"But how do I know if the apology is really sincere?"
Someone asks this question everytime I give a talk about my book.
One of the biggest fears that people seem to have is that they will accept the apology of someone only to be victimized again. The risk of this humiliation is unbearable for some. The phrase that seems to apply is "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
I understand the fear. No one wants to take the risk of being shamed, of being revictimized.
So people ask me how can they be sure that an apology--meaning the apologizer--is sincere?
What I say is they can't. Besides, the apologizer's sincerity is really beside the point.
Blank Stares
Isn't the entire point the quality of sincerity? If the apologizer is merely pretending to apologize, doesn't that make the apology worthless?
Here's what I say.
Let's say you go to a restaurant. Someone stops by and announces that he's your waiter.
Do you take his word for it?
The best way to resolve the question is to consider whether the meal gets effectively served. If it is and he serves it and you get to eat, it's a pretty good bet that what you have there is a waiter. Does it really matter if the waiter in his heart of hearts isn't really sincere about the work?
As for the server, can he pretend to be a waiter? If he serves the meal effectively, he's a waiter. His sincerity is quite irrelevant.
So it is with apology.
If the apologizer serves up an effective apology, that's good enough. His or her sincerity is quite besides the point.
The Heart of the Matter
Look, we can't know what's in another's heart. So why obsess about something we can't really measure? Instead, let's look at the meal that's served up at our table. Let's look at what we can observe.
We can observe the apologizer's tone of voice, posture, and choice of words that express remorse and shame. We can observe his or her understanding of just what it is they are apologizing for. We can observe them accepting responsibility. We can observe the quality of the restitution they offer. We can observe the promise they make not to repeat the offending behavior.
Most of all--and this is the last course of a five-course meal--we can observe if the offender has changed. Does the apologizer keep his or her promise? In the same situation, does he or she act with integrity?
Every apology contains within it the answer to the question, How is the apologizer to be held accountable?
An effective apology requires action. It demands change.
The willingness of an offender to take these steps is the truest test of sincerity. An apology informed is good; an apology performed is better.
I'm not naive. I know that many people posture apologies they don't mean for all kinds of reasons. Shouldn't we be wary of these postured apologies, lest we reward opportunistic apologizers? No. I believe that accepting such apologies may be the optimum course we can take. When we respond to a postured apology with acceptance, a curious thing sometimes occurs.
Offenders frequently dive into apology thinking they can control the process, but the apology process often takes over and controls them. The insincere apologizer is overtaken by the process itself and converted on the way there. The very act of apologizing, sincerely or not, is transformational.
In any case, if someone wrongs me and then, sincerely or opportunistically, expresses remorse, specifies the offending conduct, accepts responsibility, offers appropriate restitution, commits to not doing it again, and over the course of time demonstrates that commitment, then that apology is good enough for me. You can't pretend to effectively apologize.
Leave a comment