Stanley Responds to Lead Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Zuckerberg Impromptu Apologizes, Defends Progress

Tech CEOs faced senators’ tough questions and accusations about child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platforms. Rarely do we see an impromptu apology, but Mark Zuckerberg directly faced families during the hearings.

Lawmakers held little back with the CEOs of six major tech companies. One of the harshest was Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said, “You have blood on your hands.” Several families were present, holding photos of children who were harmed or killed as a result of online abuse.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley asked if Mark Zuckerberg “would like to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your platforms. [To the audience] Show him the pictures. [Back to Zuckerberg] Would you like to apologize for what you have done to these good people?” Understandably, Zuckerberg looked hesitant and awkward, as photographers swarmed around him. He turned around to face the families and said, “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered, and this is why we invested so much.” The scene is both heartbreaking and farcical.

Parents didn’t seem to appreciate the apology; one said, “He had a gun to his head,” meaning it wasn’t sincere. But after Hawley’s insistence, he would have looked callous to refuse an on-the-spot apology. He was set up. Considering the situation, he did OK.

Although Zuckerberg’s view is that they have “invested so much,” people want to see more. An internal email revealed that Zuckerberg rejected a request to add 45 staff to the effort.

At least a couple of lawmakers blamed themselves for not passing legislation after dozens of hearings. Some blamed the tech companies’ resistance and lobbying efforts. Zuckerberg’s position is that the data, “on balance,” shows positive outcomes of the platforms. He also said, “Overall, teens tell us this is a positive part of their lives.” As we teach in business communication courses, averages are not always the most useful information.

The conversation is tiring after all these years. Zuckerberg’s integrity is damaged because of his failed promises and because internal documents are inconsistent with them. But the senate hearings aren’t inspiring much movement—and are becoming a circus.

Soccer Players "Walking Off" After Racist Comments

Not a sports watcher, I’m fascinated reading how soccer players handle racist comments during the game. Some players are walking off the field amid calls for greater penalties.

A writer for The Athletic explains what led to the AC Milan (the football team) to walk off:

[Mike] Maignan led his AC Milan teammates off the pitch at Udinese on Saturday after being racially abused twice from the stands. [Kasey] Palmer was racially abused by a Sheffield Wednesday fan towards the end of Coventry City’s 2-1 win at Hillsborough.

AC Milan posted support on X: “There is absolutely no place in our game for racism: we are appalled. We are with you, Mike. #WeRespAct”

Of his experience, Palmer said, “I’m black and proud, and I am raising my three kids to be the exact same. I’ll be honest, it feels like things will never change, no matter how hard we try,” and “Couple fans doing monkey chants don’t define a fanbase. I appreciate all the love and support I’ve received.”

Maignan called on authorities to do more. He also posted these thoughts on X:

It was not the player who was attacked. It's the man. He's the father of the family. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. And I'm not the first this has happened to. We issued press releases, advertising campaigns, protocols and nothing has changed. Today, an entire system must take responsibility. . . .

The FIFA president made a statement condemning racism, including, “No to racism! No to any form of discrimination!” But many are calling for harsher punishments in addition to the current process:

FIFA’s guidance follows a “three-step” policy: at the first incident of racism, the referee should report it to the “home club safety officer via the fourth official”; at the second, the referee may suspend the match “allowing the safety officer and police to deal with the perpetrators”; it’s only at the third incident that the referee is empowered to abandon the match.

As we can expect, not everyone agrees, with some calling for players to do the equivalent of “man up” but with more literal expressions I had to look up and won’t write. Students could weigh in on this situation, and a discussion could lead to, but doesn’t have to, what’s acceptable on college campuses.

This situation raises issues of integrity for the league. A writer for The Athletic says of FIFA’s president, “Now it’s time for him to follow up his words with action.” This is a call for words and deeds to match, or for consistency, a key component of integrity.

China Changes Youth Unemployment Measure

After a five-month lapse, China reported youth unemployment data, which looks better because of new metrics. The change raises questions about data integrity and reporting.

According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate of people between 16 and 24 years old dropped from a high of 23.1 in June to 14.9 in December. But the rate doesn’t mean more young people are employed. The Bureau now excludes students enrolled in school, even if they’re seeking part-time employment. Reports also will now separate people between 25 and 29 from those between 25 and 59. A record number of college graduates are having a particularly difficult time finding jobs, partly because of restrictions on tech, real estate development, and education fields and because of a slow recovery from the pandemic, which Chinese officials seem reluctant to admit.

The youth data change might not have been as alarming if China hadn’t stopped reported data after that record high in June.

Students might discuss the significance of these changes and compare how China reports jobless data to U.S. methodology (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). This situation is a good project for students to dig into the data and also analyze, for example, differences between urban and overall rates.

Students also can find or create charts to visualize the change over time. They’ll likely find mostly line charts like the one at right that shows the urban rate over the past two years. As many do, this chart has a truncated Y axis, exaggerating the differences (and yet, one percentage point is a lot of people out of work).

Boeing Crisis Comms Need Work

Once again, Boeing is in crisis communication mode trying to explain plane failures. Messaging could sound more authentic and compassionate.

After part of the fuselage fell off an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 plane, United found loose bolts needing “additional tightening” on the same model. In a flashback to the horrible deaths caused by MAX planes five years ago, the FAA grounded 171 of the planes.

On its website, Boeing lists daily “Updates,” but none of them acknowledge the fear (and of course, the inconvenience) to passengers. The audience for these messages is the public, and communications to passengers seem to be missing. One update restates what CEO Dave Calhoun said in a company-wide meeting to employees:

When it comes to the safety of our products and services, every decision and every action matters. And when serious accidents like this occur, it is critical for us to work transparently with our customers and regulators to understand and address the causes of the event, and to ensure they don’t happen again. This is and must be the focus of our team right now. I am deeply grateful to our colleagues who have been working tirelessly on our company’s response over the past two days.

We will spend time together Tuesday talking about our company’s response to this accident, and reinforcing our focus on and our commitment to safety, quality, integrity and transparency. While we’ve made progress in strengthening our safety management and quality control systems and processes in the last few years, situations like this are a reminder that we must remain focused on continuing to improve every day.

On January 9, a video of Calhoun talking with employees was posted on the site. In this message, he found some emotion, referring to the shocking pictures, which reminded him that he’s a parent and grandparent. His delivery style is natural, but much of the message sounded canned. Imagine if he said “honesty,” instead of “transparency,” which he announced like a section heading:

[Honesty.] Let me talk a little bit about what I did today and what I’ll keep doing with members of our team who are with us today. We’re going to approach this, number one, acknowledging our mistake. We are going to approach it with 100% in complete [honesty] every step of the way.”

Transparency seems best achieved through actions rather than promises—like safety.

Unfortunately for Boeing, other media sources aren’t reflecting well on the company. Several passenger TikTok videos show the missing part of the plane. (Passengers are uncharacteristically calm, perhaps because this is one of those situations when they have absolutely no control and no choice but to surrender.) A former employee whistleblower told CNBC, “It really wasn’t a surprise, sadly.”

In a CNBC interview, Corporate Communication Professor Paul Argenti criticized Boeing’s “focus on profits rather than safety, and you need to do both.” He encouraged a greater sense of urgency in [CEO Dave] Calhoun’s response: “I don’t see him saying the kinds of things that would give me confidence in the organization.” Argenti said that we need to know what went wrong and what the company will do to fix it, and “They need somebody new. . . a hero to come in and save this company.” The former CEO also struggled with communication.

Air Alaska showed a bit more compassion towards customers on the flight, but it’s at the end of the statement:

A statement from Alaska Airlines CEO, Ben Minicucci:

At Alaska Airlines, safety is our foundational value and the most important thing we focus on every day. Following tonight’s event on Flight 1282, we have decided to take the precautionary step of temporarily grounding our fleet of 65 Boeing 737-9 aircraft. Each aircraft will be returned to service only after completion of full maintenance and safety inspections. We anticipate all inspections will be completed in the next few days.

I am personally committed to doing everything we can to conduct this review in a timely and transparent way.

We are working with Boeing and regulators to understand what occurred tonight, and will share updates as more information is available. The NTSB is investigating this event and we will fully support their investigation.  

My heart goes out to those who were on this flight – I am so sorry for what you experienced. I am so grateful for the response of our pilots and flight attendants. We have teams on the ground in Portland assisting passengers and are working to support guests who are traveling in the days ahead.

