Reasons For Hesitancy In Delivering Bad News

Ch11adescribe Reasons For Hesitancy In Delivering Bad New And The Im

Ch.11 A.Describe reasons for hesitancy in delivering bad new and the impact of the mum effect. B.Explain how delivering bad-news messages impact credibility. C. Describe the criteria for evaluating bad-news messages in term of controllability, likelihood, and severity. D. Explain considerations for deciding which channels to use when delivering bad-news messages. E. summarize principles for effectively delivering bad-news messages.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of delivering bad news within a professional context is often met with hesitation due to a variety of psychological and organizational factors. One of the primary reasons for reluctance is the "mum effect," a phenomenon whereby communicators prefer to withhold or soften bad news to avoid conflict, negative reactions, or damaging relationships. This hesitancy is rooted in concerns about damaging credibility, harming relationships, or eliciting uncomfortable emotional responses from recipients (Dillard & Shen, 2005). People tend to avoid delivering bad news because they fear their honesty may harm their reputation or diminish trust, especially if the message is perceived as negative or confrontational (Grunig, 1982).

The impact of such hesitancy extends to the credibility of the messenger. When bad news is delayed or poorly communicated, it can erode trust, undermine perceived transparency, and diminish the authority of the communicator. Conversely, delivering bad news honestly and promptly, though challenging, can enhance credibility by demonstrating transparency and integrity (Bordia & Shimoni, 2002). Therefore, despite the discomfort, effective communication strategies must be employed to maintain trustworthiness when conveying unfavorable information.

Evaluating bad-news messages involves considering three key criteria: controllability, likelihood, and severity. Controllability pertains to whether the sender can influence or alter the circumstances leading to the bad news. Messages that are controllable are often easier to communicate effectively because the sender has some power to mitigate the situation (Stone & Heen, 2014). Likelihood refers to the probability of the bad event occurring; messages about highly probable negative outcomes require sensitive handling to prevent panic or loss of morale. Severity assesses the impact or seriousness of the bad news; messages with severe consequences must be communicated carefully to avoid unnecessary distress or misinterpretation (Brower & Deshémes, 2012).

Choosing the appropriate channels for delivering bad news is crucial for ensuring that the message is received accurately and compassionately. Face-to-face communication is generally preferred for delivering highly severe or sensitive bad news because it allows for immediate clarification, emotional support, and a more personalized approach (Gulati & Garino, 2005). When in-person delivery is impossible, video conferencing offers a viable alternative, combining visual cues with remote accessibility. Written communication, such as emails or memos, may be appropriate for less severe topics or when documentation is necessary, but they risk being misinterpreted or perceived as impersonal (Watson & McKee, 2012). The decision of which channel to use depends on the severity, controllability, and the emotional impact of the bad news, as well as the recipient’s preferences and the organizational context.

Principles for effectively delivering bad-news messages emphasize honesty, clarity, empathy, and preparing the recipient for the message. First, being truthful and direct helps establish trust and prevents misinformation. Second, clarity is essential to avoid ambiguity that could lead to confusion or false hope. Third, demonstrating empathy — acknowledging the recipient’s feelings and providing support — can soften the emotional impact and foster trust (Levit & Kuczmarski, 2020). Additionally, it is important to carefully choose the timing and setting of the message, ensuring privacy and sufficient opportunity for dialogue. A proactive approach, where potential bad news is anticipated and framed constructively, can also help manage reactions effectively.

In conclusion, delivering bad news is a challenging but necessary aspect of effective communication in organizations. Understanding the reasons for hesitancy, such as the mum effect, and its impact on credibility underscores the importance of strategic communication. Evaluating the nature of the bad news through controllability, likelihood, and severity informs channel selection, while principles like honesty, clarity, empathy, and proper timing guide successful delivery. By adopting these principles, communicators can maintain trust and integrity even in difficult circumstances.

References

• Bordia, P., & Shimoni, Y. (2002). Communication, trust, and credibility in organizational settings. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 37-44.
• Brower, R. S., & Deshémes, F. (2012). The psychological impact of bad news: Communication strategies and effects. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 12(3), 101-115.
• Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). The responsive and unresponsive communicator in delivering bad news: An analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(4), 245-267.
• Gulati, R., & Garino, J. (2005). The role of face-to-face communication in managing organizational crises. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 55-63.
• Grunig, J. E. (1982). Principles of Public Relations and Communication Management. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Levit, F., & Kuczmarski, J. (2020). Managing difficult conversations: Principles and practices. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(2), 150-165.
• Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well. Penguin.
• Watson, L. R., & McKee, R. (2012). Effective communication strategies for delivering sensitive information. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 430-453.