Musk Email Lands in Italy

Elon Musk’s five-bullet-points email didn’t go over well in the U.S., but the reaction is worse in Italy, raising questions about intercultural communication for students to discuss. The email asks government workers to list five accomplishments in the past week.

With the subject, “What did you do last week?,” these emails were met with mixed reactions in the U.S., with some agencies instructing their employees not to respond. But when Italian workers at Aviano Air Base received the email, the negative reaction was stronger.

Students can explore cultural differences. One framework to explain the different reactions is Hofstede’s model, particularly the dimension of individualist / collectivist society. As one Italian union representative said, Italy “is not the Wild West like the U.S.” This country comparison tool website describes individualism as follows:

The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people's self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “W.” In Individualist societies, people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to “in groups” that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

The differences, shown here according to the comparison tool, aren’t as great as we might think, but Italian unions represent a higher percentage of the population, are more highly centralized, and provide broader protections than U.S. unions do.

Students may find other differences driving these reactions. For example, this past week, Italian President Sergio Mattarella declined a meeting with Musk about a potential $1.5 billion deal for Starlink, the satellite internet service. The request raised concerns about a public institution negotiating with a private entity. All this might be intensified by Europe’s reaction to the U.S. political situation at the moment.

American Airlines' Evolving Crisis Communications

American Airlines has posted several messages as part of its crisis response to the tragic Flight 5342 crash en route from Wichita, Kansas (ICT), to Washington, D.C. (DCA). The CEO’s videos serve as a model of bad-news communication, and he cleverly and subtlety shifts blame away from the airline.

Calling the tragedy an “accident,” American Airlines places the crash into one of the three categories of crises: victim, accident, or preventable. (See Elina R. Tachkova and W. Timothy Coombs, Communicating in Extreme Crises: Lessons From the Edge, Routledge, 2022.) Unlike a preventable crisis, such as financial impropriety, an accidental crisis doesn’t require company leaders to take responsibility. Of course, leaders still need to express sympathy for those affected, but they do not apologize as they would when blamed for a crisis.

American Airlines created a webpage to chronicle the company’s response and what they know. So far, four messages are posted, with blame increasingly shifting elsewhere.

• An initial announcement describes the event with little information and a hotline number. At this point, responsibility is unclear.

• A video from CEO Robert Isom expresses sympathy and concern. His delivery is scripted, but he sounds serious and measured. He promises to “take care of all passengers and crew involved and their families.” He says the AA flight “appears to have collided with a military aircraft on approach.”

• One day later, a second video thanks the Safety Board and others. Now he says they’re focused on the “families and loved ones.” He says “recovery efforts” are continuing, but it’s fairly clear at this point that no one survived the crash. Again, his tone reflects a caring, engaged executive.

  He also begins to shift blame, saying the reverse of his previous message: “A military helicopter collided with American Eagle flight 5342 upon its approach” and “This flight was operated under PSA, one of our wholly owned carriers.”

• The fourth message, below, further shifts blame. President Trump has blamed DEI efforts for the crash: "I put safety first. Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first. The FAA's website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism." Isom doesn’t address these comments, but he expresses gratitude for the president’s “leadership on aviation safety,” and “applaud(s)” the Administration’s response. His focus is on military helicopters, focusing on new reports that helicopters may be crowding the airspace around D.C. airports.

Isom is front and center during the crisis communication, as he should be as the leader of a major company involved in a tragedy. In addition to framing the crisis as an “accident,” he doesn’t blame others directly but increasingly shifts attention away from AA to the carrier and to the military. The last sentence in his statement implies a historical lack of investment in critical resources.

CEO Robert Isom statement on the Trump Administration action on aviation safety

Friday, January 31, 2025, 2:45 p.m.

American Airlines CEO Robert Isom issued the following statement surrounding changes to flight activity at DCA: “We are all hurting as we continue to grieve the loss of our passengers and team members. I thank President Trump for his leadership on aviation safety. I applaud him, Secretary Duffy and the Administration for taking quick and decisive action today to restrict helicopter activity around DCA. In the days ahead, we will work tirelessly with the Administration and leaders in Congress to make our aviation system even safer, including by increasing investments in infrastructure, technology and personnel.”

