, Brin described Jobs as “agitated” about at least one potential hire away from Apple. In addition to losing staff, Jobs was concerned about Google developing a search engine to compete with Safari, but Brin assured Jobs that this wasn’t in the works.

The email thread includes other Google execs jumping in to explain that they were, in fact, trying to recruit a high-profile employee from the search team—and that the hire might bring additional employees as well. At some point, an HR leader, Arnnon Geshuri, weighs in: “We are careful to adhere to non-compete agreements if we have established these with any company.  However, it is the staffing organization's practice to aggressively pursue leads that come from our employees and bring the best talent onboard.”

But, as the conversation continued (and after few more calls from Jobs), we see the team shift. They agree not to pursue more candidates without pre-approval from Apple if the prized employee came on board.

"Embellishment" vs. Lying

New York Representative-elect George Santos misrepresented himself during his campaign for Congress and is facing calls to resign. The story is relevant for students finding the line between “putting their best self forward” and lying during a job search.

Santos now says, “My sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry.” But his claims are clear fabrications in several cases. What’s interesting about the situation is how easily his claims could be verified. The New York Times simply contacted Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Baruch College, and none could verify his employment and graduation claims.

In his position paper, he claimed to be “a proud American Jew.” He also said he is “half Jewish” and a “Latino Jew” and claimed that he has Holocaust and Ukrainian heritage, which has not been supported. Now he clarifies: "I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background, I said I was Jew-ish.”

Santos also defended himself during an interview. He said, “I didn’t outright lie,” but he did admit that he used “a poor use of words” and included “a little bit of fluff.” He blamed “elitist” outlets like The New York Times for referring to his customer service experience as “odd jobs,” which forced him to inflate his experience.

His justification raises an issue about how students can handle their own vulnerability. Business communication faculty encourage students to explain how their experience relates to a prospective job. Some students downplay their experience, so we ask them to highlight the relevance to an employer. But none of us would encourage students to include experiences they didn’t have.

We’ll see whether his colleagues vote for him to stay or leave.

Image source.

Justin Bieber and H&M Dispute

Justin Bieber claimed—on Instagram—that H&M created and was selling products without his approval. In addition to the post shown here, he wrote, “The H&M merch they made of me is trash and I didn’t approve it,” and “Don’t buy it.”

H&M pulled the products and explained the decision in a statement: “H&M has followed all proper approval procedures, as we have done in this case, but out of respect for the collaboration and Justin Bieber, we have removed the garments from selling.”

This story raises questions about integrity: what exactly was the process, and was it followed as agreed? I also question Bieber’s medium choice. Why did he make such a public statement? Did he already reach out to H&M privately and not get the response he wanted? We might question both parties’ accountability: how did they agree to resolve differences?

Integrity Issues in Musk and Twitter Comms

Two Elon Musk/Twitter-related gems this week illustrate issues of integrity. I’m posting these in case you’re not entirely bored with Musk news and teach winter classes or are already planning for next semester.

Musk’s Poll: Musk posted a poll asking whether he should “step down as head of Twitter,” and the results are clear. The next day, he blamed bots for the results. Two days later, Musk tweeted, “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job! After that, I will just run the software & servers teams.” We might call this a lack of integrity—both questioning a poll he ostensibly runs and not doing what he says he will do. In addition, Musk still owns the company, so he remains the leader until he sells, and he has no successor, particularly given the recent exodus.

Banned Accounts: Twitter banned @ElonJet, which posted Musk’s use of his private plane. Journalists and others reporting on the account, who say the data is public, had their accounts suspended. One journalist explains that, although his account no longer indicates suspension, he cannot post until he removes offending tweets. Mastodon, a Twitter competitor that’s gaining traction, also had an account suspended and explains how the platform is superior to Twitter’s. The Mastodon message illustrates persuasion—and not-so-subtle sales tactics that would be interesting to explore with students.

ChatGPT Got a D on My Writing Prompt

I submitted to ChatGPT, “Write an argument to convince a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, to pay a living wage.” I received this response in about 3 seconds. See my notes at the bottom—and a prompt for a longer response.

There are several compelling arguments that a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, should consider when deciding whether to pay a living wage to its employees.

First, paying a living wage can help to attract and retain top talent. Employees who are paid a fair wage are more likely to be motivated and engaged in their work, which can lead to improved customer service and a better overall experience for diners. In addition, a living wage can help to reduce turnover and the costs associated with training new employees, which can ultimately save the restaurant money in the long run.

Second, paying a living wage can help to build a positive company culture and reputation. Customers and community members are increasingly looking for businesses that prioritize the well-being and fair treatment of their employees, and a restaurant that pays a living wage can differentiate itself in this regard. This can lead to increased customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth marketing, which can help to drive business.

