[SOUND] Now let's move on to the next part of the lesson on giving bad news. Again, what we talk about here applies to both written and oral forms and especially in formal settings. Sometimes it is unavoidable that we have to give bad news to colleagues in the workplace. The goals of delivering bad news is, one to convey bad news clearly. Two, to gain acceptance from the other party for the bad news, and maintain goodwill by adopting a you attitude. So don't let the message be focused about how yourself is corrected. Focus on how the other party is affected and present the message as such. Four, avoid creating liability or responsibility, so don't point fingers. Don't tell the other party that it's his or her fault that something has happened, and therefore, it lead to bad consequence. So, be factual, but yet, be polite when you're delivering bad news. So now let's have a look at some general good practices in delivering bad news. Now, the content of the bad news itself has to be clear and direct, but the strategies, the language that you use could be indirect. So what are some strategies to apply? First of all start with a buffer. So what does that mean? Be neutral, don't mention any bad news yet. Gives some context or background of the situation to explain how the decision was made. Two, give reasons to explain the causes of the bad news. And three deliver the bad news itself to reveal the bad news, but don't emphasize and suddenly don't point fingers. Provide alternative or compromise if possible. However, that is not always possible. And finally, in the closing, end with a personalizing, look forward to a more pleasant consequence that can and may possible derive from the the bad news itself. So, offer some alternative if you can and a more pleasant experience that can be gained from it or what can be done in future to make it better. Now the more direct expressions of giving bad news is something that you can or you must or cannot or do not do these. Or start with statements such as bad news I have to tell you and thenyou straight away launch into the bad news or warn people and cause unnecessary concern such as sit down, I have something bad to tell you. So don't fall on people like that so they are anticipating the bad news straight away. Be prepared, I have some bad news for you. So again, that's a very negative way to warn people. It makes people worry unnecessarily more than what is essential. So again, expressions like that may definitely direct, may appear informal, and definitely rude. So, expressions like that, be very careful in when you use it. Maybe it would be more acceptable to use in a large power distance culture or community where those of high ranks may apply their expressions like this a more individualist culture community or more masculine were men. It would be more acceptable for men to apply such expressions. The more indirect and polite expressions to use in delivering bad news are ones where you show sensitivity towards the other party. So you could stop by saying something like I am sorry or afraid to tell you that and you deliver a bad news or I am unable to, bad news. I apologize for any inconveniences caused or say something that although and you provide details of the situation before you present the bad news. Or I really don't want to do this, or agree with this, but and then you start with the bad news. So you don't warn people so much before the bad news is delivered. So such indirect expressions are more appropriate in delivering bad news, as they show more sensitivity from you. And definitely more polite in the delivery. So such expressions are more likely to be used in small power distance culture community, collectivist culture community, or feminine culture or community where there's more equality and more group based. Now, let's have a look at question four of the pre-lesson task, giving bad news. The situation is, Grace leads a team of four people in her department. One day, the manager of all the departments in the section, Stephen, asks her to meet him immediately as he has some bad news. Stephen is in a rush to another meeting and immediately tells Grace the bad news in a very harsh tone. You are a bad leader. Your team has made an official complaint about your working style. You always assign your team members with mundane everyday tasks, and then not allow to include or offer long term suggestions on project designs. Your work can only provide the clients immediate needs, or fix immediate problems. The meeting then ends as Steven tells Grace that he has to rush, but to go back to him if she has questions. Grace then complains to the director about Stephen's rudeness. The director then meets with Stephen to inform him that Grace has also complains about how the news was delivered to her. What do you think? Do staff members who complained about Grace have a valid complaint? And do you think Grace has a valid complaint about Stephen? So do you think Grace rightfully complained about Stephen or not? What did she write down? Now let's have a look at how cultural values or differences may have influenced the way Grace and Stephen felt about the delivery of the bad news. In terms of, for example, power distance, in a large power distance coacher or community or what place, probably, a manager like Stephen would feel that it would be acceptable for him to use a more authoritative tone compared to a more equal or rather a small power distance culture or community or workplace. So from Stephen's perspective he was from a large part distance background. Then it would not be unacceptable for him to use that term. For Grace however, if she was from a more equally powered distributor culture or community, then she has every right to be upset because she would feel that even though Stephen is a manager he should have been more polite in the delivery of such bad news. However, we gathers off the power distance when one delivers bad news. As a team leader or as a member of a team. Everybody should be very sensitive about how the other party, how the receiver would interpret the bad news. Communication of bad news must be very, very sensitively delivered. Think about how the other person feels when that person receives the bad news, regardless of the ranking. Now let's have a look at the goal orientation. One of the complaints that Grace's team members made about her, was about the long-term and short-term goals, and the mundane tasks that she had assigned for her team members to do. Do you think her team members made a valid point about Grace being wrong in not allowing her staff members to include or offer any long-term suggestions on the project designs? What do you think? This goal orientation is an aspect of culture that is very much oriented to what's a workplace. Say if a particular workplace is long-term focused, then definitely, Grace should orient herself in providing more opportunities for her staff members to offer more long-term suggestions. And even for Grace, as a staff member of a particular workplace, she should also orient herself to a more long-term solutions, ideas. If it's a short-term, then there's no problem. But if it's long term, then Grace, you can see there, also did change her approach in working for this particular workplace. That's how you decide whether the staff members have valid or invalid point. It depends on the orientation, the focus, the goals of the particular workplace. Now let's have a look at how context affects the communication in this situation. This is a work-related matter, so definitely the exchange between the employer, Steven, being the manager, and the employee, should be formal. The deliverer of the bad news can be done face-to-face but it most not be done in such a rush. This gives the other