Page 96 - Communication in Organizations Basic Skills and Conversation Models

Breaking bad news 85

In Figure 10.1, emotion is depicted as a function of time. Immediately after delivering
the bad news we see a steep climb of the emotional level to far above the (symbolic)
‘rational area’. This means that the rational thinking faculty of the other is temporarily
impaired. Through showing understanding for the emotions one can tone them down
somewhat, which slowly increases the possibility for rational information processing. The
other person begins to see the facts more clearly and often becomes more receptive to an
extended explanation of the bad news. They may demonstrate being ready for further
discussion: ‘But explain to me why the decision has been taken’ or ‘What should I do
now?’
At this stage the deliverer should have the arguments clearly lined up. He can then
explain them one by one. After each argument it is important to give the other the
opportunity to react. There is always a chance that the other party may still react
emotionally to an argument. In dealing with reactions to each argument, ‘paraphrasing of
content’ and ‘reflection of feelings’ are again applicable skills, as is the giving of any
subsequent clear information.

Mistakes in phase 2
However logical the above may sound, it is highly probable that the deliverer allows
himself to be led into giving a personal reaction, which is perhaps understandable in daily
life. Then one can react very directly and personally, but as a professional one should try
to avoid this. Here follow a number of common ‘wrong’ reactions:
1 Reacting with contra-aggression. Instead of remaining calm if the other becomes angry
or irritated, the deliverer also reacts with aggressive comments. The consequence of
such actions is that the conversation loses its businesslike nature and threatens to
escalate into argument.
2 Extensive defence. Anyone who goes on to defend the negative decision extensively
often feels personally guilty. This is not businesslike either. It is best to limit the
arguments to two or three important ones. Presenting too many arguments can result in
getting lost in fruitless discussion.
3 Sugaring the pill. By sugaring the pill we mean presenting the bad news in such a way
that it almost becomes good news: for example, by pointing out that there are all sorts
of advantages attached to the bad news. There are of course people who may allow
themselves to be ‘taken in’ if someone sugars the pill. However, it is more likely that
they will later see that the situation has been more attractively presented than reality
allows, with the possible consequence of delayed aggressive reactions (another
conversation, a letter). Whatever the case, it is fairer to deliver the bad news as it is
and not to dress it up.
4 Playing it down. By ‘playing it down’ we mean presenting bad news as something
insignificant, something that does not need to be taken seriously. The consequence of
playing down reactions is that the other does not feel the extent of his first reactions
has been fully understood. Because of this, emotions can escalate: the more you
soothe, the stronger the other will react.
5 It’s no fun for me either! Instead of getting involved in the feelings of the other, the
deliverer directs attention to his own difficult position: for example, ‘Yes, you must