How to build a business communication course: a complete guide for lecturers

Central question: what does this audience need to know, believe, feel or do, and why should they trust the communicator?

Business communication starts before drafting. Students need a repeatable diagnosis that connects purpose, audience, stakeholder power, evidence, timing and credibility. Without it, they often write polished messages that solve the wrong problem or use the same message for audiences with different stakes.

What this concept covers

• Purpose, desired action and decision context.
• Primary, secondary and hidden audiences.
• Stakeholder interests, power, prior knowledge and likely objections.
• Credibility through competence, candour, consistency and evidence.
• Communication sequencing when different audiences need different timing.

Learning outcomes

• Diagnose a communication problem before selecting a message or channel.
• Map audience needs and likely objections.
• Identify credibility risks created by timing, evidence or messenger choice.
• Design an audience-specific communication objective.

Supports Course Outcomes 1, 3 and 9.

How to teach it

• Give every group the same facts but a different stakeholder.
• Require an audience map before any drafting begins.
• Ask students to state the desired audience action in one sentence.
• Compare what changes in evidence, tone and timing across audiences.

Case-style example

Orion Mobility will close one of three service hubs, saving £2.4 million a year but removing 38 roles. The board wants a decision memo tomorrow, employees hear the announcement on Friday, and the largest customer needs reassurance about service continuity. Students build a three-audience matrix and write a 50-word opening for each audience. One team can favour early candour; another can favour staged disclosure to protect decision integrity. Students discover that credibility depends on evidence and sequencing, not one universal tone.

Where students struggle

Students often define the audience demographically rather than managerially. The useful questions are what the audience controls, what it fears, what it already knows and what evidence it would accept.

Reading and a quick check

Use Cardon's opening chapters on credibility and interpersonal communication. As a quick check, give students a one-paragraph situation and ask for purpose, audience, action, objection and credibility risk in five lines.

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation can provide a compact application because students must connect audience choice, positioning and promotional message. Keep the debrief focused on message-audience coherence rather than marketing strategy alone.

Where it leads

Once students know what the message needs to achieve, they can work on the architecture and readability of the written message itself.

Central question: how can a writer make the reader's decision easier without stripping out necessary nuance?

Business writing is not simply correct grammar. It is the deliberate design of information around reader need, decision sequence, evidence and action. Students should learn to edit for structure first, sentences second and surface correctness last.

What this concept covers

• Direct and indirect message structures.
• Executive summaries, informative headings and action-led openings.
• Paragraph logic, concision, readability and document scanning.
• Tone, courtesy and precision without unnecessary formality.
• Editing for meaning, evidence and reader effort.

Learning outcomes

• Structure a message around the reader's decision path.
• Edit dense writing into concise, accurate business prose.
• Use headings, paragraph order and emphasis to support scanning.
• Separate substantive editing from proofreading.

Supports Course Outcomes 2 and 10.

How to teach it

• Use before-and-after editing rather than lecture-only rules.
• Have students cut a message by 40% without losing required facts.
• Ask each group to explain what information it moved and why.
• Mark reader effort as well as grammatical correctness.

Case-style example

Northstar Insurance must tell 1,800 customers that a system migration has delayed claims processing. The draft email is 420 words, uses 11 technical terms and does not state the customer action until paragraph six. Students reduce it to 180 words, put the action in the first 40 words and preserve three legal facts. A defensible disagreement is whether reassurance or procedural precision should lead. Students discover that concision is a prioritisation decision, not just deletion.

Where students struggle

Students often polish sentences before deciding what the reader needs first. They may also equate professionalism with long words, passive voice or excessive courtesy.

Reading and a quick check

Pair Cardon's chapters on effective business messages and readability with a five-minute reverse-outline exercise: students label the job of every paragraph in a sample memo.

Where it leads

Clear writing then becomes a channel-choice problem: the same message behaves differently in email, chat, video, a formal document or a live conversation.

Central question: which channel gives the message the best chance of being understood, acted on and governed appropriately?

