How to Tell Your Team Bad News: Why the How Matters

Abstract

This article is about how to tell your team bad news, and what research on fairness says about how people react. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis of 45 independent samples (Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996) found that the fairness of the process mattered more to people's reactions when the outcome was unfavourable. Three studies of a layoff (Brockner and colleagues, 1994) found that when the process was seen as fair, how bad the outcome was did not predict how negatively people reacted. A meta-analysis of 183 justice studies (Colquitt and colleagues, 2001) found that fairness of outcomes, procedures, treatment and information each added something. None of these studied finance staff. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not medical advice.

The Thursday you cannot move

On Thursday you will tell your team that the budget for next year is lower than they were led to expect. One planned hire is cancelled and two projects will wait.

You have been rehearsing the first sentence for days. You wonder whether you should say it softly or flatly, and whether it matters at all how you tell your team bad news when the news itself is not going to change.

How to tell your team bad news: what is the evidence?

The research cited here does not give a script. It covers a meta-analysis of how outcomes and fairness combine, three studies of people affected by a layoff, and a large review of organisational justice. These studies looked at reactions to decisions, and none was limited to finance. The next three sections cover what each one found. None of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a meta-analysis of outcomes and procedures found

Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) combined 45 independent samples. They looked at how people react to an outcome, such as pay, a promotion or a decision, depending on how favourable it was and how fair the procedure that produced it seemed.

Procedural fairness mattered more to reactions when the outcome was unfavourable. The reverse also held: the outcome mattered more to reactions when the procedure was seen as unfair. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read Thursday's announcement through this. When the news is bad, how the decision was made may carry more weight with people than it does when the news is good. This is an inference. It describes averages across studies, and a team in a bad mood on a bad day may not follow them.

What three studies of a layoff found

Brockner, Konovsky, Cooper-Schneider, Folger, Martin and Bies (1994) ran three studies of people connected to a layoff. The groups were those who lost their jobs, those who stayed, and a third group the authors call lame ducks. The abstract does not give the sample sizes.

When the procedure was seen as less fair, a more negative outcome went with more negative reactions. When the procedure was seen as fair, the negativity of the outcome was not related to reactions. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the cancelled hire through this. How the decision is explained and who is heard may shape reactions to the same news. This is an inference. A layoff is a far heavier event than a reduced budget, so the pattern may be weaker for lesser news, and the studies did not test any particular words.

What a review of 183 justice studies found

Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng (2001) reviewed 183 studies of organisational justice. They looked at four kinds of fairness: distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational. In the usual sense of these terms, the last two concern how people are treated and what they are told.

The four were moderately to highly related, but each still added something to how fair people judged the situation. The authors examined links with job satisfaction, commitment, evaluation of the authority, helping behaviour at work, withdrawal and performance. The abstract gives no coefficients. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the way you will deliver the message through this. Respect and explanation are measured separately from the decision itself, so they can differ even when the decision cannot. This is an inference. The review covers many settings, and it does not say how to word a particular announcement.

How to tell your team bad news: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Say the news in the first sentence. The studies cited here did not test the order of the sentences. People who are waiting for the outcome may not take in an explanation first. Put the outcome first, then the reasons. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "The budget for next year is lower than planned. One hire is cancelled and two projects will wait."

2. Explain how the decision was made. Procedural fairness mattered more when the outcome was bad. Say who decided, what was considered and what could not be changed. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Finance and the leadership team compared three options. This one protects the current team."

3. Say what happens next, when you will update them, and make room for questions. Informational and interpersonal fairness are about how people are treated and informed. Give a date for the next update, and keep it. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "I will confirm the project timelines on Monday. Ask me anything now, or send it to me afterwards."

If you worry about how the team will take it, How to Lead Through Uncertainty: Why Your Mood Matters goes into that. For the longer game, there is How to Build Trust in a Team: What the Research Supports. When the reaction turns defensive, see How to Give Feedback to an Employee Who Gets Defensive. If the news comes on top of other changes, Change Fatigue at Work: Why Constant Change Wears You Down looks at that. And Difficult Conversations: A Framework for Honest Communication is about the conversation itself.

Questions People Ask

Should I soften bad news?

The studies cited here did not test softening. They suggest that a fair-seeming process and respectful treatment shape reactions to bad news. Whether to cushion the first sentence is a judgement, and the studies do not settle it.

What if I cannot explain the decision?

The studies cited here looked at perceived fairness of the process, and the abstracts do not say what to do when the reasons are confidential. Saying what you can share, and what you cannot, is a judgement. It is not a research finding.

Do people still get upset if the process is fair?

Yes, they can. In the layoff studies a fair process went with reactions that did not depend on how bad the outcome was, which is not the same as no reaction. Feelings after bad news are normal.

Can coaching help me prepare?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you plan the first sentence, think through questions you dread and notice your own reaction. It is not treatment. No study cited here tested coaching.

When it is more than a hard conversation

A hard conversation is one thing. It is more when the news involves redundancies or legal obligations, since you should involve HR and employment advice before you speak. It is also more when you feel numb, persistently low or anxious, cannot sleep, or notice physical symptoms. In those cases talk to your doctor, your occupational health service or a qualified mental health professional. This article is not medical or legal advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 397–409. DOI: 10.5465/256835 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 (Summarised from the published abstract.)