John Kador- Effective Apology

Memorable Apology Scenes in the Movies: It's Complicated (2009)

2010-08-28T04:49:05Z

In "It's Complicated," a 2009 romantic comedy film written and directed by Nancy Meyers, Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alex Baldwin), divorced from the other for ten years, start an affair with each other, creating havoc with their families.

Jake, now married to a younger woman, is a selfish in his pursuit of his ex-wife, initially showing little interest in Jane's growth as a person, and sabotaging her love interest. He is fundamentally dishonest. Eventually his marriage to his second wife collapses even as he loses the possibility of reconnecting with his first. Jake is lost.

Toward the end of the movie, Jake is seen to be starting on a path to redemption and humility. A step on this journey is an apology. Jake and Jane are sitting on a porch swing when he apologies for his behavior.

JAKE: I'm sorry.

JANE: How far back does that sorry go?

JAKE: How far back do you need it to go?

JANE: Way back.

JAKE: Consider it an all-inclusive apology. From not being the husband you needed me to be, to showing up nude in your bed last night.

Analysis

The apology hits the right note for Jake's character. It starts general, but he is willing to be specific about behaviors that he regrets. The apology displays a deepening sense of humility and self-awareness of the damage his regrettable behavior caused.

Yes, There's More Apology These Days

2010-08-09T05:25:26Z

On July 18, The Diane Rehm Show on NPR invited me to be on the show discussing apology. I had a prior engagement so I had to decline. (I had agreed to a TV interview on NY1 on behalf of my book 301 Best Questions to Ask On Your Interview. You can see that tape here.) Diane's guests were Dr. Aaron Lazare (author of On Apology), Lauren Bloom (author of The Art of Apology), and Randy Cohen (writer of The Ethicist column for the New York Times).

A good discussion ensued, almost all of which I agreed with. Except for the very first question. Diane played a number of clips of celebrities apologizing (Tiger Woods, Mel Gibson, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, etc.) and asked the panelists if there was really more apology in the world. All three of the panelists said not really, that the pace of apology hasn't changed much in the last 20 years.

That surprised me. It's not my experience and I don't think it's the case.

Had I been on the show, this is what I would have said:

Diane, all the research I've seen suggests that, yes, there absolutely is more apology going on, especially with leaders and celebrities. And the main reason for this is technology, specifically video, voice mail, cell phone cameras, and the Internet which allows digital files to be distributed instantly around the world.

Every one of the apology examples you played were compelled by audio or video. Had these incidents happened even 20 years ago, the situations would have been far easier to deny or minimize. In fact, that's usually what happened when a powerful person was accused of wrongdoing. It became a "he-said-she-said" situation or the offender would claim he or she was taken out of context.

That's not an escape that Tiger Woods or Mel Gibson could take. The evidence of their wrongdoing was simply inescapable. Tiger Woods couldn't deny all those text messages. Mel Gibson couldn't claim his words were taken out of context as the context couldn't have been plainer.

Today, leaders and celebrities are on notice that their every move, every phone call, every text message may be memorialized. When someone offends, technology captures the offense as never before and allows it to be stored, searched, and replayed. Against this evidence, it is impossible to stonewall. The result is a huge increase in apology.

By the way, there is one other reason for the increase of apology in the last 20 years. That will be the subject of an upcoming blog post.

Apology of the Week: Worker Fired from her Job, Writes Letter of Apology

2010-08-01T22:45:42Z

People get fired all the time, for reasons unjustified and justified. When they do, they usually believe themselves to be victims, giving little thought to what their contributions may have been to the situation.

Not my friend, Meg (not her real name), who was laid off from a customer service job because she was absent too often. That she was fired by voice mail is a comment on our times. But instead of slinking off into the sunset, Meg took the opportunity to write the following letter of apology, which she dropped off with her keycard. Here is the letter in its entirety (only the name of the company and her co-workers have been changed):

Dear Pam,

I am returning my keycard as instructed by Kelly who informed me I have been terminated because of my attendance infractions.

Obviously, I'm sad and disappointed to be leaving Acme Corp. under these circumstances, but I will take this as a valuable lesson as I move forward in my life. I was in the midst of a major life transition during my time with Acme, but I realize that ultimately, this is no excuse.

I appreciated being given an opportunity to work for Acme, and while I am grateful for having met so many wonderful people, I also feel I owe them all a personal apology. I hope you will share this with each of them.

First, an apology to Joe, who spent two weeks educating me on such an unfamiliar subject and making it accessible and even fun.

