9 ms·

Announce bad news without lying to your team

125 points by chrismdp 6y ago

chrismdp 6y ago
This one is particularly embarrassing for me :) -- anyone got similar tales of woe?
stunt 6y ago
It's very important to be direct and honest. It's also very important to let the message go through the right/intended channel. That in my experience happens more often. Decision making and communication is often slow, and less experienced leads and managers start proactively to leak and share some part of the story, or even wrong information, without passing enough context or using the right language. And they just don't understand the consequences.
GiorgioG 6y ago
> Most people prefer directness, candor and very little buffer. Sadly most leaders today (and it gets worse the larger the organization) are neither direct or completely candid when announcing bad news. Most employees can smell the bullshit from a mile away and at least for me, I lose any and all respect for the leader(s) delivering the message.
codingdave 6y ago
The underlying principles here of preparing, being clear in communications, and thinking about how your audience will hear the message... these are also appropriate for good news. Or neutral news. Announcements typically mean change. And people, in general, dislike change. No matter what you announce, it will evoke an emotional response of some kind. And that response will drive morale for that person/team/company for the short-term future. Always prepare announcements with care.
- ftio 6y ago
  I’d take that one step further. “Preparing, being clear in communications, and thinking about how your audience will hear the message” are critical for all presentations. I present to all kinds of audiences all the time. Yesterday it was SVPs, tomorrow it’s the engineers on my team. I know firsthand how easy it can be to get wrapped up in the formalism of presentation — does the internal logic of my argument make sense, is this a nice theoretical framework, is the framing pithy and memorable enough? But it can all go to shit if you don’t design your presentation for your audience. You need to be thinking from One about the kinds of language your audience is accustomed to, about potential baggage associated with particular concepts or even specific words, about the kinds of information they’re used to consuming (and the mechanisms by which they consume it), and first and foremost: what is my audience motivated or incentivized by? How can I make sure that the message I present is aligned with their goals and their values? Alternatively, if I’m delivering a message that I know to be counter to their existing worldview, how do I empathetically demonstrate that I actually understand their worldview, that I’ve considered it deeply, and that new data or a larger shift have necessitated a change in thinking? I’ve seen so many presentations (as recently as yesterday) in the other direction (to high-level executives) that fall into essentially the same trap: they have a really important message to deliver, but the message falls on its face because the presenter frames the conversation from their perspective, ignoring that their audience comes to the table with potentially very different wants/needs and a substantially different contextual lens.
kemiller2002 6y ago
What I have found is that one's ability to deliver bad news is directly related to how the team perceives the person delivering. It's never easy, but if you have a team that trusts you in what you say the rest of the time, it becomes a lot easier. I've found that directness is the best approach. Leave no ambiguity and waste no time. If there are going to be layoffs, then say so. I'd rather have people freak out based on what I say than from what they hear from other people. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Expose the issues and talk about them as quickly as possible and move on to planning how to handle it.
- ipnon 6y ago
  You can frame bad news announcements as a negotiation with your audience to perceive the new reality as a positive.
rotten 6y ago
Having been through well over 30 layoffs in my career, both as someone being retained and as someone being cut, I can say that they almost always start with a senior manager who doesn't usually give speeches, giving a speech to the team about how things are going really well despite rumors to the contrary. (Even if no one had heard any rumors.) Once you get one of these speeches, just start shopping your resume immediately - layoffs are coming within days or weeks.
- asdfman123 6y ago
  Oof, did you write this comment for me specifically?
- aliceryhl 6y ago
  That's quite a lot of layoffs. What industry is that?
  - asdfman123 6y ago
    The oil industry is certainly like that.
    - unfunco 6y ago
      Are there many roughnecks on Hacker News?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - asdfman123 6y ago
        It's one of the largest industries in the world. They have offices, and use software too!
        nogabebop23 6y ago
        Field workers do have an office and run software, it's just that it's a little box on the edge of the rig!
citiguy 6y ago