Finally, paying a living wage can have broader social and economic benefits for the community. When employees are paid a fair wage, they are more likely to be able to afford basic necessities such as housing, food, and healthcare, which can contribute to a stronger and more stable local economy. In addition, paying a living wage can help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice, which can have a positive impact on the overall well-being of the community.

In summary, there are numerous reasons why a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, should pay a living wage to its employees. Doing so can help to attract and retain top talent, build a positive company culture and reputation, and contribute to the overall well-being of the community.

I hit “Regenerate response” and got this:

Paying a living wage has numerous benefits for both the restaurant and its employees.

First, paying a living wage can improve employee morale and satisfaction, leading to a more positive work environment and lower turnover rate. When employees feel financially secure and valued, they are more likely to be motivated and committed to their work, which can result in better service and customer satisfaction.

Second, paying a living wage can also improve the restaurant's reputation and attract top talent. Customers and potential employees are increasingly considering a company's commitment to social and environmental responsibility when making purchasing and career decisions. By paying a living wage, the restaurant can differentiate itself from competitors and appeal to a socially conscious customer base.

Finally, paying a living wage can have a positive impact on the local community. When employees are paid a wage that allows them to meet their basic needs, they are more likely to spend their income locally, supporting other businesses and boosting the local economy.

Overall, paying a living wage is a win-win for both the restaurant and its employees. It can lead to improved employee satisfaction and retention, a positive reputation, and a positive impact on the local community.

Once again, “Regenerate response”:

Paying a living wage is good for businesses, employees, and the community.

First, businesses that pay a living wage tend to have lower employee turnover and higher levels of employee satisfaction, which can lead to improved customer service and increased customer loyalty. This can ultimately lead to increased profits for the business.

Second, paying a living wage allows employees to support themselves and their families without relying on government assistance programs. This not only helps to reduce poverty in the community, but it also helps to stimulate the local economy as employees have more disposable income to spend at local businesses.

Finally, paying a living wage is simply the right thing to do. It ensures that all employees are fairly compensated for their hard work and enables them to live with dignity and respect.

In conclusion, paying a living wage is a win-win situation for businesses, employees, and the community. It can improve profits, reduce poverty, and promote economic growth, while also promoting fairness and dignity for all.

My notes

• Bottom line: D, a generous grade if the assignment asked for citations, which most would. I can see how the 5-paragraph essay drives ChatGPT, and this is exactly what business communication faculty try to get students to stop doing.

• And yet, I’m surprised how good these are from a computer, and they illustrate how multiple students can enter the same prompt and receive different versions. However, they don’t meet our business writing standards.

• Overall, the arguments are sound. The main points are probably best for convincing a restaurant owner.

• Although simplistic, the organization is easy to follow. In all versions, arguments are grouped appropriately (and differently), and paragraph organization is acceptable. However, we would encourage an introductory paragraph that includes some version of the purpose, prompt, main points, and a preview, and a more varied closing paragraph with some forward-looking nod back to the audience.

• The writing style is clear and varied, but wordy and lacks stronger subjects and verbs (there is, it is). We see several extraneous words and phrases.

• Where I would deduct the most points on a rubric would be for argument/evidence and audience analysis:

  • No citations! These responses need references to be credible arguments. I’m curious about ChatGPT because this information comes from somewhere—where?

  • No depth. Partly because they lack citations, these arguments lack depth. We see big statements without nuance or extrapolation.

  • Limited argument. Similarly, this is a logical argument, as we would expect from a computer. Although we see references to fairness, we don’t see a balance of credibility, logic, and emotional appeals. Our students would likely include a story or two to illustrate arguments about income inequality and meeting “basic needs.”

  • No tailoring to the audience. To be fair, my prompt is sloppy, asking for an argument to a “restaurant,” but restaurant owner is assumed. My prompt does specify St. Paul, Minnesota, but only the first response even mentions the location. Data specific to the region would strengthen the argument. How much? What would be the average cost increase? What are the current regulations about a living wage? Experience of other restaurants in St. Paul or similar regions would also strengthen the argument and quell concerns about businesses closing because they can’t afford to pay a living wage—or a student might provide conditions under which restaurants are more successful in how they implement a living wage.

  • No opposing arguments. For persuasive communication, we ask students to acknowledge opposing arguments to challenge their own thinking, to present a comprehensive view, and to consider the audience’s perspective and address possible resistance.

• Could students use ChatGPT as a starting point, as some use Wikipedia as a starting point for research? This idea is worth exploring, and a colleague and I may test this approach in the spring.

