Communication Portfolio Assignment 7
Business Communication Quarterly 75(2) 208 –220
© 2012 by the Association for Business Communication
Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1080569912441823 http://bcq.sagepub.com
441823BCQ75210.1177/1080569912441823Comm unicating Negative Messages Business Communication Quarterly
1Radford University, USA 2University of Delaware, USA
Corresponding Author: Sandra L. French, Radford University, PO Box 6932, Radford, VA 24142, USA Email: sfrench5@radford.edu
Positive Organizational Behavior: A Buffer for Bad News
Sandra L. French1
and Tracey Quigley Holden2
Abstract
Most communication research on bad news messages focuses on crisis communication, where attention is often limited to image repair strategies. The authors argue that a key indicator of an organization’s effectiveness in communicating “bad news” messages is its organizational culture. Developing an organizational culture that values positive organizational behavior can transform the way that “bad news” messages are crafted and received in the workplace. In this article, the authors demonstrate how organizational leadership and practice from the positive organizational behavior perspective can assist with communicating “bad news” messages, particularly during organizational crises.
Keywords
bad news messages, crisis communication, positive psychology
Introduction: The Art and Science of “Bad News” Messages
Research on “bad news” emerges across the spectrum of communication. “Bad news” for business appears in many forms—the announcement of layoffs, poor financial outcomes, crises of internal or external origin, and natural disasters, among others. The particular type of “bad news” is not at issue here but rather the communication practices encompassing the delivery of bad news. In this article, we focus on what
Communicating Negative Messages
Communicating Negative Messages 209
positive psychology can teach business communication professionals about dissemi- nating bad news during an organizational crisis such as unforeseen downsizing, lay- offs, and acute organizational events.
In 1999, Locker examined the extant literature on negative messages, including the prescriptive practices from 57 textbooks. She found that the conventional wisdom on negative messages was contained in six principles—in effect, the classic sandwich. The most frequently suggested sandwich approach constructs negative messages with a prefatory buffer, the bad news, an explanation, and a closing buffer, thus “sandwich- ing” the bad news between pieces of additional communication (Guffey & Loewy, 2011; Lehman & Dufrene, 2009). And yet, in Locker’s survey of research in several settings, she found that the sandwich approach was deemed “not useful in the work- place” (Locker, 1999, p. 9). Locker’s own research led her to conclude that only two pieces of the sandwich were valuable—the directives to “present the negative as posi- tively as possible, and offer an alternative or compromise if one is available” (p. 31). Responding to Locker’s assessment, Limaye (2001) agrees that the conventional wis- dom is flawed and directs attention to the opportunity costs and psychological attribu- tion processes of bad news as potential guides for rethinking bad news message construction. Limaye makes a compelling case for the value of explanation in a bad news message, claiming that the “price paid for nonprovision of explanation is low- ered employee morale, damage to employee satisfaction, and loss of management credibility” (p. 106). Although Limaye focuses on the explanation offered by the deliverer of the bad news and how tailoring that piece of the sandwich can positively influence the outcome, he stops short of a specific form or guideline for producing such a message.
More recent work in the construction of negative messages validates Limaye’s approach of incorporating explanation and extends this into a preference for an indi- rect structure—offering the explanation first. Jansen and Janssen (2011) conducted a series of experiments testing direct and indirect message structures for comprehen- sion, compliance, and evaluation of the writer. They found that indirect messages were better at preserving the “face” of the recipient and allowed for the negative message to be accepted more readily. Jansen and Janssen suggest that this structure works because offering the explanation first allows the reader to gradually adapt to the sender’s think- ing, as “the decision becomes a part of their cognitive belief system even before they actually read it” (p. 60).
