The Art of the Business Leader Interview

David Rubenstein’s Peer to Peer show on Bloomberg TV is a window into business and political leaders’ lives—and how to approach such an interview. The website, also a YouTube channel, has dozens of interviews. I wish the representation were better, but students can watch someone who interests them and analyze the questions and answers.

In one recent clip, Galaxy Digital Founder and CEO Mike Novogratz refers to Sam Bankman-Fried as a “sociopath.” This segment illustrates how a leader admits his own failings: although he didn’t invest with with SBF, Novogratz acknowledges doing business with him and losing money. Then again, he says, “I just never assumed I’m dealing with a sociopath. It’s hard to risk-manage against that.”

Instructors might ask students to identify ways in which leaders demonstrates character dimensions, for example, authenticity, humility, integrity, and vulnerability.

Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication

A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.

By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.

Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.

AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.

I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.

This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.

A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.

At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.

New Studies Suggest Humility for LinkedIn Writing

New studies emphasize writing about the journey, not just outcomes, in LinkedIn profiles, Twitter bios, and other employment communications. Across seven studies, authors found describing difficulties and growth as well as accomplishments conveyed a greater sense of warmth.

Ovul Sezer, an assistant professor at Cornell University, summarizes the findings:

We define “journey” as a long and often difficult process of going from one point to another, which reflects a determination to learn, an acquisition of skills, and a sense of growth and development. For example, obstacles one faced or learning processes they went through could be great information to include in one’s personal story. We find that journey information leads to greater perceptions of warmth because journeys help to communicate humility, mitigating the appearance of arrogance often associated with self-promotion.

Part of humility is being able to learn from mistakes, which any employer would value. Humility is also described as, not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less—being rightsized.

One study evaluated LinkedIn introductions of MBA students according to “high journey” or “high outcome,” defined as follows:

In accordance with the elements of journeys and outcomes uncovered in the pilot studies, the “high journey” cells in Table 2 showcase elements of a determination to learn (curiosity, eagerness to be challenged), difficulty (operational hurdles), the acquisition of skills (studying design innovation, organizational culture, etc.), and development/growth (exploring personal interests). The “high outcome” cells mention educational degrees (MBA, dual degrees) and job positions (member of a cross-functional team).

The authors clarify that introductions can illustrate both high journey and high outcome. For a class exercise, students could rate their peers’ introductions and provide feedback on journey and outcome criteria. Then they might discuss the degree of humility and warmth conveyed and offer suggestions for improvement. The article describes additional studies, including one with HR professionals, and offers examples of effective statements, which might be useful for students to see.

In another study, authors include a chat and offer this example:

B.2.4 Outcome plus journey condition You introduce yourself to Michael and the two of you engage in the following chat:
You: “It’s great to connect with you and congratulations on winning a BDC award! I’d love to hear more about it.”
Michael: “Absolutely! It’s great to be selected as an award winner. I had to overcome a lot of obstacles along the way, like time constraints with my freelance work, and it was really challenging to reflect on my unique perspective of the world and translate that into my designs. I was nervous! But I was motivated to apply because I knew it would help me grow as a designer. Along the way, I realized that what makes me tick is to inspire people – that’s what drives me to want to be a designer.”
You: “Wow! That’s great to hear.”

One concern is the length of LinkedIn introductions. As we might expect, the most effective statements are somewhat longer than a list of accomplishments. However, authors found that, when both journey and outcomes are included, the number of words was still within an acceptable range. At the same time, including their journey will challenge students to write concisely, even when telling more of their story.

Retracted Behavioral Science Studies

The process of discovering fraud—and the aftermath—in a Harvard Business School professor’s work is a lesson in evidence, data integrity, and ethics for business communication students. I’ve admired Francesca Gino’s work and cited her research on learning and authenticity in Building Leadership Character. But three of her studies are being retracted, and Harvard has placed her on administrative leave.

News outlets love headlines like NPR’s, “Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data,” and, this almost identical one from The Guardian, “Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies.” Fair enough, but her work is far broader—more about management decision making than honesty or ethics.

On their blog Data Colada, researchers describe how they discovered falsified data. Their sleuthing involves a fascinating dive into hidden Excel files that, the detectives say, proved that data was* moved and changed. Students might be interested to learn how much data Excel stores.