I have found it always helps to prep. Especially before a big loaded topic like layoffs or finances. Taking the time to put together a presentation can help you frame your thoughts properly and make sure you don't miss any important highlights.
- chrismdp 6y ago
  So, so true. I wish I'd learnt that earlier.
indymike 6y ago
Why do leaders think lying, or obfuscating works so well? My personal experience has been when you let people know the facts and act on them, it is amazing what happens. Every time that bad news is delivered to my team directly, be it the loss of a major account, a financial crisis, or even a legal problem, the collective intelligence of the team often finds the solution. I've had interns rescue accounts (oh, my uncle is the CEO there), engineers solve legal problems (what if we just asked if we could move service X over to them and finish the contract with that instead of unneeded canceled service), and incredible suggestions on cost-cutting instead of layoffs. None of these things happen when the team doesn't know because some executive was afraid of telling the truth.
- kemiller2002 6y ago
  I think it largely comes down to fear. Fear that if people find out they'll leave, or retaliate or some such. Also, a lot of people aren't (or will ever be) prepared to be in management positions. Some wanted to try it and are stuck and others got pushed into it. Delivering bad news is hard, and it's to try easy and avoid it. It's like firing people. A number of managers would rather wait until its someone else problem rather than doing what needs to be done. It causes everyone problems in avoiding it, but doing what needs to be done appears to be a far worse course of action to many.
  - indymike 6y ago
    That is exactly my experience. The answer to "Why didn't you just tell the truth?" usually starts with "I was afraid that ..." Most of the time the fear was unfounded or at best, a better outcome that what happens when employees lose trust in leadership.
- fridek 6y ago
  It's incredibly hard to deliver bad news with the right tone. The objective is to deliver precise, true information, and have people go and think (not guess) what's the impact on them. Conversly, it's really easy to sound as if you don't care enough, or be openly frustrated and deflecting responsibility to someone else (especially if that's justified). This way you end up with people angry at individuals, and not thinking about the next steps (whether getting their own career in order, or continuing the project in a different setup). Lying, or being wishy-washy is the path of least resistance. I think managers are getting paid to do uncomfortable things and with time might become awesome even in these hard situations, but YRMV.
docflabby 6y ago
I think in most circumstances you can't. A lot of the time bad news is known in advance and the timing for release is a carefully controlled process so while you know things are bad you have to lie by omission by not sharing until the designated time the actual decision makers have decided... I once signed a 12 month contract extension and 7 days later (5 days before christmas) there was a big meeting and I and 50+ other people were escorted off the office by security as the whole project cancelled. I'm pretty sure the manager know the project was going to be cancelled but he had to issue new contracts anyway he know would be torn up as they were not ready to officially announce yet...
drewcoo 6y ago
If you have sudden, shocking, bad news to deliver that's almost always a sign that there wasn't much openness previously. That's already a management failure that's unacknowledged in this piece. Flip the scenario. What would it mean if suddenly an employee had absolutely terrible status that they were _finally_ forced to share. As a manager, wouldn't you wonder why it wasn't disclosed earlier? Why the employee was probably lying to your face for some time?
lvspiff 6y ago
One of the biggest problems in management is you don't rise to the top unless you do things like lying to your team. The perception of success helps the Peter Principal continue to thrive. Articles like this shouldn't need to be written, but they do because so many of us in leadership have been raised on to have a positive outlook on any situation no matter how screwed you are getting. Oh we wont be getting bonuses this year? Well be glad you have a job! Oh you wont be getting that raise you promised? Well we're adding a drink dispenser to the break room As you get higher up it only gets worse - the yes men reporting to the executive are all reporting the good points and underselling the bad points. Have a project that's failing? Well better report that there are some aspects going well! Have a team that's not cutting it? Well report on the ones that are! Until promotions are determined by actual objective measures and not by subjective anecdotal feelings this will continue to be the case.
- hliyan 6y ago
  Contrary to what some young, smart and mostly well-meaning engineers will have you believe, not all managers/leaders are Dilbertesque caricatures. There many who fit that profile perfectly in certain types of organizations. But there are organizations where such types are less common too. If you're constantly surrounded by these types of individuals, it's probably a sign that you need to change companies.