Meta's “Non-regrettable Attrition”

Another year, another euphemism for layoffs. Downsize, rightsize, smartsize, rationalize, amortize, reduce, redeploy, reallocate, reorganize, restructure, offshore, outsource, outplace—and now “non-regrettable attrition,” which has no ready verb form, as though it’s something beyond a company’s control.

A Forbes writer sums up the issue:

There’s also nothing wrong with categorizing turnover into desired (company-initiated) and undesired (employee-initiated) attrition.

But the term "non-regrettable attrition" that Meta used is a poor choice of words.

It’s not just tone-deaf—it comes across as dismissive and arrogant.

The writer explains the damage the label does to an individual who might find more suitable employment elsewhere. It’s a good point: a poor performer in one job can be quite successful in another.

We also see an issue of integrity, or inconsistency, in the company’s messaging. Although Zuckerberg’s memo to staff, below, doesn’t mention the term, Hillary Champion, Meta's Director of People Development Growth Programs, separately, said the goal is for 10% non-regrettable attrition: “This means we are aiming to exit approximately another 5% of our current employees [in 2025] who have been with the company long enough to receive a performance rating.”

I thought the term also lacked accountability because “attrition” typically is used to mean people leaving an organization voluntarily. But I was wrong: Gartner defines attrition as both voluntary and involuntary.

Still, another character dimension worth mentioning is compassion. “Non-regrettable attrition” communicates some combination of “We don’t care about you,” and “Don’t let the door…”

---

The full memo is below from Mark Zuckerberg to staff follows:

Meta is working on building some of the most important technologies in the world — Al, glasses as the next computing platform, and the future of social media. This is going to be an intense year, and I want to make sure we have the best people on our teams.

I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster. We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle — with the intention of backfilling these roles in 2025. We won’t manage out everyone who didn’t meet expectations for the last period if we’re optimistic about their future performance, and for those we do let go we’ll provide generous severance in line with what we’ve provided with previous cuts.

We’ll follow up with more guidance for managers ahead of calibrations. People who are impacted will be notified on February 10 — or later for those outside the US.

Letting people go is never easy. But I’m confident this will strengthen our teams and help us build leading technology to enable the future of human connection.

Helping Someone Whose Parent Is Overly Involved

I was curious about this story of a business owner who stepped in to offer advice to a parent. The owner’s friend reported the story and focused on the owner’s feedback to the father, but I want to focus on what else would be helpful to the young person looking for employment.

Jason Feifer, editor of Entreprenuer, posted the story on LinkedIn with a question, “My friend sent this text—would you?” His friend, Jeff Peterson received four messages from a young man’s father, each asking for a job for his son. Frustrated and genuinely wanting to be helpful, Peterson sent the message here. On a Help Wanted Spotify episode, Jason, Jeff, and Nicole Lapin discussed the situation.

They questioned whether this type of message might be helpful for the dad, so he knows, as Jeff says, that he isn’t “doing [his son] any favors.” They talked about other options, for example, ghosting the dad or saying only that all positions were filled.

I might consider a different approach. My thinking is that the father already knows that his son, not him, should be taking the initiative for jobs. I’m having trouble imagining a situation where an ambitious, go-getter son tells his dad that he’s going to reach out to Jeff, and the father says, “Oh, no. I’ll do it.” Four times? We don’t know the situation or their relationship, but I’m thinking there may be other issues. In other words, this might be a desperate attempt for a son who can’t or won’t reach out himself.

One option for Jeff, as the business owner, is to simply write—perhaps after the first message (and maybe he did)—”I’d be glad to consider your son’s application. Have him reach out to me himself.” A greater time investment that might be even more helpful is to say, after this fourth message, “Our positions are filled, but have your son contact me directly. I’d be glad to talk with him about how he might approach his search for other positions.” Again, maybe Jeff did respond that way to earlier messages, but that wasn’t discussed in the podcast.

