March 2009 Archives

Passions run high at school board meetings.  Emotions can get out of hand.  People shout and scream and say unkind things they later regret.  Sometimes it's the elected officials doing the screaming.  

When Cape Henlopen School Board member Nobel Prettyman lost his temper, he sent a letter of apology to the Cape Gazette newspaper.  I'm indebted to blogger Mike Mahaffie for alerting me to this apology. 

Close But No Cigar

I include the letter here becuase it so tantilizingly close to a model apology from an elected leader.  It refers to an incident recently in which Mr. Prettyman lost his cool and spoke his emotions more than his mind. .

Prettyman: "My behavior was totally unacceptable."

I am a Cape Henlopen school board member because I desire for our young scholars to receive the best education possible. I have always voted with the best interests of the young scholars in mind. I am passionate about the issues before the school board.

Recently, my behavior has not lived up to the high standards at which I wish to serve. I speak specifically to the events that took place at the March 3 owners meeting. Not only was my behavior not of a high standard, but by any reasonable evaluation, my behavior was totally unacceptable. I wish I could take my offensive words back.

Unfortunately, I cannot. All I can do is apologize for my behavior and pledge not to repeat it.

When I read the article in the Cape Gazette, I cringe at the way my words must appear to the readers. I cannot blame anyone if, after reading this article, they made judgments about me. However, please do not draw any conclusions about my character based solely on a news report. A news article cannot convey my intent. In my heart of hearts I did not intend for my remarks to be taken in a racial manner. Furthermore, I did not intend for them to pit one part of the Cape community against another. I truly and deeply do apologize if my actions and words have offended anyone. I will take all the steps necessary to ensure this behavior is not repeated.

If my words were hurtful to any board members, I apologize to them for any pain I caused. I would be willing to take any training available to board members to help establish a better working relationship with my fellow board members. Since I am an elected official, I apologize to my fellow board members, district employees, citizens, parents and most especially to the young scholars.

I, Noble Prettyman, Cape board member, deeply regret that my words have distracted the district from the important business of educating our young scholars. In the future, I pledge to have the high standards expected of a Cape board member. As usual, I am available to any member of the community for input and discussion by email to n.prettyman@att.net or at 302-684-2658.

Noble Prettyman
Milton

So What's So Wrong with this Apology?

I don't want to be too harsh.  This apology is so close to perfect, that its two defects make me sigh.  

So take a minute and read the apology again. 

See what I mean?

No?  Here's a hint.

Remember that effective apology requires, one, acceptance of responsibility without hedging, and two, an emphasis on compassion for the victims rather than on redemption for the offender.  

I criticized the full-page "apology" ad that General Motors ran in December 2008 following the fiasco of the three car maker chiefs taking three private jets to appear before Congress to ask for bail-out money.  I suggested that the "apology" was nothing of the sort.  Further, I said that the failure of Rick Wagoner to issue an effective apology with appropriate restitution would lead to his resgination. 

That resignation was announced today. 

I predict he will issue a statement of apology.  I don't have high hopes that it will be effective, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.  In my guest blog I suggested apology language Wagoner could consider.  

I'm not suggesting that even a perfect apology could have saved Wagoner's job.  But it would have made his departure much more an act of integrity instead of an act of desperation. 

Apology means giving up one's struggle with history.

Genuine apology demands that you let go of all defenses, excuses, and rationalizations for your misbehavior. When you apologize you accept that the victim's opinion of you is accurate. 

It's not an easy place to occupy. We all like to think of ourselves as somewhat better than we actually are. 

So even when we apologize we try to cling to the high ground. 

This week's poster boy for how hard it is to apologize without defending yourself is Marcus Einfeld, a former judge in Australia who was imprisoned for perjury in March 2009. 

The facts, briefly, are revealing.  You can find more about the case here and here. 

Marcus Einfeld, 70, retired after 15 years as a Federal Court Judge in 2001.  His career was filled with accomplishments and recognition.  It apparently wasn't enough.

