The act of apology is carried out not merely at the level of the individual but also at the level of the institution. Since leaders speak for, as well as to, their followers, their apologies have broad implications. When a leader feels obliged to apologize, especially for a trespass in which followers were involved, the harm inflicted was likely serious, widespread, and enduring. The first question, then, is, Who exactly is the guilty party? The degree of damage is an issue as well. Leaders are responsible not only for their own behavior but also for that of their followers, who might number in the hundreds, thousands, or even millions. We, in turn, try to ameliorate the situation by saying, “I’m sorry,” and perhaps making restitution.īut when we’re acting as leaders, the circumstances are different. The person we hurt feels entitled to an admission of error and an expression of regret. When we wrong someone we know, even unintentionally, we are generally expected to apologize. What constitutes a good apology? Acknowledgment of the mistake or wrongdoing, acceptance of responsibility, expression of regret, and assurance that the offense will not be repeated.
While selectivity is key, good apologies usually do work. The author draws her conclusions from hard data and abundant anecdotal evidence, examining notoriously bad apologizers as well as exceptionally good ones. The cost of saying something is likely lower than the cost of staying silent.The leader is the only one who can get the job done.