Waitlisted Student Markets Himself

George Joseph White V was waitlisted from Cornell’s Dyson School, and he decided to promote himself. He advertised on the outside of a local bus with a photo of himself and his website. On his website, georgecantwait.com, White lists his hobbies, interests, and other information. He also includes quotes from a few of his teachers.

The approach certainly is creative and gutsy, but is it appropriate? From a business communication perspective, we consider the audience and the message. White describes his qualifications, but he doesn’t say much about how could contribute. What would he bring to the school that might differentiate him from other students on the waitlist?

White also is interviewed by a local radio station, which is posted on his website. He says he believes he’s qualified, and the only reason he wasn’t accepted is that the number of applicants increased. The number did increase, partly because of the pandemic and students taking a gap year and partly because Cornell dropped the SAT/ACT requirement.

Still, perhaps other students were simply more qualified than White, and that’s why he didn’t get in. White also chose an approach that isn’t available to all students: spending money on ads and a website.

When I asked students about the situation in class, they were mixed. Some respected his perseverance, while others thought his approach was too self-promotional and unfair. As one student wrote in chat, “It’s a WAIT list.”

Viral Spotify Resume

A college student created a resume that mirrors the Spotify app, and she got a lot of attention. Included in the more 300,000 views is a manager at Spotify who encouraged her to apply for a product manager internship.

Emily Vu’s creativity paid off: she got the job.

Emily was looking for a creative job. I’m not sure this same approach would work for, say, a data analyst position at a hedge fund. She also posted it with the “f” word (with an asterisk and redacted here). Not every employer would appreciate this either.

But Emily took a risk, which worked for Spotify—and for many others who admired her resume.

FedEx Statement About Shooting

After a shooting at an Indianapolis facility, FedEx posted a statement on its website. At the top of the home page is a notice: “We are deeply shocked and saddened by the loss of our team members following the tragic shooting at our FedEx Ground facility in Indianapolis. Read more.”

The company posted two additional statements on its website under “Newsroom”:

• “Honoring Our Team Members in Indianapolis” lists employees who were killed.

• “Frederick W. Smith Message to Team Members on Indianapolis Tragedy” is a message from the Chairman and CEO.

Each message is heartfelt and opposes violence with such phrases as “Violence of any kind has no place in our society or our workplace” and “senseless act of violence.” But the company is avoiding any mention of guns and the two longer messages don’t mention that the victims were shot. The only reference is in the title and body of the first statement: “shooting” is used twice.

The cause of death is important to include, particularly so that FedEx deflects responsibility. This is also an opportunity for CEO activism, as we have seen from other CEOs recently. However, FedEx is not entering this highly charged political conversation at this time.

Image source.

Amazon’s Statement About the Failed Union Attempt

Employees at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse voted against forming a union. Of 5,876 employees, 1,798 voted against and 783 for the union—not enough. The New York Times presents a simple, clear graphic of the vote.

Critics say that Amazon used aggressive tactics to deter workers from favoring the union. For example, union organizers approached employees at a traffic light, which the city changed based on a request from Amazon management. The change led to longer green lights and shorter red lights based on traffic. Before the vote, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that two employees were fired illegally for their union-organizing activity.

In messages to employees, the company used a slogan, “Do it without dues,” meaning employees should negotiate with their managers and not through a union, which charges fees. The slogan was also the URL for a website, which has since been removed.

Amazon posted a statement about the win. The company denies intimidation charges and reinforces its $15 wage and starting benefits. Although the statement indicates that 16% of employees at the facility voted for the union, a higher percentage of those who voted were favorable towards the union.

CEOs Speak Out

JPMorgan Chase published its Annual Report, leading with a letter from CEO Jamie Dimon. The introductory paragraph and corresponding callout quote reflect a leader’s and a company’s grappling with an extraordinary year.

Like many company leaders today, Dimon addresses societal issues directly. We’re seeing increasing employee and CEO activism, and this letter is a good example.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece questions when leaders are even more direct about political events, such as Black leaders in Georgia speaking out against the election law decision. The law restricts voting rights, which doesn’t affect the companies directly. The WSJ editorial board writes, “To wit, they are pitting themselves against the interests of their own shareholders.”

The open letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Black CEOs, former CEOs, and others of major U.S. companies.

In my view, the CEOs demonstrate leadership character, particularly authenticity, courage, and integrity. By definition, demonstrating character carries some personal risk.

Royal Family Responds to Racism Allegations

In an interview with Oprah, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused the British royal family of racism, and the fallout is severe. Markle talked about having suicidal thoughts and how she had been treated by the family, including plans for the couple’s baby. She said he wouldn’t have a title or security, and that the family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”

Prince Harry said that he a discussion with his grandmother and two with his father about the couple’s concerns until his father “stopped taking my calls.”