Most people make the decision to self-destruct in quiet moments when they think no one is watching.  So it was for Marcus Einfeld.  On January 8, 2006, his car was captured by a speed camera doing 60km/h in a 50km/h zone along a Sydney street.  It was minor traffic offense.  He could have paid a $77 fine and be done with it. 

His struggle with history began.

Instead of copping to the infraction, Einfeld signed a statutory declaration saying that it wasn't him behind the wheel of the car.  He said he had lent his car to a former colleague, American professor Teresa Brennan.  By the way, he said, Brennan had died after returning to the US.

He almost got away with it.  The magistrate dismissed the offense. 

A newspaper then confronted Einfeld with the fact that Brennan had been dead for three years prior to the offense. 

That's the trouble with lies.  They're like savings bonds.  The longer you keep them, the greater they compound. 

Prosecutors soon re-opened the case.  Einfeld hired a PR firm and kept lying and denying and lying some more, despite mounting evidence that he was a liar. 

As his story unraveled so did other parts of his life.  It turns out that he had fudged his academic credentials and doctored his resume.  Reports showed he had doubled-billed the government for the same items. 

After denying for three years, Einfeld finally pled guilty to perjury.  The judge's sentencing statement is devastating.

Incredibly, Einfeld continues to cling to a sense of himself as "honest."  He admits all manner of lies, but denies that he was dishonest.  "I don't think I'm in the slightest bit dishonest," says.  "I just made a mistake."  His apology seems contrite: 

 I'm desperately sorry for what I did.  I'm sorry to my family, my elderly mother and my children. I'm sorry to the public at large. I told a lie, which was a disgraceful thing to do and for which I have been paying ever since.   

It's [blaming Teresa Brennan] probably more shameful than the driving. Teresa Brennan ... was a wonderful person and for me to use her name is more hurtful than anything else.

His apology may sound persuasive, but as long as he continues to insist that he is basically an honest fellow who simply made a mistake, the apology is as hollow as his integrity. 

His work in prison is to acknowledge that the craven dishonesty he is accused of is not only within his nature but accurately characterizes his conduct.  That's when his healing can begin.  That's when his apologies can begin to reach for compassion for the victims of his lies rather than redemption for himself.    

"Practice doesn't make perfect," my old Duke fencing coach John LeBar used to tell me. "Perfect apology makes perfect"

So I'm gratified to find examples of people practicing effective apology with the intention to get it right. Check out these blogs/articles.

The Power of Apology.  Chris Brogan blogs of communities and social media.  He describes a mistake in hwich he sent an email meant for maybe 200 people to a mailing list of over 17,000.  Then the complaints started coming in.  He wanted to hide but instead apologized and survived to tell about it. 

"The Importance of Learning to Apologize" by Kellie B. Gormly, The Pittsburg Tribune-Review, March 16, 2009. Everything you need to know to frame an effective apology.   

"The Lost Art of Saying I'm Sorry." by Nancy Gibbs, Time, March 18 2009.  A lament for our society lacking the culture of public shame that other cultures have. 

"Madoff's Sorry Excuses." By Joe Queenan.  Los Angeles Times, March 17, 2009.  The columnist and humorist vents his spleen at the inadequecies of Bernie Madoff's apology. 

. 

Sales of the "Smash-Me Bernie" doll are brisk.  The $99 efigy of Bernie Madoff, introduced at the 2009 Toy Fair, is a red-suited, pitchfork wielding figure.  It even comes with a little golden hammer that you can use to smash the doll to smithereens.  Unfortunately, like his apology in court last week, that won't get you your money back.

Madoff admitted guilt for running a devestating Ponzi scheme for many years.  At his court hearing, he admitted his guilt, accepted responsibility, and said he was sorry.  The bulk of his statement concerned itself with an explanation of how the scheme unfolded.  It was a detailed confession. 

Here is how Madoff began his apology. 

Your Honor, for many years up until my arrest on December 11, 2008, I operated a Ponnzi scheme through the investment advisory side of my business, Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC, which was located here in Manhattan, New York at 885 Third Avenue.

