Cornell Messages About Trigger Warnings

Cornell University’s Student Assembly voted unanimously for faculty to include trigger warnings, but the Administration rejected the mandate. Business communication students can analyze the Cornell students’ resolution and the university’s email response.

The student resolution states: “Urging university officials to require instructors who present graphic traumatic content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to provide advance notice to students and refrain from penalizing students who opt out of exposure to such content.” Evidence includes research about PTSD and discussion about the value of advanced warnings. The resolution concludes: “Student Assembly implores all instructors to provide content warnings on the syllabus for any traumatic content that may be discussed, including but not limited to: sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm, suicide, child abuse, racial hate crimes, transphobic violence, homophobic harassment, xenophobia.”

In the Administration’s response, President Martha Pollack and Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff reject the recommendation because it “would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education.” They link to the university’s value of “Free and Open Inquiry and Expression” but acknowledge that certain warnings are “common courtesy” and that “contextualizing” content may be appropriate.

Conservative news organizations supported the Administration and criticized students for the proposal. With its own evidence, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote an opinion piece, not missing a chance to denounce DEI efforts: “Cornell’s position is good news, but these bad ideas will recur as long as the diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy governs academia, pushing the notion that honest speech and debate are traumatic. If universities want to reclaim real intellectual openness on campus, they have to help students get comfortable with being uncomfortable.” Cornell’s Administration might agree with the last part of that argument.

Several character dimensions are illustrated in these examples. We might say that students demonstrated courage with their resolution, and the Administration demonstrated integrity by being consistent with university values. Some might believe Administrators lack compassion for students and are failing to hold faculty accountable, while others might say the university holds everyone accountable for inquiry and learning. It’s complicated and could lead to a good class discussion.

Another "I Wish You Well" Moment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treemap Shows S&P Index

The New York Times uses a treemap to show how the stock market is dominated by two companies. The article, titled, “How Big Tech Camouflaged Wall Street’s Crisis,” warns that concerns about the market aren’t always as they appear.

The article encourages us to temper reports about financial conditions based only on the S&P 500. The first paragraph of the article says it well: “The fate of the S&P 500 index—used by investors as a barometer for the health of corporate America, and cited by presidents as a measure of their handling of the economy—often comes down to just two companies: Apple and Microsoft.”

The treemap is a good choice to display large amounts of data, with each box or rectangular sized proportionately. In this case, the results are dramatic. We see how Apple and Microsoft stocks can sway the entire index. With text callouts, authors identify well-known companies and a group of 32 for comparison.

Students will find a treemap among standard Excel charts. This one is a good example of how they can be used—with additional comments.

Letter Requesting an AI Pause

An open letter asking for a pause on training advanced AI systems serves as an example of persuasive communication. Signed by more than 2,300 leaders as of this writing, the message is a warning and a request. Students can analyze the letter structure and persuasive strategies, which are a mix of emotional appeals, logical arguments, and credibility.

The letter doesn’t follow organizational principles we teach in business communication classes. Although faculty encourage the main point up front, this message includes the “ask” in bold type at the beginning of the third paragraph: “Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” Another main point, also in bold, appears in the middle of the second paragraph: “Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.” Paragraph organization is mixed. Some follow a traditional topic sentence format, while one is a single sentence.

Evidence for the pause includes OpenAI’s own communication. The letter quotes the company and uses italics: “At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." Then the authors write, “We agree. That point is now,” good examples of short, punchy sentences.

The last paragraph sounds like an add-on, which is possible with a collaborative writing process. The signers ask for a “long AI summer,” a chance to “reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt.” “AI summer” is catchy and could be a better frame for the letter. Referring to the last paragraph, the last footnote lists examples of other tech pauses: “Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.” Repeating “society” in this sentence is curious, and I found myself wanting to read more about this—and earlier. The footnote reads, “Examples include human cloning, human germline modification, gain-of-function research, and eugenics.” An analogy of one of these examples could be a useful persuasive strategy earlier as well.

Citations are a mix of academic papers and books, popular media, and websites. The first footnote refers to several sources, which might reduce the credibility. Again, I envision multiple authors “tacking on” sources, including their own work.

Another topic for class discussion is how this news has been reported. Most of the articles I read, for example, Business Insider’s, lead with Elon Musk. But more than 2,000 distinguished leaders signed the letter, including Steve Wozniak, Andrew Yang, and AI researchers. I can’t be the only one tired of hearing about Elon Musk. The signers offer credibility, but Musk might diminish that approach.

If you’re looking for another written example for students to analyze, see the statement from OpenAI, which explains the benefits of AI but acknowledges “serious risk of misuse, drastic accidents, and societal disruption.”

Comms About TikTok Testimony

TikTok CEO Shou Chew’s testimony provides examples of persuasive communication. U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee members called on Chew to address concerns about safety and security, but lawmakers were not convinced by his answers and are taking steps against the company.

The Committee webpage lists members’ comments under non-parallel, but descriptive headings. The page is self-promotional: congressional members are proud of grilling the CEO, and we see only pithy, unattributed statements—none of Chew’s responses.

