One of the great equalisers between therapists and the people they treat is that both will at some point have the unenviable task of having to tell someone news that they probably do not want to hear.
Whilst most of us understand the importance of honesty and candidness, far fewer of us really want to be the bearer of bad news, to the point that we describe the evident animosity people who receive bad news feel for the person giving it with an expression as violent as “shooting the messenger”.
There are a few reasons for this apprehension; the first is the somewhat justified concern about being disliked by the person receiving the information, and the other is simply that saying something to a person that you know will affect them negatively does not feel particularly good.
With that said, capitulating to that urge to withhold bad news only stands to make situations worse, sometimes even leading to a form of toxic positivity that can cause significant damage.
A lot of people in the therapy space who talk about becoming the bearer of bad news work in businesses where obfuscating this information could cause considerable material harm, particularly if it is the reporting of a mistake that is not spotted until it is too late to fix it.
For health professionals such as doctors, the consequences could be potentially life-threatening, and mental health professionals are sometimes placed in the position of needing to dissuade someone from a course of action that could cause serious problems.
Being the bearer of bad news, therefore, can seem like a no-win situation, but are there ways to help someone process or understand bad news in a way that does not trigger a negative reaction but instead focuses on pursuing a constructive response?
Does the way in which you deliver bad news affect how it is taken, and how can this be applied to the uncomfortable parts of everyday life?
The Long And Winding Road To Bad News
When it comes to bad news that is unavoidable, some people prefer to be direct. If it will be unpleasant regardless, then the sooner the bad news is out of the way, the more time someone will have to process it, understand and begin the process of coming to terms with it.
According to a study in the International Journal of Business Communication, “indirect messaging”, defined in the study as providing an explanation for bad news before the news itself, was more highly regarded than the other way around.
There are several reasons for this. The first is that the additional context being foregrounded helps to present the decision as the logical, albeit difficult, conclusion to a particular set of circumstances.
Another reason is that a lengthy, meaningful explanation changes the part of the mind that is processing the information, from the automatic, assumptive and reflexive system 1 to the more conscious and analytical system 2 process.
Finally, the very act of providing an explanation can sometimes be associated with conscientiousness, warmth and kindness.
There is a limit to this approach, however. Too much indirectness can be seen as evasiveness and can have the opposite effect, especially in forms of communication that are seen as more personal and direct to begin with such as phone calls and in-person conversations.
Another way to take advantage of this is through the use of more implicit language, such as using softer terms, to reduce the level of certainty, to separate the person and the bad news alongside qualifying why all of this was the case.
In a study of its use in a medical context, it did not reduce the understanding of bad news regarding a diagnosis but did reduce the immediate distress caused by it, leaving people with hope that a solution or mitigation is possible.
The News Sandwich
A common approach to delivering bad news that relies on a fascinating neurological principle is the “news sandwich”, otherwise known as blended news delivery.
The idea of the news sandwich is that you pair bad news with good news, typically by having a piece of good news first, then a piece of bad news and finally another piece of good news.
This works in part due to a concept known as the serial position effect, where people tend to be better at remembering the first and last parts of a list than the middle, and this recollection not only includes the facts but also the emotional footprint they leave.
The study found that it is possible to open with bad news and close with good news without reducing the perceived warmth of the news bearer.
However, in practice, for some of the reasons noted above, messengers do not tend to like starting with bad news, which can affect the nature of their delivery and the relationship between messenger and receiver.
So whilst you can start with bad news, being too blunt with the delivery of bad news and then trying to follow up with good news may not necessarily be too effective.
The Way To Tell Them
Part of the way in which delivery is particularly important is in the presentation of intent. A lot of conversations and statements can be somewhat ambiguous outside of context. Most people have had a situation where they were unsure if a comment was made in good faith.
One of the most important parts of delivering bad news, therefore, is to establish good intent, and this requires a tailored approach depending on the nature of the advice.
For example, this can include providing feedback to an employee in a warm tone, whilst smiling and whilst emphasising the constructive nature of what can sometimes sound like bad news, because the focus is not that something is being done wrong but that it can be done better.
Ultimately, the aim is to shift a mindset from one that is negative-focused to a positive one, and being sensitive and mindful about the approach taken can lead to potentially better outcomes.
It may not work in every situation or remove negative feelings entirely, but it can help someone to dwell less on their immediate response and focus instead on what they can do next.