Victoria Murphy, a writer for Town & Country magazine, describes the family’s reaction:

So far, the royal family has remained tight-lipped. There have been no statements and, it seems, very little guidance offered. Perhaps they are retreating into a default “no comment” stance, or perhaps they are sensibly waiting to see what sticks before deciding whether to add fuel to the fire. In this war of words, there is a sense that we could go on and on.

Buckingham Palace did release a short statement, and the Queen took some time before signing off:

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

Of course, the issue is that the royal family is a public organization, with several public figures, whether they wish to be or not.

Two days later, Prince William gave an interview and said, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

Murphy sums up the situation: “Make no mistake, this is an interview that will go down in history as having rocked the British royal family to its core.”

Rhetorical Devices and More in Amanda Gorman's Inaugural Poem

Amanda Gorman, a highly accomplished young poet, gave a riveting presentation at President Joe Biden’s inauguration ceremony. Her precise, engaging delivery—gestures, eye contact, pacing, modulation, etc.—is a lesson for communication students planning business presentations.

The poem demonstrates an extraordinary number of rhetorical devices: alliteration, assonance, anaphora, metaphors, allusions, and more. Whether or not you agree with her remarks in “The Hill We Climb,” the poem has all the marks of a speech that engages the audience and brings them along on a journey.

Twitter Announces Ban of President Trump

Two days after the riots on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter announced a “permanent suspension” of President Trump’s account after a temporary suspension.

Comparing Twitter and Facebook’s message, on January 7, about a temporary suspension, is a lesson in writing structure. Whereas Mark Zuckerberg used the indirect organizational plan, Twitter’s message states the news right up front. Zuckerberg starts with the rationale and announces the decision at the very end. Twitter starts with the decision, and then provides explanatory text, including sample tweets and the company’s assessment.

Another difference between these messages is the writer. The Twitter post is unsigned, whereas Zuckerberg signed the Facebook message himself. Additional rationale for the decision is posted on the Facebook site. Both approaches could work, and analyzing the communication is (almost) as interesting as the decisions themselves.

Random note: “Permanent suspension” sounds odd to me. A suspension is something temporary.

---

Company

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

By Twitter Inc.Friday, 8 January 2021

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. 

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. 

The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.

Overview

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Assessment

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

• President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.

• The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.

• The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.

• The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.

• Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.

As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

Zuckerberg's Message About President Trump's Account

Facebook has decided that President Trump will no longer use its platform for his messages—at least for a while. The decision came after riots at the U.S. Capitol and after Twitter and Facebook suspended the president’s account. The tech companies said that the president violated its rules by inciting violence and/or making false claims about the election.

YouTube blocked a video of President Trump expressing sympathy for the protestors and calling them “special.” The tech platforms had tried labeling posts, but the president’s false claims were still believed.

Some call this time an “inflection point": “Hey Mark Zuckerberg, @jack, @SusanWojcicki and @sundarpichai -- Donald Trump just incited a violent attack on American democracy. Is that FINALLY enough for you to act?!" At this point, Twitter has not yet permanently banned the president from tweeting.

Zuckerberg uses the indirect style for his post, with the main point in the very last sentence. He makes his argument first, and then we read the decision. It’s an interesting choice, which might not convey the courage that people would like to see.

Additional analysis and rationale for the decision are posted on the Facebook site.

CEOs Respond to Capitol Riots

Several business executives are speaking out after riots at the U.S. Capitol. Rioters stormed the building as Congress was certifying (and debating) Joe Biden as the next president. President Trump ignited the crowd by claiming, without evidence, that he won the election “by a landslide” and that it was “stolen” from him.

CEOs have been joining political conversations in the past several years, and today is another example. One of the most significant is Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwartzman, a Trump supporter and loyalist. He said, “The insurrection that followed the president’s remarks today is appalling and an affront to the democratic values we hold dear as Americans” and “There must be a peaceful transition of power.”

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan tweeted his view of the riots, and other leaders represented Salesorce, JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, Google, Apple, and many more.

Political conservatives also weighed in, for example, Jay Timmons, president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers. Timmons suggested that Vice President Pence invoke the 25th amendment, meaning President Trump would be removed from office:

“This is not the vision of America that manufacturers believe in and work so hard to defend. Across America today, millions of manufacturing workers are helping our nation fight the deadly pandemic that has already taken hundreds of thousands of lives. We are trying to rebuild an economy and save and rebuild lives. But none of that will matter if our leaders refuse to fend off this attack on America and our democracy.”