Digital communication should be taught as channel architecture rather than a list of etiquette rules. Students need to judge speed, richness, permanence, confidentiality, discoverability, audience size and the possibility of escalation.

What this concept covers

• Email subject lines, openings, calls to action and thread management.
• Chat and collaboration tools for short-cycle coordination.
• Video and synchronous communication for ambiguity and relationship repair.
• Formal letters, records and escalation where permanence matters.
• Response-time norms, confidentiality, forwarding and digital professionalism.

Learning outcomes

• Select a channel using message sensitivity, complexity and urgency.
• Write effective email and collaboration-tool messages.
• Identify when a written trail helps or harms the communication objective.
• Design escalation from asynchronous to synchronous communication.

Supports Course Outcomes 2 and 3.

How to teach it

• Give students one issue and force a channel choice before drafting.
• Change one variable at a time: urgency, confidentiality or relationship quality.
• Compare a written-first and call-first escalation pathway.
• Debrief how channel choice changes perceived intent.

Case-style example

ValeWorks has a £620,000 customer order that will arrive six weeks late, and revised payment terms must be agreed by Friday. Students choose between email, video call and formal letter, then write the first 120 words or opening script. One group can argue for a call first to protect the relationship; another for written notice first to preserve the contractual record. Students discover that channel choice changes both tone and governance.

Where students struggle

Students often choose the channel they personally prefer. The better question is what combination of speed, richness, record and relationship the situation requires.

Reading and a quick check

Use the textbook material on email and collaboration tools. Give six short scenarios and ask students to choose a first channel plus one-sentence rationale for each.

Where it leads

With channel choice established, the course can move from clarity to influence: how should a communicator build an argument that a sceptical audience can inspect?

Central question: how do you persuade a stakeholder without hiding uncertainty or manipulating the decision frame?

Persuasion belongs at the centre of Business Communication because many professional messages ask for approval, resources, behaviour change or support. Teach argument as claim, evidence, warrant, counterargument and response so students can defend the logic rather than rely on charisma.

What this concept covers

• Claims, evidence, warrants and assumptions.
• Audience motivation and resistance.
• Ethical influence, framing and omission risk.
• Counterarguments, concessions and rebuttal.
• Recommendation language that distinguishes fact, forecast and judgement.

Learning outcomes

• Build an evidence-based persuasive argument.
• Surface assumptions and material counterarguments.
• Adapt the argument to stakeholder incentives without changing the underlying facts.
• Evaluate whether a persuasive frame is ethically defensible.

Supports Course Outcomes 4 and 10.

How to teach it

• Require a one-page recommendation with a visible counterargument.
• Make one group defend the opposite conclusion using the same data.
• Separate evidence quality from rhetorical confidence in the rubric.
• Ask students to label facts, assumptions and forecasts.

Case-style example

GreenArc Packaging wants approval for a £6 million conversion line expected to save £1.4 million a year, but the payback lengthens to 4.3 years if resin prices fall 15%. Students build a claim-evidence-warrant argument and answer the strongest counterargument. One team can approve for resilience and long-run capacity; another can reject on capital discipline. Students discover that persuasion improves when uncertainty is made explicit rather than hidden.

Where students struggle

Students may mistake assertion for persuasion or believe that acknowledging a counterargument weakens the recommendation. In professional communication, visible trade-offs often increase credibility.

Reading and a quick check

Use the textbook chapter on persuasive messages. Ask students to turn three unsupported claims into claim-evidence-warrant structures and identify one ethical risk in each.

Where a simulation fits

The Go To Market Simulation supports concise audience positioning and message choices. The Startup Funding Simulation can later add persuasion under opposing incentives, once students are ready for live negotiation.

Where it leads

Persuasive recommendations usually depend on evidence, so the next concept asks how to turn data into an interpretable visual and narrative.

Central question: which evidence deserves attention, and how can a visual reveal the decision rather than decorate it?

