“Nobody likes the man who brings bad news”, wrote Sophocles in its Antigone. When the company faces a crisis or strong discontinuity, even the most skilled spokesperson might have a hard time. Neuroscience allows us to recognise and mitigate people reactions.
It isn’t comfortable to speak up when results are negative, a project is rejected, a factory needs to be closed or delocalised, employees are made redundant. And worse, when it deals with accidents or fatal occurrences crushing people and their families. Leaders are asked to take on this kind of communication, being aware there isn’t an instruction manual to be followed, and it isn’t always possible to soften the news and make it acceptable.
Neuroscience provides us with some tools to better understand how a bad news is perceived, specifically how given stimulus is collected and elaborated by human brain. Normally, frontal lobes of the encephalon are responsible for thought, creativity and action. But, when our senses detect something dangerous, the amygdala takes the stage and actives all mechanism that are needed in emergency.
The neurobiologist Joseph LeDoux studied how the amygdala works to trigger the instinct for survival. In summary, we might consider that this gland takes control of frontal lobes anytime a potential threat is identified, thus bringing emotion over rationality. The amygdala springs forward even when the danger is not completely clear, and a few, generic information are available. Three fear-based reactions are possible: attacking, escaping or freezing, that in serious cases might degenerate in shock.
When the amygdala imposes its rules, the person cannot think logically, and cannot listen. Behaviour is influenced by the group, so it isn’t rare that a mild-mannered person joins a verbal or physical attack, if the assembly ends in a fight.
Lots of sensitivity and empathy is needed to manage such situations, which should always be accurately prepared to define both key messages to deliver, and the most appropriate way to communicate. Whenever possible, the experience suggests to avoid cold tools as e-mail, phone or videoconference, and favour individual conversations (if impact is limited to one or a few people) or group meetings. Even if more complex and tiring for the spokesperson, face-to-face interactions allow a better evaluation of the impact, and a preliminary definition of next steps – it’s hard to figure that a bad news can be finished in a single communication.
If possible, the NLP technique known as mirroring might be used, thus trying to reflect the counterpart’s statements and gestures to reassure and convey emotional proximity. Open questions might also contribute to switch the conversation towards rationality, stimulating those frontal lobes that the amygdala overwhelmed.
Don’t underestimate the emotional stress of the spokesperson: which reactions does he/she have, when bringing the bad news? We might want to mitigate this by building a sort of security cordon, thus having one or two colleagues as partners to share the burden and take action in case of need.
