441823

unicating Negative Messages Business Communication Quarterly

BCQ75210.1177/1080569912441823Comm

Communicating Negative Messages

Business Communication Quarterly

Positive Organizational 75(2) 208­–220

© 2012 by the Association for
Business Communication
Behavior: A Buffer for Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Bad News DOI: 10.1177/1080569912441823
http://bcq.sagepub.com

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

1
Radford University, USA
2
University of Delaware, USA

Corresponding Author:
Sandra L. French, Radford University, PO Box 6932, Radford, VA 24142, USA
Email: sfrench5@radford.edu
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.