party, meaning Grace, in this case, to respond to the bad news and ask questions and seek clarification, if necessary. Definitely, Stephen was wrong to have delivered this bad news, not wrong because it's face-to-face, but wrong because it was done in a rush. And possibly, include a relevant manager or the director in the meeting, if the issue is very serious or sensitive to insure there is no misinterpretation of the bad news and the bad news was delivered objectively and fairly. The tone and language, whether it's face-to-face or in written form in this scenario should definitely be formal. Very importantly, as well, politeness and indirectness are very important. Another point is about sensitivity, so be sensitive in the delivery of bad news, because the other person receiving it will feel disappointed, will feel upset, so you have to be understanding and sympathetic to the receiver of the bad news. Now let's have a look at how the principles of communication affected this communication process. In terms of coherence, conciseness, concreteness, and clarity, it was all fine. There was no problem. Stephen presented the factual information and it was concise. Perhaps, it was too concise and definitely, it was coherent and clear but the process of communication, in this case, was incomplete partially. As far as Stephen was concerned, he had completed the communication by delivering the entire bad news to Grace. But as far Grace is concerned, Grace had no opportunity to respond or present her viewpoint or defend herself in any way or ask questions or seek solutions. This process of communication was incomplete and as a result, Grace went to the director and made a complaint about Stephen because she had to defend herself and express how she felt about it and present her viewpoint. And because Stephen was so harsh at the beginning, then of course, Grace would not go to Stephen and instead, she would go to the director. Incomplete process in communication could create bigger problems later. In terms of concreteness, Stephen used correct language but in terms of correctness, Stephen also used correct language but not the tone. He correctly delivered the information based on staff members. However, Stephen as a manager, should check facts before speaking with Grace, in general. At least, in this case, Stephen should have a plan of what should be done to investigate the case to see both parties. Whether there were valid points, or whether there were real problems in the way the team worked and whether Grace had problems as a team leader. If Grace were really a bad team leader, then Stephen as a good manager would devise a plan with her to how to better conduct teamwork amongst all the members and still be a good leader at the same time. Now let's have a look at courtesy as the last principle of communication. Definitely, in this case, Stephen was not courteous to Grace. He simply delivered the message, and then he wanted to run off. He was harsh and didn't give Grace a chance to express her viewpoint and defend herself and maybe to work together to devise a plan. Remember what we said before, good practices in delivering bad news is to be indirect. At the start, Stephen was perhaps even wrong in the phone call by warning Grace that there was bad news to come before he even talked to her in the meeting. There was no buffer. Stephen was not good in delivering bad news because he did not provide buffer, meaning he did not set any context or background. A good communicator would definitely provide buffer, but Stephen did not. He did not explain the causes of the bad news, so why did the members feel that bad? In talking about the bad news, he just kept repeating different reasons for why Grace was bad but he did not provide alternative or a compromise on in future how that can be done better. And then in the closing, he didn't end with a pleasant statement. Definitely, he just say he had to go, so the closing in the delivery of bad news by Stephen was also bad. Stephen was bad. He didn't provide that buffer, he didn't give reasons for the bad, in the delivery of the bad news, there was no suggestions on how can be improved and in the closing, there was no forward looking positive experience. It all ended in a bad note and because of that Grace went to the director to complain. For start, what would you do, if you were Stephen? In delivering bad news to Grace. If I was Stephen, definitely, I would not give so much negative warning over the phone, to say, I'll need to meet you to give you some bad news. That makes the receiver worry. Also at the meeting, Stephen should not have preempted Grace by saying, I'm in a rush, but I have some bad news to tell you. So, that in itself is not good. So, unnecessary, negative warning before the bad news is delivered is not necessary. Instead, Stephen over the phone, Stephen could say to Grace politely. Grace, is it possible for us to meet at whatever time and place it would be good to discuss the manpower issue in your section? So, that allows Grace to prepare some information about the distribution of work amongst her team members but yet, not worry about what is the bad news. So, let the person know what the discussion of the meeting is about but without necessarily, warning them it is about bad news. Also the other thing is, Stephen should not have given the bad news in such a rush, he should give Grace a chance and opportunity to respond and to clarify, so that's what, should changed at the start. Also, in delivering bad news, whether, as a team member or a team leader, you must make sure you don't do what Stephen did. Be direct and make sure you provide buffer, provide reasons for the bad news, provide bad news itself but at the same time, you tell people, the receiver of the bad news what the alternative or compromises or what a possible solution may be and in the closing, work out some arrangements, so, the person can look forward to improving in the future. So something, like these can be set. Although, I know your work is often or is of high standard, staff members suggested and then you can provide some bad news and they wish to contribute more. So, instead of presenting it negatively, by saying the team members said you don't give them this and this and this. Say, the team members wish to contribute, most important, in a positive light and be given more long-term goal oriented task. So, this is presenting the same information but turning the negative into positiveness. So, this is the top of language that you should consider using in delivering bad news, whether, as a team member or as a team leader. Okay, so, turn the deliverer, precisely, the message but turn it from negative to positive. Alright? Okay, then in term of the long and short term goal is important for the company, then you can decide or Grace can decide whether she needs to change her approach in her work. If her workplace is in need of long-term orientation, that means, each project that should be conducted, Grace should think about what the long term impact is and perhaps, in designing, maybe, interior design for example. Think about how design is still applicable, doubt or relevant in five to ten years time. Don't just look for the immediate existence. First is, if the workplace is focus on short term orientation, then perhaps, Grace's style of working ideas in taking on projects could be correct. She doesn't need to change. So, depends on the main goal of the workplace, but regardless, Stephen should explains this to Grace, whether it's long term, short term, and offer suggestions on what can be done. So, these are some very important aspects in communication, that you need to consider, when you are communicating as a colleague or as team member on a project or as a team leader.