Riots image.

Trader Joe's Criticized for "Racist Packaging"

A 17-year-old started a petition to encourage Trader Joe’s to “Remove Racist Packaging From Your Products.” Briones Bedell explains her perspective:

The grocery chain labels some of its ethnic foods with modifications of “Joe” that belies a narrative of exoticism that perpetuates harmful stereotypes. For example, “Trader Ming’s” is used to brand the chain’s Chinese food, “Arabian Joe” brands Middle Eastern foods, “Trader José” brands Mexican foods, “Trader Giotto’s” is for Italian food, and “Trader Joe San” brands their Japanese cuisine. 

She received 5,956 signatures and was aiming for 7,500.

The company responded in a series of statements, including this one:

We want to be clear: we disagree that any of these labels are racist. We do not make decisions based on petitions. 

In addition, the LA Times reported, “More than 80 of the 100-plus readers who responded to The Times’ call for opinions said the labels would not change their feelings about Trader Joe’s or its product.”

Bedell claims that her petition was a success and cites this NY Times article with a quote from a company spokesperson: “Labels such as Arabian Joe’s and Armenian Joe’s were no longer in use, and that the label Trader Joe San is currently used on only about three products.” Bedell’s latest post is titled, “Trader Joe’s Discontinues ‘Arabian Joe’ and ‘Armenian Joe’ Labels.” The NY Times article explains, “The supermarket chain said it was in the process of phasing out names, including Trader Ming’s and Trader José, that have appeared on its international food products.”

Discussion:

• What’s your view of the labels: racist, fun, or something else?

• Read Bedell’s post, Trader Joe’s statements, and the NY Times article. Can she claim credit for a decision?

• How do you assess Trader Joe’s response, particularly the statements on its website? What, if anything, should the company have done differently?

Redskins Drop Their Name

Add The Washington Redskins to the growing list of organizations that are changing their name following the killing of George Floyd and protests around the world. The NFL team has been under pressure from fans and sponsors but, until now, has resisted changing the 87-year-old name.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder said he would never change the name, but requests could no longer be ignored from FedEx, Bank of America, PepsiCo, and Nike, the NFL’s apparel partner, which removed Redskins products from its website.

A team statement announced the decision, with no replacement name or logo yet.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did the team do the right thing by changing the name? Why or why not?

• What are your thoughts about announcing the changing without a new name a logo? Should the team have announced both simultaneously? Why or why not?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/sports/football/washington-redskins-new-name.html

P&G Commercials Demonstrate Empathy

Two Proctor and Gamble ads illustrate the role of empathy in understanding aspects of being Black in America. The first ad here, “The Look,” shows how a Black man experiences others’ reactions to him throughout the day. The second ad allows the viewer to watch intimate conversations that Black families have about race.

Discussion:

• How would you describe the role of empathy in addressing bias?

• What are the objectives of these ads? How well do they meet those objectives?

• What makes these ads effective—or not—in your opinion?

Analyzing the NFL's Apology

Years after NFL players “took a knee” to protest police brutality and other discrimination against Black people, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized “for not listening to NFL players earlier.” On June 5, less than two weeks after a police officer murdered George Floyd, Goodell posted a video to express his regret in handling player protests.

The response came on the heels of a video of Black NFL players saying, “What if I was George Floyd?” and asking the league to listen to its players.

Goodell’s video was introduced on NFL’s Twitter account with this statement:

“We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter.”

Skeptics wonder what will change in the league. Jim Litke, an Associated Press sports writer notes the lack of diversity within the NFL: “Three-quarters of the players are people of color, but just four head coaches, two general managers, and one owner, Shad Khan of the Jacksonville Jaguars, are.” Litke also points to Goodell’s shaky record of handling other “big issues,” like player concussions and domestic violence.

To that last point, this isn’t the first time Goodell apologized publicly. With a different delivery style, in a 2014 video, he said, “I got it wrong” after four players were temporarily benched for domestic violence incidents.

Discussion:

• Analyze Goodell’s video message: primary and secondary audiences, communication objectives, content, organization, etc.

• Compare this video to Goodell’s 2014 video. What differences do you notice in the delivery style? How do you explain Goodell’s strategic choices?

• What’s your view of the latest apology: genuine, placating, or something else?

• On face value, what leadership character dimensions does Goodell demonstrate? Which dimensions could Goodell display more strongly or directly?

Company Statements About George Floyd's Murder

Business Insider has assembled a list of companies’ statements and promised actions following the killing of George Floyd and the public protests.

TikTok, General Motors, McDonald’s—many brands are jumping into the conversation and posting messages that are both placating and inspiring.