The structure and design of bad news messages has evolved considerably, but we argue that there is more to the story. Bad news must be delivered or dealt with in many situations facing organizations. The suggestions of current research focus almost exclusively on the specifics of such delivery rather than the handling of bad news within the larger context of ongoing business operations. Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger (2007) point to the absolute certainty that bad news or crisis will confront a business and the need to develop, not only a contingency plan but also an overall approach to such situations. The conditions that precipitate the need to deliver bad news or address an organizational crisis can offer opportunities for renewal of an organization, if
210 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)
skillfully managed. The authors invoke the popularized (but incorrect) meaning of the Chinese symbols for crisis as “dangerous opportunity” to underscore this concept. However, Mair, Professor of Chinese Languages and Literature at the University of Pennsylvania, offers an explanation of the characters on his website that better sup- ports the position being advanced. Mair writes in Mair, Mair, and Liqing (2009),
While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis” and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,” the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.” The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes).”
From the business perspective, that is indeed the essence of delivering or dealing with bad news. This translation makes Ulmer et al.’s (2007) position on bad news and crisis communication practices even more on point—they conclude that “effective commu- nication skills are essential to creating positive, renewing opportunities at these turn- ing points.” (p. 4)
Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger ground their work in an approach to leadership and communication focused on positive values, virtues, and optimism (Seeger & Ulmer, 2001; Ulmer & Sellnow, 2002). Such a perspective is radically different from much of the conventional wisdom concerning the delivery of bad news and crisis communica- tion within business research and practice. What makes the difference is not just a shift from a structural approach focused on messaging to a more contextualized perspective emphasizing organizational leadership and culture. This focus on renewal and oppor- tunity comes from an entirely different way of thinking about business, leadership, and communication. We suggest that this shift is consistent with the tenets and insights of the Positive Psychology movement.
The Positive Psychology Movement: Bad News Gets Reframed The positive psychology movement offers a new paradigm for studying organizations. Seligman, founder of the positive psychology movement, developed a manual of Character Strengths and Virtues (C. Peterson & Seligman, 2004) specifically as a “positive” counterpart to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The positive psychology movement investigates the “conditions, and pro- cesses that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 103). All positive psychology–related organi- zational research shifts in perspective from a “disease”-based, problem-solving model as the most suitable approach to improved organizational performance, to one in which positive resources are identified and investigated (Linley, Harrington, & Garcea 2010). The overarching philosophy of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) is a marriage of positive psychology and organizational studies. POS seeks to understand how to cultivate excellence in organizations by unlocking individuals’
Communicating Negative Messages 211
potential. Specifically, through an investigation of “positive deviance,” POS explores the ways in which individuals use and develop strengths leading to exceptional per- formance at both the individual and organizational levels (Linley et al., 2010). In investigating extraordinary performance, POS often focuses on the macro or institu- tional levels of analysis (Youssef & Luthans, 2007) rather than individual organiza- tional actors.
A similar line of organizational research, positive organizational behavior (POB), is defined by Luthans (2003) as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, devel- oped, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace” (p. 179). POB focuses more on individuals, or micro levels of analysis. POB tends to emphasize four core capacities: self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency (Donaldson & Ko, 2010; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006).
“Houston, We Have a Problem . . .”: Positive Psychology and Organizational Crises As we stated previously, there are many types of “bad news” messages experienced in organizations, including layoffs, customer service problems, and negative perfor- mance reviews. Here, we focus on what positive psychology can teach business com- munication professionals about disseminating bad news during an acute organizational crisis.
Acute organizational events, or organizational crises, are “specific, unexpected and non-routine events or series of events that create high levels of uncertainty and threaten or are perceived to threaten an organizations’ high priority goals” (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998, p. 233). The bulk of crisis communication research focuses on problems and failures: what organizations have done badly, how crises have been poorly han- dled, and what mistakes management has made (Small, 1991; Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000). Crisis communication literature is largely based on its own version of a “dis- ease” model, expending most research resources explaining organizational deficits rather than organizational strengths.
We contend that an investigation of organizational strengths, and what positive communication behaviors exist when communicating bad news during a crisis, should focus on an organization’s CEO. According to Seeger and Ulmer (2001), during times of crisis, the CEO is usually the designated spokesperson and “may also establish the moral tone for the crisis response” (p. 369). CEOs are often called up to establish the facts of the crisis, make important judgment calls, and communicate directly with the media (Modzelewski, 1990).