-Ben

Communication Issues Around Harvard President Resignation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

How to Spot a Fake Review

Fake online reviews are unfair to competitors and can cause bad purchase decisions. Students benefit from knowing how to spot these reviews, and the topic raises bigger questions about integrity.

People depend on online reviews for purchase decisions, but 30-40% of reviews are considered unreliable. A CNBC article suggests ways to avoid being duped:

• Beware of five-star reviews, particularly without text or right after a negative review appears.

• Check reviewers who have locked profiles, post only one time, use a stock photo, or post about businesses in multiple countries.

• Don’t be fooled by detailed reviews with photos, which can still be fake.

Other sources suggest evaluating the writing:

• Repeated mentions of the product or brand name

• Language you would see in an ad or press release

• Unnatural language (for example, “robust wireless data transmission”)

But some of these strategies require digging and might not be practical for someone perusing Airbnb or looking for a mop. Some research found that language models do a better job than humans in detecting fake reviews, so that might be the best defense.

One tool, Fakespot, a browser add-on, promises to flag fake reviews on Amazon and other sites using AI technology. The Hopeless Geek analyzes tech products and gave Fakespot a mixed review. His point is that the program analyzes reviews, not products. For example, Samsung was flagged as possibly being "deceptive,” but Geek argues the conclusion is based on how the reviews are written. Amazon also protested Fakespot and convinced Apple to remove the app, which it claimed was wrong about products 80% of the time.

Fakespot warns us about the integrity of fake reviews while developing its own credibility as an app. The website uses several strategies that students would recognize to demonstrate ethos; for example, we see “trust” and “truth” several times, reputable company logos (those the app covers and news articles about the app), and testimonials. The site also uses social proof (“millions of consumers like you”) to convince us to install the add-on.

Spotting fake reviews is complicated. If ChatGPT writes a review for someone feeding it the information, is it fake? In a letter, US Public Interest Resource Group (PIRG) encourages the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to do more to investigate and monitor websites. Complicated problems require multiple solutions—beyond what individual users can do.

Hasan Minhaj Defends Embellishing Stand-Up Comedy

The comedian Hasan Minhaj isn’t cowering after a New Yorker reporter fact checked and criticized his Netflix series Patriot Act and other performances. His response is an unusual approach for crisis communication. Students might discuss issues of integrity and analyze evidence in this situation.

In her article, “Hasan Minhaj’s ‘Emotional Truths’,” Clare Malone wrote,

[A]fter many weeks of trying, I had been unable to confirm some of the stories that he had told onstage. . . . Still, he said that he stood by his work. “Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth,” he said. “My comedy Arnold Palmer is seventy per cent emotional truth—this happened—and then thirty per cent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”

In part, Malone’s focus was on the consequences of Minhaj’s fabrications (he might say “embellishments”). When comparing his stories to George Santos’s, Minhaj says Santos’s are "pointless,” whereas his have societal value, which gives him moral standing. Students can discuss how much is too much “stretching the truth.” How might standards of integrity differ for comedians, politicians, organizational leaders, entrepreneurs, job applicants, etc.?

People make difficult decisions about whether and how to respond to criticism. Minhaj fought back. A New York Times writer summarizes Minhaj’s response well:

Typical crisis management dictates you should move on, not fixate. But in our attention economy, where the most popular Netflix specials of the past year featured Chris Rock talking about the Slap and John Mulaney joking about going to rehab, comedians are wise to consider Rahm Emanuel’s famous political advice: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Minhaj split the difference. He did not linger on the story but dedicated a solid chunk of jokes to it that got one of the biggest responses of the night. There were moments when I even thought this scandal might be the best thing that ever happened to him.

During a recent Beacon Theater show, Minhaj quipped to the audience, “Don’t fact check me.” He said of the New Yorker report, “I got caught embellishing for dramatic effect,” and said it was too bad it was such “a dorky scandal” and not one involving, for example, child abuse.

In a 21-minute video watched, so far, 1.9 million times, Minhaj addressed criticism head-on, showing headlines and a Bill Maher clip. He apologized to those hurt by his routines and addressed three stories in detail. He distinguished between what really happened and how he changed details to create a funny/poignant story. Supporting his points, Minhaj played audio from the interview with the New Yorker reporter. As he acknowledges during the video, his explanations are a bit much (saying at one point, “If you’re still here,” and, I admit, I dropped off soon after). But he does provide good evidence of the reporter ignoring or missing information. (For a deep dive of disputed facts, read this Slate analysis.) Naturally, Malone posted a short statement on X, defending her reporting.