My first advisors, Tom, Ryan, Karen, and Lauren all showed me so much patience teaching me how to navigate the variety of calls and questions I received in the call center. Please give them my sincere apologies for letting them down. I want them to know how much I appreciated the way they gave their time to me with such willingness and generosity of spirit.

Also, I must mention James, Dave, and Linda. It was a privilege to be a member of the technology department under the supervision of these wonderful folks. Learning the technical aspects of this department felt overwhelming at first, but never was I made to feel that my many questions were a burden to any of them; I was always treated with kindness, respect and patience.

And of course, Sarah, I must apologize to you for putting your confidence in me; while I think I lived up to it in most ways, it was my responsibility to be more aware of the company's attendance policies. For my lack of attention to these policies, I am truly sorry and I want you to know I will use this experience as an important lesson when I am fortunate enough to once again be employed.

I will always look back on my brief time with the company as an awesome experience with exceptionally professional and kind people and I wish the very best for everyone.

There's a scene in the movie Tootsie, in which Dorothy, the soap-operate actress being played by Dustin Hoffman, is disrespectfully rejected during an audition. Instead of slinking off, she gets angry, demands to be treated with respect, and throws her script to the floor. She is intercepted at the elevator by the female producer of the soap opera, who asks, ""Was that for real, or was it part of the audition?"

Dorothy responds, "Which answer will get me an audition?"

The producer responds, "good for you," and grants her the audition.

I bring this scene up not because I think my friend wrote her apology in the hope that the company would reconsider its decision. That would be manipulative and few people could carry it off. No, my friend has moved on. The apology was sincere, which means she ws prepared to let the other party have the last word.

But I think that if Meg's next employer calls Acme, Meg's apology may well color what her old employer says (or doesn't say) about her.

All in all, an effective apology is healing to both parties. An apology allows both parties to move forward, although, not necessarily together.

Evaluation:

Recognition: A

Responsibility: A

Remorse: A

Restitution: N/A

Repetition: A

Overall Grade: A

The Twin Arts of Apology and Compromise

2010-07-30T04:05:50Z

The intersection of apology and compromise yields many insights into living in a way that leads to success, balance, and harmony.

The ability to apologize and compromise are linked. An increasingly complicated and networked world requires a flexible ability to both apologize when one makes a mistake and to know when--and when not to--compromise. Neither practice is for the faint of heart. Managing apology and compromise is central to building successful relationships, managing conflict, and living with integrity.

By working on a workshop with Elizabeth Doty, a San Francisco-based coach and consultant and the author of The Compromise Trap, I learned that at the most fundamental level, both apology and compromise require a dedication to reality at all costs.

Effective apology requires acknowledgment that we are all human and we all make mistakes. By acknowledging, naming, and ultimately accepting our mistakes, we embrace our humanity and make room for our true selves, imperfect and all too human, just like everyone else. It is when we accept that we are people who are capable of doing exactly the things for which we need to apologize, instead of separating off that part of ourselves, that we can be made whole.

Healthy compromise is dedicated to the truth that we can be our whole selves at work. It requires the insight and courage to know our values--our standards--what we stand for, what we stand against, and who we stand with. Unhealthy compromise requires us to give up something essential about ourselves.

Unhealthy compromise usually flows from a faulty reading of reality, either that we have less power than we do or that the costs we will have to pay for asserting our values is too dear.

So it is with apology. We are reluctant to apologize because we fear the costs. And indeed there are costs, but they are rarely as dear as we think they might be. In any case, apology is not cost-free. It's just less costly than the alternatives.

Compromise is about giving something up when there is pressure or constraints and you can't have everything you want. The difference between healthy compromise and unhealthy compromise is whether you give something up for something better, more liberating, or for something worse, more restrictive.

For example, signing off on fraudulent financial statements to avoid an uncomfortable conversation is clearly an unhealthy compromise. Similarly, staying late and missing your child's birthday party simply to kiss up to the boss is clearly a bad tradeoff. On the other hand, biting the bullet to learn a new skill because your profession requires it is probably a healthy compromise. Most of the time, it is unhealthy compromises that cause us to have anything to apologize for. So if we got better at avoiding unhealthy compromises, we wouldn't have so much to apologize for.

The trick is that when we're under pressure to make an unhealthy compromise, it can feel as though we have no choice but to go along. Saying no often feels like suicide. Yet a significant number of people report that when took the risk of asserting themselves, they actually found that they could say no, they had real options, real power, and they could get creative when the going got tough.

Three factors enabled them to remember the option to stand up and act courageously and skillfully:

· Recognition that compromise can be sneaky and that we are wired NOT to see where we might be compromising our values or betraying a commitment. So they worked especially hard to stay in touch with the reality around them and not get stuck behind blinders, ego or self-image.