Scholar and business consultant Gaines-Ross (2003) studies the relationship between CEOs, their personal reputations, and their companies’ success. Coining the term CEO capital, Gaines-Ross’s book of the same name cites a 1998 poll of the general public indi- cating that a CEO’s reputation accounted for 48% of a company’s reputation. Gaines-Ross argues, “The CEO must come to terms with the idea of being the ultimate spokesperson for
212 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)
the organization, the embodiment of the brand, and the official storyteller who knits together the company’s past, present, and future” (p. 39). Park and Berger (2004) argue that CEOs are the public face of a company, particularly during organizational crises, and as such warrant particular attention as the subject of crisis research.
However, following the “disease” model, most current research on CEO perfor- mance during times of crisis focuses on what not to do. For example, former Exxon CEO Lawrence Rawl is often excoriated for his handling of the Valdez oil spill, in particular for his failure to publicize his personal trip to the spill site (Modzelewski, 1990) and his attempt to avoid responsibility by blaming Captain Joseph Hazelwood (Small, 1991). More recently, BP executive Tony Hayward was rebuked by public relations professionals and the general public alike with regard to the 2010 oil spill of the U.S. Gulf Coast. When visiting Venice, Louisiana, to survey damage and issue an apology, in which he stated, “The first thing to say is I’m sorry,” he told reporters. “We’re sorry for the massive disruption it’s caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back” (“BP Chief to Gulf Residents,” 2010). Hayward’s gaffe reflects not only his own communicative inade- quacies but a broader problem for CEOs—the misperception of what constitutes effec- tive, positive communication. Research supports the prevalence of this problem—in 1998, Coopers and Lybrand conducted a survey of CEOs, middle managers, and non- managers. The survey found that while “82 percent of CEOs believe that they lead by positive personal example . . . fewer than 40% of nonmanagement employees agree” (Steinberg, 1998, p. 70). Moreover, 95% of the CEOs claimed to have an open-door policy for the communication of bad news upstream, but more than half of employees believed the bad news messenger was running a serious risk. Such a perspective does not facilitate a strong business climate—in fact, such communicative problems have resulted in huge business losses, even failures (Steinberg, 1998). More recently, leader communication has become an even more critical element of business practice. The current financial crisis has eroded employee confidence in senior leadership from 51% in 2004 to less than 20% in 2009 (Davis, 2010). What is a beleaguered CEO to do?
Within the crisis communication literature, a handful of “exemplary” crisis responses from CEOs have been studied and applauded, including Tylenol’s James Burke and his handling of the cyanide tampering of 1982, which Fortune magazine described as “the gold standard in crisis control” (Yang & Levenson, 2007). Other models of effective crisis management include CEO of Malden Mills’ Aaron Feuerstein’s response to the 1995 factory fire (Seeger & Ulmer, 2001) and Milt Cole’s response to Cole Hardwoods’ 1998 fire (Seeger & Ulmer, 2001). Seeger and Ulmer applaud these CEOs for their “virtuous” responses to their respective organizational tragedies. These exemplary cases involve a leader, usually a CEO, responding quickly and ethically to an organizational crisis.
In Locker’s 1999 article, she suggested that buffers should not continue to be used in bad news messages, particularly the closing buffer, explaining that a bad news message with a strongly positive end engendered negative feelings. By combining the insights gained from exemplary examples in crisis communication research with the
Communicating Negative Messages 213
underpinnings of POB research, we can create a new model of offering bad news mes- sages that can assist business communication professionals in teaching students more options for delivering bad news.