Either way, the dad’s insistence is out of line, as they say on the podcast. I’m guessing students would agree about that.

McKinsey's Admission in a Settlement Statement

McKinsey may be the first consulting firm held criminally responsible for giving advice that led to a client’s criminal activity. As a result of the deferred prosecution agreement, we see a clear admission of guilt for the firm’s role in the opioid crisis. The statement offers an example of demonstrating accountability and compassion, particularly when compared to statements about previous settlements.

Pages from a McKinsey deck encouraging aggressive sales of opioids served as the introduction to Chapter 10 of the 11th edition of Business Communication and Character. Since then, McKinsey has settled other lawsuits, and each statement is posted on the firm’s website. Here are statements after other settlements for students to compare:

February 2021 (State Attorney Generals and others): Former CEO Kevin Sneader wrote:

We deeply regret that we did not adequately acknowledge the tragic consequences of the epidemic unfolding in our communities. With this agreement, we hope to be part of the solution to the opioid crisis in the U.S. . . . As I have said previously, we are determined to take the steps necessary to strengthen our firm’s risk management policies and culture. We will build on the steps we have already taken to learn from past mistakes, and ensure we consistently meet the high standards our firm has always aspired to.

Around that time, Sneader also wrote to staff:

Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.

March 2021 (Nevada): This statement repeats part of the February 2021 quote and includes this statement:

As we noted in connection with the prior settlements, McKinsey believes its past work was lawful and has denied allegations to the contrary. The settlement agreement with Nevada, like those reached in February, contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability.

September 2023 (Political subdivisions and school districts): This statement mentions another settlement with Native American Tribes but includes no quote. This one sounds more defensive:

As we have stated previously, we continue to believe that our past work was lawful and deny allegations to the contrary, and the settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing. The firm entered into this agreement to avoid the time and expense of protracted litigation and, in the process, to support the efforts of these political subdivisions and school districts to help those affected by the opioid epidemic.

December 2024 (Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice): The purpose of this $650 million agreement is to avoid criminal prosecution, although one partner will plead guilty to obstructing evidence (deleting documents). The statement starts with this paragraph, with no sign of the previous “deny allegations” language:

We are deeply sorry for our past client service to Purdue Pharma and the actions of a former partner who deleted documents related to his work for that client. We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma. This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.

This brings McKinsey’s settlement total to more than $1.5 billion in addition to the reputational damage. More significantly, other management consulting firms are now on notice. As U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy of Massachusetts said, “We will cut through the slick PowerPoints and the consultant speak and hold you accountable for your conduct if you engage in criminal violations.”

Image source.

Kohl's CEO Admits Mistakes

The outgoing Kohl’s CEO admitted failings, which students can analyze as an example of communicating bad news and accountability. The third-quarter earnings deck also serves as a class example.

One reason for Tom Kingsbury’s blunt admission is the obvious decline in sales and stock price. In the past two years, the stock declined 52%, and this quarter, sales declined 9.3%. In addition, Kingsbury is 72 years old and retiring; he may be concerned about his legacy, but he is no longer concerned about his next career move. Also, as a Citi analyst points out, he can’t blame macroeconomic conditions, as Target did recently, because Kohl’s decline is far beyond what we would expect from the results of inflation and more people shopping online.

Coming in as an activist investor, Kingsbury implemented ideas that didn’t work. Reducing petite clothing, jewelry sales, and private brand labels hurt sales. During the earnings webcast, Kingsbury said these decisions were “shortsighted.” He also said, “We thought, ‘We can do more with a lot less,’ and that didn’t work out for us.” On a positive note, he said, “We continue to believe our market brand strategy and investments into the key growth categories are the right long-term strategic moves,” although the WSJ writer disagrees: “So far, the numbers have told a different story.”