Students should learn that data storytelling is selection plus explanation. A useful visual has an audience, an analytical point and a truthful scale. The goal is not to make numbers exciting but to make the pattern, comparison or exception legible enough to support a decision.

What this concept covers

• Choosing the smallest set of decision-relevant metrics.
• Chart selection, scale, labels and source disclosure.
• Insight-led headlines and executive commentary.
• Visual hierarchy, tables and slide design.
• Misleading visuals, omitted baselines and false precision.

Learning outcomes

• Select evidence that answers a specific business question.
• Create a clear chart, table or slide from a small dataset.
• Write an insight-led headline and concise interpretation.
• Identify visual choices that could mislead an audience.

Supports Course Outcomes 4, 5 and 10.

How to teach it

• Give groups the same dataset and different stakeholder questions.
• Restrict them to one slide and two metrics.
• Make every chart carry a one-sentence takeaway.
• Run a gallery critique focused on interpretation, not aesthetics.

Case-style example

Pulse Retail reports revenue up 9%, gross margin down 3 percentage points, repeat purchase up 6% and product returns up 28%. Students choose two metrics for a single board slide and write a 25-word headline. An optimistic team may foreground retention and growth; a sceptical team may foreground margin and returns. Students discover that truthful evidence selection can still produce different narratives, so omission needs to be defended.

Where students struggle

Students often show every available metric or use a chart because it looks professional. They need to connect the visual to the question the audience must answer.

Reading and a quick check

Use current textbook material on visual design and reports. Ask students to identify the one sentence a chart should make obvious within five seconds.

Where a simulation fits

For finance-literate cohorts, the Investment Banking Simulation later gives students a demanding environment in which models, memos and pitches must be turned into decision-ready communication. Do not use it here as a substitute for explicit visual teaching.

Where it leads

Once evidence is selected and framed, students can translate the recommendation into live delivery and Q&A.

Central question: can the presenter make a recommendation easy to follow, challenge and remember under time pressure?

Presentation teaching should move beyond slide design and confidence. Students need to plan the decision path, use evidence economically, manage transitions, answer questions and remain credible when challenged. Executive presence is best treated as observable behaviour rather than personality.

What this concept covers

• Opening frame, recommendation and audience contract.
• Storyline, signposting and evidence sequence.
• Slide economy and spoken explanation.
• Voice, pace, posture and use of notes.
• Q&A management, challenge, concession and recovery.

Learning outcomes

• Design a presentation around a decision rather than a topic list.
• Deliver a concise recommendation with visible evidence.
• Answer hostile or uncertain questions without becoming evasive.
• Evaluate speaking performance using observable criteria.

Supports Course Outcomes 5, 6 and 10.

How to teach it

• Use repeated short presentations before a long final pitch.
• Assess the opening minute and Q&A separately.
• Give students question roles: evidence, risk, stakeholder and implementation.
• Require a post-presentation revision note stating what they would change.

Case-style example

Elevate Health is considering a £9 million distribution partnership that could increase market penetration from 8% to 14%, but the distributor wants a 12% fee and category exclusivity. Students have seven minutes and four slides to recommend accept, renegotiate or walk away, followed by three hostile questions. Different conclusions can be defensible. Students discover that a strong presentation makes its assumptions and decision boundary easy to challenge.

Where students struggle

Students often equate confident delivery with a strong argument. Separate message architecture, evidence, delivery and Q&A so a fluent speaker cannot hide a weak recommendation.

Reading and a quick check

Use the textbook chapters on planning and delivering presentations, plus Usera and Fuller's recent work on team presentation Q&A. Run a one-minute recommendation followed by one evidence question.

Where a simulation fits

The Investment Banking Simulation is the strongest extended fit for finance-literate cohorts because students move through analysis, pitching, advisory communication, roadshows, information exchange and decision outputs over multiple rounds. For a shorter, less technical option, the Startup Funding Simulation provides a negotiation and pitch context with lower technical entry requirements.

Where it leads

After speaking, the course turns deliberately to receiving information: listening, feedback and the interpersonal behaviours that make communication two-way.