Working Toward a New Model There are a handful of studies that have explored the relationship between CEO per- formance and positive psychology. Starting with a broad perspective, Brockner and James (2008) investigate when executives view organizational crises as opportunities, stating “crises have the potential to be a catalyst for positive organizational change” (p. 95). Focusing on when executives transition from framing a crisis as a threat ver- sus an opportunity, Brockner and James argue that in a crisis, decision makers tend to tighten control and rely on traditional ways of thinking about problem solving in order to reduce the uncertainty that accompanies a crisis. Traditional ways of thinking include viewing a crisis as a threat and responding by restricting activities, for exam- ple, enacting cost-cutting measures. They propose that executives who are willing to engage in reflection and learning are more inclined to view organizational crises as opportunities to enact positive change.
S. J. Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, and Myrowitz (2009) investigate the relation- ship between CEO positive psychological traits and transformational leadership. The authors adopt a POB approach, exploring the concepts of hope, optimism, and resil- iency. Their research illustrates that CEOs rated as more hopeful, optimistic, and resil- ient are also rated (both in self-ratings and the ratings of their followers) as engaging in more transformational leadership behaviors. According to their research, the key constructs of hope, optimism, and resiliency are similar but distinguishable. Thus, we will examine these concepts in greater detail.
Hope Synder et al. (1991) define hope as a two-pronged cognitive construct, built from the aspects of “pathways” and “agency.” Pathways reflect an individual’s self-perception of their capability to secure a plausible route to their personal goals. The second aspect, agency, relates to an individual’s motivation to proceed toward goal achieve- ment. Working in concert, these two components provide individuals with the means and motivation to achieve their personal goals. According to S. J. Peterson et al. (2009), “Those lower in hope lack the ability to conceive of strategies to meet goals and to overcome obstacles and the motivation to pursue the strategies that lead to goal achievement” (p. 350). It is theorized here that CEOs high in reservoirs of hope will find more creative strategies for dealing with crises.
Optimism Optimism as a trait is the generalized expectation of an individual that good things will happen, despite potentially adverse circumstances (Carver & Scheier, 1999).
214 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)
Those possessing the trait of optimism tend to focus on the good. Optimism has been demonstrated to have a positive impact on work performance (Luthans et al., 2006; Seligman, 1998). Optimists differ in their interpretation of positive and negative events from those low in this psychological resource. It is theorized here that CEOs who possess the trait of optimism may instinctively navigate crises more effectively.
Resiliency Defining resiliency as “the capacity to modify responses to changing situational demands, especially frustrating or stressful encounters,” Tugade and Fredrickson (2004, p. 322) argue that one’s ability to use positive emotions results in finding positive meaning in negative circumstances. As a result, resilient individuals tend to rebound more quickly from negative situations. It is theorized here that resilience can help CEOs move past the shock and narrow thinking that often accompany crisis situ- ations and more quickly engage in creative and positive crisis resolution. By looking in depth at a CEO response to crisis, positive psychology offers a new approach to crisis management rooted in the psychological capacities of the CEO.
CEOs and Resilience The concept of resiliency is not unique to the positive psychology literature. In organi- zational science, resiliency can mean the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999) and the ability to recover from unexpected events (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Resilience is a dynamic capacity of organizational adaptability that grows and develops over time (Wildavsky, 1988). Gittel, Cameron, Lim, and Rivas (2006) argue that positive relationships at work are a “prerequisite” to organizational resilience. In researching the airline industry following 9/11, these authors portray Southwest Airlines CEO Jim Parker as a model of strength and virtue as they withstood heavy short-term financial losses in order to avoid layoffs, arguing that they were “taking care of our people” (p. 317). Former CEO Herb Kelleher was quoted as follows: “Nothing kills your company’s culture like layoffs. Nobody has ever been furloughed [at Southwest], and that is unprecedented in the airline industry” (p. 318). Kelleher’s statement reinforces our argument that organiza- tional culture should be a key strategic factor in the design of bad news messages.