· Investment in confidence and courage. They had faith in themselves and stayed actively in touch with their unique talents and gifts, their sense of purpose and the relationships that fed them.

· Practice in the skills that allowed them to stand up while minimizing retaliation. Those skills include being able to apologize and have other candid conversations in general, being able to say no in positive ways, and several other "positive plays" that outlined in The Compromise Trap.

Paradoxically, taking the risk to speak up when we have made an unhealthy compromise can actually strengthen relationships and bring teams to a whole new level of honesty and working together. For example, a new leader in a manufacturing plant handled some layoffs in a way that was noticeably underhanded and then lied about it when asked by his colleagues.

When his executive coach asked him, he flat-out denied that he had been involved. Then later the same evening, as he tried to read a bed-time story to his daughter, he broke down in tears, guilty about having lied. He called his coach, admitted that he had promised honesty as a leader and then lied. His frank approach prompted the coach to help him plan how to apologize to others on his team and make things right throughout the factory. The whole process actually brought his team closer together.

Apology of the Week: Rep. Barton Apologizes for Apology

2010-06-22T03:10:47Z

A coerced apology is rarely an effective apology. But a coerced apology to apologize for a previous apology sets a new low in the discourse of apology.

This is the situation that prevailed with the sorry spectacle of Representative Joe L. Barton (R-Tex) who was forced to be truly sorry for expressing an apology to BP Chairman Tony Hayward over the way the executive was being treated by the Obama administration. This is what Barton said in his opening statement:

I apologize. I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown.

Within four hours of Barton's televised apology to BP, Barton issued an apology for his "shakedown" comment and retracted the apology. Barton was criticized by everyone from Democrats to leaders in his own party who threatened to yank him from the party's top post on the powerful House energy committee. I know that political considerations drove much of the criticism, but I also think that people were righty offended by the defects in Barton's apology.

First of all, Barton, a member of the Legislative branch of the government, had no standing to apologize for the actions of the president, who represents another branch of the government. Each of us gets to apologize for our own conduct. It's generally meaningless to apologize for the actions of another adult.

Most people rightly dismiss the sincerity of coerced apologies. Barton was threatened with the loss of his committee chairmanship if he didn't apologize.

Barton set a new standard in stupid Thursday by apologizing to BP for President Obama's "shakedown" of the company. The Democratic National Committee quickly produced a YouTube video that repeatedly shows Mr. Barton, in a split screen with the BP chief, saying, "I apologize."

Apology of the Week: Rep. Barton Apologizes for Apology

2010-06-22T03:10:47Z

A coerced apology is rarely an effective apology. But a coerced apology to apologize for a previous apology sets a new low in the discourse of apology.

Most people rightly dismiss the sincerity of coerced apologies. Barton was threatened with the loss of his committee chairmanship if he didn't apologize.

BP, Baseball, Blumenthal, and Helen Thomas

2010-06-13T01:12:39Z

Public apologies have really gotten a good workout these past few weeks. Some have been better than others. Let's do a quick recap.

British Petroleum

British Petroleum, responsible for the largest environmental disaster in this country's history, zigged and zagged for many weeks, but it finally decided that apology and humility would serve its interests better than hedging and minimizing. About time. It's probably too late for BP CEO Tony Hayward (he will almost certainly be replaced as soon as the crisis is over), but this week BP came out with an apology ad that is pretty good as far as it goes. In print and video, Hayward takes full responsibility for the oil spill and pledges, "We will make this right." He continues:

To all those affected by the spill, I'm deeply sorry.

It's a direct apology. Too bad it follows some really appalling gaffes, including Tony Hayward's "I would like my life back" blunder and all the technical failures and broken promises of BP. An apology too little too late has trouble getting traction. It falls under the heading of, "Your actions are speaking so loudly I can't hear your words!"

Baseball

Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga almost had a perfect game--what might have been only the 21^st perfect game in Major League baseball history. But then umpire James Joyce made a spectacularly bad call and allowed a runner on first base. What's inspiring is what happened next. The umpire apologized. Immediately, painfully, gracefully, privately and then publicly:

It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the (bleep) out of it, I just cost that kid a perfect game. I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay. I missed it from here to that wall. I had a great angle, and I missed the call.

And a distraught Galarraga gracefully accepted the apology. Turns out imperfect umpiring is as much a part of baseball as imperfect fielding.