To his credit, Minhaj has enough perspective to conclude with a main point (direct organization plan—up front!): he didn’t “fake racism.” Students can draw their own conclusions and whether they are convinced by Minhaj’s presentation of the evidence.

This situation gives students a different perspective on crisis communications. Minhaj highlighted rather than downplayed criticism, which may have avoided his getting “cancelled” and might even elevate his reputation.

CMU's Response to Antisemitism Lawsuit

A Carnegie Mellon University graduate student of architecture filed a lawsuit alleging antisemitism, and the university’s response could be improved. The federal complaint describes incidents since 2018, including a professor’s actions and comments to the student and the student’s reports to the DEI office and the Title IX office, which she says discouraged her from filing a formal complaint.

The university’s response sounds like ChatGPT wrote it. The president uses well-worn phrases for these types of statements, as if they were pulled from those who had faced similar situations, regardless of whether the response was well received or ethical. The most glaring sentence is, “We take these allegations very seriously, are reviewing them closely and plan to respond appropriately.” Of course they do and they will. This is no great statement of accountability: the university has little choice after receiving a federal complaint.

“Values” appears three times in the short statement, the last one linking to the university’s “shared values” that no one but me will read. If they did, they would see that all eight values could appear on any university’s website—or that of most for-profit, non-profit, or governmental organizations.

I am sympathetic. University presidents are leading in extremely challenging times, when no answer, no action will satisfy everyone. This has always been true for organizational leaders, but now seems particularly rough. Related: I found Sophia Rosenfeld’s article, “I Teach a Class on Free Speech. My Students Can Show Us the Way Forward,” to be a poignant, hopeful summary of the current situation.

Image source.

BP Focuses on Misleading Statements, Not Relationships

BP is unusually blunt in publicizing the results of an investigation against the former CEO. But the focus is on misleading, not inappropriate relationships.

I analyzed a previous statement about this situation in which the Board used softer, ambivalent language:

Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures.  He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.

This recent statement holds little back:

Following careful consideration, the board* has concluded that, in providing inaccurate and incomplete assurances in July 2022, Mr Looney knowingly misled the board. The board has determined that this amounts to serious misconduct, and as such Mr Looney has been dismissed without notice effective on 13 December 2023. This decision had the effect of bringing Mr Looney’s 12 month notice period to an immediate end. [The asterisk refers to a note about the interim CEO.]

In detail, the board describes compensation decisions, which amount to the CEO forfeiting about $41 million. Some compensation from 2022 also will be clawed back.

I am curious about the board’s reasoning. “This amounts to serious misconduct” refers to his misleading the board, not the relationships. Are these not also considered misconduct? Or are they just harder to prove—or to talk about?

I also note that the board avoids saying Looney “lied,” which means making a false statement. Wasn’t that the case? “Providing inaccurate and incomplete assurances” sounds like lying to me—maybe not the “incomplete” ones but the “inaccurate” statements. “Mislead” sounds more professional, subtler, which makes the news release blunt, but not that blunt.

Musk Apologizes and Curses Advertisers

After losing major advertisers on X, Elon Musk illustrates communication lessons about apologies and rebuilding image. At least two parts of an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin are worthy of class discussion.

Starting Around 8:15
The first relates to Musk’s agreement with an X post about a antisemitic conspiracy theory. Musk tried to backtrack by posting explanations, which he said were “ignored by the media. And essentially, I handed a loaded gun to those who hate me and to those who are antisemitic, and for that I am quite sorry.” Entwined in his apology is Musk as victim, which typically doesn’t play well in rebuilding image. Apologies focus on those affected—not the actor.

Another good lesson for business communication students is Musk’s regret. He said he “should not have replied to that particular person, and I should have written in greater length as to what I meant.” A leader should know that even liking a post, no less writing, “You have said the actual truth,” carries tremendous weight. Perhaps X, with its entire founding based on short posts, is not the best medium to discuss theories of race. [Side note: Musk clarified during the interview that “tweets” were more appropriate when Twitter allowed only 140 characters. He prefers “posts” now.]