Central question: how can a communicator test what another person actually means before reacting, judging or solving?

Listening is often treated as a soft behaviour rather than a decision skill. In Business Communication it is the mechanism for finding missing information, checking assumptions and reducing avoidable conflict. Feedback works the same way: observable evidence and a clear next step are more useful than labels about personality.

What this concept covers

• Active listening, paraphrasing and confirmation.
• Open, closed, probing and diagnostic questions.
• Feedback based on observable behaviour, impact and next action.
• Emotional regulation and attribution errors.
• One-to-one communication across power differences.

Learning outcomes

• Use questions to surface assumptions and missing information.
• Paraphrase another person's position accurately before responding.
• Give behaviour-based feedback with a clear requested change.
• Distinguish a communication problem from a process or incentive problem.

Supports Course Outcomes 7, 8 and 9.

How to teach it

• Run three-minute listening rounds in which the listener cannot offer a solution.
• Ask the speaker to score whether the listener captured the real issue.
• Rewrite judgemental feedback into observation-impact-request language.
• Debrief what the communicator learned only because they asked rather than assumed.

Case-style example

BrightForge's sales and product teams blame each other for customer churn of 7.8%. Exit interviews show that 34% of lost customers cite expectation gaps between what was sold and what was delivered. Students conduct a ten-minute listening conversation, produce a neutral paraphrase and give one feedback statement plus one diagnostic question. One conclusion may focus on poor handovers; another on incentives. Students discover that careful listening can reveal a process problem behind an interpersonal dispute.

Where students struggle

Students often listen for the moment they can reply. They may also turn feedback into advice before checking whether their diagnosis is right.

Reading and a quick check

Use Cardon's interpersonal and emotional-intelligence material. A quick check is to give students a loaded statement and ask for one paraphrase, one factual question and one feeling-neutral response.

Where a simulation fits

The Corporate Governance Simulation becomes useful once students can listen across role-specific incentives. The debrief should ask what each role heard, what it missed and which questions changed the negotiation.

Where it leads

Listening and feedback scale from one-to-one interaction into meetings and cross-functional decisions, where participation and process design matter.

Central question: how should a meeting be designed so that information becomes a decision rather than another conversation?

Meetings provide a practical way to teach role clarity, evidence, participation, decision rights and documentation. The course should distinguish an information meeting, a problem-solving meeting and a decision meeting because each requires a different agenda and output.

What this concept covers

• Meeting purpose, agenda architecture and pre-reads.
• Facilitation, turn-taking and contribution quality.
• Decision rights, consensus, consultation and escalation.
• Cross-functional language and translation between disciplines.
• Minutes, owners, deadlines and decision records.

Learning outcomes

• Design a meeting around a defined decision or output.
• Facilitate balanced evidence and challenge.
• State decision rights before debate begins.
• Produce a concise record of decision, rationale, owner and next step.

Supports Course Outcomes 7, 8 and 9.

How to teach it

• Make groups rewrite a vague agenda into a decision agenda.
• Assign a chair, challenger, evidence owner and recorder.
• Stop the meeting halfway and ask whether the group knows what decision rule it is using.
• Grade the written decision record as well as participation.

Case-style example

Helix Foods has 45 minutes to decide whether to launch a national campaign after a pilot shows a 2.5% packaging defect rate. £180,000 of media is already booked, operations wants a two-week delay, and finance estimates delay will cost £65,000. Students design the agenda, roles, evidence sequence, decision rule and record. One team may seek consensus; another may use explicit executive rights. Students discover that meeting quality depends on process design, not airtime.

Where students struggle

Students may assume collaboration means equal speaking time or unanimous agreement. Effective cross-functional communication makes expertise visible while keeping responsibility for the final decision clear.

Reading and a quick check

Use current team communication material from the core textbook. Ask students to convert a five-item status agenda into a decision agenda with pre-read, owner and required output.

Where a simulation fits

The Corporate Governance Simulation is a strong applied bridge because same-role preparation feeds into a multi-role decision conversation. Students can be assessed on meeting process and communication evidence separately from the substantive outcome.