  - ipnon 6y ago
    Even the most sadistic managers I've had, who not only held me back in my career but actively regressed it, took pictures of their cats and called their mom on the weekends. My point is that we should judge managers on how they affect our productivity.
- calfdanzen 6y ago
  Question: '-Must-(crossed out) Should you devote yourself to pretensions using illusions, making sacrifices?' ? P-:
- ipnon 6y ago
  Corporations are fundamentally non-democratic, oligarchic organizations. If you have a Marxist bent you might say a revolution is not possible. Consider business creation as an alternative to real wealth generation for individuals.
spsrich2 6y ago
"The bad news is we are merging with Swindon and some of you are going to be laid off.... The good news is, I've got a promotion!..... You're all still thinking about the bad news aren't you?"
- chrismdp 6y ago
  I should have put this quote at the top of the article! :)
siruncledrew 6y ago
There's this tendency, particularly in U.S. management, to put off bad news as long as possible and then try to avoid acknowledging the bad news during a generic-sounding announcement like a third-party wrote it. I think it's better to announce the bad news on the horizon before it arrives - if possible. People are more likely to find solutions to problems when the problem are laid out. If the CEO comes out and says, "Our Q1 numbers really plummeted in 2020, and we need to innovate if we want to make it past Q3 intact", then sure it will get reactions of "I should update my CV", but it also gets people in the problem-solving mindset and willing to put in effort if they have a stake in the outcome. As opposed to delivering the bad news when nothing left can be done, at which point it seems like all the recent work was in vain, and people are 'slapped in the face' with the news. Saying "This ship's sailing great! ... as long as we throw half the crew overboard" isn't the most motivating speech. - On an aside: This also relates to the "announcer's" personal skills as a leader/manager. Some people hate giving bad news because they think it means they will be negatively received, and some leaders/managers are just very bad at taking criticism. It's a tough job, but it comes with the territory, and denying bad news is a reality is just "blissful ignorance".
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  This is because management only cares about how things look. If I had a dollar for every time I got flak for telling people exactly what issues are, I'd have a decent sized home in the midwest.
  - thatfrenchguy 6y ago
    Americans systematically avoid hard discussions, to preserve that "everyone is happy" feeling.
    - stronglikedan 6y ago
      > Americans systematically avoid I'd be surprised if you could quantify that as being an American thing, any more so than anywhere else.
29athrowaway 6y ago
To lie about something people will figure out anyways in 1 week or less is a bad idea. Just be honest about the situation and be open for questions. People talk to each other and terminating someone does not prevent that from happening.
alain94040 6y ago
Easier said than done. Here's a specific scenario. You tell me what management should share and when. Revenue is seriously down. If this trend continues for another quarter or so, we'll have to start layoffs of ~10% of the engineers. Do you share the full news now, with no idea of whether there will be layoffs? Do you "lie by omission" by sharing that revenue is down, but not mention the potential consequences? The CEO typically is hoping for one more deal to close, to turnaround the company and not have to go through the layoffs. Why scare people if it's not needed?
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  As a leader, it is sometimes difficult to admit that you failed, even if it wasn't your fault. I probably respect my current boss more because he told us a large client was leaving before the client emailed us to cancel.
- a_c_s 6y ago
  Because employees talk. If word gets out that the company is in a tight place before management addresses it to employees then that erodes trust in leadership. If people distrust leadership then when they do finally acknowledge something negative (eg. we're having 10% layoffs) then employees rationally assume things are actually far worse than that (eg. we're having multiple rounds of layoffs) and will behave accordingly (eg. leave even if not laid off). On the other hand if leaders build trust by acknowledging reality then when they announce that things are bad people are more likely to behave proportionately and trust that things are only as bad as announced rather than 'reading between the lines' and assuming they are 10x worse.
ping_pong 6y ago