Musk visited Israel, a trip he said was planned before the X post incident. Still, the visit looked like, as Sorkin said, “an apology tour.” Musk denied the accusation, repeating the phrase “apology tour,” despite what crisis communicators might advise. Musk posted, “Actions speak louder than words." Yes, they do, so the post itself is odd. People can draw their own conclusions about his visit to Israel. The Washington Post reported that few advertisers have been positively moved by his visit.

Starting Around 11:15
When Sorkin started speaking about advertisers, Musk interrupted to say, “I hope they stop [advertising].” Understandably, Sorkin looked confused, but Musk continued, “Don’t advertise. . . . If someone is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f—- yourself.” Sorkin was speechless at this point, and Musk repeated the command and asked, “Is that clear? I hope that it is.” We hear titters in the audience, a mix of shock and embarrassment.

Where’s the line between confidence and arrogance? Students certainly will have opinions on that topic. In fairness, Musk gets quite philosophical later in the interview. He comes across as authentic and somewhat vulnerable, revealing his personal struggles as well as his commitment to the environment and his business plans. He also expressed disappointment about OpenAI, having named the platform, which he said “should be renamed super-closed source for maximum profit AI.” That got a genuine laugh.

Avoiding Shopping Scams and Other Online Deception

Talking about online retail scams is one way to remind students to evaluate websites critically. A Wall Street Journal quiz shows that younger people are susceptible to shopping fraud, despite what students might think about older people’s vulnerability.

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) describes signs of consumer fraud:

• Fake websites and apps

• Email links

• Making payments on unsecure sites

• Using public wifi to shop or access sensitive information

• Package delivery confirmation scams

These traps seem obvious—until we fall for them. If students don’t admit being duped, maybe they’ll talk about someone who was or a fraudulent site or message they avoided.

If you cover Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion (including a new one—unity), students might identify how online retailers use each. They can find examples on their favorite shopping websites and discuss how ethically the principle is used. Students will easily find examples of scarcity (Cyber Monday! Giving Tuesday! Black Friday!).

Image source.

Is Snoop Dogg Vulnerable or Self-Promoting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Botched Comms About Altman's Departure from OpenAI

After backlash following the sudden termination of CEO Sam Altman, the OpenAI board is in a bind. Their minimal communications and what seems like an impulsive decision caused problems inside and outside the company. The latest news is that Altman may return because of investor pressure—and because he and a few employees who resigned in protest started, within hours, setting up a competitive company.

The Board’s initial statement cites “safety concerns tied to rapid expansion of commercial offerings.” Although his termination seems shocking, we don’t know the level of friction between Altman and the board. This article describes the possible ideological differences between Altman and the board, which are more subtle than what some describe as differences between “doomers” and “accelerationists,” with more focus on how to rather than whether to expand generative AI

The company statement doesn’t say much, yet is “unusually candid,” as a Wall Street Journal writer put it:

Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.

“Candid” seems to be the word of the day. The WSJ writer means frank or forthcoming, while the board writer means truthful—both relate to integrity.

OpenAI President Greg Brockman was excluded from the meeting and resigned shortly after, writing on X that he was shocked too. Messages from Brockman and Altman to staff were short and professional. Other researchers resigned soon after. Altman has been posting his gratitude and potential plans regularly on X.

Microsoft tried to contain the damage. Without prior notice, CEO Satya Nadella posted a short statement expressing his continued confidence in the company. He referenced “Mira,” Interim CEO Mira Murati, and said nothing else about leadership changes. Still, Microsoft shares fell 1.7% by Friday’s close.

The OpenAI COO also tried to control damage in an email to staff that confirmed the decision was about a “breakdown in communications” (no kidding!) and not about “malfeasance.”

Students might be interested to learn more about the unusual governance structure of OpenAI. As a nonprofit board (in this case, only six members), they have more control over OpenAI’s leadership and operations than do investors of the subsidiary. Still, investors—and employees and the public—can and certainly are voicing their opinions. Whether or not Altman returns, the messaging will be interesting to watch.

FDIC's "Toxic Workplace" and an Activity

As Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg faces pressure to resign, students can explore what a “toxic workplace” looks like. Without getting too detailed, they could describe their own experiences—when they have felt uncomfortable during jobs and internships.

