The secret of communicating bad news to employees

Communication World, August, 1992 by Dennis Ackley

Good times or bad, several considerations prevail in developing and conducting a bad-news communication campaign.

Organizations show their real values when they communicate bad news Years of saying how important employees are and how much the organization cares for them can prove to be empty words based on how the organization behaves when delivering bad news.

Bad news |Fact of Life'

In the big picture of communicating bad news, five basic facts of life emerge:

There is no alternative called "Let's not "communicate." If there's bad news, it's certain to find a communication channel. Organizations can either step forward at the outset and orchestrate how the news is delivered or step back and react as the information comes out.

* If open and honest communication is not part of the organization's culture, personality, and history, then communicating bad news is bad news. Without;a well-established framework that supports a dialogue of full disclosure, there's very little that can be done at the last minute to make the communication of bad news anything other than a disastrous disappointment

* Supervisors and managers must be included early, kept fully informed, and remain supportive. Supervisors and managers are the organization's most important employee communication vehicle. They provide an opportunity for two-way communication that will help lay the issue to rest as soon as possible. If they're not on management's team, the ball game's over.

* Proper planning prevent poor performance. This may sound like a panacea - but it is essential in communicating bad news. In fact, organizations that are good at communicating bad news have contingency plans in case they're needed. Good planning can't occur at the last minute.

* The worst alternative that management considers is likely to be communicated through the grapevine. This is the "skid-greasing phenomenon." In most cases, employees are aware something bad is about to happen. This is the main reason the "Let's not communicate" alternative doesn't really exist. On the positive side, when the bad news is not as bad as the worst alternative, employees sometimes are relieved to hear it.

The key audiences for bad

news

Organizations planning a bad-news event should consider carefully the needs and concerns of various audiences:

* Employees/retires

- those directly affected

- those indirectly affected

- those sending the message

- those handling the responses

* Public

- customers

- prospects

- shareholders

- employees/retirees

- future employees

When organizations plan to communicate bad news to employees or retirees, often the most overlooked audience consists of the people involved in sending the message and handling the responses. These people suffer a great deal of stress - especially when jobs are being eliminated, benefits or wages are being cut, or other action is taken that evokes a strong emotional response from the affected employees. The employees who are not affected - if there are any - sometimes are also overlooked. They too may suffer stress, including what's been called "survivors' syndrome" - the guilt of escaping the actions that affected their coworkers and friends.

The bad-news information shared with the public and shareholders needs to be coordinated and synchronized with the messages that are sent to employees. Employees read newspapers, and watch television news - and they are often shareholders. That's why the timing of the information distributed outside the organization needs to be linked to the employee bad-news communication effort. But just as important? organizations need to say much the same thing to both their internal and external audiences. If the messages are different, employees will want to know which one is correct and which one isn't.

10 elements of bad-news

communication

The following can serve as a checklist in preparing a bad-news communication effort.

Describe the news in a clear and straightforward manner.

* Do not lie, hide the message, sugar-coat, use jargon, minimize, or downplay.

* Do not make promises about the future that may not hold true.

* Do not overract

* Do not avoid adding honest perspective - "Although this is by no means a good situation, it is not as bad as..."

Explain why the action is being taken.

* What is the logic behind the action?

* How does the action support the organization's mission?

* What was being done wrong?

* How will the action help solve the problem?

* Explain how the decision is fair to as many groups as possible.

* If there's no fairness, there's no hope for a "positive" result.

* The test of "success" is reactionss such as, "I don't like it, but I can see why it's fair."

* Fairness must be shown to an array of groups:

- directly affected employees

- indirectly affected employees

- the organization

- shareholders

- customers and prospects

- the public

Involve a high-status messenger in delivering the message.

* Who sends the message says a lot about how much the organization cares about employees.

* Lack of senior management involvement raises questions about control, responsibility, and leadership.