Where it leads

Once a team can run a disciplined decision process, students can confront situations where interests genuinely conflict and compromise has costs.

Central question: how should a communicator protect a relationship while being explicit about interests, evidence, boundaries and consequences?

Difficult communication becomes manageable when students separate positions from interests, facts from interpretations and negotiable terms from non-negotiable constraints. The goal is not to make every conflict collaborative but to make the reasoning and commitments explicit.

What this concept covers

• Conflict diagnosis and escalation.
• Positions, interests, alternatives and trade-offs.
• Opening difficult conversations without accusation or avoidance.
• Negotiation proposals, conditional language and commitments.
• Power, ethics and when to stop negotiating.

Learning outcomes

• Diagnose the issue, interests and non-negotiable constraints.
• Open a difficult conversation with evidence and purpose.
• Develop conditional proposals and trade-offs.
• Document a negotiated outcome accurately.

Supports Course Outcomes 7, 8 and 9.

How to teach it

• Give each role private priorities plus one constraint it cannot reveal immediately.
• Require a planned first 90 seconds before role-play begins.
• Pause negotiations to ask what each party thinks the other values.
• Debrief language that reduced or increased defensiveness.

Case-style example

Stonebridge Logistics discovers that its top salesperson bypassed compliance checks on three contracts worth £4.2 million. Dismissal could put 18% of annual revenue at risk, but ignoring the breach weakens the control system. Students script the first 90 seconds of the conversation, list interests and non-negotiables, and make one conditional proposal. A final warning or removal from client responsibility can both be defended. Students discover that clarity about boundaries creates more room for genuine negotiation.

Where students struggle

Students may soften the issue until the message becomes ambiguous, or become so direct that the other party can only defend itself. Evidence, purpose and conditional next steps help avoid both extremes.

Reading and a quick check

Use the core textbook's difficult-conversation material. For a quick check, ask students to rewrite an accusatory opening into observation, impact, purpose and question.

Where a simulation fits

The M&A Simulation and Startup Funding Simulation provide short negotiation contexts with visible trade-offs. The Corporate Governance Simulation adds conflict where role obligations and governance constraints matter as much as economic bargaining.

Where it leads

The same conflict skills are required in leadership and governance, where the communicator also carries ethical and fiduciary responsibilities.

Central question: what must leaders disclose, challenge and record when commercial interests, relationships and governance duties collide?

Leadership communication is not simply inspirational messaging. Students need to see how authority, disclosure, conflicts of interest, stakeholder rights and decision records shape what responsible leaders can say and do. This makes governance an especially useful setting for advanced Business Communication.

What this concept covers

• Leadership credibility, voice and accountability.
• Stakeholder mapping and competing obligations.
• Conflicts of interest, disclosure and recusal.
• Board and executive communication under challenge.
• Ethical framing, transparency and decision records.

Learning outcomes

• Identify ethical and governance constraints on a communication decision.
• Prepare a concise board-level issue brief.
• Communicate disagreement without obscuring accountability.
• Evaluate whether disclosure, recusal or escalation is sufficient.

Supports Course Outcomes 8, 9 and 10.

How to teach it

• Give roles with different duties, not merely different preferences.
• Require a written issue brief before live discussion.
• Ask students to distinguish what can be negotiated from what governance requires.
• Debrief what needed to be recorded for an absent stakeholder or reviewer.

Case-style example

ArcLight Tech's CTO owns 6% of a supplier bidding for a £5 million contract. The CTO has delivered releases 22% faster than plan, while compliance argues that the relationship threatens process integrity. Students write a 250-word board brief and role-play CEO, CTO, compliance officer and shareholder. Recusal alone or divestment plus recusal can both be defended. Students discover that governance communication must separate the person's performance from the conflict itself.

Where students struggle

Students may treat a governance issue as an interpersonal dispute, or assume transparency automatically resolves it. The communication must clarify interests, duties, process and the decision authority.