During the beginning of the dotcom Bust, we had an all-hands meeting. Someone asked the VP of Engineering if there was going to be layoffs. He said no, there was no need for layoffs. When the all-hands meeting was done, and we returned to our desk, and there was an email waiting for us saying that we were going to have layoffs. He subsequently defended himself, saying that he wasn't allowed to say anything about the layoffs. There were so many ways he could have answered the question, like "We are exploring all avenues at this point" without lying straight to our faces and looking like an idiot, but he chose the exact worst way to answer it. Obviously, his trust was completely lost by everyone in the org, and his reputation was completely ruined by this. No one trusted or believed him after that. He was an asshole anyway and was fired a year or so afterwards because of how ineffective he had become as a leader.
- underwater 6y ago
  Waffle doesn't help, any non-commital answer he gave is either an affirmation or will be exposed as an obvious lie in hindsight. That's a hard position to be in when you've been specifically told not to share news.
strictnein 6y ago
Related: Radical Candor https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250235375/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250235375/ You are doing an employee a great disservice if you aren't honest and upfront about their under performance. Because when they are let go they will be completely blindsided by it and will never have been given a chance to remedy any of the underlying issues.
kerkeslager 6y ago
I'll give the author of this article the benefit of the doubt that they didn't intend to lie, but I think a lot of executives have no compunction whatsoever about lying. It's really easy to tell the truth if you've established a culture in which everyone is on the same side: us versus problem, instead of a company where everyone is working for themselves. The problem is, in most companies, everyone is working for themselves. Most companies don't care about their workers beyond those workers' ability to make them money. Workers know that if something happens and they can't hold up their end of the bargain, you'll drop them, so why, if you might not be able to hold up your end of the bargain, should your workers not just drop you? There isn't a way to tell your workers that the company isn't doing well AND get them to help you, if you haven't established a culture where your workers can come to you and tell you they aren't doing well, and receive help.
martincmartin 6y ago
"Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Only the 3rd one is lying. You can still leave a completely misleading impression by telling partial truths.
castillar76 6y ago
Something I haven't seen in the comments here and I think is a significant factor is share price/company valuation (at least, for public/VC-owned companies). Executive management knows that any information shared with employees will absolutely be in the trades before the meeting is over. With that in mind, they can't just come out and say, "Well, our numbers aren't looking healthy right now and I'm concerned about the next quarter" because it results in 'FooCorp CEO "concerned about next quarter"' hitting the news. That both produces a short-term problem (it tanks the stock) but it also creates a potential self-fulfilling prophecy: you're concerned about next quarter's numbers, investors become concerned about next quarter's numbers, customers become concerned about next quarter's numbers, and now next quarter's numbers look even worse! As a result, there's a strong incentive to keep your mouth shut about anything remotely negative until it's too late for it to affect anything significant, and then to release it in as positive-spin a manner as possible to minimize the effects. Hence, layoffs are spun as "restructuring to make the company leaner and focus our efforts". It's not that I think you can't be honest in presenting information like this to employees, but I do think we need to temper our expectations about the messaging from C-level execs, because Wall Street definitely does not reward radical honesty. (Maybe it should, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)
rootedbox 6y ago
"Would you rather get a bullet to the head, or five to the chest and bleed to death?" Deliver bad news. Straight and emotionless. We are professionals. After 5 years we've seen most things after 10 years.. you've seen just about anything. Folks need bad news in order to properly prepare for their future.
holidayacct 6y ago
If you have to lie to announce bad news either you're too hypersensitive or your team members are too hypersensitive. People need to grow up and accept that working for any company isn't all sunshine and roses.
kevsim 6y ago
The leaders I've had who have been the best at delivering bad news are the ones that have been decisive and clear about the direction we're heading all along. If a "leader" who is rarely visible and who doesn't actually _lead_ by setting a clear direction and taking decisive action for the company gets up to give bad news, it's going to be a train wreck. If a leader who has been transparent, decisive and clear all along gets up to deliver bad news, the result is often very different. Part of the reason is the trust that has already been built and part of the reason is that they can give a clear path forward and actually get people onboard (or at least make the justification believable).