Blumenthal

I've already blogged about Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who expressed regret (but did not initially apologize) for misstating his military experience. He subsequently did apologize, but lost considerable credibility by delaying. The only point I want to make here is that Blumenthal blocked himself into a corner in his initial news conference by filling the stage with supporters, many of them veterans. The main purpose of the veterans, it seems, was to "protect" Blumenthal from suggestions that he had intentionally misled voters. In this, the veterans did their guy a disservice. Apology is an intimate act that is best done without an audience that has its own agenda. Such an audience reflexively "protects" the principal, even when that attempt backfires.

At the May 18 news conference in which Blumenthal expressed regret for "misspeaking," a reporter asked, "Is that an apology?" Blumenthal may well have agreed that it was, indeed, an apology, in which case the story would have ended differently. But before he could reply, the veterans behind him shouted a big "No." Now Blumenthal was trapped. The rigidity of the crowd forced his hand, thwarting any possible leadership he could have shown. Here's how the transcript records the events:

QUESTION: Dick, you said you take full responsibility, but do you think you owe people an apology for having misspoken?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

BLUMENTHAL: I regret that I misspoke, and I take full responsibility.

QUESTION: Is that the same thing as apologizing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. (APPLAUSE)

Urged on by the guttural objections of the men in uniform around him, Blumenthal declined to apologize. All the tough talk came back to bite him. A week later, Blumenthal, now alone on the stage, offered the inevitable apology that he refused to offer before. "I have made mistakes and I am sorry," he told the Hartford Courant. This is Damage Control 101. Don't draw things out. Admit fault. Move on. Blumenthal, it seems, is finally getting the memo.

The lesson is clear: if you have something to apologize about, do it one on one with the person you have offended. If you are a public official and you have to apologize in public, take care to stage the event so that you can have maximum flexibility and by all means avoid posturing your apology with supporters. They may support you out of the apology you owe.

Helen Thomas

Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas ruined her career with a grotesque statement about the Jews in Israel. That she mad the comments directly after a White House Jewish heritage vent is even more disturbing. Asked by Rabbi David Nesenoff of RabbiLive.com if she had "any comments on Israel," Thomas replied, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." Thomas went on to say that the Palestinian people "are occupied and it's their land" and that Israelis should "go home" -- to Poland, Germany, America "and everywhere else."

The public furor was immediate. Thomas's speaker's bureau dropped her; a high school withdrew its invitation to have her deliver the commencement speech. Thomas knew she was through. In a written statement issued just two days later, Thomas apologized:

I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. The comments do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.

And with that she perfected her apology by submitting her immediate resignation from the Hearst group that employed her as a columnist.

Richard Blumenthal: An Apology Statement that Might Save Your Career

2010-05-22T02:27:08Z

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, accused of misrepresenting his military service during the Vietnam War, has rejected apologizing in favor of explanations. His explanations have merit. Unfortunately, Blumenthal utterly fails to see that explanations can't serve him in a situation so politically toxic as the nation's unhealed experience with the Vietnam War. Subtext is everything.

Blumenthal's predicament is much bigger than a few misplaced words. His failure to see his offense for what it is will likely put an end to Blumenthal's hopes for higher office. His reluctance to issue a timely apology is quickly transforming what might well have been considered a mistake into a character flaw.

What Should Blumenthal Say?

A number of readers have asked me to draft an apology statement, much as I drafted one for Tiger Woods, to consider. If Blumenthal really wants to put this matter behind him and not have this controversy follow him into the campaign for Christopher Dodd's Senate seat, he will need to forthrightly address not just the surface, but the subtext, of his offense.

None of what follows is easy for any politician to own. Effective apology is not cost-free; it's just less costly than the alternatives.

I stand before you exposed as someone who made a mistake and has not been forthright in addressing it. I'm here, at long last, to apologize for conduct that is shameful and indefensible. On too many occasions, I suggested in word and deed something that was not accurate. I benefitted from the misperception that I served my country as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam. On too many occasions, I encouraged the misperception that I put myself in harm's way, as so many others of my generation did. The truth is that not only did I not serve in Vietnam, I put considerable effort into avoiding military service. Eventually, I joined the Marine Reserve and served in the nation's capital during the war in Vietnam.

I am proud of my service with the Marine Reserve during the Vietnam War. I am ashamed that I allowed even one instance of giving the impression that I served my country in any other capacity than as a Marine Reservist posted stateside during that conflict.

One instance would have been too many. The fact is, there have been more than one. I apologize for each and every occasion when I or my campaign misrepresented my service. My predicament is not the fault of the media. It's my fault alone and I alone bear the consequences of my misrepresentations.

I also apologize for my previous attempts to minimize these events. Words such as "misstatements" and "misplaced words" were attempts on my part to evade the very responsibility I claimed. So let me be clear. The statements I made are simply false and unacceptable. I am responsible for my own statements and for anything on my web site and campaign literature.