---

I wondered whether the length was an issue and asked ChatGPT to “Write a three-page argument to convince a restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota, to pay a living wage.” The result is about the same but includes more acknowledgement of the audience and possible challenges. But, in my view, this confirms ChatGPT’s limitations.

Introduction:

As a restaurant owner in St. Paul, Minnesota, you are no doubt constantly facing challenges and making difficult decisions. One of the most important choices you can make is how much to pay your employees. While it may be tempting to keep labor costs as low as possible, there are many compelling reasons to consider paying a living wage to your employees. In this argument, we will outline the benefits of paying a living wage, both for your business and for your employees, and explain why it is the right decision for your restaurant.

Body:

Paying a living wage has numerous benefits for your business. First and foremost, it can lead to increased productivity and morale among your employees. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are more likely to be focused, motivated, and engaged in their work. This can translate into higher levels of customer satisfaction and ultimately, increased profits for your restaurant.

Paying a living wage can also help to reduce turnover, which can be costly and disruptive to your business. When employees are paid a wage that allows them to support themselves and their families, they are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and less likely to leave. This can save you the time and expense of constantly training new hires and can lead to a more stable and experienced workforce.

In addition to the benefits for your business, paying a living wage has numerous positive impacts on your employees and the community at large. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are less likely to struggle with financial stress and insecurity. This can lead to improved physical and mental health, which can benefit not only your employees, but also their families and the community as a whole.

Paying a living wage can also help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice. When workers are paid a wage that allows them to afford the necessities of life, they are able to participate more fully in their communities and contribute to the local economy. This can help to build stronger, more vibrant communities, which can benefit everyone.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, paying a living wage is the right decision for your restaurant in St. Paul, Minnesota. It can lead to increased productivity and morale among your employees, reduced turnover, and improved physical and mental health for your workers and their families. It can also help to reduce income inequality and promote social justice in the community. While it may require some adjustments to your business model, the long-term benefits are well worth the investment.

Worries About ChatGPT

ChatGPT is getting a lot of attention, including a Chronicle article about the effect on student writing. (See a writing prompt I submitted and ChatGPT’s response—and why I’m not worried about business communication classes.)

The biggest worry about this AI tool is exactly what the developers promise:

We’ve trained a model called ChatGPT which interacts in a conversational way. The dialogue format makes it possible for ChatGPT to answer followup questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. ChatGPT is a sibling model to InstructGPT, which is trained to follow an instruction in a prompt and provide a detailed response.

What’s to become of our assignments if students can simply paste in a prompt and get a computer-generated response? How will students learn to write? The Chronicle article challenges us to reevaluate our assignments: “Assignments and assessments are so formulaic that nobody could tell if a computer completed them.”

Ideas from the article to prevent cheating (which seems to be a primary concern) include showing students why writing is important and, “Flip your teaching so that seminal pieces of work are done in class. Focus more on multimedia assignments or oral presentations. Double down on feedback and revision. Ask students to write about topics of genuine interest to them, in which their voices come through and their opinions are valued.” The author cites problems with adjuncts and large class sizes and suggests that instructors need more time to create meaningful work for students.

I feel optimistic about our business writing courses. How well does AI write to a defined audience, with emotional nuance and appropriate jargon? We don’t teach five-paragraph essays. We teach audience analysis, critical thinking, data integrity, and emotional intelligence, and these topics need more attention. Maybe we use ChatGPT to start arguments, but students verify and build on them. Business communication faculty have always excelled at valuing our students, as a sociologist suggests:

The way forward is not to just lament supplanted skills, as Plato did, but also to recognize that as more complex skills become essential, our society must equitably educate people to develop them. And then it always goes back to the basics. Value people as people, not just as bundles of skills.

One tech writer believes ChatGPT “can be excessively verbose and overuse certain phrases.” That is certainly something our students can fix.

Image source.

Interview Advice from a CTO

Deloitte CTO Leo Alexandru offered interview advice in a Twitter thread. Most of it is common sense, but the examples could inspire a good class discussion, including why tech has trouble attracting more women. Here are his (non-parallel) main points in bold, with some commentary:

1. Honesty. Of course, but he recommended admitting concepts that you “never heard of, haven't used in a while, and want to learn more about.” Students would do well to prepare for the last two.

2. The right attitude, which Alexandru describes as “positive, trustworthy, and solution-oriented.”

3. Don't talk s**t about their previous job. This is a good one, and students should prepare for questions about their internships. Even if they were disappointed, how can they describe the experience in a balanced way?

4. Chemistry. This one worries me and reminds me of other assessments about “fit.” Sometimes, this is a veil for “just like me” and leads to a homogenous team.