125 points by chrismdp 6y ago

This one is particularly embarrassing for me :) -- anyone got similar tales of woe?

It's very important to be direct and honest. It's also very important to let the message go through the right/intended channel. That in my experience happens more often. Decision making and communication is often slow, and less experienced leads and managers start proactively to leak and share some part of the story, or even wrong information, without passing enough context or using the right language. And they just don't understand the consequences.

GiorgioG 6y ago

> Most people prefer directness, candor and very little buffer. Sadly most leaders today (and it gets worse the larger the organization) are neither direct or completely candid when announcing bad news. Most employees can smell the bullshit from a mile away and at least for me, I lose any and all respect for the leader(s) delivering the message.

codingdave 6y ago

The underlying principles here of preparing, being clear in communications, and thinking about how your audience will hear the message... these are also appropriate for good news. Or neutral news. Announcements typically mean change. And people, in general, dislike change. No matter what you announce, it will evoke an emotional response of some kind. And that response will drive morale for that person/team/company for the short-term future. Always prepare announcements with care.

ftio 6y ago
I’d take that one step further. “Preparing, being clear in communications, and thinking about how your audience will hear the message” are critical for all presentations. I present to all kinds of audiences all the time. Yesterday it was SVPs, tomorrow it’s the engineers on my team. I know firsthand how easy it can be to get wrapped up in the formalism of presentation — does the internal logic of my argument make sense, is this a nice theoretical framework, is the framing pithy and memorable enough? But it can all go to shit if you don’t design your presentation for your audience. You need to be thinking from One about the kinds of language your audience is accustomed to, about potential baggage associated with particular concepts or even specific words, about the kinds of information they’re used to consuming (and the mechanisms by which they consume it), and first and foremost: what is my audience motivated or incentivized by? How can I make sure that the message I present is aligned with their goals and their values? Alternatively, if I’m delivering a message that I know to be counter to their existing worldview, how do I empathetically demonstrate that I actually understand their worldview, that I’ve considered it deeply, and that new data or a larger shift have necessitated a change in thinking? I’ve seen so many presentations (as recently as yesterday) in the other direction (to high-level executives) that fall into essentially the same trap: they have a really important message to deliver, but the message falls on its face because the presenter frames the conversation from their perspective, ignoring that their audience comes to the table with potentially very different wants/needs and a substantially different contextual lens.

kemiller2002 6y ago

What I have found is that one's ability to deliver bad news is directly related to how the team perceives the person delivering. It's never easy, but if you have a team that trusts you in what you say the rest of the time, it becomes a lot easier. I've found that directness is the best approach. Leave no ambiguity and waste no time. If there are going to be layoffs, then say so. I'd rather have people freak out based on what I say than from what they hear from other people. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Expose the issues and talk about them as quickly as possible and move on to planning how to handle it.

ipnon 6y ago
You can frame bad news announcements as a negotiation with your audience to perceive the new reality as a positive.

rotten 6y ago

Having been through well over 30 layoffs in my career, both as someone being retained and as someone being cut, I can say that they almost always start with a senior manager who doesn't usually give speeches, giving a speech to the team about how things are going really well despite rumors to the contrary. (Even if no one had heard any rumors.) Once you get one of these speeches, just start shopping your resume immediately - layoffs are coming within days or weeks.

asdfman123 6y ago
Oof, did you write this comment for me specifically?
aliceryhl 6y ago
That's quite a lot of layoffs. What industry is that?
- asdfman123 6y ago
  The oil industry is certainly like that.
  - unfunco 6y ago
    Are there many roughnecks on Hacker News?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - asdfman123 6y ago
      It's one of the largest industries in the world. They have offices, and use software too!
      - nogabebop23 6y ago
        Field workers do have an office and run software, it's just that it's a little box on the edge of the rig!