Organizational Culture and the Case of Malden Mills For a prime example of the relationship between organizational culture, POB, and effective dissemination of bad news, we turn to the case of Malden Mills. Henry Feuerstein founded Malden Mills, a textile manufacturing facility, in 1906 under the name Malden Knitting, in Malden, Massachusetts. Originally, Malden produced knit- ted clothing items such as sweaters and bathing suits (“The Many Lives of Malden Mills,” n.d.). In 1956, the company, then led by Henry’s grandson Aaron, moved to Lawrence, Massachusetts.
Communicating Negative Messages 215
Following a declaration of bankruptcy in 1981, the Feuerstein family called for Aaron’s removal from his position as Mill president. Aaron resisted and restructured the mill, creating Polartec and Polarfleece, an apparel fabric developed from recycled plastic (“About Polartec,” 2012). Clothing manufacturers, including L.L. Bean, Lands End, and Patagonia, purchased Polartec, a synthetic and extremely warm and light- weight material, in large quantities, to be used in winter clothing and accessories. By 1995, Polartec sales were approximately $200 million, and the Mill and its four divi- sions employed roughly 3,100 workers. Feuerstein’s operation was one of the few U.S. textile companies that did not move its operations overseas to secure less expen- sive labor.
Then, in December 1995, just 2 weeks before the Christmas holiday, Malden Mills experienced a devastating fire that left three key buildings of its eight building com- plex, totaling more than 600,000 square feet, in ruins and resulted in injuries to 36 workers (Goldberg, 1997). What makes this fire, later deemed an “industrial accident” unique, is a combination of several factors. First, being one of only a handful of textile manufacturers who had not moved operations overseas, Malden Mills garnered deep loyalty from its employees. For example, although the mill workers were unionized, the mill had never experienced a strike. Its employees are some of the highest paid in the textile industry. Second, the tiny New England town of Lawrence, where the mill was located, was dependent on the mill for economic survival. Lawrence is rated the 23rd poorest community in the country (Mcgrory, 2001). The Feuerstein family was well established in the community and had a reputation for fairness and generosity. “The community loves him very much and it’s not hype and it’s not the upper class, it’s the people” said Julio Fernandez, a Malden Mills machine operator (Goldberg, 1997). Third, the mill was a privately held family company, not beholden to a group of stakeholders. All these factors together helped set the stage for Aaron Feuerstein’s extraordinarily positive and resilient response to the fire.
Fire insurance payments for the mill were expected to be upwards of $300 million, and many feared the then 69-year-old CEO would either take the money and retire, or finally succumb to outside pressures and move the mill operation overseas. Instead, on learning of the fire and rushing to the mill, Feuerstein gathered his workers in a local high school gymnasium and said that the workers would all be kept on at full pay for the next 30 days (at a cost of more than $13 million) and that they would even receive a Christmas bonus. He also continued providing their health insurance for another 30 days (Freedland, 1996). In addition, he stated that the mill would definitely rebuild and seek to put all its employees back to work as soon as possible.
In September of 1997, a mere 21 months after a fire rated the worst in Massachusetts in a century devastated the mill, Feuerstein dedicated a new $130 million factory and rehired almost all of his workers (Goldberg, 1997). Feuerstein’s actions were covered by both local and national media. He received 12 honorary degrees, and he estimates that he received as many as 10,000 letters of support, many with cash or checks for the workers (Butterfield, 1996). Feuerstein was hailed as a public icon of corporate responsibility; President Clinton sent his congratulations on the mill’s reopening. The
216 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)
fire at Malden Mills has been covered by the media, featured in a Harvard Business Review case study, and studied by public relations professionals. Although the story of Malden Mills is truly extraordinary, what insights into Feuerstein’s actions can posi- tive psychology provide? Our conclusion will explore how positive psychology pro- vides insights into Feuerstein’s actions and the positive reaction of his employees.