5. Communication skills. Alexandru writes, “So I am very interested in how well you express a point of view. Without being aggressive.” His perspective could be a difficult balance for women, who, in one study of performance reviews, were far more likely than men to be criticized for being “too aggressive.”

6. Don’t be a “yes man.” See above!

7. Preparation. This is always a good reminder for students: know the job description and research the company ahead of time. The bigger challenge might be integrating what they know into the conversation.

8. Asking questions. Alexandru suggests asking about challenges in the job, what success looks like, and why a previous person left. A colleague told me that she starts an interview by asking what questions the candidate has. Other hiring managers prefer most of the interview to be led by the candidate. An interactive discussion is usually best, and students need to be on their toes.

9. Passion. This is a good reminder for students to show enthusiasm and prepare reasons for wanting the job other than, “Apple is the best company in the world.”

10. Proven track record. Alexandru wants candidates to “show” not just “tell” results. An ePortfolio or other documented work will help.

Top Apple Exec Fired Over Joke

This story could be a challenging class discussion, but it gets at where we draw the line with “jokes.” Apple’s VP of procurement quoted an old movie line and got himself fired.

At a car show, a TikTok creator asked Tony Blevins what he does for a living. With his wife laughing, he quoted Arthur as he got out of his Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren: “I have rich cars, play golf, and fondle big-breasted women. But I take weekends and holidays off.” The video went viral, and Apple terminated the 22-year company veteran.

Students will have opinions, of course. Some will believe, as a New York Post writer believes, “Beyond the gross overreaction, canning top talent over a harmless pop culture reference is a bizarre path to innovation for the world’s top tech company.” Others will find the comment offensive and say that Apple had to act when employees complained to HR. In this sense, the video is an integrity issue for the company.

Either way, it’s a reminder that what students say can end up anywhere and have an impact they don’t intend.

Misleading College Financial Aid Letters

A lively class discussion is almost guaranteed if you introduce the topic of college financial aid letters. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 91% of colleges either underestimate net prices or fail to include the net price entirely.

In their offer letters, the GAO recommends that colleges subtract only grants and scholarships that students will receive but include ancillary costs like “tuition, fees, housing and meals, books, and living expenses.” Any parent with a college-age student—or any student paying their own way—know that these expenses add up.

The GAO report is also a good example for students to analyze. It follows some principles we teach in business communication classes: a clear structure and detailed table of contents (with hyperlinks); a mix of text, tables, and other graphics (with callouts); and an executive summary. Some design features are a bit curious, for example, left-column headings and squiggly lines around tables.

Overall, best practices are clear, and I hope that colleges take the GAO’s advice. The news raises issues of integrity and accountability. I find it interesting that the GAO was renamed the Government Accountability Office from the Government Accounting Office in 2004. The name does seem to better fit the organization’s mission.

FTX Founder Plays the Innocent

Sam Bankman-Fried’s interview about the collapse of FTX tells us a lot about him, about investors, and about regulation. Bankman-Fried chose to tell his story to New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin via video from the Bahamas. (See transcript.) Starting with a discussion of the many people were “hurt” by the business failing, Sorkin tried to hold Bankman-Fried responsible for billions of losses. He offers two divergent views of what happened to the company: that Bankman-Fried is a “young man who made series of terrible, terrible, very bad decisions,” or that he “committed a massive fraud—that this is a ponzi scheme, a manipulation of the system.”

Business communication students might see this as a false dichotomy. Bankman-Fried claimed that his goal was to “do right” by people and that he made mistakes. He said, “Look, I screwed up. I was C.E.O. I was the C.E.O. of FTX. And I say this again and again that it means I had a responsibility, and I was responsible ultimately for us doing the right things and didn’t. We messed up big.” But he denied setting out to commit fraud. Ross read a letter from someone who says he lost $2 million—his life savings—and that Bankman-Fried used his money to fund his hedge fund. Maybe both narratives are true, and Bankman-Fried isn’t seeing or admitting it.

Students might benefit from a class discussion or assignment about the investor perspective. Not to the blame the victim, but what accountability do investors have in this situation? What were they hoping to achieve compared to other investors—or compared to the general public who do not have $2 million to invest? Depending on how far you want to take this story, a discussion about regulation is certainly relevant, and students, particularly if they or they families have benefitted from crypto investments, might have a lot to say about it.

Otherwise, the video serves as a good example to analyze for delivery, persuasion, character, and interview skills. How is Bankman-Fried as a presenter? How does he balance logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility? What character dimensions are at play? Was it the best decision, going against his lawyers’ advice, to do this interview—and from his penthouse in the Bahamas? How well did he respond to questions? Overall, are students more—or less—favorable about Bankman-Fried after watching the interview?