Reading and a quick check

Use leadership and ethical communication material alongside a short governance case. Ask students for a four-line board brief: issue, evidence, conflict, decision required.

Where a simulation fits

The Corporate Governance Simulation is the direct fit. It places students into CEO, CTO, Chief Compliance Officer and Shareholder roles in a conflict-of-interest boardroom case, making communication choices visible through role preparation, negotiation and recorded outcomes.

Where it leads

Governance communication provides the bridge into crisis and change, where the audience expands, time compresses and reputation becomes part of the decision.

Central question: what should an organisation say when facts are incomplete, consequences are developing and silence is itself interpreted?

Crisis and change communication let students practise speed without false certainty. The key teaching move is to separate what is known, what is not known, what the organisation is doing now and when the next update will come. Reputation is an outcome of evidence, action and communication together.

What this concept covers

• Holding statements and first-response discipline.
• Stakeholder sequence, spokesperson choice and update cadence.
• Known, unknown and under-investigation information.
• Apology, responsibility, corrective action and legal tension.
• Change narratives, employee communication and resistance.

Learning outcomes

• Draft a credible first statement with incomplete information.
• Prioritise stakeholders and communication sequence.
• Distinguish explanation from excuse and apology from admission.
• Design an update cadence linked to operational facts.

Supports Course Outcomes 2, 3 and 9.

How to teach it

• Release new facts in timed rounds and require message updates.
• Have different groups speak to customers, employees, regulators and media.
• Compare what remained consistent across stakeholder messages.
• Debrief whether the organisation's actions support its words.

Case-style example

ClearSpring detects contamination in 0.7% of a production batch covering 240,000 units. A national recall would cost £3.1 million, and social-media mentions have doubled in three hours. Students draft a 100-word holding statement and stakeholder sequence before deciding whether to recommend a national or batch-specific action. Both can be defended with different risk assumptions. Students discover that credible crisis communication states uncertainty and next action rather than filling gaps with reassurance.

Where students struggle

Students often write either a legalistic non-answer or an overconfident apology before facts are established. The stronger response is precise about current knowledge, immediate protection and timing of the next update.

Reading and a quick check

Use the verified United Flight 3411 and Boeing 737 Max cases later in the page. For a quick check, ask students to label each sentence of a holding statement as fact, action, empathy, uncertainty or update commitment.

Where it leads

The final concept asks how all of these choices change across cultures, virtual settings and AI-assisted workflows.

Central question: how should communication be adapted when language, culture, distance and generative AI all change how a message is created and interpreted?

The final concept is integration rather than a technology add-on. Students need to adapt communication to local context without stereotyping, choose virtual practices deliberately and remain responsible for any AI-assisted output. The quality test is whether the communicator can verify and defend the final message.

What this concept covers

• Cross-cultural adaptation without fixed national stereotypes.
• Plain language and communication for multilingual audiences.
• Virtual presence, asynchronous work and distributed teams.
• Generative AI for ideation, drafting, revision and checking.
• Verification, disclosure, confidentiality, source quality and human accountability.

Learning outcomes

• Adapt a message to different cultural and organisational contexts using evidence.
• Design communication for distributed and multilingual teams.
• Audit AI-assisted writing for unsupported claims, tone and source problems.
• Defend which parts of a final message reflect personal judgement.

Supports Course Outcomes 3, 9 and 10.

How to teach it

• Give the same message to audiences in two organisational contexts and require evidence-based adaptation.
• Compare synchronous and asynchronous versions of the same decision process.
• Have students audit an AI draft rather than merely generate one.
• Require a short authorship note stating what was changed, verified and rejected.

Case-style example

NovaWorks coordinates teams in London, Seoul and Sao Paulo. An AI-generated executive update reduces drafting time from 14 hours to 6 but invents two citations and uses a direct tone the Seoul team reads as accusatory. Students audit the draft, adapt it for two contexts and identify which sentences require human authorship. One team may preserve a global voice; another may localise more heavily. Students discover that speed does not transfer accountability to the tool.