Chew’s opening statement is his attempt to convince the committee that TikTok is sufficiently American and will become more so. To establish credibility—and to distance himself from the Chinese government—Chew starts with his brief background: born in Singapore, attended college in the U.K. and business school in the States, and married a Virginian. Chew describes “Project Texas,” the company’s plan to move data to the United States where it will be fully controlled by Americans. Students can analyze his persuasive strategies and delivery skills. He is clear but nods quite a bit.

During the five-hour testimony, as these hearings go, some representatives invested more in their questions than in wanting legitimate answers, while others never got their questions answered. Some sticking points were around 55 minutes into the video and then around the one-hour mark, when Chew evaded questions repeatedly. What made headlines is Chew’s admission that the Chinese government may be able to access some data—or he wasn’t clear enough: “After Project Texas is done, the answer is no,” and “Today, there is still some data that we need to delete.” Several times, Chew tried to put TikTok in context of the tech industry, saying the company is no worse than any others and may be doing more, for example, to protect kids and reduce misinformation.

After the testimony, a TikTok spokesperson tweeted: "Shou came prepared to answer questions from Congress, but, unfortunately, the day was dominated by political grandstanding that failed to acknowledge the real solutions already underway through Project Texas or productively address industry-wide issues of youth safety. Also not mentioned today by members of the Committee: the livelihoods of the 5 million businesses on TikTok or the First Amendment implications of banning a platform loved by 150 million Americans.”

Regardless, Chew’s testimony didn’t seem to impress lawmakers. We’ll see what happens next.

Image source.

"Love Letters" to Home Sellers Are Out

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

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

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

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

Four Charts About SVB Don't Tell the Whole Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salesforce CEO Addresses McConaughey Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson Learned: Don't Use AI in Sensitive Situations

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

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

Perhaps the only giveaway was a line at the bottom:

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

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

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

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

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

Google “Word Mangles” Shared Office Space

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

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

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

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

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

Image source.

Student Handout: Tips for Using ChatGPT

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

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

Tips for Using ChatGPT for Your
Business Communication Assignments

Ask ChatGPT for help generating ideas.

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

Think of ChatGPT as a writing partner.

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

Use your natural, authentic voice.

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

Adapt writing to your audience.

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

Beware of misinformation.

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

Learn from ChatGPT’s corrections.

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

Plan ahead and expect change.

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

---

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

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

Greenwashing Gets Sophisticated

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Greenrinsing: changing goals before they’re achieved.

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

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

Boeing CEO Explains Quarterly Results

In a message to employees posted on the company website, Boeing CEO David Calhoun wrote, “We delivered a solid fourth quarter,” but the numbers say something different. According to a Wall Street Journal article, “The aerospace company’s fourth-quarter profit and sales both fell short of analysts’ expectations,” although they improved from the third quarter.

Calhoun is doing what any good CEO would do: spin the news, convey confidence, and keep employees motivated. Focusing on the future, the subtitle sums up the message, “Steadily building momentum.” Calhoun starts by thanking employees, and a short video shows fourth quarter achievements. The message doesn’t mention the $663 million quarterly loss or the $5.01 billion loss in 2022 but instead focuses on “more than $3 billion in free cash flow.”

Calhoun acknowledges, “we have more work ahead to drive stability in our operations and within the supply chain.” But, overall, the bad-news message sounds positive. And maybe it is good news, considering the 737 Max history and that the stock lost nearly 39% in the past 5 years.

The full message is below. Side note: The Wall Street Journal reports, at some point in his communications, Calhoun said he expects operating margins to be “bouncy” this year, an odd term for a plane manufacturer. Will they be turbulent?

Boeing CEO Updates Employees on 4th-Quarter Results

• Steadily building momentum

CHICAGO, Jan. 25, 2023 —Boeing President and CEO Dave Calhoun shared the following message with employees today addressing the company’s fourth-quarter results:

Team,

We delivered a solid fourth quarter. As we report our financial results today, I want to start by saying thank you. Together, we’re making important strides and steadily improving performance. Your resilience and hard work are building momentum, and we’re well on our way to restoring the operational strength we expect of ourselves at Boeing.

We generated more than $3 billion in free cash flow in the fourth quarter, driven by progress in our performance and strong demand. This helped us generate positive full-year free cash flow for the first time since 2018, an important metric in our recovery.

Our teams across the enterprise delivered on several key milestones and I encourage you to watch some of our fourth-quarter highlights in the video below. [omitted]

While we have made meaningful progress, challenges remain and we have more work ahead to drive stability in our operations and within the supply chain.

This will be another important year for us as we look to steadily increase our production rates, further improve performance, progress in our development programs and deliver on our commitments. Through it all, we will keep safety, quality and transparency at the forefront.

We’re proud of how we closed out 2022, and despite the hurdles in front of us, we’re confident in our path ahead. Demand is strong and our portfolio is well positioned. We have a robust pipeline of development programs, we’re innovating for the future and we’re increasing investments to prepare for our next generation of products.

Thank you for all you do to support our customers, our company and each other. I am proud of our team and excited about our future.

