Article Collection

“I’m sorry you were offended”…”I’m sorry you feel that way.” What’s wrong with these two apologies? They are not real apologies at all, just a slippery way of dodging responsibility for the problem they caused. Instead, the ‘apologies’ should have been along the lines of “I’m sorry my behavior offended you” and “I’m sorry I made you feel that way.” These apologies show you are taking responsibility for the matter. It’s a big difference. The takeaway is that you should be prepared to take responsibility in public apologies when you are clearly in the wrong.

Taking responsibility in an apology should be the approach at an organizational level. Organizations of all sizes have been obliged to go through the ignominious and fraught process of issuing a public apology. Some do it well, some have mixed success and some are terrible.

For instance, Facebook has been exposed in the New York Times (17 September 2021) and the Wall Street Journal in the same week [subscription needed for both] for its “tired old, so-so-sorry, we’ll-do-better excuses that its executives trot out when the company is called out for its destructive products.” These apologies are clearly not genuine, because the company continues not to take any meaningful action on a range of ethical issues.

Another example: in 2018 and 2019  the CEO of Boeing was forced to apologize for two 737 Max jet aircraft crashes that killed 346 passengers and crew. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg’s initial response was mediocre, and he had to apologize again later before being fired in December 2019.

A failure to understand how apologies work can be costly. In the case of Boeing, the company is facing many lawsuits from family members of passengers who died in the crash, and shareholders as well. Shareholders have reacted to Boeing’s actions by reducing the value of the company’s stock, which lost $13 billion on the first trading day after the Ethiopian Airlines crash. Not all of these issues are directly related to Muilenburg’s statement, of course. But it is likely a better apology would have put the company on the path to rebuilding trust.

They realize that victims are more infuriated by a lack of communication, indifference and lack of sympathy than by a statement of facts, a quick acknowledgment of regret and a statement of intention to prevent the problem from occurring again.

The same thing applies to medical apologies. My article on medical apologies discusses this further.Medical professionals should be prepared to take responsibility in public apologies when they are clearly at fault.

Deciding the need for an apology

In many issue and crisis situations, it is difficult to decide if a corporate apology is needed. Social media especially cause such difficulties because users tend to sensationalize situations and it can be better to refrain from an apology on a marginal issue because the issue may well fade away quickly of its own accord from public consciousness. Therefore, it is vital at the start to determine the facts of the matter. There is no easy answer for reaching these decisions.

When you have determined the facts of the matter, and you believe an apology is required, your overriding strategic need is to decide how best to restore trust. Writing in the Harvard Business Review in 2019, Sucher & Gupta say the next step is to decide whether the issue is a matter of competence or one of integrity. If you believe your trust problem is integrity-based, and you believe you are wrongly accused of a failure of integrity, you should issue a denial. If you believe your trust problem is competence-based, an apology is needed.

Case study

I was appointed crisis consultant to the Department of Justice in my State in response to a prison riot involving 100-140 prisoners who damaged property and caused 21 prison staff and 2 prisoners to receive hospital treatment. Following the operational review of the crisis, I analyzed the case and wrote a series of recommendations from a communication and stakeholder perspective. The Department followed my recommendations, and when the State government tabled its report in Parliament, the media coverage lasted less than two days. I had recommended in broad terms:

1. Apology and regret for the riot occurring – the department accepting responsibility for the riot.
2. Assurance to the government and the public that detailed operational changes had been implemented to prevent such a crisis recurring.
3. Initiating a stakeholder relations strategy, which had not been in place previously. The main step was to develop a stakeholder relations strategy with all the external groups who had an involvement with the prison in some form. The strategy involved meetings with stakeholders such as representative groups of prisoner supporters and heads of churches in the State to listen to their questions and issues, as well as stakeholder visits to the prison to see the facility for themselves, to meet prisoners on-site to hear their grievances, and to meet with prison staff. Agreement was reached to jointly initiate a commitment to stronger and more active stakeholder relationships.