Conclusion According to Dutton and Jackson (1987), the ability of decision makers to cognitively process complex organizational issues such as crises is directly affected by whether they frame the crisis as a threat or opportunity. Research conducted by Milliken (1990) demonstrates that framing issues as opportunities allows decision makers to feel more in control and less uncertain than when framing issues as threats. The time- sensitive and pressurized nature of organizational crises makes it difficult for execu- tives to see them as opportunities; however, we strongly believe that organizations can “buffer” bad news messages by cultivating a positive organizational culture prior to an acute organizational crisis. Organizations that focus on appreciating and cultivat- ing positive organizational traits such as hope, resiliency, and optimism prior to a crisis may be more successful in garnering employee support during and after the crisis. Following in the footsteps of Gittel et al. (2006), who argue that managers must maintain and enhance strong employee relationships (relational reserves) during a crisis to ensure commitment and productivity, we argue that CEOs who actively pro- mote a positive organizational culture, focusing on positive organizational traits and strong employee relationships, will build a reservoir of goodwill that can buffer bad news. Aaron Feuerstein’s building of a positive organizational culture at Malden Mills helped the company through financial crisis and resulted in deep and abiding employee loyalty, even in the face of layoffs. In our contemporary business climate, bad news and crisis events are almost de rigueur, and certainly any CEO or senior executive must expect to respond to such an occurrence. Davis (2010) writes that as the current financial crisis continues to affect businesses, “What’s needed now is a much higher level of leader presence: more intense, more transparent and more authentic than ever before” (p. 24). Davis also describes how this leadership presence is made manifest. She explains that “leader communication” in this form demands that leaders “show up, giving the straight story, providing context, talking it through, and keeping at it” (p. 24). This approach aligns strongly with Ulmer and Sellnow’s (2002) call for “optimistic discourse that emphasizes moving beyond the crisis, focusing on strong value positions, responsibility to stakeholders, and growth as a result of the crisis” (p. 362). All these authors have moved beyond the “sandwich” prescription for curing the bad news ailment and toward a more positive and engaged leadership com- munication practice as a core of a positive organizational culture. Perhaps then, as business communication professionals, we should be teaching our students more about POB and creating a positive organizational culture, one where employees and managers are resilient and optimistic, in order to more effectively communicate bad
Communicating Negative Messages 217
news. Just how might we incorporate such thinking into our business communication classes?
As business communication professionals, we believe we should be teaching our students more about POB and the processes involved in creating a positive organiza- tional culture; one where employees and managers are resilient and optimistic, focused on strengths as opposed to weaknesses. Including the precepts of POB in our classes serves not only as a conceptual frame for the effective communication of bad news but also expands the repertoire of broader communication and organizational practices in a more optimistic, resilient, and potentially successful approach. We are not suggest- ing that we abandon teaching the sandwich message of delivering bad news wholesale. However, we recommend that business communication teachers stress that correct construction of this “indirect approach” is not the only consideration of delivering bad news in an organization. Rather, we want our students thinking about the broader con- text of organizational life through which the message is being transmitted and how they might best respond to the specific business culture of their organization. By work- ing prior to an organizational crisis to craft a culture that values positive psychological traits such as hope, optimism, and resiliency, business communication professionals can contribute to the creation of a new kind of psychological buffer. This new model of incorporating lessons from positive psychology may help organizations to guard against panic during times of crisis and to provide a positive framework through which to “read” bad news, potentially making our workplaces more optimistic, resilient, and humane.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
About Polartec. (2012). Polartec. Retrieved from http://www.polartec.com/about/ BP chief to Gulf residents: ‘I’m sorry.’ (2010, May 30). CNN.com. Retrieved from http://arti-
cles.cnn.com/2010-05-30/us/gulf.oil.spill_1_oil-spill-heavy-oil-dudley?_s=PM:US Brockner, J., & James, E. H. (2008). Toward an understanding of when executives see crisis as oppor-
tunity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 94-115. doi:10.1177/0021886307313824 Butterfield, B. (1996, September 8). What flames could not destroy: Faith, loyalty inspire mill
owner to rebuild from ashes and rubble. The Boston Globe, p. A1. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychol-
ogy of what works (pp. 182-204). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Davis, A. (2010, March/April). Leading from the ground up. Communication World, 27(2),
22-26.
