Decisions, Decisions: Choice Architecture and Communicating Bad News with Employees

Withholding bad news from employees is one of senior leadership’s oldest kneejerk behaviors. A belief that employees just won’t understand the complexities behind the news is at the heart of this ill-advised decision. This belief is rooted in the perception of employees as unsophisticated children. If shared, the bad news would provoke a bad reaction, leaders fear, a concern exacerbated today by the Great Resignation. (Often, the truth is that leaders don’t want to deal with any emotional response from employees.)

Communicators have been making the case for years—with some degree of success—that when treated like adults, employees will behave like adults, and that employees are more sophisticated and able to process bad news than leaders think, especially those leaders who fail to spend time mixing with their workers.

New research?shared by the Harvard Business School has added a wrinkle to the bad news discussion.

Bad News Leads to Decisions

Outside of work, people frequently take pains to avoid unpleasant information. Think about people you know who shrug off climate change, who buy fashions from companies publicly outed for manufacturing with child labor, who consume foods that may well kill them in the long run. The news reports the research and some people tune it all out, freeing them from accountability for their actions.

At least, that has been the assumption: that people avoid information “when it may help them to feel better about making selfish decisions, or decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of others,” according to Christine Exley, a Harvard Business School associate professor.

And that’s true; it is a reason people look the other way when confronted with such news. Research Exley conducted with Judd Kessler, a Wharton School professor, discovered that it’s not the ONLY reason. In their study, participants were exposed to information that could lead them to make a decision that benefited two other participants but not themselves. “There was no motive to avoid information as an excuse to make selfish decisions,” according to a?Working Knowledge?article by Kristen Senz. (https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/dont-bring-me-down-probing-why-people-tune-out-bad-news).

Yet, surprisingly, the researchers again found many participants avoided information. These results made clear that much of the information avoidance they uncovered in this new version of the experiment was not related to excuse-driven motives. Rather, individuals frequently avoided information for other reasons, such as inattention and laziness.

Exley and Keeler also found that when participants were?required?to actively choose whether to avoid information, participants mostly paid attention. The research explored “how?choice architecture?can entice people to pay attention to relevant information and act more conscientiously.” They explored two views of decision-making around bad news:

• Motivated reasoning—Avoidance as a means for excusing alternate behavior (e.g., carbon emissions contribute to climate change but I don’t want to stop driving my pickup truck)
• Rational inattention—The idea that nobody can absorb every bit of bad news

The researchers’ conclusion was less than satisfying. Essentially, they said, “what motivates individuals to acquire and to avoid information remains an important area for future work.”

For internal communicators, though, the study is a resounding call to action: We cannot just deliver bad news and puff our chests because we convinced leaders that employees deserved to know it. We need to?ensure?employees not only pay attention to the news but also present them with a decision, clearly laying out the consequences of making the wrong one. The very reason for sharing the bad news is not because we are internal journalists, covering all the company’s goings-on. We need them to make decisions that benefit the organization and, by extension, themselves and their teams.

Choice Architecture

Getting this right starts with getting up to speed on choice architecture, the design of different ways to present choices to audiences and the impact of that presentation on the decisions people make.

Among the elements of choices are…

• The number of choices presented—Too many and people may feel overwhelmed and tune out. Too few and they may resent the lack of options.
• The manner in which attributes are described—Increasing the ease with which people can evaluate and compare choice attributes is an example of how the presentation of information can affect decisions. Converting metrics into data people care about is one example. For instance, non-linear metrics (such as miles per gallon) can be converted into linear metrics (gallons per 100 miles). You can also add evaluative labels (such as good vs. bad or high vs. low), calculate consequences (like translating calories into added pounds), or change the scale (like listing monthly versus annual costs).
• The presence of a “default”—A default means one selection was identified so people must take active steps to select an alternative. Opt-out versus opt-in is an example of a default option, with people having to take a deliberate step in order to NOT become an organ donor.

According to Wikipedia’s choice architecture entry, specialists in this field have endorsed the deliberate design of choice architecture to influence people to make personally and socially desirable decisions, “like saving for retirement, choosing healthier foods, or registering as an organ donor. These interventions are often justified in that well-designed choice architectures can compensate for irrational decision-making biases.”

Employees, Bad News, and Choices

How does all this apply to the kind of bad news a company might share with employees? There is a wealth of content available about HOW to deliver bad news. (I’ll share a few links at the end of this post.) When it comes to presenting employees with choices they have to make, though, let’s presume you have done your homework and are taking the best approach.

Ultimately, every bit of bad news has at least one decision implicitly attached to it. The company had a particularly bad quarter and layoffs are coming. Do I wait to see if I’ll be affected or do I find a new job now?

Communicators should be more interested in?explicit?choices. We had a bad quarter and layoffs are imminent. Consider your choices: Look for a new job. Stick around and see what happens. Redouble your and your team’s efforts to help get the company back on track. Volunteer for a task force that will explore potential new revenue streams.

Given choices like these—presented using the principles of choice architecture—can have an impact on how much attention employees pay to the news, what decisions they make, and how those decisions affect the organization.

Not all bad news is as dire as bad performance leading to layoffs. Some examples:

• We’re being sued in what is likely to be difficult, controversial, contentious litigation—Many employees may shrug this off since it has nothing to do with them. However, with the company under a lens, what employees may inadvertently say in their social media posts could exacerbate the situation. A lunch ‘n learn is planned to help employees understand what they should and shouldn’t say (and why). Decision: Attend the lunch ‘n learn or skip it?
• The company misbehaved and is getting prominent bad press about it—While they may be embarrassed by the situation (nobody likes a neighbor asking, “Don’t you work for that company that just did that awful thing I saw on the news?”), employees may dismiss it because it happened in another business unit or another region. Decision: Keep on keeping on or embrace the commitment the CEO made in a key national interview?
• The IT department has banned software that has become the popular default among employees—The news that serious security flaws were identified in the software is particularly easy to ignore and employees may opt to continue using the software under the radar (using their personal phones, for example, instead of the company-issued phones IT can control). Offering employees alternatives and explaining the benefits of each choice—especially those that are improvements over the popular tool—should be part of the communication.

It is not enough to share bad news. We must let employees know what we want from them as a result of the news and present the choices, including those we don’t want them to make while understanding and employing nudge theory, so they are encouraged—even influenced—to make the best decision for themselves, their teams, and the organization. Internal communicators need to add choice architecture to the fields of study that will lead to communication that produces measurable positive outcomes.

Resources: Choice Architecture

• Choice Architecture 2.0: How People Interpret and Make Sense of Nudges
• Choice Architecture?(from the Decision Lab)
• Helping people make better choices — Nudge Theory and Choice architecture
• What Choice Architecture Means for Marketing
• Choice Architecture: Your Decisions Aren’t Entirely Yours
• Choice Architecture: People are Influenced by Choices

Resources: How to Deliver Bad News to Employees

• Best Way To Deliver Bad News To Employees: Tips And Guidance For Managers
• How to Deliver Bad News to Your Employees
• 5 Tips for Communicating Bad News Without Causing Panic?Need to Deliver Bad News to Employees? Science Says Do This

Photo 116216559 / Decision ? Vchalup | Dreamstime.com