citiguy 6y ago

I have found it always helps to prep. Especially before a big loaded topic like layoffs or finances. Taking the time to put together a presentation can help you frame your thoughts properly and make sure you don't miss any important highlights.

chrismdp 6y ago
So, so true. I wish I'd learnt that earlier.

indymike 6y ago

Why do leaders think lying, or obfuscating works so well? My personal experience has been when you let people know the facts and act on them, it is amazing what happens. Every time that bad news is delivered to my team directly, be it the loss of a major account, a financial crisis, or even a legal problem, the collective intelligence of the team often finds the solution. I've had interns rescue accounts (oh, my uncle is the CEO there), engineers solve legal problems (what if we just asked if we could move service X over to them and finish the contract with that instead of unneeded canceled service), and incredible suggestions on cost-cutting instead of layoffs. None of these things happen when the team doesn't know because some executive was afraid of telling the truth.

kemiller2002 6y ago
I think it largely comes down to fear. Fear that if people find out they'll leave, or retaliate or some such. Also, a lot of people aren't (or will ever be) prepared to be in management positions. Some wanted to try it and are stuck and others got pushed into it. Delivering bad news is hard, and it's to try easy and avoid it. It's like firing people. A number of managers would rather wait until its someone else problem rather than doing what needs to be done. It causes everyone problems in avoiding it, but doing what needs to be done appears to be a far worse course of action to many.
- indymike 6y ago
  That is exactly my experience. The answer to "Why didn't you just tell the truth?" usually starts with "I was afraid that ..." Most of the time the fear was unfounded or at best, a better outcome that what happens when employees lose trust in leadership.
fridek 6y ago
It's incredibly hard to deliver bad news with the right tone. The objective is to deliver precise, true information, and have people go and think (not guess) what's the impact on them. Conversly, it's really easy to sound as if you don't care enough, or be openly frustrated and deflecting responsibility to someone else (especially if that's justified). This way you end up with people angry at individuals, and not thinking about the next steps (whether getting their own career in order, or continuing the project in a different setup). Lying, or being wishy-washy is the path of least resistance. I think managers are getting paid to do uncomfortable things and with time might become awesome even in these hard situations, but YRMV.

docflabby 6y ago

I think in most circumstances you can't. A lot of the time bad news is known in advance and the timing for release is a carefully controlled process so while you know things are bad you have to lie by omission by not sharing until the designated time the actual decision makers have decided... I once signed a 12 month contract extension and 7 days later (5 days before christmas) there was a big meeting and I and 50+ other people were escorted off the office by security as the whole project cancelled. I'm pretty sure the manager know the project was going to be cancelled but he had to issue new contracts anyway he know would be torn up as they were not ready to officially announce yet...

drewcoo 6y ago

If you have sudden, shocking, bad news to deliver that's almost always a sign that there wasn't much openness previously. That's already a management failure that's unacknowledged in this piece. Flip the scenario. What would it mean if suddenly an employee had absolutely terrible status that they were _finally_ forced to share. As a manager, wouldn't you wonder why it wasn't disclosed earlier? Why the employee was probably lying to your face for some time?

lvspiff 6y ago

One of the biggest problems in management is you don't rise to the top unless you do things like lying to your team. The perception of success helps the Peter Principal continue to thrive. Articles like this shouldn't need to be written, but they do because so many of us in leadership have been raised on to have a positive outlook on any situation no matter how screwed you are getting. Oh we wont be getting bonuses this year? Well be glad you have a job! Oh you wont be getting that raise you promised? Well we're adding a drink dispenser to the break room As you get higher up it only gets worse - the yes men reporting to the executive are all reporting the good points and underselling the bad points. Have a project that's failing? Well better report that there are some aspects going well! Have a team that's not cutting it? Well report on the ones that are! Until promotions are determined by actual objective measures and not by subjective anecdotal feelings this will continue to be the case.