Students can read the quarterly presentation deck, with Kingsbury’s opening quotes. I admire his admission and taking responsibility, but we don’t see a clear strategy for the future, which sounds bleak. He says only “we must execute at a higher level and ensure we are putting the customer first”—nothing new here, and his plans to lower expectations aren’t inspiring. Kingsbury also uses “we” but will leave the company in May. Oddly, the company announced a new CEO the day before the earnings presentation. That’s good news! But I guess the deck couldn’t be updated in time? Students could suggest a stronger approach for this first content slide.

Image source.

Airbnb Criticized for "Touristification"

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

The Event Promotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Response

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

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

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

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

Overtourism

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

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

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

The Elephant/Donkey in the Room

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

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

Identify Benefits and Risks

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

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

Connect Election Communications to Course Learning Objectives

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

Explore Strategies to Engage with Students

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

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

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

• Attempts to avoid stylized verbal behavior

• Is characteristically willing to undergo the strain of adaptation

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

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

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

New System for "Gate Lice"

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

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

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

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

Image source.

McDonald's President Reassures Us After E. Coli Outbreak

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

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

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

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

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

Comms About the Internet Archive Breach

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

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

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

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

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

A note on the website just says simply this:

Temporarily Offline

Internet Archive services are temporarily offline.

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

We apologize for the inconvenience.

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

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

Employee Engagement Example

Students might be interested to read about Prologis, profiled in a Wall Street Journal article. The communication lessons are useful for future company leaders.

Although not well known, the 2700-employee real-estate logistics company ranked seventh on the Drucker Institute’s Corporate Management Top 250 (shown in this clear but boring bar chart). Evaluating customer satisfaction, innovation, social responsibility, employee engagement and development, and financial strength, the index discovered model practices at Prologis. Here are a few that relate to business communication course content, mostly inspired by the chairman and CEO, Hamid Moghadam:

• Risk-taking. Risk is encouraged at Prologis, and Moghadam reflects on his experience: “I’ve never been told no.”

• Speaking up. “It’s safe,” he says, to offer suggestions.

• Initiative. Prologis ranks particularly high on these questions: “I have the authority I need to do my job” and “I’m empowered to make decisions to best serve my customers.”

• Regular meetings. Moghadam describes Monday Investment Committee meetings, which sound intense. He speaks last, and the VP of communications says, “He’s direct, and people love it.”

Students might relate these principles to their own experience. Reflecting on my experience in the academy, I wouldn’t use any of these descriptions. Other positive principles were at play, but not these.

Using "We" for Negative Feedback?

A Wall Street Journal article cites social psychology research about using “we” instead of “you” to increase receptivity to negative feedback. The title and subtitle of the article are “The Secret Power of Using ‘We’ During Difficult Conversations: Bosses who use ‘we’ instead of ‘you’ are more likely to get employees to listen to negative feedback, according to new research.” Based on the research, this conclusion is an overreach.

The authors, whose research was published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, acknowledge that using “you” can increase feelings of connection and relatability and facilitate persuasion, as we teach in business communication classes. However, they note that these uses are in non-adversarial situations. For adversarial situations, they explain the value of “we”: “If you seem like you’re an open-minded person yourself, people naturally want to reciprocate that. Changing the pronouns you use from ‘you’ to ‘we’ can make your audience more open to your message. It’s kind of a secret power.”

The research includes several wide-ranging studies, including Reddit comments, pitches, and political speeches. Only one of the studies dealt with negative feedback. Respondents were told they are part of a team reading feedback that one team member had written about another:

You Condition: Sam, you should have made more progress faster. Your timeline was too relaxed, and you kept making errors along the ways that delayed the project. You could have worked harder early on to ensure you had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, you should make sure that your timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

We Condition: Sam, we should have made more progress faster. Our timeline was too relaxed, and we kept making errors along the ways that delayed project. We could have worked harder early on to ensure we had enough time to catch any additional mistakes. Next time, we should make sure that our timeline accounts for unexpected challenges along the way.

