from Hacker News

Announce bad news without lying to your team

by chrismdp on 6/16/20, 8:41 AM with 76 comments

  • by siruncledrew on 6/17/20, 3:32 PM

    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".

  • by rotten on 6/17/20, 12:46 PM

    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.
  • by indymike on 6/17/20, 2:00 PM

    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.
  • by kemiller2002 on 6/17/20, 12:31 PM

    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.

  • by drewcoo on 6/17/20, 3:08 PM

    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?

  • by GiorgioG on 6/17/20, 12:10 PM

    > 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.

  • by lvspiff on 6/17/20, 3:18 PM

    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.

  • by ping_pong on 6/17/20, 4:20 PM

    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.

  • by codingdave on 6/17/20, 12:28 PM

    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.

  • by spsrich2 on 6/17/20, 3:30 PM

    "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?"
  • by kerkeslager on 6/17/20, 6:21 PM

    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.

  • by docflabby on 6/17/20, 2:54 PM

    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...

  • by alain94040 on 6/17/20, 4:15 PM

    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?

  • by castillar76 on 6/17/20, 8:55 PM

    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.)

  • by stunt on 6/17/20, 12:30 PM

    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.

  • by kevsim on 6/18/20, 7:10 AM

    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).

  • by 29athrowaway on 6/17/20, 3:52 PM

    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.

  • by strictnein on 6/17/20, 5:24 PM

    Related: Radical Candor

    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.

  • by rootedbox on 6/17/20, 9:07 PM

    "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.

  • by citiguy on 6/17/20, 1:20 PM

    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.
  • by holidayacct on 6/17/20, 9:23 PM

    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.
  • by chrismdp on 6/16/20, 8:48 AM

    This one is particularly embarrassing for me :) -- anyone got similar tales of woe?
  • by martincmartin on 6/17/20, 8:55 PM

    "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.