hliyan 6y ago
Contrary to what some young, smart and mostly well-meaning engineers will have you believe, not all managers/leaders are Dilbertesque caricatures. There many who fit that profile perfectly in certain types of organizations. But there are organizations where such types are less common too. If you're constantly surrounded by these types of individuals, it's probably a sign that you need to change companies.
- ipnon 6y ago
  Even the most sadistic managers I've had, who not only held me back in my career but actively regressed it, took pictures of their cats and called their mom on the weekends. My point is that we should judge managers on how they affect our productivity.
calfdanzen 6y ago
Question: '-Must-(crossed out) Should you devote yourself to pretensions using illusions, making sacrifices?' ? P-:
ipnon 6y ago
Corporations are fundamentally non-democratic, oligarchic organizations. If you have a Marxist bent you might say a revolution is not possible. Consider business creation as an alternative to real wealth generation for individuals.

spsrich2 6y ago

"The bad news is we are merging with Swindon and some of you are going to be laid off.... The good news is, I've got a promotion!..... You're all still thinking about the bad news aren't you?"

chrismdp 6y ago
I should have put this quote at the top of the article! :)

siruncledrew 6y ago

There's this tendency, particularly in U.S. management, to put off bad news as long as possible and then try to avoid acknowledging the bad news during a generic-sounding announcement like a third-party wrote it. I think it's better to announce the bad news on the horizon before it arrives - if possible. People are more likely to find solutions to problems when the problem are laid out. If the CEO comes out and says, "Our Q1 numbers really plummeted in 2020, and we need to innovate if we want to make it past Q3 intact", then sure it will get reactions of "I should update my CV", but it also gets people in the problem-solving mindset and willing to put in effort if they have a stake in the outcome. As opposed to delivering the bad news when nothing left can be done, at which point it seems like all the recent work was in vain, and people are 'slapped in the face' with the news. Saying "This ship's sailing great! ... as long as we throw half the crew overboard" isn't the most motivating speech. - On an aside: This also relates to the "announcer's" personal skills as a leader/manager. Some people hate giving bad news because they think it means they will be negatively received, and some leaders/managers are just very bad at taking criticism. It's a tough job, but it comes with the territory, and denying bad news is a reality is just "blissful ignorance".

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
This is because management only cares about how things look. If I had a dollar for every time I got flak for telling people exactly what issues are, I'd have a decent sized home in the midwest.
- thatfrenchguy 6y ago
  Americans systematically avoid hard discussions, to preserve that "everyone is happy" feeling.
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    > Americans systematically avoid I'd be surprised if you could quantify that as being an American thing, any more so than anywhere else.

29athrowaway 6y ago

To lie about something people will figure out anyways in 1 week or less is a bad idea. Just be honest about the situation and be open for questions. People talk to each other and terminating someone does not prevent that from happening.

alain94040 6y ago

Easier said than done. Here's a specific scenario. You tell me what management should share and when. Revenue is seriously down. If this trend continues for another quarter or so, we'll have to start layoffs of ~10% of the engineers. Do you share the full news now, with no idea of whether there will be layoffs? Do you "lie by omission" by sharing that revenue is down, but not mention the potential consequences? The CEO typically is hoping for one more deal to close, to turnaround the company and not have to go through the layoffs. Why scare people if it's not needed?

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
As a leader, it is sometimes difficult to admit that you failed, even if it wasn't your fault. I probably respect my current boss more because he told us a large client was leaving before the client emailed us to cancel.
a_c_s 6y ago
Because employees talk. If word gets out that the company is in a tight place before management addresses it to employees then that erodes trust in leadership. If people distrust leadership then when they do finally acknowledge something negative (eg. we're having 10% layoffs) then employees rationally assume things are actually far worse than that (eg. we're having multiple rounds of layoffs) and will behave accordingly (eg. leave even if not laid off). On the other hand if leaders build trust by acknowledging reality then when they announce that things are bad people are more likely to behave proportionately and trust that things are only as bad as announced rather than 'reading between the lines' and assuming they are 10x worse.