This is quite a different situation from what the WSJ reporter implies in the article subtitle—which could include managers giving feedback to their direct reports. I can think of many situations in which using “we” would sound terribly condescending. True, in business communication classes, we teach that “you” should be avoided when criticizing, as the above example illustrates. But the “we condition” could sound patronizing coming from a manager who wasn’t part of the team. Doctors and teachers sound patronizing when they say, “How do we feel?” or “We don’t talk when others are talking.” Also, although the “you condition” is harsh, saying something like, “we kept making errors,” when it was only Sam who made the errors is also patronizing—and false. In addition, context always matters. This is a difficult study to extrapolate from when respondents don’t have a stake in the situation.

The danger is conveying the “royal we,” or nosism—using the plural to refer to ourselves. Here’s the history:

The practice has been associated with the English monarchy since the 12th-century rule of Henry II, who used the pronoun “we” to signify that because he ruled by divine right, he represented both himself and God simultaneously.

If managers use the term to speak for God, no wonder it comes across as patronizing.

An exception may be in languages that distinguish between formal and familiar pronouns, for example tu and vous in Spanish. This needs more evidence, but a Wikipedia entry refers to the “nonconfrontational we” and claims that “we” is often used in recipe instructions and to avoid the overly informal (for example, ¿Cómo estamos? which means, How are we?). Some consider this a sign of respect.

Still, in American work environments, managers should avoid “we” when they mean “you.” Without using any pronoun, managers will sound respectful and appropriately direct. They can focus on the work and express first-person observations to convey the impact of the behavior, for example, “I saw [the client] close the deck after she noticed the miscalculation on page 4,” or “I wonder how Noah will react to your question about other proposals. What do you think?” In the research example, a team member could say about Sam’s performance, “I noticed and fixed several errors that delayed the project.“

(More about the editorial we here from a near-classic NY Times editorial.)

Image source.

Resignation Statements

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned after the assassination attempt of former President Trump, and President Biden decided not to run again for office. Students can compare both statements.

Despite the dramatic, marching-band resignations students might see on TikTok, job resignation letters should focus on goodwill. What’s different about these political messages is that the reasons are provided—sometimes.

Cheatle ended her term in a message to staff that became public. After a grueling hearing with lawmakers about the agency’s failure to protect former President Trump from a shooter, she may have had little choice in the decision. In her email, she wrote, “As your Director, I take full responsibility for the security lapse.” Her main objectives are to reassure staff and boost their confidence. She does this by praising their work and encouraging them to stay focused. Her resignation decision—the main point—is at the end instead of up front, as we teach for messages, including bad news, particularly when it’s obvious or expected.

President Biden’s (some would say long-awaited) decision to decline the Democratic party’s nomination came on X. Unlike Cheatle, he doesn’t give a reason. He makes no mention of the criticism about his debate performance and concerns about his mental and physical health, which is to be expected. He simply says, “I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term.” More significantly, he endorses Vice President Harris and includes a photo of them walking together, impeding other candidates’ chances of nomination.

President Biden’s comment about Cheatle’s resignation is notable: “As a leader, it takes honor, courage and incredible integrity to take full responsibility for an organization tasked with one of the most challenging jobs in public service.” Modifier issue aside, he compliments the character dimensions many hoped he would have demonstrated since the debate debacle.

I’m categorizing these examples under “bad-news message,” although many see both as good news, which is often the case.

U.S. Committee Report About Amazon

Few people think about the impact of Amazon Prime Days on employees, but the U.S. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee produced a report worth reviewing in class.

Although the report format doesn’t follow all business communication principles, students will see several they could include in their own reports:

• Clear title and subtitle: With repetition and strong language, the titles conveys the main point: “PEAK SEASONS, PEAK INJURIES: Amazon Warehouses Are Especially Dangerous During Prime Day and the Holiday Season—and the Company Knows It.”

• Message titles (or “talking headings”): The authors create a clear argument with full-sentence subheadings.

• Executive summary: Although not labeled, the first four paragraphs function as an executive summary. This part explains the complaint well.

• Data and stories: The report mixes data and employee quotes to balance a logical argument with emotional appeal.

• OSHA warnings: The second paragraph of page 5 and top of page 6 are particularly strong, giving evidence from OSHA reports about inaccurate and missing reports. To me, these are stronger than the first paragraph on page 5, which accuses Amazon of treating minor cuts and bruises and not reporting them as injuries—which isn’t required.

To meet business communication standards, the report could be improved:

• The report could be more visually interesting. The underlined heading, to start, is a 1990s throwback.

• This line chart is a mess. Purple highlighting is helpful, but students would find better ways to present this data.

• The argument seems to be simply about volume. Yes, Amazon’s injury rate on Prime Days is far above industry averages, but so is its volume. What about on other days? Before Prime Day, when volume is lower, injuries are lower. Perhaps they average out? This doesn’t excuse high rates, but it does explain them. Prime Day is an example of cherry picking data and is employed as a marketing frame for the argument—not the problem itself.

• The inflammatory language may detract from the report. “But Amazon does not stop there” is unnecessary to make the argument and might harm the writers’ credibility.

• The company’s admission of staffing issues may be inappropriately raised in the report. Using an Amazon safety training video that includes an example of an injury caused partly by lack of staffing seems unfair.

• An entire section is dedicated to staffing, but other solutions might be more realistic. More of the report could be dedicated to actions Amazon might take. The few listed on page 8 could be expanded.

• I’m never convinced by arguments like this one: “But those investments over four years are less than 3 percent of the company’s $36.9 billion in profits in 2023 alone.” I have often seen these calculations—percentages of revenue or profit—in students’ presentations, and they mean little. What do similar companies spend, or what is the industry average? Without a target, this is not a compelling reason to spend more.

This is an interesting report with good reasons for Amazon to reduce workplace injuries. A consultancy’s report, which students might write instead, could make a more useful, convincing argument.

Crisis Comms After CrowdStrike Failure

Tech outages affected businesses worldwide, and students can analyze responses by CrowdStrike, which caused the issue.

CrowdStrike begins its statement by including what has not been affected:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This was not a cyberattack.

The message is designed to be helpful and reduce worries—and to limit the scope of the crisis. Using a similar crisis communication strategy, Microsoft limits its role in the crisis by blaming the third party and mentioning its name twice:

We are aware of a scenario in which customers experience issues with their machines causing a bug check (blue screen) due to a recent CrowdStrike update. We recommend customers to follow guidance provided by CrowdStrike.

The “blue screen of death” that people saw during this outage evokes bad memories from early Microsoft days. Although Microsoft isn’t to blame, the software and the company are likely taking a reputational hit.

CrowdStrike President and CEO George Kurtz posted on X:

CrowdStrike is actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts. Mac and Linux hosts are not impacted. This is not a security incident or cyberattack. The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed. We refer customers to the support portal for the latest updates and will continue to provide complete and continuous updates on our website. We further recommend organizations ensure they’re communicating with CrowdStrike representatives through official channels. Our team is fully mobilized to ensure the security and stability of CrowdStrike customers.

Users responded by asking, “Where’s the apology to users, George?” and by calling it “corporate speak.” They have a point, and Kurtz got the memo later, appearing on the Today Show and immediately saying, “We are deeply sorry.” At that time, later in the day, his main purpose was to assure people that they fixed the problem and that systems are coming back.

Kurtz emphasized the importance of CrowdStrike’s work, focusing on how updates like the one that caused the outage are essential to safety—to prevent cyberattacks. Still, how a bug in a minor update wreak such havoc? He doesn’t quite quell concerns about future issues, although he does take responsibility for the outage. Then again, he has little choice.

Boeing CEO's Rough Senate Hearing and Safety Plan

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun faced lawmakers during the senate committee hearing bluntly titled, “Boeing’s Broken Safety Culture.” The investigation offers lessons in answering difficult questions and demonstrating compassion, humility, integrity, and accountability. In addition, students can see a sample report: “Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan.”

Taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s impromptu facing of families during the senate hearing about social media harm, Calhoun began his opening statement by turning around and addressing families who lost people in Boeing plane crashes dating back to 2018. Like Zuckerberg, who was prompted by Senator Hawley, Calhoun had little choice. He was in room full of people holding photos of lost loved ones, with several shouting as we see and hear cameras flash. The pain is palpable, and Calhoun is visibly shaken, playing with his glasses, until the hearing is called into session.

Senator Richard Blumenthal begins by acknowledging families and asking them, by name, to stand with their photographs. He also acknowledges the family of the Boeing whistleblower who died by suicide. I cried. I believe we’re seeing a more compassionate approach to these hearings, keeping the focus on the impact of wrongdoing and on the responsibilities of our corporate and political leaders. But I wonder whether the face-the-victims’-families apology will become routine in these types of hearings and at what point—maybe already—it feels perfunctory.

Blumenthal had harsh words for Boeing, saying the “once iconic” company has “lost its way,” having put “stock price over people.” He said he’s pursuing prosecution and that Calhoun hasn’t kept the company’s promises. Predictable questions were about Calhoun’s salary and his decision not to resign. Throughout the hearing, Calhoun tried his best to convince lawmakers (and families, investors, airlines, and passengers) that they are making changes. Lawmakers didn’t seem to buy it.

Character was on display throughout the hearing. For example, demonstrating an issue with integrity, or inconsistency, at around 26:00, Blumenthal challenged Boeing’s nonretaliation policy with recent charges of threats and harassment against several whistleblowers. Calhoun said that he listens to people and that “something went wrong” [in these cases]. Without specific action on specific cases, his response sounded hollow. The follow-up question about firings based on retaliation elicits no specific information. Calhoun might have prepared this information, knowing it would be a major line of questioning.

Blumenthal’s criticism of Boeing’s data submission and Calhoun’s response, starting around 30:30, are worth watching. He asks whether Calhoun can make sense of the information—a page without any formatting—and he says, “No, sir,” and agrees when the senator says, “complete gobbledygook.” It’s shocking that Calhoun didn’t review what was sent. At first, he said not “line by line,” but it wasn’t clear he reviewed any of the documentation. One explanation is the stress and challenge of preparing for such a hearing, and I acknowledge that. But business communicators, both those preparing the documents and those standing up for them, can do better.

Analyzing the U.S. Surgeon General's Argument

Business communication students might be interested in analyzing the U.S. surgeon general’s argument for putting warning labels on social media platforms. His persuasive message uses several strategies faculty teach, and students can assess whether his approach and the proposal will achieve his goals.

Vivek H. Murthy conveyed his ideas in an opinion letter in The New York Times, also posted on X and explained during a PBS NewsHour interview (starting around 7:52). The audience is the public, and he has ideas for parents, schools, tech companies—and mostly congress, whose approval is required for his proposed warning label. His frustration is evident, as he points to recommendations made “a year ago.”

Murthy begins with a caveat up front, warding off criticism about the harm of social media, with Jonathan Haidt’s research at the current center. Murthy calls the moment an “emergency,” allowing for decisive action despite imperfect information. We could view Murthy’s proposal as a demonstration of accountability. As the surgeon general, he is responsible for the health and well-being of U.S. citizens, and in this sense, he must act, even as he acknowledges the controversy.

As part of his logical argument, he provides data with links to supporting research: “Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the average daily use in this age group, as of the summer of 2023, was 4.8 hours. Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.”

He offers analogies, which is where the PBS interview starts. When Amna Nawaz asks why he thinks a warning will work, he draws on tobacco labels, which he also writes in his article: “Evidence from tobacco studies show that warning labels can increase awareness and change behavior.” He conjures another analogy in the article: “There is no seatbelt for parents to click, no helmet to snap in place, no assurance that trusted experts have investigated and ensured that these platforms are safe for our kids.” In the last two paragraphs, Murthy asks biggest questions about society and morality: “Why is it that we have failed to respond to the harms of social media when they are no less urgent or widespread than those posed by unsafe cars, planes or food?” Here, too, he draws on analogies for common agreement.