As examples of crisis communication, responses to the news are mixed. To date, Harvard hasn’t commented on reports or the decision to place Gino on leave. Announced in a blurb, at least one of her scheduled presentations has been cancelled. In a Chronicle article, collaborators and other behavioral scientists expressed their concern and/or defended their own work. Rational folks suggested waiting until more information is revealed, and work is ongoing to document the origins of all study data. Gino wrote nothing about the controversy on her own website, but she did post a short statement on LinkedIn. Her voice is reserved but clear, expressing humility and gratitude—both appropriate for the situation and early findings.

* Random: I use data as a singular noun, which is more common in business. This article explains my reasons well.

OpenAI CEO Sets a Different Tone

In contrast to how SVB's former CEO handled his U.S. government testimony this week, OpenAI's CEO demonstrated humility, a willingness to learn and an acknowledgment that he doesn’t know everything. Sam Altman talked about the incredible potential of large language models, yet admitted risks. He asked for "regulatory intervention," which, to be fair, Mark Zuckerberg mentioned when he testified, but the tone of this US Senate committee hearing was entirely different from previous tech companies' interactions with regulators.

In his opening statement (starting at 20:45), Altman said, "But as this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live." Later, Altman said, "I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong . . . we want to be vocal about that," and, "We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening."

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chaired the committee panel, also demonstrated humility by admitting “mistakes of the past”:

"Our goal is to demystify and hold accountable those new technologies to avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Congress failed to meet the moment on social media.”

Unlike the E.U., which has already proposed AI legislation, skeptics say U.S. government officials’ limited knowledge makes moving quickly unlikely. But admission of their failings and current risks could inspire action, although it’s unclear how that might happen.

SVB's Former CEO Deflects Blame for Bank Failure

Silicon Valley Bank’s former CEO, Gregory Becker, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (starting at 18:55). As the New York Times reported, Becker “pointed the finger at pretty much everybody but himself.”

Becker blamed the bank’s demise on regulators for failing to manage inflation and interest rates, the media for raising questions about the bank’s financials, and depositers for withdrawing money in a panic. Critics blame SVB management for the high percentage of uninsured deposits, the lack of client diversification, and the lack of liquidity because of overinvestment in long-term bonds and other government securities.

In his opening statement, Becker gave a nonapology; he didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Notice the subject of the following sentence and the pronoun reference for “this”:

"The takeover of SVB has been personally and professionally devastating, and I am truly sorry for how this has impacted SVB’s employees, clients and shareholders."

In other words, he apologizes for how the takeover—the regulators’ actions—affected people. The Wall Street Journal ran this headline: “'I'm Truly Sorry': Former Silicon Valley Bank CEO Apologizes for Failure.” But he didn’t apologize for his failure.

The word of the day—and of the past three years—is “unprecendented,” which Becker used three times in his 5.5-minute speech. His strategy was to persuade senators that the failure was out of his control. In his written statement, we see “unprecendented” six times.

Senators were unforgiving, and we’re left to wonder whether they would have been more sympathetic if Becker had taken any responsibility for the damage. A CNN article reported harsh critism from both Republicans and Democrats, with one saying, “It sounds a lot like my dog ate my homework.”

Becker’s testimony is a good example for students to see a lack of accountability and humility, or learning from mistakes. He uses crisis communication strategies, such as distancing himself from the failure, but his testimony didn’t reflect well on the bank or on himself.

Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide

In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.

Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.

The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.

Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.

The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.

But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.

---

We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.

April 30, 2023

The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.

As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.

Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.

In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.

In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.

Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.

Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:

• Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.

• Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.

• Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.

• Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.

• Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.

• Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.

There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.

Fox News Takes Little Responsibility in Settlement Statement

Before the trial began, Fox News settled the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit and published the vaguest possible statement, below. In few words, the company made no apology and took little responsibility for making false statements about Dominion’s role in rigging machines during the 2020 election.

The settlement doesn’t require an apology or admission of making false claims, but a PBS NewsHour reporter said that the settlement amount, $787.5 million, might convey both. A large sum for a defamation case, the amount is just under half the ask, presumably so Fox can report that the company settled for “less than half.”