I therefore apologize to all Veterans and the public for misrepresenting my service. I promise to correct the record and strive for a higher level of transparency and accountability. Further, I pledge to scour my public and private statements and campaign materials and proactively correct the record for each occasion in which my words did not exactly match my deeds. This self-correction will be public. By this act, I hope to show that my record as a public servant, imperfect as it may be, is at the highest level of integrity within my power to deliver to the people of Connecticut I am privileged to serve.

Blumenthal's Lack of Apology for Vietnam War "Misspeak" Telling

2010-05-19T01:52:04Z

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat running for the United States Senate, is on the defensive for falsely representing himself as a veteran of the war in Vietnam when the reality is that, after five deferments, he served in the Marine Reserve in Washington, DC during the Vietnam War. He was never in Vietnam and was never in combat. How he handles this crisis reveals Blumenthal's character.

Initial results are not encouraging. The only way out of this crisis is for Blumenthal to face the issue directly, specify the circumstances of his offense, accept full responsibility, offer an effective apology, provide meaningful restitution, and promise to be truthful about his service. Instead, Blumenthal is attempting to spin the story. He can't manage this story. The unresolved wounds of our adventure in Vietnam are still too raw for any politician to survive such a crisis. Too many men have died. The only possible hope Blumenthal has to survive is to be humble, transparent, and contrite.

He was none of these things. After the New York Times revealed the discrepancies between his campaign statements and reality, Blumenthal called a news conference. While he took "full responsibility" for saying he had served in Vietnam, he did not apologize. Instead of humble, his tone was defiant:

On a few occasions I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that and I take full responsibility. But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country.

Regret is a good start. It's not an apology. Readers of this blog also know that apologies and the word "but" don't play well together. There's no place for "but" (or "if") in effective apologies.

Despite his claim of taking responsibility, Blumenthal, 64, tried to distance himself from what he called "those misplaced words." Claiming that the misstatements were "totally unintentional" and that he had made them only a few times in hundreds of public appearances is exactly the wrong tack. The imagery was all wrong. With aging military veterans flanking him and shouting "Semper Fi!," the Marine Corps motto, and other words of encouragement, Blumenthal refused to accept responsibility for mischaracterizations of his biography that have appeared in newspapers and elsewhere.

I am responsible for my own statements and for any of my misplaced words any time that I misspeak. I can't be held responsible for all the mistakes in all the articles, thousands of them, that are written about me.

Ah, but he can and will be. To the extent that he didn't correct the record--and he didn't--he will be held responsible.

Blumenthal's failure to apologize is glaring. It was the one thing that his opponent seized on.

More, the lack of an apology will keep the story in the news, uncovering more and more instances of Blumenthal's "misstatements." At this point, it is probably too late for Blumenthal to save his political ambitions for the Senate. Too bad. By all accounts he is a refreshingly honest and capable public servant. But this is a defining moment for Blumenthal and he failed it. In some ways, he is another victim of the Vietnam War. Claiming or giving the impression that he served in Vietnam during combat, and then failing to acknowledge how wrong it was, disqualifies him from holding further public office. An exquisite apology may or may not have saved him. But it was his only chance.

Apology of the Week: Hospital CEO apologizes; accepts $50,000 fine

2010-05-04T20:33:49Z

Paul Levy, the CEO of Boston-based Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, seems to be a particularly enlightened chief executive, favoring a level of transparency (see his Running a Hospital blog post "Do I get paid too much?" inviting discussion about his own salary).

Lately, Levy got embroiled in a scandal involving an improper relationship with a colleague. Levy's willingness to be accountable, accept responsibility, and apologize allowed the hospital's board of directors to impose significant sanctions yet put the matter into perspective. The board expressed confidence in the executive and Levy continues as CEO. The board's statement and Levy's apology are models of how institutions and individuals can work together to learn from mistakes and work to make existing relationships even stronger.

Here's the May 3, 2010 statement of Stephen Kay, Chair of the Board of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Basically, Kay said that Levy's behavior was a "serious lapse of judgment" that created an "improper appearance and became a distraction within the hospital." The board sanctioned Levy with a $50,000 fine and instructed that the matter be considered in determining Levy's compensation for the next fiscal year.

The full text of Levy's apology, also covered by Levy's own blog, is below:

I appreciate the Board's thoughtful consideration of this issue. I agree with their conclusions that I made an error in judgment, and I believe the Board has acted appropriately.

Today I met with the Board, apologized to them again, and accepted their actions in resolving this matter. I regret that my behavior had such wide repercussions for the entire BIDMC community, and I will always feel sorry for any discredit I brought upon BIDMC. With the Board's vote, I look forward to putting this chapter behind us and working together in carrying out our public service mission.