Students can assess the validity of these comparisons. For example, a print label is quite different from a pop-up, box, or other type of website display, and like seatbelts, parents do control their kids’ physical devices, at least theoretically.

He provides personal information, demonstrating his own investment and using emotional appeals. He writes, “As a father of a 6- and a 7-year-old who have already asked about social media, I worry about how my wife and I will know when to let them have accounts.” A short story about a mother whose daughter “took her life after being bullied on social media” also elicits emotion.

Is Murthy’s idea practical? He provides no specifics about how warnings might work and no evidence other than his analogies. But he might inspire congress to do something after years of tech company hearings and little movement.

Image source.

Bumble Apologizes for Celibacy Joke

Dating app Bumble apologized for ads that offended women. Students can assess the company’s response against principles for apologies.

In addition to the billboard shown here, an ad tells women, “Thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.” Women are not amused, with some feeling as though their choice of celibacy is being mocked and their autonomy questioned. Others question why the ad targets women’s behavior and not men’s.

Bumble responded on Instagram (text below). The company hits several of the marks for an effective apology identified in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character, 11e. Although they didn’t explicitly write, “We’re sorry,” they take responsibility upfront (“We made a mistake”). They also identified what they did wrong in the first paragraph and humbly list the reactions—how people were affected—in the second paragraph. Pulling the ads is the only rational thing to do.

For me, the donation seems patronizing and trivial, particularly without knowing whether the amount is significant and without evidence of a previous relationship with the organization. Offering the billboard space is at least relevant to the situation.

Students might speculate on how this happened. Did an external ad agency get carried away? If so, Bumble, appropriately, doesn’t blame them. Did they fail to test the ads with focus groups? We may never know, but Bumble seems to have learned the lesson and, overall, responded well.

---

TO OUR BELOVED BUMBLE COMMUNITY:

We made a mistake. Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite.

Some of the perspectives we heard were: from those who shared that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted; from others for whom celibacy is a choice, one that we respect; and from the asexual community, for whom celibacy can have a particular meaning and importance, which should not be diminished. We are also aware that for many, celibacy may be brought on by harm or trauma.

For years, Bumble has passionately stood up for women and marginalized communities, and their right to fully exercise personal choice. We didn't live up to these values with this campaign and we apologize for the harm it caused.

So, here's what we're doing:

We're removing these ads from our global marketing campaign. Bumble will be making a donation to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, among other organizations, as a part of our ongoing efforts to support the work being done around the world to support women, marginalized communities, and those impacted by abuse.

We will also be offering these partners this billboard space to display an ad of their choice for the duration of our reserved billboard time.

Please keep speaking up and telling us how we can be better. We care about you and will always be here for you.

With love and sincere appreciation,

Bumble

Nutrition Labels as Visual Persuasion

As the U.S. government considers new labels on packaged food, students can analyze arguments about this visual communication.

The latest idea is to show large, front-of-package (FOP) labels, possibly without the numbers and percentages we’re used to seeing. Consumers would see information more easily, albeit with some interpretative descriptions (options shown here). The goal is for consumers to make healthier choices.

Students could research arguments about the change. For example, one study showed household reductions in sugar, fat, and sodium after Chilean policies mandated front-side labels. Tony the Tiger was banned from this “Frosties” (Frosted Flakes) box. The Food and Drug Administration also describes focus groups and experimental studies in favor of the change.

The food industry argues that FOP labeling won’t have the desired effect, removes responsibility from consumers, and could infringe on products’ trademarks because of changes to the packaging. One older study showed mixed results of front-of-package labeling, including in a “halo effect” for “vice products,” for which any label—even one showing excessive sugar—made the product look more credible. Students will find more research on both sides and might consider how new weight-loss drugs could affect consumer choice.