Dave

FDA Suggests Less Lead in Baby Food

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance for baby food manufacturers, and the messages serve as good examples of reports and persuasion:

• Action Levels for Lead in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children: Draft Guidance for Industry. This is a text report that students could analyze for organization, writing style, evidence, data visualization (or lack there of), etc.

• Federal Register Notice. This legal-sounding document explains how to submit comments, either by “electronic submission” or “written/paper submission,” an archaic-sounding process. People also can order paper copies of the draft guidance, something you might do in 1970: “Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request.”

Several times, on the website and within in each document, the agency reminds us, “Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Draft-Not for Implementation.” The agency further describes the “guidance”:

In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe FDA’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in FDA guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.

The approach attempts to involve industry and consumer groups, who likely have a lot to say about the FDA’s data and recommendations. In the introductory website text, the agency says it considers the goals “achievable by industry when control measures are taken to minimize the presence of lead.” We’ll see whether others agree. Already, one consumer group weighed in, saying the guidance “doesn’t go far enough,” while Gerber and other companies are “reviewing” the proposal.

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.

Microsoft Layoff Email

In step with other tech companies, Microsoft is laying off 10,000 employees, and CEO Satya Nadella’s email is posted publicly. I’m surprised that Nadella didn’t learn more lessons from the 2014 Microsoft layoff email a NY Magazine writer called “hilariously bad.”

Nadella starts with the vague subject line, “Focusing on our short- and long-term opportunity,” and then writes two paragraphs about challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Mercifully, he gets to the news in the first sentence of the third paragraph. This is an improvement over the 2014 memo in which former exec Stephen Elop announced layoffs in the eleventh paragraph.

In Chapter 8 of Business Communication and Character, I write extensively about the value of putting bad news up front and the lack of research support for the “indirect style”—giving explanations first and then the bad news. In this case, I’m quite sure that employees knew what was coming, so a more direct style is more appropriate.

In these sentences, Nadella puts the 10,000 in perspective, as we teach in crisis communication. However, employees will wonder whether they are affected and when they will hear the news. Based on the industry and his first paragraphs, employees working on AI likely feel safe, but a clearer timeline for those who aren’t is always a good idea.

Today, we are making changes that will result in the reduction of our overall workforce by 10,000 jobs through the end of FY23 Q3. This represents less than 5 percent of our total employee base, with some notifications happening today. It’s important to note that while we are eliminating roles in some areas, we will continue to hire in key strategic areas.

Twice, with a paragraph in between, Nadella promises transparency:

. . . we will do so in the most thoughtful and transparent way possible.

. . . we will treat our people with dignity and respect, and act transparently.

Employees might prefer actual transparency to hearing about it.

Nadella does express compassion and explain benefits, which is useful for employees, but clearly designed for public viewing. Overall, the email reads like one always intended for a public blog.

Update: A Wall Street Journal article reported a concert Microsoft sponsored at Davos with Sting performing for about 50 people the night before layoffs were announced. The author describes it as a “bad look.” We could call it “bad optics”—or just insensitive, lacking integrity and compassion.

Image source.

George Santos Resume

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

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

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

Email for Editing

Here’s a fun email—from a publishing company!—with obvious errors and other issues for students to fix. Also, I’m not an accounting professor. I’m guessing Wiley outsourced this research and the communication.

Dear Amy, 

Due to the holiday's, we decided to extend the deadline of this survey to 1/15/23, for anyone interested to give us their feedback.

As an Accounting professor, we know you are constantly looking for ways to optimize your curriculum. We would love to get to know more about the resources you leverage to build your curriculum and your challenges and needs of teaching material for your Accounting courses. Your feedback would go a long way to help us create products and services to better support our Accounting instructors.  

• The survey should take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. 

• Upon completing the survey, your email will be entered into a random drawing for 1 of 10, $50 Amazon.com gift cards.  The random drawing will take place the week of 1/16/23, where winners will be contacted via email. You will also receive a code for 20% off one book on Wiley.com. 

• The survey will remain open until 1/15/23.

Follow this link to the Survey, if you are interested to give us feedback:
Take the Survey

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://wiley.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5oSZeObx6LcRbAq?Q_DL=Z28LxciSPjK2660_5oSZeObx6LcRbAq_CGC_3xI24GCcnaZf9jE&Q_CHL=email

Send an email to [omitted]@wiley.com if you have any questions.

Thank you and sincere regards,
The Wiley Accounting Team

Steve Jobs Email Blast from the Past

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

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

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

Making Sense of Big Numbers

On a recent “No Mercy, No Malice” podcast episode (NSFW), Scott Galloway compares Meta’s spend on Reality Labs—$1 billion per month—to what he considers better investments.

In Business Communication and Character, I suggest that students compare data to concrete objects to help people understand the magnitude. Galloway offers several suggestions to put the expense into context—and to show how Mark Zuckerberg might put the money to better use than building a doomed Metaverse. One is to “pay the entire cost of attendance for every undergrad in the University of Texas and California systems.”

Of course, his point is how much money is being wasted. For students, it’s a good example of making numbers more relevant to an audience.

Image source.