In my persuasive communication and organizational behavior classes, I used a variation of an activity from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values that could be useful as you discuss the FDIC example. In the FDIC situation, speaking up didn’t make a difference. Still, reflecting on students’ own experience may inspire them to take action and have an impact in the future.

A Wall Street Journal investigation revealed multiple leadership problems dating back to at least 2008 at the FDIC. Complaints went unresolved and sometimes resulted in promotions of those accused. Although Black employees won a $15 million class action suit in 2000, discrimination complaints continued. Workers claim that sexual harassment and bullying is part of the culture.

FDIC leadership is taking no accountability and saying little in response to the published investigation. An official told the WSJ that the agency "has no higher priority than to ensure that all FDIC employees work in a safe environment where they feel valued and respected. Sexual harassment or discriminatory behavior is completely unacceptable. We take these allegations very seriously." Students will recognize this as meaningless boilerplate. Because the story is so visible and the reporting is so clear, the agency is better off demonstrating humility—recognizing failures and, if nothing specific at this point, at least describing plans for corrective action.

---

Taking Action

For this activity, you’ll compare two examples from your work or other experience.[1]  The purpose of this exercise is to see how you have taken action in a situation that conflicted with your values. Then, you will analyze a time when you didn’t take action to see how you could have handled the situation differently.

Individual Planning Questions

First, think of a time when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values, and you spoke up or acted in some way to address the situation.

• Briefly describe the context.

• What inspired you to do something?

• What did you do and how did it impact others?

• What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?

• In retrospect, how did you do? You don’t need to be too self-critical, but think about what would have been ideal in the situation.

Next, think of another situation in which you did not speak up or act when you were expected to do something that conflicted with your values or ethics.

• Briefly describe the context.

• What prevented you from speaking up? What would have motivated you to take action?

• What are some things that would have made it easier for you to take action in this situation? Which of these were under your control, and which were outside your control?

• In retrospect, what could you have done differently?

Partner Feedback

If you can work with a partner, discuss your responses and learn from each experience.

When talking about your own situation, you don’t need to defend your actions or be too critical. When you listen to your partner’s situation, you can ask clarifying questions or share similar experiences, but try not to judge the decision. Like you, your partner may be sensitive about actions taken or not taken.

At the end of your conversation, summarize the main learning points. What would you like to do more of in the future to develop leadership character?

[1] This activity is adapted from Mary Gentile, Giving Voice to Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 51–53.

Image source.

Emotions Drove a Football Manager's Comments

A football writer offers a lesson for all business communicators: “Maybe managers shouldn’t give interviews straight after games.” Similar to other business situations, emotions run high, and people need to take a beat before they speak or write. Student athletes and fans will be particularly interested in this story, but the example is for anyone who reacts before thinking through the consequences.

Arsenal Football Club (soccer to Americans) manager Mikel Arteta took an interview after a disappointing game. He disputed a goal call:

We have to talk about the result because you have to talk about how the hell this goal stands up and it’s incredible. I feel embarrassed, but I have to be the one now come here to try to defend the club and please ask for help, because it’s an absolute disgrace that this goal is allowed. . . .It’s an absolute disgrace. Again, I feel embarrassed having more than 20 years in this country, and this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world. I am sorry.

Critics called Arteta’s reaction “disproportionate.” Such language as “how the hell” and “absolute disgrace” reflect a far greater injustice. I’ll leave the analysis to sports enthusiasts, but it seems like a questionable call—not an outrage.

The trouble worsens when the Arsenal Football Club defends Arteta in a statement, which included unequivocal support: “Arsenal Football Club wholeheartedly supports Mikel Arteta’s post-match comments.” The Athletic describes what business communication faculty would conclude, comparing the response to a crisis situation:

But for a football club to release an “official statement,” once upon a time the sort of thing reserved for managerial dismissals and so forth, about a marginal refereeing decision they disagree with, is extraordinary.

Over-reactions are difficult to withdraw. Arsenal supported the manager, which generally is a good corporate practice, but doubling-down on exaggeration makes management look defensive and lacking humility, as if they know a wrong was committed but are stuck.