218 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)
Donaldson, S. I., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychology, behavior, and scholar- ship: A review of the emerging literature and evidence base. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 177-191.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76-90.
Freedland, J. (1996, March 25). Caring tycoon hailed as US stakeholder hero. The Guardian, p. 9.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103-110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
Gaines-Ross, L. (2003). CEO capital: A guide to building CEO reputation and company suc- cess. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gittel, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organiza- tional resilience: Airline industry responses to September 11. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 300-329. doi:10.1177/0021886306286466
Goldberg, C. (1997, September 16). A promise is kept: Mill reopens. The New York Times, p. A14.
Guffey, M. E., & Loewy, D. (2011). Business communication: Process and product (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning.
Jansen, F., & Janssen, D. (2011). Explanations first: A case for presenting explanations before the decision in Dutch bad-news messages. Journal of Business and Technical Communica- tion, 25, 36-67.
Lehman, C. M., & Dufrene, D. D. (2009). BCOM. Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Limaye, M. R. (2001). Some reflections on explanation in negative messages. Journal of Busi-
ness and Technical Communication, 15, 100-110. Linley, P. A., Harrington, S., & Garcea, N. (2010). Finding the positive in the world of work.
In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 3-9). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Locker, K. O. (1999). Factors in reader responses to negative letters: Experimental evidence for changing what we teach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 5-48.
Luthans, F. (2003). Positive organizational behavior (POB): Implications for leadership and HR development and motivation. In R. M. Steers, L. W. Porter, & G. A. Begley (Eds.), Motiva- tion and leadership at work (pp. 187-195). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Luthans, F., Avey, J., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387-393. doi:10.1002/job.373
Mair, V., Mair, D., & Liqing, Z. (2009, September). Danger plus opportunity does not equal crisis: How a misunderstanding about Chinese characters has led many astray. Pinyin info: A Guide to the Writing of Mandarin Chinese in Romanization. Retrieved from http://www. pinyin.info/chinese/crisis.html
The Many Lives of Malden Mills. (n.d.). Boston.com. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/ business/gallery/maldenmillshistory?pg=5
Mcgrory, M. (2001, December 20). A CEO who lives by what’s right. The Washington Post, p. A3.
Communicating Negative Messages 219
Milliken, F. J. (1990). Perceiving and interpreting environmental change: An examination of college administrators’ interpretation of changing demographics. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 42-63.
Modzelewski, J. (1990). “What would I do?” CEOs consider corporate crises. Public Relations Quarterly, 35, 12-14.
Park, D., & Berger, B. K. (2004). The presentation of CEOs in the press, 1990-2000: Increasing salience, positive valence, and a focus on competency and personal dimensions of image. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 93-125.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive psychologi- cal traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348-368. doi:10.1177/0149206307312512
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 21, pp. 231-275). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Virtuous responses to organizational crisis: Aaron Feuerstein and Milt Cole. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 369-376.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Small, W. (1991). Exxon Valdez: How to spend billions and still get a black eye. Public Rela- tions Review, 17, 9-26.
Steinberg, R. M. (1998). No, it couldn’t happen here. Management Review, 87, 70. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,
& R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94-110). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Synder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., . . . Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 86, 320-333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational cri- sis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143-155.
Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2002). Crisis management and the discourse of renewal: Under- standing the potential for positive outcomes of crisis. Public Relations Review, 28, 361-365.
Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2007). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. In R. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 81-124). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
220 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)
Yang, J. L., & Levenson, E. (2007, May 28). Getting a handle on a scandal. Fortune, 155(10), 20.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800.
Bios
Sandra L. French is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at Radford University. Her research interests include organizational rhetoric, the societal impact of com- munication and technology, and leadership.
Tracey Quigley Holden is an assistant professor and director of the Basic Course in the Department of Communication at the University of Delaware. Her research interests include political and business communication as well as political rhetoric and leadership.
Copyright of Business Communication Quarterly is the property of Association for Business Communication
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.