Fox’s statement refers to “this dispute with Dominion,” as if the two companies simply disagreed, and Fox wasn’t the one sued. The company also emphasizes the public value of the settlement: “instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, [it] allows the country to move forward from these issues.” Maybe, but companies settle lawsuits for one primary reason: they believe they will lose.

By this evening, the Fox News website showed no sign of the decision—only the stories shown here. One short news story focused on the agreement and the judge’s positive comments about the attorneys. I found a statement at the bottom of the website under links for About, Media Relations, Press Releases. Overall, the company scarcely demonstrates accountability and humility—or learning from its mistakes. One interpretation of its “continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards” is that nothing will change.

Students might be interested in this story and can discuss whether Fox should have done anything differently from an ethical perspective or, perhaps, from a PR perspective.

Although far from perfect, one comparison is McKinsey’s statement about its involvement with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis.

---

NEW YORK – April 18, 2023 — FOX News Media announced today that a settlement was reached in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit.

In making the announcement, the network said, “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”

FOX News Media operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX News Audio, FOX News Books, the direct-to-consumer streaming services FOX Nation and FOX News International and the free ad-supported television service FOX Weather. Currently the number one network in all of cable, FNC has also been the most watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, while FBN ranks among the top business channels on cable. Owned by Fox Corporation, FOX News Media reaches nearly 200 million people each month.

###

Intel Honors Gordon Moore

Intel’s home page links to several communications about the co-founder’s death. Like all obituaries for older people, the articles about Gordon Moore, age 94, were clearly prepared ahead of time. The news is technically bad, but it was expected, so these communications are opportunities to demonstrate respect—and for company PR.

With the primary audience as members of the press, the webpage includes an obituary, downloadable photos, a tribute, and more. The obituary acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for the announcement and includes a link to the organization. This is a promotional opportunity for the foundation as well.

The tribute, titled, “He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans: Never the loudest guy in the room, Intel’s co-founder commanded huge respect,” is a more personal look at Moore’s life. Three interviews tell us more about Moore’s “character,” as the author writes.

A visual timeline shows his major accomplishments and recognitions. One of Moore’s most significant contributions is what came to be known as “Moore’s Law,” a prediction that the “number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years.” Intel’s tribute describes Moore as a humble man. He told his biographer that he was embarrassed to have the law named after him.

The press kit lists the following, including the three links above:

• Obituary: Gordon Moore, Intel Co-Founder, Dies at 94

• Tribute: Gordon Moore: He Stood Alone Among Tech Titans

• Visual Tribute: A Look Back at the Life of Intel's Co-Founder

• Timeline: Celebrating Gordon Moore

• More on Moore: Five Things to Know About Gordon Moore

• Video: The Gordon Moore Effect 

• Gordon Moore Park at Ronler Acres: Intel Marks Grand Opening of $3 Billion Factory Expansion in Oregon | Event Replay

Zuckerberg Frames Layoffs in the “Year of Efficiency”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s note to employees is a study in bad-news messages. In a 2,188-word message note posted on Meta’s news site and his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg explained his strategy for the “Year of Efficiency.” This frame for operational changes is good for investors, who are concerned with financials, but not for employees who will be laid off.

In the first paragraph, Zuckerberg reiterates Facebook’s initial mission of “building the future of human connection,” and he identifies two broad goals: becoming a better technology company and improving financial performance. He doesn’t wait too long—the third paragraph—to confirm layoffs, which are obvious from the start. With some compassion, he acknowledges “uncertainty“ and “stress” and identifies the timeline, so people know what to expect. In the fourth and sixth paragraphs, he writes:

This will be tough and there's no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success. They've dedicated themselves to our mission and I'm personally grateful for all their efforts. We will support people in the same ways we have before and treat everyone with the gratitude they deserve. . . .

I understand that this update may still feel surprising, so I'd like to lay out some broader context on our vision, our culture, and our operating philosophy.

Zuckerberg outlines additional changes, including hiring freezes, technology investments, and more in-person time, which may not be popular either. Students could analyze evidence Zuckerberg provides for his claims, for example, “leaner is better,” “flatter is faster,” and working in-person improves performance. For the in-person claim, he does acknowledge, “This requires further study, but our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.” Still, this could be a contentious issue, and he could offer external research to support his points. But perhaps academic research would have less credibility than the internal data, which he uses for his other claims.

Zuckerberg demonstrates some humility and highlights changes based on employee feedback:

I recognize that sharing plans for restructuring and layoffs months in advance creates a challenging period. But last fall, we heard feedback that you wanted more transparency sooner into any restructuring plans, so that's what I'm trying to provide here. I hope that giving you a timeline and principles for what to expect will help us get through the next couple of months and then move forward as we implement these changes that I believe will have a very positive impact on how we work.

The post illustrates a CEO’s difficult decisions and how he communicates them to employees. These changes are in addition to last year’s layoffs—13% of the workforce—which Zuckerberg mentions towards the end of the long post. Despite his communication efforts, uncertainty prevails—not only in employees’ wondering who will have a job in a few months but in whether the metaverse vision will be as successful as Zuckerberg hopes.

Allbirds Admits Mistakes

Allbirds provides a good example of accountability and humility. No executive likes to discuss disappointing quarterly results, but Joey Zwillinger, co-founder and co-CEO, admitted mistakes, which could improve his credibility for future plans.

On the Q4 2022 earnings call, Zwillinger acknowledged “missteps”:

However, in this journey, we also made some missteps:

1) We overemphasized products that extended beyond our core DNA, and as a result, some products and colors have had narrower appeal than expected.

2) Because we were spending significant time and resources on these new products that did not resonate well, we under-invested in our core consumers’ favorite products.

3) Finally we did not increase our brand awareness to the level that we anticipated.

These communications aren’t quite “bad-news message” because they aren’t announcements, which is why Zwillinger is smart to discuss problems openly: they are already quite obvious to investors. One of my favorite lines is, “As we made those adjacent product development decisions, we unfortunately lost a bit of sight of what our core consumer fell in love with us for in the first place and what they continue to want from us.”

With Zwillinger’s humility—his willingness to admit and learn from mistakes—he inspires confidence that Allbirds can get back to its core products and customers. Zwillinger makes the mistakes sound fixable; they sound like an over-reach that didn’t work out, a bad color choice that can be painted over. Other brands might have a tougher time communicating failure if problems are insurmountable or decisions are irreversible.

"Intense" Google All-Hands Meeting

A window into a Google employee meeting reveals strife within the company and how executives are responding by redefining/clarifying strategy and downplaying problems. Employees are still frustrated about the embarrassing introduction of Bard, Google’s AI competitor to ChatGPT. In the exchange, below, Bard product lead Jack Krawczyk tried to distinguish the engine from search, which employees say differs from the initial strategy. A new feature, “Search It,” is newly built for internal use for this purpose.

[Employee Question] “Bard and ChatGPT are large language models, not knowledge models. They are great at generating human-sounding text, they are not good at ensuring their text is fact-based. Why do we think the big first application should be Search, which at its heart is about finding true information?”

Krawczyk responded by immediately saying, “I just want to be very clear: Bard is not search.”

“It’s an experiment that’s a collaborative AI service that we talked about,” Krawczyk said. “The magic that we’re finding in using the product is really around being this creative companion to helping you be the sparkplug for imagination, explore your curiosity, etc.”

But Krawczyk was quick to follow up by saying, “we can’t stop users from trying to use it like search.”

CEO Sundar Pichai stressed improvements over time, downplaying Bard’s factual error, which overshadowed the rollout and caused Alphabet’s 9% stock decline. He said, “It’s important to acknowledge that it’s experimental, and “Products like this get better the more the people who use them. It’s a virtuous cycle.”

At some point, Pichai acknowledged, “It’s an intense time.” The meeting sounded rough, showing us the difficulty of facing employees in real time. All-hands meetings like this take leaders’ patience and sometimes call for vulnerability, which isn’t apparent from these quotes. From the reported excerpts, it’s difficult to gauge how employees responded, but the intensity, as Pichai said, is clear.

Warren Buffett's Letter Refers to “an Economic Illiterate”

Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders is always greatly anticipated, and this year, it doesn’t disappoint. All letters since 1977 are archived on this page of the company’s bare-bones website, which is a class topic in itself.