I am actually grateful for this first opportunity to publicly speak about my crimes, for which I am so deeply sorry and ashamed. As I engaged in my fraud, I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the Ponzi scheme I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme. However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible, and as the years went by I realized that my arrest and this day would inevitably come.

I am painfully aware that I have deeply hurt many, many people, including the members of my family, my closest friends, business associates and the thousands of clients who gave me their money. I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done. I am here today to accept responsibility for my crimes by pleading guilty and, with this plea allocution, explain the means by which I carried out and concealed my fraud.

Here is the full text of Madoff's confession. 

Reaction to Madoff's apology was widely negative.  Many victims are so angry that they are not ready for any type of apology.  Other observers, such as Shel Horowitz in his Principled Profit blog, correctly noted that the apology lacked the all-important restitution step.

Others criticized the apology as being not being sincere. My own view is that we don't need to dwell on the apologizer's sincereity to evaluate the apology.  No one has a window into another's soul.  What's important is to look at the words, the demeanor, and, most important, the actions.  On that basis, I find Madoff's apology ineffective. 

While he accepted responsibility, expressed remorse, said he was sorry, and provided much detail about what he apoloigized for, Madoff did not address the concerns of his many victims.  His delivery was a monotone.  The apology was too much about redemptipon for himself.  Most of all, his apology did not address restitution.  Yes, he has accepted going to jail for the rest of his life, but an effective apology would have made some commitments about disgorging his own wealth, implicting others who aided him in his offenses, and helping his victims recover as much of their assets as possible.  Bernie Madoff did none of this.    

Evaluation

Recognition:  B

Responsibiity: B

Remorse: B

Restitution:  F

Repetition:  N/A

Overall Grade:  C-

On March 11, 2009, Ontario became the fourth Canadian province to introduce a law that protects those who apologize from havng those apologies used against them in court.  Thirty-six states have also passed some form of apology shield law.

The Canadian law, like those in the U.S., hold that apology is good public policy.  The laws are specifically aimed at doctors and other medical professionals, as well as corporations.  These laws represent a big change in the traditional rules of evidence in civil court. In essence, statements of apology will no longer be admissible for the purposes of assigning liability.

These laws rescue both doctors and companies from a painful bind.  Let's take doctors first. 

The first thing that all doctors learn is "to do no harm."  Unfortunately, that's an impossible standard.  Doctors are all-too human and they will make mistakes.  When their mistake hurts a patient, their first instinct is a human one: to let the patient know how sorry they are.  But as the system has evolved, just when doctors should increase their communiction with patients, hospital policies and malpractice insurance guidelines dictate that the doctor stop all communication.  This step typically enrages patients.  Many patients just want answers and some sympathy.  When the doctor withdraws, patients feel that their only recourse is to sue.

Hospitals and insurers fear that a doctor's apology will be used against them in court.  Hospitals and insurance companies are so afraid of lawsuits that they have painted themselves into a corner that virtually guarantees more of what they fear. 

The evidence is clear: doctors who apologize are sued less, not more, often.  There are many reasons for this, and I'll discuss the reasons in an upcoming blog.  The evidence is so compelling that governments want to encourage apology as a way of reducing demands on courts. 

Ontario has followed British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba by passing Bill 108 Apology Act 2009, to protect those apologizing (namely doctors, nurses and other health care practioners) to the people who have been harmed (or their families) without fear of having their insurance policies declared "null & void" by the insurance company. Normally anyone that says sorry, apologizes or demonstrates an expression of sympathy or regret, is held responsible and liable. Now any form of apology expressed cannot be used against the person in a Court proceeding later on.

Unfortunately, Bill 108 the Apology Act, 2009 has complicated restrictions and exceptions built into the legislation.

Apology shield laws won't make a difference until they are simpler and more comprehensive. 

Imagine that you are a member of a two-person team.  Someone you never met, Andrew, is assigned to your team.   The team's task is to complete a puzzle.  Each correctly placed piece earns the team 25 cents.  Everything is going well until Andrew's cell phone rings.  Amazingly, Andrew takes the call, stops working, and gossips with a friend for several minutes.  After getting off the phone, Andrew not only fails to apologize but fails to pull his weight in solving the puzzle. 