I was wrong. I am sorry. The Board of Directors of BIDMC today issued the following statement, which has been distributed to the media and to the entire hospital community.

I appreciate the Board's thoughtful consideration of this issue. I agree with their conclusions that I made an error of judgment, and I believe the Board has acted appropriately.

Today I met with the Board, apologized to them again, and accepted their actions in resolving this matter. I regret that my behavior had such wide repercussions for the entire BIDMC community, and I will always feel sorry for any discredit I brought upon BIDMC. With the Board's vote, I look forward to putting this chapter behind us and working together in carrying out our public service mission.

Analysis

I was wrong. I am sorry. Can there be a more succinct expression of public accountability, humility, and apology? Levy's lack of defensiveness and willingness to accept consequences is very refreshing. In every way, Levy's public statement is a model of effective apology and, as such, ratifies one of my main points. It's not so much what we do that counts. What really counts is what we do about what we do.

On this level, Dr. Levy shines. I assume that Levy made appropriate private apologies, as well. The mistake that Levy seems to have made is not uncommon. His response, however, is most definitely uncommon and worthy of study. There is ample evidence here that both Levy and the institution he represents will move forward from this set of events. There is every reason to believe that the institution will be stronger for how this situation has been resolved.

There is much to celebrate if that is, indeed, the outcome.

Evaluation

Recognition: A

Responsibility: A

Remorse: A

Restitution: A+

Repetition: A

Overall Grade: A+

Apology of the Week: McAfee CEO Apologizes for Faulty Update

2010-04-25T02:27:30Z

It's been a bad week for McAfee, the computer security company. It was forced to apologize to its users after releasing a buggy update that caused widespread system crashes for users with Windows XP SP3 systems. Cyber criminals were quick to pounce on the incident, using techniques to trick users searching for information on the update to click on infected links. McAfee soon admitted that its quality assurance in this matter was woefully lacking.

To its credit, McAfee president and CEO David DeWalt lost no time in issuing a comprehensive apology, a link to which may be found on McAfee's home page. Here is the text of the apology.

To Business, Home Office and Home Users of McAfee Products:

As many of you know all too well, on Wednesday, April 21, while responding to a new global threat to Windows PCs that attacks critical operating system components, a system error--specifically, the release of a faulty DAT file--caused some of our customers' computers to shut down until they could be repaired and rebooted.

We deeply regret the impact this may have had on you. In some cases, the outages were lengthy. Even among the vast majority of customers who did not experience operating disruptions, the mere possibility created an unwelcome distraction and reason for concern.

Our first priority was and continues to be helping all of our customers get back to business as usual--reliably, confidently, and securely. The nearly 7,000 employees of McAfee quickly dedicated themselves to that effort, working literally around the clock and around the world to identify the error, remove the file that caused the problems from our servers, develop and release a corrected file, and provide our customers with hands-on support to repair impacted systems. The vast majority of affected users were back up and running smoothly within hours, and we are continuing to work diligently until we are sure that every last user node among each and every one of our customers is back in action. Again we offer our sincere apologies.

As that effort comes to a conclusion, our next and equally important priority is to review our processes to make sure this never happens again. Among other measures, we are implementing additional QA protocols for any releases that directly impact critical system files. To learn more about the steps McAfee is taking to address these issues, please visit our home page.

McAfee's business is protecting you, our customers, from threats and harm. We pride ourselves on our record of doing so, and we sincerely apologize for this incident. We will work hard to continue earning your full confidence in our company, our products and our brand.

Analysis

This is a sound instance of an institutional apology. Notice that it uses the "we" voice to indicate that DeWalt is apologizing on behalf of the entire company. His apology comes to the point immediately and is repeated. It takes full responsibility. It acknowledges that customers suffered real harm. There is no defensiveness. He spends the bulk of the apology describing the steps the company is taking to remedy the situation. That's useful. He offers pledges that the company will learn from the mistake and avoid repeating it. That's good. The only thing lacking in the apology is the element of restitution. A perfect apology would include a gesture (extension of subscriptions, credit for future services, money payments) to indicate the seriousness with which the entire McAfee community regards this failure.

Evaluation

Recognition: A

Responsibility: A

Remorse: A

Restitution: D

Repetition: A

Overall Grade: B

Wall Street Meltdown: Apology and Accountability

2010-04-12T00:33:10Z

Victory, we are told, has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan.