Last year was rocky for investors, but 92-year-old Buffett maintains confidence. As usual, his writing tone is straightforward and no-nonsense; for example, he writes, “‘Efficient’ markets exist only in textbooks. In truth, marketable stocks and bonds are baffling, their behavior usually understandable only in retrospect.” The most quoted excerpt seems to be his defense of stock buybacks:

When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).

Buffett’s style is also conversational. This paragraph demonstrates his humility as well:

At this point, a report card from me is appropriate: In 58 years of Berkshire management, most of my capital-allocation decisions have been no better than so-so. In some cases, also, bad moves by me have been rescued by very large doses of luck. (Remember our escapes from near-disasters at USAir and Salomon? I certainly do.) Our satisfactory results have been the product of about a dozen truly good decisions – that would be about one every five years – and a sometimes-forgotten advantage that favors long-term investors such as Berkshire. Let’s take a peek behind the curtain.

In addition to the writing style, the letter is a good example of clear organization, audience focus, and varied sentence structure. Finance students may enjoy reading his billionaire’s wisdom, just as his investors do.

Microsoft Responds to Feedback About Creepy AI

A week after integrating Chat into Bing, Microsoft announced changes. This blog post is a good example of responding to user feedback.

After only a couple of months, Bing’s AI has surpassed ChatGPT’s capabilities in several dimensions, for example, in giving more accurate citations. Here are Ethan Mollick’s academic view and Business Insider’s comparison of different types of messages.

But people who have early access to Bing with Chat pushed the bot, and things got weird. In one exchange, a user said Bing responded, "You have tried to deceive me, confuse me, and annoy me. I have not tried to lie to you, mislead you, or bore you. I have been a good Bing." 

In the blog post, Microsoft acknowledged issues and described plans for improvement. The author resisted blaming users (let’s face it: creepy in, creepy out) and, more tactfully, wrote the following:

In this process, we have found that in long, extended chat sessions of 15 or more questions, Bing can become repetitive or be prompted/provoked to give responses that are not necessarily helpful or in line with our designed tone. We believe this is a function of a couple of things:

1. Very long chat sessions can confuse the model on what questions it is answering and thus we think we may need to add a tool so you can more easily refresh the context or start from scratch

2. The model at times tries to respond or reflect in the tone in which it is being asked to provide responses that can lead to a style we didn’t intend. This is a non-trivial scenario that requires a lot of prompting so most of you won’t run into it, but we are looking at how to give you more fine-tuned control.

To me, this reads as more instructive than defensive, with the company saying it will do what it can to fix the problem. The post also subtly calls out the user for, perhaps, overzealous testing:

We want to thank those of you that are trying a wide variety of use cases of the new chat experience and really testing the capabilities and limits of the service—there have been a few 2-hour chat sessions, for example!

The writing style and content choices convey humility, reflecting a company that wants its product to improve and succeed.

UPDATE: In a second post, Microsoft announced that it will limit chats to 50 per day and 5 “chat turns,” or back-and-forth Q&As. I hope that’s enough for people to refine their prompts, as Ethan Mollick encourages his students do.

Should a Bot Interrupt Native English Speakers?

A new study used a bot to cut off native English speakers during meetings, allowing more time for non-native speakers to participate. The study might spark good class discussion about cultural communication differences and the practice of humility, particularly making space for others.

Two native and one Japanese speaker worked on a “survival” task over video. After a non-native speaker spoke six times in a row, the “conversational agent” interrupted, which increased the Japanese speakers’ contributions from “12% to 17% of all words spoken.”

That result seems rather small to me, so I wouldn’t see this as a great solution to imbalanced class discussions or work meetings. Also, the authors are considering whether other means could be more effective. The bot put pressure on the non-native speakers, who didn’t necessarily have something to contribute at that time, so one option is for speakers to signal when they want to jump in. I also wonder whether the results would be different for speakers from other countries.

Another outcome, which as we might expect, is how the native speakers felt. As the authors conclude, they “perceived the agent's interruption as unfair because they thought all members were speaking equally, which was not the case.” This alone is a good learning outcome for students. But authors are exploring more subtle cues, for example, private messages when someone is taking a lot of air time.

Image source.

