In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll explore two high-stakes showdowns—one rooted in strategic restraint, the other in narrative failure. First, they unpack Harvard's quiet but calculated resistance to White House pressure, as the university rejects a rumored $500 million settlement and signals a shift away from capitulation. Then, the focus shifts to Intel, where a four-month silence about its new CEO’s investments gives Trump and allies room to frame the narrative. The hosts dissect what these stories reveal about institutional autonomy, reputational endurance, and why communications discipline—not noise—is the playbook for surviving today’s political climate.
Takeaways- Harvard demonstrates how strategic restraint can shift power without escalation.
- Refusing to match chaos with chaos can be a reputational strength.
- Intel's vague response opened a narrative vacuum others were happy to fill.
- Ambiguity is a liability in an era of weaponized attention.
Topics Mentioned
institutional autonomy, strategic restraint, narrative control, flood-the-zone tactics, reputational risk, crisis communications, political targeting, knowledge ecosystems, stakeholder communications, leadership under pressure, self-interest and civic responsibility, communications discipline, cross-sector coalitions
Companies MentionedHarvard, Columbia, Brown, Intel, Cadence Design Systems, Nvidia, TSMC, Coca-C
olaEpisode Hashtags
#Harvard #Columbia #BrownUniversity #Intel #CadenceDesignSystems #Nvidia #TSMC #CocaCola #CrisisComms #NarrativeControl #CorporateReputation #PRStrategy #LeadershipMessaging #TrumpAdministration #ReputationRisk #InstitutionalAutonomy #StrategicSilence #CraigCarroll #SteveDowling #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork
Produced by
Shawn P Neal at
AdvoCast