The financial meltdown of Wall Street was a major defeat and for the most part, the movers and shakers of Wall Street, the Big Swinging Dicks whose financial acumen commanded tens of millions of dollars every year, have rejected paternity. Recently Congress and other regulatory bodies have been holding some of these executives accountable. Apology and contrition are expected. This is a look at how two Citigroup executives handled the demands of accountability and apology.

The first executive, Charles (Chuck) Prince, former chairman and chief executive of Citigroup, presided over a bank that took $58 billion in write-downs on assets tied to risky subprime mortgages. He resigned in November, 2007. In a grilling before a Congressional subcommittee, Prince departed from his prepared statement to offer an abject apology.

I'm sorry the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact for our country. I'm sorry about the millions of people, average Americans, who lost their homes. And I'm sorry that our management teams, starting with me, like so many others could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us. And I'm sorry that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.

Chuck Prince's apology made headlines precisely because it was so contrite, so specific, and so uncommon. Prince's unusually blunt statement of remorse seemed to take some of the fire out of the recriminations flowing from the lawmakers on the panel.

His colleague, Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary and chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup's board, certainly didn't follow suit. His testimony was defiant and no words of apology crossed his lips. He resigned in January, 2009.

We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this, and I deeply regret that.

Rubin faced withering questions from the panelists on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, for his spare expressions of remorse. Repeatedly playing down his role, Rubin was met with scorn, anger, and disbelief.

The contrast could not have been more obvious. After three hours of testimony, Prince emerged as dignified, though blameworthy. Rubin, the consummate wise man of Washington and Wall Street, looked demoralized and emasculated.

After the hearing, Prince stuck around to shake hands with commission members. In contrast, Rubin raced out of the hearing room.

Cheers to Chuck Prince for modeling executive humility, accountability, and apology. Jeers to Robert Rubin for displaying more of the arrogance that got Citigroup into trouble in the first place.

Three Apologies

2010-04-04T23:28:38Z

Duke Basketball Coach Smeared

The Duke University basketball program arouses a lot of emotion and causes some journalists to go over the line. The Indianapolis Star printed a front page apology Saturday to Duke, coach Mike Krzyzewski, and to its readers for an "inappropriate" photo illustration of the Blue Devils coach that appeared in about 30,000 copies of Friday's paper.

In a column on page A10 further explaining the situation, Star editor Dennis Ryerson wrote:

I met with a very gracious Coach Krzyzewski and others from the university Friday afternoon, and, on behalf of The Star, apologized for the error. I also apologize to Duke, the team, Duke fans and to our readers.

On a photo of Krzyzewski, an illustrator drew in a blue ink sketch that included a forehead bull's-eye, horns, glasses, moles and a mustache. "LOSE!" was inked in seven times around his necktie. The story's headline read "Despising Duke," and "Duke" was bracketed in ink with the words "It's No Good." The Star, which was trying to poke fun at the dislike of the Duke program, pulled the illustration that night. It's a good apology which goes way beyond "We regret the error."

Toronto Supermarket Falsely Smeared

A Jewish activist named David Grossman mass emailed his Toronto friends and Jewish community leaders to alert them of rumored ant-Semitism at a local supermarket called "No Frills." The gist of Grossman's email alleged that the supermarket had a sign in the window telling customers the store was boycotting Israeli products as a political statement. Grossman presented no evidence for this allegation. After a couple of people went to the store to see for themselves, the facts revealed that the store never had such a policy or such a sign. Grossman had repeated a hoax. In other words, he repeated false gossip.

In response, David Grossman posted a statement on Youtube. In the statement, Grossman reluctantly retracts his statement but never apologizes for spreading false gossip. Jewish sensibilities are very clear about what Grossman has admitted responsibility for. Gossip is called "Lashon hara" or evil speech, and is considered a particularly destructive practice. Anti--Semitism exists and is a real problem, but the fight against anti-Jewish oppression is not helped by false accusations. Grossman's Youtube statement would have been more powerful had he not only regretted his actions but apologized to the store owner, his friends, and the entire Jewish community for misleading them about something as serious as anti-Semitism

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Apologizes for Taser Death

The head of the British Columbia Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) issued an apology for the Taser-related death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who was wrongfully subdued by insufficiently trained police during an airport incident. Dziekanski, 40, died on Oct. 14, 2007, after being Tasered five times by four RCMP officers responding to a 911 call at the airport. Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass told the dead man's mother,

Ms. Cisowski, on behalf of the RCMP I want to apologize for our role in the tragic death of your son, Robert Dziekanski morning near the Vancouver airport, where the incident occurred in 2007. Your son arrived from Poland eager to begin a new life here in Canada. We are deeply sorry he did not get that opportunity.

It is an excellent example of institutional apology. See the full text of the apology here.