Of course, a better approach for Arteta is to have waited a bit, as the writer suggests. It’s the same for business communicators. Write an email while angry but don’t send it until a day or so later. During a difficult interaction, pause and step away if you need to. Most often, an immediate response, as this situation shows, isn’t needed.

Hyatt's Bad-News Message to BCom Faculty

Association for Business Communication members woke up to a cold shower during the annual conference and later received a note from the director of operations. Naturally, we analyzed this message against principles for delivering bad news. I admit to “geeking out” on this one.

Strengths

• The director of operations took responsibility for the issue and had a personal note delivered to every room. (I don’t know what time because I had left my room after getting what might have been the last warm shower at 6:20.)

• Dietel mentions the news up front (despite older advice of using the indirect approach and putting bad news at the end), which is appropriate for the audience and situation.

• He explains what happened (beyond the hotel’s control, so he won’t get blamed) and tells guests not to expect warm water for “several hours.”

• He apologizes, noting, “this is very inconvenient.” (What else could he say?)

• He provides staff contact information by phone and his direct email. He doesn’t shy away from customer complaints.

Areas for Improvement

• The first sentence is confusing: Who is notified? The city steam plant? No, guests—or “you.”

• To bring main points even more clearly up front, some version of the last sentence of the first paragraph—when guests can expect hot water—would work better.

• The reason includes more detail than guests might care to know. I would make it more concise: “a disruption at the city steam plant.”

• “Several hours” could be defined, but that might not be possible. Deitel says the disruption has been “restored,” and we’re waiting for “the necessary steam.”

• Correct punctuation and proofreading are always appreciated; commas, hyphens, and “The city” instead of “They city” would increase credibility.

• Maybe a text would have worked better to save paper and provide an easy way to notify people when the hot water returned. Otherwise, given the “several hours” prediction, guests would have to keep testing it. Don’t all guests provide a phone number when they check in? Or maybe the hotel favors paper for the appearance of more personalized service (like a handwritten thank-you note compared to an email).

Business communication faculty—including me—will dissect any message. But overall, the message is a good example of a director of operations leading: taking responsibility, communicating, and dealing with the repercussions. I hope no guests called or emailed. In a situation like this, the hotel staff can do very little.

University-Related Communications and the War

If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.

Protests and Free Speech

In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.

• Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”

• Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)

• Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:

Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)

Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)

Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).

Donors Pulling Funding

Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?

Joint University Statement

Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.

Firms Denying Jobs

Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.

Tax Credits: Persuasive Comm and Ethics Case

One company’s approach to the U.S. government Employee Refund Credit (ERC) serves as a case in communication ethics. Using communication frameworks, students will easily find ways Innovation Refunds persuaded customers. The website getrefunds.com redirects to this page, which students can analyze.

The classic rhetorical triangle of logical argument (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos) examples:

• Logos: “We make claiming the payroll tax refund easier.” (logical, step-by-step process for results)

• Pathos: “The ERC offers a welcome cash infusion as owners struggle.” (appeal to emotion)

• Ethos: Wall Street Journal quote and link to the IRS website. (credibility)

Robert Cialdini’s Seven Principles of Persuasion examples:

• Reciprocity: With “no upfront costs,” the company inspires business owners to apply in return.

• Scarcity: “Time is running out!” and “don’t let your business miss its chance to make a claim” convey a limited timeframe during which to apply.

• Authority: “[O}ur team of independent tax attorneys and tax professionals” boasts the staff’s credentials.

• Consistency: Users who complete the “check your eligibility” form are more likely to follow through.

• Liking: The company presents its staff as likable and reliable—people business owners would want to work with: “Our team will guide you every step of the way, from eligibility to claiming and receiving refunds.”

• Social Proof: Testimonials and the scrolling list of amounts and company logos show how others have succeeded in getting refunds.

• Unity: I don’t see an example of unity, Cialdini’s additional principle, but maybe you or your students will.

Although the company denies wrongdoing, aggressive marketing tactics have resulted in far more claims—and much higher government costs—than expected.

Comparing University Statements About Israel

As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)

Statements

Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington

Questions for Discussion

• Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?

• What are the communication objectives?

• For each statement:

  • How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?

  • What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?

  • How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?

  • How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?

  • How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?

  • What resources are offered for students?

  • What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?

  • What, if any, action does the university promise?

  • How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?

  • What else distinguishes one statement from another?

• What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?

Image source.