Where students struggle

Students may replace cultural stereotypes with AI stereotypes, or treat disclosure as sufficient even when the output is unverified. Adaptation should be based on audience evidence, and responsibility remains with the student.

Reading and a quick check

Use the recent AI literacy readings in the Recommended Readings section. Ask students to mark an AI-assisted paragraph for evidence risk, tone risk, confidentiality risk and a sentence that only the author can legitimately own.

Where it leads

This concept closes the course by returning students to the opening principle: communication quality is the quality of the decision, evidence, adaptation and accountability behind the message.

10-week course structure

A 10-week course should compress adjacent skills rather than remove difficult communication. Combine strategy with writing, merge listening with meeting design, and teach governance with crisis. Keep at least one persuasion task, one live presentation, one conflict exercise and one individual written output.

14-week course structure

A 14-week version creates room for repeated rehearsal and stronger individual evidence. Separate business writing from editing, give data storytelling and presentation their own sessions, use a full simulation debrief, and add a dedicated capstone workshop rather than filling the extra time with more theory.

The Investment Banking Simulation is an extended team-based transaction environment lasting approximately 16-32 hours. It is designed for undergraduate, postgraduate and MBA cohorts with basic finance and DCF knowledge. Across four rounds, teams work through analysis, pitching, advisory and execution activities that include sell-side pitches and roadshows, information requests, model work, Approval Memoranda, financing terms and enterprise-value bids.

For a Business Communication course, the value is the density of communication events rather than the finance content alone. Students must convert analysis into messages for different parties, work within role-specific incentives, request and interpret information, present a position, and update communication as the transaction changes. That makes it a strong capstone for a finance-literate cohort, but it should not be imposed on students who lack the finance prerequisite.

Why it fits here

• Students already know audience diagnosis, persuasive structure, data storytelling and presentation.
• The activity forces written, spoken and team communication to stay aligned across multiple rounds.
• Role pressure makes it possible to assess how students adapt messages as new information arrives.
• The debrief can separate communication quality from the transaction outcome.

What students do

• Analyse briefing and data-room material and turn it into a transaction position.
• Prepare and deliver pitches or roadshow communication for role-specific audiences.
• Request information, respond to counterparties and manage changing deadlines.
• Develop models, Approval Memoranda, financing terms and enterprise-value bids as decision evidence.
• Negotiate, revise positions and communicate decisions across competitive rounds.
• Reflect on which messages changed another party's behaviour and which merely repeated analysis.

Recommended course placement

• After Session 6 once students have completed persuasion, data storytelling, presentation and Q&A.
• Across several classes or a blended delivery window rather than squeezed into one normal seminar.
• Before a final executive memo or oral defence so students can convert simulation evidence into attributable assessment.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• Basic finance and DCF.
• Business-message structure and audience adaptation.
• Presentation and Q&A fundamentals.
• Ability to interpret a small financial model and turn analysis into a recommendation.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which message most changed another party's decision, and what made it credible?
• Where did your financial analysis fail to answer the audience's real question?
• How did the same fact need to be framed differently for different roles?
• Which information request was most useful, and why?
• What would you rewrite in your pitch or Approval Memorandum after seeing the outcome?
• How did time pressure affect clarity, listening or challenge?

The Corporate Governance Simulation is a 3-5 hour, role-based team exercise built around an unresolved conflict-of-interest boardroom case. It is beginner accessible and suitable for undergraduate, postgraduate and MBA cohorts. Students work with CEO, CTO, Chief Compliance Officer and Shareholder perspectives, first preparing around role-specific priorities and then negotiating across the four-role group.

The simulation is especially useful for Business Communication because the communication problem cannot be solved by polish alone. Students must listen across competing incentives, distinguish disclosure from resolution, make a role-specific argument, challenge others without losing the decision process and record a governance response that can be defended after the discussion.

