Being Polite and Keeping MUM: How Bad News is Communicated in Organizational Hierarchies1

There are many ways to communicate bad news. The MUM effect (Tesser & Rosen, 1975), which is keeping mum and not transmitting the bad news at all, is only one of many possible approaches. Using P. Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory, an experimental study was conducted to address not whether bad news is being transmitted, but how bad news is being transmitted. The results show that most communicators tend to use politeness strategies when communicating bad news. Moreover, using politeness strategies to couch the message did not attenuate the informative value of the message. Focused contrasts revealed two strong interactions between gender and communication direction on strategy use. First, power differences more strongly predicted strategy use for men, whereas distance differences more strongly predicted strategy use for women. Second, men used most politeness strategies when the combined effect of power and distance was the highest (as the politeness theory would predict), but the trend was reversed for women. This finding suggests that politeness theory may not be an accurate model for describing female communicators.

[1]  Fredric M. Jablin Formal Structural Characteristics of Organizations and Superior-Subordinate Communication , 1982 .

[2]  A. Cohen,et al.  Upward Communication in Experimentally Created Hierarchies , 1958 .

[3]  Joong-nam Yang,et al.  Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. , 1992 .

[4]  Edgar C. O'Neal,et al.  Reluctance to Transmit Bad News When the Recipient Is Unknown: Experiments in Five Nations. , 1979 .

[5]  Leslie A. Baxter,et al.  An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. , 1984 .

[6]  M. Glauser Upward Information Flow in Organizations: Review and Conceptual Analysis , 1984 .

[7]  C. O'Reilly,et al.  Failures in Upward Communication in Organizations: Three Possible Culprits , 1974 .

[8]  Michael Aiken,et al.  Communication in Administrative Bureaucracies1 , 1977 .

[9]  N. Smith-Hefner Women and politeness: The Javanese example , 1988, Language in Society.

[10]  D. Level,et al.  Accuracy of Information Flows Within the Superior/Subordinate Relationship , 1978 .

[11]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies , 1989, Language in Society.

[12]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Supervisors' performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence☆ , 1986 .

[13]  F. Luthans,et al.  How Managers Really Communicate , 1986 .

[14]  Beverly Davenport Sypher,et al.  Communication-Related Abilities and Upward Mobility: A Longitudinal Investigation. , 1986 .

[15]  C. F. Bond,et al.  The reluctance to transmit bad news: private discomfort or public display? , 1987 .

[16]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Poor performers: Supervisors' and subordinates' responses , 1981 .

[17]  William H. Read,et al.  Upward Communication in Industrial Hierarchies , 1962 .

[18]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Sex differences in nonverbal and verbal communication with bosses, peers, and subordinates. , 1985 .

[19]  R. L. Curtis Cutbacks, Management, and Human Relations: Meanings for Organizational Theory and Research , 1989 .

[20]  John E. Stewart,et al.  Discriminatory buckpassing: Delegating transmission of bad news☆ , 1974 .

[21]  Thomas Holtgraves,et al.  Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. , 1990 .

[22]  John C. Athanassiades The Distortion of Upward Communication in Hierarchical Organizations , 1973 .

[23]  E. Levine,et al.  Delay and distortion: Tacit influences on performance appraisal effectiveness. , 1988 .