ping_pong 6y ago

During the beginning of the dotcom Bust, we had an all-hands meeting. Someone asked the VP of Engineering if there was going to be layoffs. He said no, there was no need for layoffs. When the all-hands meeting was done, and we returned to our desk, and there was an email waiting for us saying that we were going to have layoffs. He subsequently defended himself, saying that he wasn't allowed to say anything about the layoffs. There were so many ways he could have answered the question, like "We are exploring all avenues at this point" without lying straight to our faces and looking like an idiot, but he chose the exact worst way to answer it. Obviously, his trust was completely lost by everyone in the org, and his reputation was completely ruined by this. No one trusted or believed him after that. He was an asshole anyway and was fired a year or so afterwards because of how ineffective he had become as a leader.

underwater 6y ago
Waffle doesn't help, any non-commital answer he gave is either an affirmation or will be exposed as an obvious lie in hindsight. That's a hard position to be in when you've been specifically told not to share news.

strictnein 6y ago

Related: Radical Candor https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250235375/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250235375/ You are doing an employee a great disservice if you aren't honest and upfront about their under performance. Because when they are let go they will be completely blindsided by it and will never have been given a chance to remedy any of the underlying issues.

kerkeslager 6y ago

I'll give the author of this article the benefit of the doubt that they didn't intend to lie, but I think a lot of executives have no compunction whatsoever about lying. It's really easy to tell the truth if you've established a culture in which everyone is on the same side: us versus problem, instead of a company where everyone is working for themselves. The problem is, in most companies, everyone is working for themselves. Most companies don't care about their workers beyond those workers' ability to make them money. Workers know that if something happens and they can't hold up their end of the bargain, you'll drop them, so why, if you might not be able to hold up your end of the bargain, should your workers not just drop you? There isn't a way to tell your workers that the company isn't doing well AND get them to help you, if you haven't established a culture where your workers can come to you and tell you they aren't doing well, and receive help.

martincmartin 6y ago

"Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Only the 3rd one is lying. You can still leave a completely misleading impression by telling partial truths.

castillar76 6y ago

Something I haven't seen in the comments here and I think is a significant factor is share price/company valuation (at least, for public/VC-owned companies). Executive management knows that any information shared with employees will absolutely be in the trades before the meeting is over. With that in mind, they can't just come out and say, "Well, our numbers aren't looking healthy right now and I'm concerned about the next quarter" because it results in 'FooCorp CEO "concerned about next quarter"' hitting the news. That both produces a short-term problem (it tanks the stock) but it also creates a potential self-fulfilling prophecy: you're concerned about next quarter's numbers, investors become concerned about next quarter's numbers, customers become concerned about next quarter's numbers, and now next quarter's numbers look even worse! As a result, there's a strong incentive to keep your mouth shut about anything remotely negative until it's too late for it to affect anything significant, and then to release it in as positive-spin a manner as possible to minimize the effects. Hence, layoffs are spun as "restructuring to make the company leaner and focus our efforts". It's not that I think you can't be honest in presenting information like this to employees, but I do think we need to temper our expectations about the messaging from C-level execs, because Wall Street definitely does not reward radical honesty. (Maybe it should, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)

rootedbox 6y ago

"Would you rather get a bullet to the head, or five to the chest and bleed to death?" Deliver bad news. Straight and emotionless. We are professionals. After 5 years we've seen most things after 10 years.. you've seen just about anything. Folks need bad news in order to properly prepare for their future.

holidayacct 6y ago

If you have to lie to announce bad news either you're too hypersensitive or your team members are too hypersensitive. People need to grow up and accept that working for any company isn't all sunshine and roses.

kevsim 6y ago

The leaders I've had who have been the best at delivering bad news are the ones that have been decisive and clear about the direction we're heading all along. If a "leader" who is rarely visible and who doesn't actually _lead_ by setting a clear direction and taking decisive action for the company gets up to give bad news, it's going to be a train wreck. If a leader who has been transparent, decisive and clear all along gets up to deliver bad news, the result is often very different. Part of the reason is the trust that has already been built and part of the reason is that they can give a clear path forward and actually get people onboard (or at least make the justification believable).