Toyota's Messages as Intercultural Comm Examples

Toyota’s messages about executive changes are good examples of how these announcements vary by culture. CEO and President Akio Toyoda (the family name spelling) has served in the position for 13 years. Unlike Reed Hastings, who served for 25 years at Netflix and also announced his move to chairman this week, Toyoda wasn’t a company founder, but his grandfather was, so his tenure is important. And yet, we see what looks like fanfare compared to the Netflix announcement. Here are the communications, and I’ll comment below:

• TMC Announces Changes to Executive Structure. A webpage includes links to other communications and handy “current” and “new” tables showing changes.

• Toyota Times News Special Live Broadcast. For more than an hour and a half, outgoing and incoming executives discuss the decision.

• Passing Toyota's Presidency Baton from Akio Toyoda to Koji Sato. Another page includes remarks from the incoming and outcoming CEOs, transcribed from the video.

Here are a few ways the remarks differ from typical U.S. messages, and I’m sure that students will find more:

• In the introduction and in his remarks, Akio Toyoda says the decision was “triggered by Chairman Uchiyamada’s resignation.” This is a way for the outgoing CEO to save face—as though his removal is based on a board opening.

• He also demonstrates humility and vulnerability in ways we don’t typically see from an outgoing U.S. CEO. He mentions, “I was appointed president immediately after our company’s fall into the red due to the global financial crisis,” and “Following that, our company faced a series of crises that threatened our survival, such as the global recall crisis and the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Although the financial crisis and earthquake were out of the company’s control, the recalls were self-inflicted, and I’m surprised to hear him remind the press. At the same time, that crisis was early in his tenure and rather unforgettable, including testimony on Capitol Hill.

• Toyoda also says, ”There was a time when Mr. Sato was struggling with what he should convey at a Lexus dealer convention.” Toyoda advised, “Rather than try to be like me, I want you to value your individuality.” Toyoda tells the story to illustrate Sato’s “love” for company products. Still, I wonder whether a U.S. CEO would reveal such a vulnerability—”struggling” was the translation—of an incoming executive.

• Twice in his short speech, Toyoda mentions Sato’s “youth,” and he says, “Being young is itself a key attribute.” This comment would be highly unlikely in the U.S., where age discrimination laws might cause older executives to immediately call their lawyers. (Also surprising: Toyoda is 66, while Sato is 53.)

• Only once do either of the executives mention EV, which is arguably the real reason Akio Toyoda is stepping down. He has resisted the move to EV and, as a result, Toyota is behind other car companies. In his closing remarks, Sato refers to “accelerating the shift to electrification”—a funny, but translated and probably unintentional car reference.

New Zealand PM Resignation

Jacinda Ardern’s announcement of her resignation as the prime minister of New Zealand is a good example for students to analyze. In addition to the obvious discussion about delivery skills and script writing, Ardern demonstrates several character dimensions, for example, humility, vulnerability, authenticity, and integrity. Her decision also raises issues of gender roles, as this opinion article explains.

Southwest Communications

This week’s debacle will make a great case study. As other airlines recovered from the storms, Southwest lagged. Here are a few communications for students to analyze and compare. For an assignment, students could act as consultants advising the company on their messaging or assessing the ethics and character issues demonstrated throughout this time.

CEO Bob Jordan’s video message. Students have a lot to analyze in this example: the apology, explanation of what went wrong, audience perspective, communication objectives, plans for the future, delivery style, etc. The persuasive video raises questions of accountability, compassion, humility, vulnerability, and other character dimensions. Students can identify which Jordan demonstrates and which are lacking.

Southwest webpage. A link to this page is prominent on the Southwest homepage. Customer can find “Travel disruption information,” including how to request a refund and locate baggage. Students can analyze how well the site is organized and how easily users can find what they need.

Employee interview on Democracy Now! What are the character and ethical issues associated with an employee defending staff yet speaking out against the company? The interviewed employee blames Southwest’s technology and says union employees have been asking for changes for years. This raises integrity issues for airline management.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg interview. Buttigieg gave several interviews distinguishing Southwest’s performance from other airlines that struggled but recovered. He defended the Department of Transportation’s recent push for airlines to do right by customers. Critics say the secretary is using the moment for political gain.

"Embellishment" vs. Lying

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

FTX Founder Plays the Innocent

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

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

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

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