Now let's say the team is awarded $6.00 for its work.  In all fairness, how should the proceeds be divided between you and Andrew?   

Wait, before you answer that, what if Andrew apologized to you when he got off the phone? 

Would that make a difference in how the money was divided? 

And what if Andrew apologized only when you reprimanded him by saying, "I can't believe you took a phone call; you really need to apologize"?  Would that apology give him more or less of the proceeds? 

Would observers--people watching the interaction--agree with you?

This was the subject of an experiment at Cornell University conducted by Jane Risen, a social psychology graduate student, and written up in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The results are surprising. 

After the experiment, the real participants filled out surveys where they indicated what percentage of the money they felt each person should receive. The outside observers awarded Andrew only $1.86 (31%) of the money when he didn't apologize, and they gave him even less--$1.14 (19%)--when he apologized after being reprimanded. That figure jumped up to $2.04 (34%) when Andrew apologized spontaneously.

Dean Grose, mayor of the small southern California town of Los Alamitos, thought it was funny.  It was an email of a watermelon patch superimposed on the lawn of the White House.  In an incredible lapse of judgment, he forwarded the email to members of the community with a heading that read, "No Easter Egg hunt this year." 

It's hard to believe that any politician, even one from a small town, could be so tone-deaf.  Not at a time when everyone is so hypersensitive about race. 

Predictably, the email found its way to the inboxes of people who took major umbrage and demanded an apology. 

Keyanus Price, an African American community volunteer, was appalled.

She responded to the email:  "Hey, that's not nice at all. Not all black people like watermelon... you should know better than that."

His alarm bells should have been going off.  But Grose just dug himself in deeper:    "The way things are today, you gotta laugh every now and then. I wanna see the coloring contests."

Price said Grose's response upset her more.  "As soon as I saw his response; that put me over the top because it was no big deal to him," she said.

Only when dozens, and then hundreds, of angry calls came did Dean Grose understand what a mistake he made. 

Mayor Grose issued a statement:   

I am deeply embarrassed in receiving your email, and for any harm or hurt that it may have caused. It was poor judgement [sic] on my part and was never intended to be offensive to Ms. Price, your company or anyone in the African American Community. I have exchanged emails with Ms. Price in the past.

I can fully understand your concerns and comments. Please be advised that I have left a voice mail for Ms. Price and will also be sending her a separate email with my apology. You can be assured that I will not allow this to happen again. I in no way was representing the City of Los Alamitos, or my role as a council member in sending this out and it went via my private business email. That doesn't justify the fact that it was sent, however, we gratefully appreciate the contributions that your company makes to our community and I wish to publically apologize to anyone within the firm or organization that may have been offended.

I am truly sorry.

Dean Grose

Now then.  What are we to make of this apology? 

First, it is inadequate on three levels.  First, the apology fails to specify just what Grose is apologizing for.  Second, the apology dwells too much on intention and not enough on consequences.  Third, the apology is way too conditional.  Every time Grose talks about the harm or hurt that his actions "may have caused" or anyone that "may have been offended," he distances himself from taking personal responsibility.  The issue is not whether hurt may have been caused or anyone may have been offended.  The issue is that Grose's decision to forward a racist email was manifestly offensive. 

I personally think in this case an apology via voice mail and email is cowardly.  Although in Effective Apology I suggest that if someone offends by email, he or she can use email to apologize, in this case I think a visit, personal phone call (not a voice mail), or a traditional letter is the way to go. 

The apology fails to offer restitution.  This failure led to the demands for Grose to resign not just his role as mayor but also his role as City Council member.    

On the plus side, the mayor did address the repetition dimension of apology by promising not to repeat the behavior. 

A week after the incident, Dean Grose resigned sent a one-line letter of resignation from all his offices.  He didn't show his face at the city council meeting that accepted his resignation.