| Course | WMBA 6695 Communication for Leaders and Managers |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Bad news letter |
| Length | About 640 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Letter, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6695 Week 4
September 12, 2027
Director of Operations
Marigold Restaurant Group
Columbus, Ohio
Dear Director of Operations:
Ridgeline Uniform Services has decided not to waive the annual price adjustment on your account. The 4.5 percent adjustment will apply to Marigold's invoices from October 1, as section 6.2 of our service agreement provides.
Two things decided this. First, section 6.2 ties the adjustment to the regional laundry cost index, which rose 5.1 percent over the twelve months to July; we are applying less than the index allows. Second, our pricing policy applies the same adjustment to every customer on a standard agreement. We have about 640 restaurant accounts in central Ohio, and a waiver for one would have to be offered to all.
I know the timing is difficult, with your two newest locations still building their business, and I am sorry the answer is not the one you hoped for.
Three options remain open, and any of them can take effect on October 1 if you choose it by September 26:
1. Service frequency. Your nine kitchens currently receive bar towels and aprons weekly at a par level set in 2024. Our route supervisor's count in August found that six kitchens return 20 to 30 percent of their aprons unused each week. Lowering par levels at those six would reduce your monthly invoice by about 8 percent, more than offsetting the adjustment.
2. Early renewal. Your agreement renews in March 2028. If you renew by December 1, we will fix your prices for twenty-four months at the October rate.
3. Garment program review. The chef coats at your two newest locations are on a premium embroidered program. Moving them to the standard program with a sewn-on logo would reduce those two locations' invoices by about $210 a month each.
Your route supervisor, who did the August count, can walk any of your kitchens with your managers next week. You can also reach me directly at 614-555-0148 to talk through the options.
Sincerely,
Service Operations Manager
Ridgeline Uniform Services
Reasons Behind the Letter's Structure (course note, not sent)
The decision appears in the first two sentences, without "unfortunately" or "at this time," and names Ridgeline as the party that decided. A conditional opening would have invited a second request asking whether the answer was final.
The reasons are limited to the two that actually decided the outcome, a contract clause and a policy, both of which the customer can check. Shaw et al. (2003) found in a meta-analysis that explanations had strong effects on how fair people judged a decision and on how they responded to it, and that the benefit was greatest after unfavorable outcomes. Greenberg (1990) found that when a temporary pay cut at manufacturing plants was explained thoroughly and with sensitivity, workers felt less underpaid and theft rose far less than where the explanation was thin. The principle carries over to a customer: a refusal with a clear basis is easier to accept than a refusal that seems arbitrary.
The letter apologizes once, for the effect on the customer, and does not apologize for the decision. Repeated regret would suggest the outcome is negotiable. The options section does the work of goodwill instead, since each option offers the customer a real way to lower costs. The count of unused aprons came from our own route supervisor, which also tells the customer that someone has looked closely at their account. Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998) found that people who kept their jobs through a layoff judged the process as fairer when their own manager had told them it was coming. For the same reason, this letter comes from the manager responsible for the account and offers a visit by the route supervisor the customer already knows.
References
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561
Mansour-Cole, D. M., & Scott, S. G. (1998). Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence of source, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors' fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 25-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00715.x
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 444-458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.444
WMBA 6695 Week 4 instructions, in plain terms
Week 4 asks students to deliver an unwelcome decision in writing. The decision belongs in the first two sentences, stated plainly and in the active voice, with the decision maker named, so the reader cannot mistake it for an opening position. Reasons come next and should be the real ones, two or three at most, expressed as criteria or policies the reader can check. The message then turns to what remains open: an alternative, a smaller version, a date to raise the request again or a person to talk to. One apology, if any, should address the effect on the reader rather than the decision. A brief course note, kept separate from the letter itself, usually defends the main choices with the readings. Letters or emails of one to two pages are typical.
How this WMBA 6695 Week 4 example is built
The letter is dated September 12 and addressed to a restaurant group's director of operations. Its first sentence refuses the waiver and its second gives the effective date and contract section. A paragraph lists two reasons: the cost index rose 5.1 percent, more than the adjustment, and the policy applies one rate to every standard account. A single sentence of regret mentions the group's two new locations. Three numbered options follow, each with a figure: about 8 percent lower invoices from par level changes, a price lock for renewal by December 1 and about $210 a month saved per location on chef coats. The close offers a kitchen walk with the route supervisor and a direct phone number. The drafting note cites Shaw and colleagues, Greenberg and Mansour-Cole and Scott.
Reading the WMBA 6695 Week 4 rubric
A grader reads the first two sentences before anything else. If the decision is hedged, conditional or buried after context, the letter loses the marks this week is built around. Reasons are judged by quality, not quantity; two that actually drove the outcome outscore five that read like a meeting summary. The section on what remains open is what distinguishes a decision from a dismissal, and letters without it rarely reach the top band. Tone is assessed through precision rather than softening, so repeated apologies count against the writer by implying the answer might change. Options that offer the reader real value, with figures, show audience awareness. In the drafting note, readings should explain choices about order, explanation and who sends the message.
WMBA 6695 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Draft the decision sentence first and shorten it until nothing in it sounds provisional. Then list every reason you could give and keep only the ones that truly decided the outcome. Spend the most time on what remains open, because a refusal with no alternative feels like a dismissal. Use one apology at most, aimed at the effect on the reader. Weak drafts open with appreciation for the relationship, explain the company's challenges before the answer or close on a vague invitation to get in touch with no name or number. Others give reasons the reader cannot check. Read the letter as the recipient on a bad day. For a model bad news letter about a decision you must deliver, describe the request, the decision and what you can still offer.
Get a WMBA 6695 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Requests carrying the Week 4 prompt, the rubric and the scenario details get a drafted message plus any required rationale inside 24 to 48 hours, and the first request costs nothing. Naming the relationship between sender and recipient matters here, since a refusal to a client and one to a direct report are different documents.
More WMBA 6695 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6695 Week 1: Misfired Message Discussion Post
- WMBA 6695 Week 2: Single-Reader Audience Analysis
- WMBA 6695 Week 3: Routine Change Informative Memo
- WMBA 6695 Week 5: Rewritten Opening Peer Replies
- WMBA 6695 Week 6: Persuasive Proposal for Approval
- WMBA 6695 Week 7: Talking Points for a Leader
- WMBA 6695 Week 8: Ninety-Day Review Slide Deck
- WMBA 6695 Week 9: Crisis Statement and Matrix
- WMBA 6695 Week 10: Failed Notice Case Analysis
- WMBA 6695 Week 11: Change Communication Plan
- WMBA 6633 Week 4: Coaching Agreement and Rationale
- WMBA 6627 Week 4: Stakeholder Grid Peer Replies
- WMBA 6623 Week 4: Qualitative Risk Scoring Matrix
- WMBA 6620 Week 4: Work Breakdown Structure
WMBA 6695 Week 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6695 Week 4 sample paper?
The refusal letter to the restaurant group, with all three options and the drafting note, is printed in full below and free to use as a model.
What does the Week 4 letter refuse?
A restaurant group's request to waive the 4.5 percent annual price adjustment in its uniform and linen service agreement.
What reasons does the letter give?
The contract ties the adjustment to a regional cost index that rose 5.1 percent, and company policy applies the same adjustment to every standard account.
What options remain open for the customer?
Lower par levels at six kitchens, a twenty-four-month price lock for early renewal and moving two locations' chef coats to a standard program.
How many times does the WMBA 6695 Week 4 letter apologize?
Once, for the effect of the timing on the customer's newest locations, not for the decision itself.