Mrs. Cisowski accepted Bass' apology and noted she has also received apologies from the Canada Border Services Agency and B.C. Solicitor General Kash Heed. "I believe the settlement and the apologies... will help begin the healing process and clear the path towards my future," she said. "We all have to make sure that what happened to my son Robert cannot be repeated."

The apology is good in that it includes a full acceptance of responsibility, restitution in the form of a case payment and the establishment of a scholarship fund in the victim's name, and a statement that the incident has resulted in specific changes in police training to ensure that the event will not be repeated. Often, the relatives of victims just want acknowledgment that they have suffered a loss, to know what happened and to have confidence that because of changes made, the loved one's death was not in vain.

When Apologies Re-offend

2010-03-18T15:33:56Z

Apologies lose their effectiveness when the very act of saying sorry reoffends.

Examples include: "I apologize. You're not as stupid as I said you were."

And this one:

I don't think the garage door ower would be moved by this apology

Apology of the Week: Texas Rangers Manager Ron Washington Apologizes for Cocaine Use

2010-03-18T15:02:52Z

On March 17, 2010, Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington acknowledged that he failed a Major League Baseball test for cocaine last season and released a statement through the team. I'm grateful to Mark Levy for bringing it to my attention. What are we to make of Washington's statement in terms of its effectiveness as an apology?

I am here today to apologize for a huge mistake I made during the first half of the season in 2009.

I am not here to make excuses. There are none.

I am not here to ask for sympathy. That would be asking too much.

I fully understand that I disappointed a lot of people -- my family, my players, coaches, as well as the team's leadership, especially Nolan Ryan and Jon Daniels, as well as young people who may have looked up to me.

I am truly sorry for my careless, dangerous, and frankly, stupid, behavior last year.

Clearly, you have never seen me speak from a script before. But this is a time that I need to get the words exactly right.

Here's the biggest question: how and why did this happen?

That's a question I have had to face in numerous sessions with counselors. I've learned a lot about myself personally, and I recognize that this episode was an attempt to dodge personal anxieties and personal issues I needed to confront.

That was the wrong way to do it. It was self-serving, and believe me, not worth it. I know you will ask, and so here's the answer: this was the one and only time I used this drug.

I made a huge mistake, and it almost caused me to lose everything I have worked for all of my life.

Shortly after I did this, MLB [major league baseball] notified me that I would have a routine drug test. Before even taking the test, I notified the league about the drug use. Right after that test, I told Jon Daniels and Nolan Ryan about my shameful behavior. I offered them my resignation.

They asked a lot of difficult questions. Remarkably, these two men, after a lot of thought and prayer, allowed me to stay here through last season.

However, they also directed me to immediately begin MLB's drug treatment program, which is a thorough and exhaustive process, and it includes the administration of drug tests at least three times a week.

I am proud to report to you that I have completed that program.

I am not proud to admit this terrible error.

This morning, I talked to our players. I assured them that this will never happen again, and I asked them to forgive me. In the true spirit of a "team," they seemed to embrace me not only as a manager but as a human being. I won't let you down again.

Please know that I will personally take on the challenge of telling young people my story and my mistake. I don't know what form that will take, but I am committed to do that.

I am hopeful that our fans, both Rangers fans and Major League Baseball fans, will accept this heartfelt and humble attempt to say: I'm so sorry for what I did.

Analysis

Washington's statement is heartbreakingly anguished. I believe it's the apology of a man who made a one-time mistake. There's much to admire about it.

Washington's apology accepts complete responsibility, disdaining either excuses or sympathy. Some people think that scripted apologies are less sincere than spontaneous apologies. I can't agree. Any apology is one of the most important conversations you can have with the people you wronged. It's just respectful to get the words right. "This is a time that I need to get the words exactly right" says it well.

Washington claims that he notified the league about the drug use before the drug test. If true, that shows a fierce commitment against denial. It's so easy for offenders to bargain with reality: let me pass this drug test and I'll never snort again. He didn't do that. He does promise not to offend again. He starts and ends the apology in the same way: with a direct apology.

Washington's apology would be even stronger for two additions. First, he never explicitly mentions the word "cocaine." Since cocaine use is what he's apologizing for, I'd like to hear him say so. (I detect signs of a lawyer here. If so, his client was not well-served by the advice.)

Second, I'd like to see Washington's restitution statement strengthened. It's satisfying to know that Washington is committed to warn young people about the perils of drug use. I'd like to see something more formal and specific here. A donation to a drug education agency would also be a good first step.

Evaluation

Responsibility: A+

Recognition: A-

Remorse: A+

Restitution: A-

Repetition: A+

Overall Grade: A