Why it fits here

• Students already hold listening, meeting, negotiation and stakeholder-mapping tools.
• The role structure creates a visible difference between personal preference and organisational duty.
• Students can be assessed on questioning, evidence, challenge and decision recording rather than on whether their preferred outcome wins.
• The case is accessible without specialist finance knowledge.

What students do

• Read a common governance brief and role-specific information.
• Prepare first with peers holding the same role so the priorities and evidence are explicit.
• Enter a four-role negotiation with CEO, CTO, Chief Compliance Officer and Shareholder perspectives represented.
• Debate conflict terms, governance protections and acceptable next steps.
• Record the negotiated position and compare it with other groups.
• Reflect on where language, listening, role duty or process design changed the outcome.

Recommended course placement

• At the end of Session 10 after governance, ethics and stakeholder communication.
• Inside a three-hour class with pre-read work, or across a longer 3-5 hour workshop.
• Before a short individual board brief or oral defence that makes each student's reasoning attributable.

Knowledge students should have before the simulation

• Audience and stakeholder analysis.
• Listening and diagnostic questioning.
• Difficult-conversation and negotiation fundamentals.
• A short introduction to conflicts of interest and governance roles.

Delivery format

Suggested debrief questions

• Which role had the hardest communication problem, and why?
• What question exposed the most important hidden assumption?
• Where did a participant confuse transparency with resolution?
• Which part of the negotiated position protects process integrity rather than merely relationship harmony?
• What would an absent board member need in the written record to evaluate the decision?
• How would you change the meeting structure if the same dispute returned?

Simulation outcomes can provide useful process evidence, but they should not be converted mechanically into marks. The platform records what each team decided, the terms they agreed and comparative outcomes across groups. That evidence supports your academic judgement; it does not replace it, and it does not establish which individual student made which argument.

Grading with the Investment Banking Simulation

The simulation involves extended team-based transaction work across analysis, pitches, roadshows, information exchange, models, Approval Memoranda, financing terms and enterprise-value bids. For Business Communication, assess how teams turn analysis into audience-ready communication and how individuals defend the choices afterwards.

• Audience and purpose clarity in pitches, memoranda and information requests.
• Evidence selection and explanation rather than model complexity alone.
• Consistency between written, spoken and negotiated positions.
• Responsiveness to new information and counterparty questions.
• Individual post-simulation defence of one communication choice and one revision.

Grading with the Corporate Governance Simulation

The simulation places CEO, CTO, Chief Compliance Officer and Shareholder roles into a conflict-of-interest boardroom case. Assess whether students communicate role duties, listen to competing interests and help the group reach a defensible governance process.

• Quality of role preparation and stakeholder reasoning.
• Diagnostic questions and evidence-based challenge.
• Clarity about disclosure, conflict and decision authority.
• Contribution to a usable final decision record.
• Individual explanation of how role obligations affected language and concessions.

Grading with the M&A Simulation

The M&A Simulation is a 1-2 hour team-based buyer-seller negotiation around five terms. It can be assessed as a compact communication exercise rather than a technical finance task.

• Preparation of interests, priorities and trade-offs.
• Questioning, proposals and conditional concession language.
• Accuracy and clarity of the final terms.
• Reflection on one message that changed the negotiation.

Grading with the Startup Funding Simulation

The Startup Funding Simulation is a 3-5 hour, beginner-friendly negotiation between Startup and VC perspectives around valuation, ownership, dilution, option pool, board and protection terms.

• Role-specific persuasive case and use of evidence.
• Ability to explain terms clearly to the opposing party.
• Trade-off logic across economic and control terms.
• Listening and response to counterparty priorities.
• Individual reflection separating relationship outcome from communication quality.

Grading with the Go To Market Simulation

The Go To Market Simulation is a 1.5-2 hour single-player competitive exercise focused on segmentation, targeting and positioning choices, including value proposition, point of difference, price, packaging and promotional message.

• Coherence between target audience and communication proposition.
• Clarity and distinctiveness of the chosen message.
• Ability to explain why one audience promise was prioritised over another.
• Short written debrief connecting message choice to communication principles.