Discussion:

• Read the list of statements and actions. Which sound most meaningful to you?

• Should all brands post a message? Which should, and what is important to convey?

Facebook Responds to Employee Protests

Facebook is in a bind after Twitter’s decision to post qualifiers above President Trump’s recent tweets. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made his position clear—Facebook won’t censor the president’s or others’ posts—but his employees are protesting the decision.

On his Facebook page, Zuckerberg posted his response, including his difficult decision:

“I've been struggling with how to respond to the President's tweets and posts all day. Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. This moment calls for unity and calmness, and we need empathy for the people and communities who are hurting. We need to come together as a country to pursue justice and break this cycle.

“But I'm responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression. I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”

Separately, Zuckerberg acknowledged employees’ right to disagree:

"We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now, especially our Black community. We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we'll continue seeking their honest feedback.”

Image source.

Discussion:

• What are the arguments for and against Zuckerberg changing his position because of employee protests?

• How well is Zuckerberg communicating during this time. Read posts about the pandemic, remote work, the killing of George Floyd, etc.

Colleges React to Racist Posts

George Floyd’s killing has sparked protests around the world as well as backlash. A Chronicle of Higher Education article describes a few colleges acting quickly—within one day—after seeing a current or an admitted student’s racist post.

In a statement, The University of Denver condemned racist posts and announced, “The University has rescinded the student’s admission offer and they will not be attending DU.”

Some pubic universities, such as Missouri State, have published statements but are not expelling students or rescinding admission offers. President Clif Smart explains the university’s stance in a blog post.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Should universities expel students or rescind offers after finding racist posts? If so, under what circumstances?

• Should students know better—both morally and practically—than to post racist comments, memes, videos, etc.?

• Analyze and compare the two university statements. Who are the primary and secondary audiences? How well does each convey the main points, balancing various audience needs?

Facebook's Position on Twitter's Labeling

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg weighed in on Twitter’s decision to fact-check and label some of President Trump’s tweets. In response to protests after the death of George Floyd, one tweet promised “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Twitter hid the tweet with a note that it “violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence.”

Another tweet claimed that “mail-in voting will lead to massive fraud and abuse,” and Twitter posted a warning to “get the facts.” Until now, Twitter had not enforced its policies for the president’s tweets.

Facebook is taking a different tack. CEO Mark Zuckerberg described the company’s position:

"I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think in general, private companies shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that."

The Wall Street Journal editorial board defended Zuckerberg’s decision: “We wish Facebook would take a lighter touch when it comes to political speech overall.”

Image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of Twitter’s actions? Why do you think the company began labeling President Trump’s tweets now?

• Should Facebook follow suit? How might each company’s mission play a role in its actions?

COVID-19 Crisis Communication for Reopening the U.S.

What comes after we “flatten the curve” of COVID cases? New York Times opinion writer Charlie Warzel warns that, without a clear communication strategy for what’s next, people will distrust leaders.

Warzel cites six communication guidelines from the report of a working group at The University of Minnesota, The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRP).:

• Don’t Over Reassure.

• Proclaim Uncertainty

• Validate Emotions—Your Audience’s and Your Own

• Give People Things to Do

• Admit and Apologize for Errors

• Share Dilemma

Discussion:

• How should U.S. officials communicate now? What do they need to accomplish, and how well are our current leaders meeting the challenge? In other words, do you agree with Warzel that our leaders are falling short?

• Read the entire report. What other principles does the group recommend?

• Analyze the report: the audiences, objectives, writing style, organization, and so on. What are the strengths, and how could it be improved?

Airbnb Layoff Message

Airbnb Co-Founder and CEO Brian Chesky wrote to employees to announce layoffs. Ask we see more and more, the company posted the message publicly on its blog, knowing it would likely go viral anyway.

In his message, Chesky announces the decision to lay off about 25% of the workforce as part of their more targeted business strategy. Airbnb is reducing investments in some services to focus on its core business.

Although he sends a mass email, Chesky tailors the last part to different groups:

To those of you staying, 

One of the most important ways we can honor those who are leaving is for them to know that their contributions mattered, and that they will always be part of Airbnb’s story. I am confident their work will live on, just like this mission will live on.

To those leaving Airbnb, 

I am truly sorry. Please know this is not your fault. The world will never stop seeking the qualities and talents that you brought to Airbnb…that helped make Airbnb. I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for sharing them with us.

Brian

Image source.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of the message? Consider the audiences and objective.

• It’s quite long. Is it too long or just right?

• I wish that people who were staying in their current role could get a message too. It’s unclear whether that’s planned—only that they “will not receive a calendar invite.” Your thoughts?