Discriminatory buckpassing: Delegating transmission of bad news

Rosen, Sidney; Grandison, Richard J.; Stewart, John E.

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90049-x

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences in transmission of bad news as opposed to good news have been demonstrated across a wide variety of cultures, settings and relationships (O'Neal, Levine & Frank, 1979;. Example domains include a social work agency (Tesser, Rosen & Tesser, 1971), organizational hierarchies (Lee, 1993;Fulk and Mani, 1986), the performance feedback context (Larson, 1986), psychiatry and psychotherapy practice (Rice and Warner, 1994;Kivlighan, 1985), personnel hiring (Rosen, Grandison & Stewart, 1974), doctor-patient relationships (Seale, 1991;Waitzkin, 1984), and test failure (Bond and Anderson, 1987). This Mum effect has been documented in several ways.…”

Section: The Mum Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication

Sussman

Sproull

1999

Information Systems Research

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delivering bad news or negative information can be an unpleasant task; therefore people often either postpone it or mitigate its effect through positive distortion. Yet delivering (and receiving) timely and accurate negative information can be critical for performance improvement and organizational learning. This paper investigates the possibility that computer-mediated communication can increase honesty and accuracy in delivering negative information that has personal consequences for the recipient. In a laboratory experiment, 117 participants delivered positive or negative personally-consequential information to a confederate using one of three types of media: computer-mediated communication, telephone, or face-to-face conversation. Participants distorted negative information less, i.e., were more accurate and honest, when they used computer-mediated communication than face-to-face or telephone communication. There was no difference in distortion of positive information across media conditions. Participants also reported higher levels of satisfaction and comfort in the computer-mediated communication situation. The perceived quality of the relationship mediated the impact of media on satisfaction, but not on distortion. Your project has been cancelled…you didn't get the promotion…you have to rewrite the report-No one likes to hear bad news; few people like to deliver it either. However in organizations, receiving bad news or negative information can be a first step toward improvement. Delivering and receiving timely and accurate information are crucial for performance improvement and organizational learning. But when the information is likely to be perceived as negative by the recipient, the process of delivering it can become problematic (Fulk and Mani, 1986). This paper explores the implications of using different communication media for delivering negative information that has personal consequences for the receiver. It begins by framing the problem within a generalized model of an asymmetrical communication process. It then presents several avenues of relevant prior research that, taken together, suggest that media might play a significant role in this type of communication task. As an illustration of this research arena, a laboratory experiment is described that begins to explore the phenomenon. Avenues for further research are suggested, as are potential implications for behavior in organizational contexts involving the delivery of bad news.

show abstract

Section: The Mum Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People distort negative information in a positive direction in order to reduce its negative tone (Fisher, 1979;Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980). People delay or delegate the delivery of bad news (Rosen, Grandison & Stewart, 1974;Bond and Anderson, 1987). And people are more likely to pass on good news than bad news .…”

Section: The Mum Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication

Sussman

Sproull

1999

Information Systems Research

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differences in transmission of bad news as opposed to good news have been demonstrated across a wide variety of cultures, settings, and relationships (O’Neal, Levine, & Frank, 1979; Tesser & Rosen, 1975). Example domains include a social work agency (Tesser, Rosen, & Tesser, 1971), organizational hierarchies (Fulk & Mani, 1986; Lee, 1993), psychiatry and psychotherapy practice (Kivlighan, 1985; Rice & Warner, 1994), personnel hiring (Rosen, Grandison, & Stewart, 1974), doctor‐patient relationships (Seale, 1991; Waitzkin, 1984), test failure (Bond & Anderson, 1987), and the performance feedback context (Larson, 1986). The Mum effect occurs when the sender anticipates that the receiver will react with defensiveness and emotional distress.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluative Feedback: Perspectives on Media Effects

Watts¹

2007

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) makes it possible to deliver evaluative feedback, an essential component of learning, over distance. This article presents a theoretical model of the CMC-based evaluative feedback process from the perspective of both senders and receivers of feedback. Hypotheses suggested by the model were tested in a quasi-laboratory experiment with part-time MBA students comparing email with voicemail. Within matched-pair dyads, email senders, but not voicemail senders, viewed their negative feedback as being significantly more negative than did their receivers. Voicemail senders, but not email senders, reported significantly lower comfort levels than did their receivers. No feedback effectiveness differences were found between media conditions, although determinants of feedback effectiveness differed significantly depending on the medium. These results are generally consistent with the theoretical model.

show abstract

“…Negative Rückmeldungen werden gemeinhin weder gerne empfangen (Kluger/DeNisi 1996) noch gerne gegeben. Auf Seiten der Feedbackgeber führt dies zu verschiedenen Formen von Vermeidungsverhalten: Feedback wird beschönigt (Waung/Highhouse 1997), delegiert (Rosen/Grandison/Stewart 1974), lange hinausgeschoben (Klaas/ Dell'omo 1997, Moser/Kraft 2006, innerlich distanziert gegeben (Rothaus/Morton/ Hanson 1965) oder gänzlich vermieden (Tesser/Rosen/Batchelor 1972, Fried/Tiegs/ Bellamy 1992, Waung/Brice 2000. Wenn das negative Feedback allerdings nicht vermeidbar ist, stellt sich die Frage, wovon die Intensität einer eventuellen negativen Reaktion beim Feedbacknehmer abhängt.…”

Section: Ablehnungsschreiben Als Negative Rückmeldungenunclassified

Reaktionen auf Ablehnungsschreiben an Bewerber: Das Beispiel „Eisschreiben”

Müller¹,

Moser²

2006

German Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Applicants' Reactions towards Rejection Letters: The Example "Ice Letter"In recent years the applicants' perspective has attracted increasing attention in research on personnel selection. But there is still a lack of research on the reactions of rejected applicants. According to preliminary evidence, rejection letters can have a negative impact on the organization which rejects applicants (e.g. low propensity to recommend the organization as an employer or negative attitude towards the organization's products). The current article reports several research results on rejection letters and then presents an experiment that analyses the effects of an announcement to rejected applicants that their resumes will be included in an applicant or talent pool in order to contact them in the future (a so-called ice letter). Results show that applicants are more positive towards ice letters than standard rejection letters and that this has a positive influence on their attitudes towards the organization. According to the results of our study, organizations can expect more positive applicant reactions if they develop applicant pools.

show abstract

Discriminatory buckpassing: Delegating transmission of bad news

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication

Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication

Evaluative Feedback: Perspectives on Media Effects

Reaktionen auf Ablehnungsschreiben an Bewerber: Das Beispiel „Eisschreiben”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About