Think of a time when you had to write a negative letter, or when you received one – but not a letter having legal implications, such as terminating employment or threatening disciplinary action. Such a letter should not be discussed in this open forum.
What made the letter effective? What lessened its effectiveness? To what extent did it achieve the goal of conveying unpleasant news, while maintaining the recipient’s goodwill? Be sure to mention, and prioritize, all of the factors relevant to your analysis.
As before, you should support your analysis using the module sources, identifying each source with an in-text citation. There’s no need to place the full reference at the bottom of your posting if the reference appears in the module; otherwise, it’s required.
Your analysis should be complete, concise, and logical. You should use proper English; avoid slang, jargon, and Webspeak.
Please comment on your classmates’ postings using the criteria above. Your comments should be concise, logical, positive, and relevant to the discussion.
Discussion 3 Expectations
Respond to the topic in an informed, rigorous and professional manner. Your response should demonstrate an application of the concepts related to negative communication as well as a reflection of your personal experience.
Discussion General Expectations
In each discussion forum, students are expected to respond to the topic by providing an informed, rigorous, and professional post. These should be around 100-150 words. In addition, students are required to respond at least 3 times to your classmates’ posts in a similarly informed, rigorous and professional manner.
I recently received a letter from the finance department of my college regarding their inability to proceed with disbursing my grant. This was due to a drop in my GPA to a level that makes me ineligible for the grant.
The letter was effective, as it commenced on a positive note that recognized my efforts in education excellence (“Pearson Learning Solutions,” 2017). It appreciated that I was a good student and proceeded to precisely inform me the reasons for the finance department to cease the disbursement of the grant (Brantley & Miller, 2005). Moreover, the letter proceeded to inform me that it is the college’s policy to discontinue such funding given certain conditions, which meant that their decision was free from bias.
However, the letter’s message was less effective, as it did not suggest any alternative funding options that were available. Moreover, it did not require me to seek any form of advice or consultation from any other office for further guidance. Furthermore, it claimed other reasons for terminating the funding before informing me about the drop in my GPA at the end. Some of the reasons included the lack of donor funds and increase in operational costs. To me such information was irrelevant and the letter would have been direct in conveying the GPA issue.
The letter achieved its goal through the conveyance of an explanation of the causes of terminating my grant, before the actual disclosure of the negative message (“Pearson Learning Solutions,” 2017). However, failure to refer me to other reliable sources of funding made realize the impact of missing the funding to my education. Nevertheless, the letter appreciated my interest in being cooperative and understanding regarding the concern.
Brantley, C., & Miller, M. (2005). Effective communication for colleges (1st ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Pearson Learning Solutions. (2017). Pearsoncustom.com. Retrieved 17 May 2017, from http://www.pearsoncustom.com/mct-comprehensive/asset.php?isbn=1269879944&id=12029