CorpComms Magazine

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deliver unpalatable news on taxes and spending cuts at a time when concerns about the state of the public sector are growing. But increasingly managers have to deliver unpleasant news. Three experts offer their advice on how to present news that the audience might not want to hear without prompting floods of tears in the auditorium

Tom Maddocks, course director, Media Training Associates

First of all, my advice to the chief executive would be to be honest. If you have to deliver bad news, there is always a temptation to sugar-coat things.

However, the sharper ones in the audience will see through this and decide you are not being straight with them, while the dimmer ones will fail to get the message about what has to change. However, you have to be very careful how you do it - much depends on the audience, and who will be affected by the bad news.

A lot is talked about the idea of the 'bad news sandwich' where the nasty stuff is sandwiched between two related pieces of more positive news - as in 'I want to commend the staff who worked so hard on the Acme contract. Of course, now this has come to an end, a reduction in headcount is inevitable. However, I want to stress that we will be doing everything we can to look at alternative opportunities within the group for as many of those affected as possible...' This approach is better than being brutal and kicking off with the unpalatable message, but be careful not to let it sound too cynical.

It is usually best to anticipate audience objections and deal with them before they arise, as in I know many of you will be asking... but here's why that's not going to work. This will take some of the wind from the critics' sails, particularly if there will be questions afterwards which could otherwise become very negative. Avoid making excuses, which can make it look as though you are trying to dodge responsibility. Finally, body language and tone should be confident and determined, so the audience can see you have considered things carefully, and you mean what you say.

Andrew Caesar-Gordon, founder, Electric Airwaves

People generally hate giving bad news. To make it easier on themselves (although not usually on the recipients), they will often try to soft-soap the news, talk around the issue for an age before getting to the point and then try to leave as quickly as possible.

Managers do not tend to get much training in delivering bad news (for instance, when making people redundant). But there is a group of people who do - doctors.

They are told to assess the recipient's understanding of the issue and how much they wish to know. This is then followed by giving advance warning that bad news is coming, as in I'm afraid it looks more serious than we thought..., to give the recipient a moment to adjust to what is coming. The doctor should be honest, should use simple language and deliver the information in easily digestible small chunks. Good advice here is to not pussyfoot around, but do not overwhelm.

You might not expect honesty from a politician but in his budget speech George Osborne did not shrink from the bad news involved in downgrading the growth forecast. In fact he said It has been known for Chancellors... to rattle these off at great speed in the hope that no one will keep up. I will not do that.

For a chief executive delivering bad news I would add: communicate the news in a way that is consistent with the organisation's existing narrative. Osborne set the parameters of his speech within the government's consistently communicated narrative of the need to rescue the country's finances.

So if 'care for people' is part of your organisation's narrative, you would not bluntly fire staff. You would want to communicate and carry it out within a context of doing the right thing by those affected, offering for instance generous redundancy terms or outplacement support. The way you communicate bad news can actually aid reputation.

Peter Coë, director, Tudor Reilly

A few basic rules invariably apply: be honest, don't bury bad news - break it early - but don't fixate on it either; give thanks and encouragement; and give a credible vision for the future. Above all, prepare thoroughly.

It's the preparation part where any speech succeeds or fails. So do the homework: first, work out the objectives of the speech before anything is drafted; take plenty of advice from those you trust; identify the two or three key messages; then draft - and refine. Finally, rehearse it out loud!

Attributed to several men of letters, including Churchill and Mark Twain, is the apology to a friend for writing such a long letter as they hadn't had time to write a shorter one. Speeches often suffer for the same reason: not enough time, not enough thought, too many words and too little art.

George Osborne said his 2011 Budget was one for making things, not for making things up. It was a snappy word-play that captured the nation's financial challenges, made a claim to honesty and offered a vision in one concise and memorable phrase.

Any effective speech needs a memorable line - a quotable quote - to grab the attention of the audience, that people will repeat accurately afterwards and everyone can remember weeks and even months later. The best ones are delivered in five seconds (15 words) and under.

For Henry V (according to Shakespeare), frighteningly outnumbered by the French, he cheered his troops with We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

In June 1940, when a Nazi invasion seemed likely, Churchill encouraged the nation brilliantly with his 'beaches' speech. The crescendo of repetition - We shall go on to the end... we shall fight on the beaches... we shall never surrender - took time to deploy, but it was both artful and electrifying.

Few of us these days have been taught the art of rhetoric, but it pays to study how the greatest speakers in history have deployed it, from the ancient Greeks and Romans to 20th Century statesmen.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet