Business Communication Chapter 9 Homework The consensus is that the kindest way to fire someone is when the direct supervisor delivers the bad news. However, increasingly employees are getting fired by text or e-mail

a. Consider these pointers on how to deliver bad news in person tactfully,

professionally, and safely:

i. Gather all the information. Cool down and collect the facts before

confronting someone. Remember that every story has two sides.

ii. Prepare and rehearse. Outline what you plan to say so that you are

confident, coherent, and dispassionate.

b. When refusing workplace requests (Model Document 9.8):

i. Start with a buffer that delivers honest praise.

ii. Provide reasons for the refusal that focus on positive elements.

c. When announcing bad news to employees and the public

(Model Document 9.9):

i. Smart organizations communicate bad news openly to employees

and stockholders.

d. When saying “no” to job applicants, follow these guidelines

(Model Document 9.10):

i. Show appreciation for the receiver.

ii. Reduce the receiver’s disappointment by using the indirect

approach.

e. Small Group Activity: 45 minutes total. Announcing Bad News

Break class into groups of three to five students. Have students complete the

activity outlined on the PPT slide. Students should collectively decide on their

small groups’ answers to the question and then share their findings with the

larger group.

[return to top]

Discussion Questions

You can assign these questions several ways: in a discussion forum in your LMS; as whole-

class discussions in person; or as a partner or group activity in class.

1. Discussion: Selective Truth (Critical Thinking #1, 9-3, PPT Slide 19)

Duration 15 minutes.

a. Mike Michalowicz, author of Profit First and CEO of Provendus Group, quotes

a famous American poet to illustrate how he refuses unpleasant potential

don’t have resources to support your specific needs,” he says.

b. Discuss this strategy, its advantages, and disadvantages.

i. Answer: Emily Dickinson seems to be suggesting that we tell the truth

2. Discussion: The Fallout of Careless Public Remarks (Critical Thinking #2, 9-1, PPT Slide

9) Duration 20 minutes.

a. At a sustainability conference, Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh caused a viral

sensation by revealing he had never laundered his two-year-old Levi’s in a

laundry stance will be mentioned in my obituary.”

b. Can you think of other, more negative examples of executives’ offhand public

comments?

i. Answer: Although Levi Strauss President and CEO Chip Bergh didn’t

seriously damage the reputation of his company, he lost control over

his carefully managed message of sustainability. Bergh’s well–

3. Discussion: The Ethics of an Indirect Strategy (Critical Thinking #3, 9-2, PPT Slide 15)

Duration 15 minutes.

a. Consider times when you have been aware that others were using the

indirect strategy in writing or speaking to you.

b. How did you react?

i. Answer: Students may indicate that they appreciated the indirect

4. Discussion: Firing by Text or E-mail (Critical Thinking #4, 9-5, PPT Slide 41)

Duration 15 minutes.

a. Experts agree that, if possible, workers should be fired in person—not by

phone, e-mail, or text message. The consensus is that the kindest way to fire

someone is when the direct supervisor delivers the bad news. However,

increasingly employees are getting fired by text or e-mail.

b. Make a case for and against firing workers by text or e-mail.

i. Answer: A case for letting someone go via a text message or an e-mail

is that a remote worker may not be able to come into the office to be

5. Discussion: The Ethics of Using Company Stationary (Critical Thinking #5)

Duration 10 minutes.

a. You work for a large corporation with headquarters in a small town. Recently,

you received shoddy repair work and a huge bill from a local garage. Your

b. Should you use corporation stationery?

i. Answer: Although the letter might seem more impressive on

[return to top]

Additional Activities and Assignments

1. Case Study: Zooming In—The Bad News Keeps Coming: Volkswagen and

Dieselgate: In this case study, students will read a description of the scandal known

as Dieselgate that plagued Volkswagen Group. They are then asked to answer a

series of critical-thinking questions.

a. What should an individual or organization such as VW do when caught in an

ethical impropriety or scandal?

i. Experts maintain that organizations that have seriously faltered

b. How do you feel about large payouts to departing managers like CEO Martin

Winterkorn who are forced to step down in the aftermath of a scandal?

i. Students almost invariably fall into two groups—one that defends

high compensation of managers to reflect their enormous

c. Can we conclude from this scandal that the public’s memory is short, or can

we assume that reputational damage may linger?

i. A high stock price and devoted diesel fans buying refurbished cars at

2. Case Study: Zooming In—Your Turn: Applying Your Skills at Volkswagen Group:

In this case study, students will read a summary of how Volkswagen Group

executives have historically approached bad news and how executives handled

a. After reading this chapter, evaluate Volkswagen’s handling of Dieselgate.

Focus on communication, crisis management, and apologies. Consider

questions such as these: What are the biggest problems at VW as evidenced

by the scenario? How might corporate culture have played into the scandal?

What may have led to cheating? What other options did the company have to

tackle and overcome Dieselgate? Discuss these and other questions in class,

in small groups, or on a discussion board. If your instructor directs,

summarize your analysis in writing, either in an e-mail or a memo.

iii. Students should examine the wording of the executives’ apologies.

They may notice euphemisms as the managers carefully avoid naming

the fraud (problem, irregularities, situation) and deflect responsibility:

Martin Winterkorn said he accepted responsibility only to say he was

not aware of any wrongdoing on his part. While apologizing almost

too profusely in two head-scratching NPR interviews in 2016, Matthias

Müller blamed “a misunderstanding” of U.S. law for Volkswagen’s

moral lapse and his own language interference for first asserting that

VW had not lied to regulators. Oliver Schmidt, who seemed sincere in

apologizing, in the end put the blame on his loyalty to the company

and said VW had taken advantage of him. Incidentally, even as he was

going to prison, Schmidt did not give away any names of executives

who ostensibly had given him talking points and had pressured him to

greenlight the fraud.

September 18). You thought Dieselgate was over? It’s not. The Verge.]

v. As a purportedly clean(er) fuel, diesel has been completely

discredited. Germany, a country that subsidized diesel car production

and kept the price of diesel fuel low, is now gradually banning diesel

vehicles from city centers and some roadways because they emit too

much nitrogen oxide. NOx contributes to smog, acid rain, water

quality deterioration, childhood asthma, respiratory ailments, and

premature death, according to the EPA. Without technical fraud,

tailpipe emissions of VW diesel cars were 40 times higher than the

pollution limits in the United States. The scandal has pushed VW into

developing electric cars, a technology the company had neglected.

viii. The culture at Volkswagen is characterized by arrogance, insiders say.

One of Germany’s premier newspapers (FAZ) blamed the massive

moral failure on a siege mentality at VW. Ferdinand Piëch, a majority

shareholder of both VW and Porsche AG, and his hand-picked

successors exerted such pressure to perform that several VW

executives apparently saw no other option than fraud. Also, the

internal pressure at Volkswagen was laser-focused on becoming the

world’s largest automaker by volume, apparently at all cost. In

addition, Volkswagen is an iconic German company, which has a

reputation for technological and engineering prowess to uphold.

Admitting failure in creating “clean diesel” was not an option. Former

x. A scholar in the Darden School of Business at University of Virginia,

Luann Lynch, identified the three factors that may have led to an

ethical breakdown at Volkswagen Group: Pressure, opportunity, and

rationalization. The “dangerous triad” or “fraud triangle” helps explain

the scandal, she says. The pressure from the top was immense.

xi. Dale Bell, cofounder of The Media and Policy Center in Burbank,

California, produced a documentary about the Volkswagen emission

scandal, BACKFIRED: When VW Lied to America. Bell confessed his

fascination with this colossal ethical failure and decided to explore the

questions at the core of Dieselgate: “How could a corporate entity

turn so abruptly on its customers, eviscerate its own corporate values,

3. Chat About It: At the end of each chapter, you will find additional open-ended

questions related to the chapter material. You may assign these topics for

discussion in class, in an online chat room, or on an online discussion board. You

may also ask students to read and respond to postings made by their classmates.

(Chat About It Topics #2 and 5 can be found in the chapter outline above as PPT

activities.)

a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

23

Topic 3: Which strategies have you used to soften the blow of significant bad

news with your family and friends? If you haven’t, imagine situations in which

such strategic thinking might be wise.

Topic 4: Analyze the corporate jargon for getting laid off: realigning the workforce,

reallocating resources, focusing on involuntary attrition, rightsizing the company,

eliminating redundancy, rewiring for growth, smartsizing the company, redeploying

workers, rebalancing human capital, and decruiting. How do these terms compare

to fired, booted out, given the boot, or get the ax?

[return to top]

Additional Resources

Cengage Video Resources

• MindTap Videos:

o Learn It: Chapter 09 Negative Messages

▪ Learn It: Video Lesson 9-1

▪ Learn It: Video Lesson 9-2

o Model Document Video: Refusing an Internal Request (Chapter 09 Negative

Messages)

[return to top]

Appendix

Generic Rubrics

Providing students with rubrics helps them understand expectations and components of

assignments. Rubrics help students become more aware of their learning process and

progress, and they improve students’ work through timely and detailed feedback.

Standard Writing Rubric

Criteria

Meets Requirements

Needs Improvement

Incomplete

Content

The assignment clearly

and comprehensively

addresses all questions

in the assignment.

conclusions are logically

related and consistent.

arguments, and

conclusions are mostly

logically related and

consistent.

7 points

logically related and

consistent.

0 points

The assignment partially

addresses some or all

questions in the

assignment.

The assignment does not

address the questions in

the assignment.

0 points

Research

The assignment is based

upon appropriate and

adequate academic

literature, including peer

reviewed journals and

other scholarly work.

5 points

The assignment is based

upon adequate

academic literature but

does not include peer

reviewed journals and

other scholarly work.

3 points

The assignment is not

based upon appropriate

and adequate academic

literature and does not

include peer reviewed

journals and other

scholarly work.

0 points

The assignment follows

the required citation

guidelines.

5 points

The assignment follows

some of the required

citation guidelines.

3 points

The assignment does not

follow the required

citation guidelines.

0 points

Negative Messages

5 points

3 points

0 points

Standard Discussion Rubric

Criteria

Meets Requirements

Needs Improvement

Incomplete

Participation

Participates in or

submits discussion by

the posted deadlines.

Follows instructions for

initial post and

responses.

5 points

3 points

Does not participate in

or submit discussion by

the posted deadlines.

Does not follow

instructions for initial

post and responses.

Does not participate in

discussion.

0 points