I'm Sorry Mom - Happy Mother's Day!

Mother's Day is one of those celebrations that should remind us all of how much we sometimes take our family (or those that are closest to us) for granted. Why is it that we often treat strangers with more courtesy than we do those whom we cherish the most?

The obvious answer is that we behave this way because we have nothing to fear--regardless of what we say or do, we know deep down that they will always be there for us--and in knowing that, on occasion throughout the year, we allow ourselves to treat them with less respect than they deserve and rarely apologize for it.

The worst part of all is that this behavior sometimes extends to that very day where we collectively honor our mothers, and we let the day go by without a simple visit or phone call. Although wishing your mother a "Happy Mother's Day" is not an apology per se, it likely does make up (in some little way) for the times throughout the year that you were less than thoughtful.

And, in the same way that a gift is not necessary when extending an apology but does add a level of thoughtfulness and an extra touch, the same holds true for Mother's Day. So think about it...

For ideas on how to add your own special touch to your Mother's Day celebration check out our page on creative ways to say sorry.

Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there!

The Sorry State of The Web.

When the team first got together and came up with the idea for Perfect Apology we never considered providing an outlet for people to post their own apologies. The site was only ever meant to be a kind of user-guide for both personal and business apologies where people could learn about something we all need to do from time to time.

One day, on a whim we decided to create an Apology Board, a page where people could say they're sorry and have it go live on the site. It started out as a test to see how and if people would respond.

It turns out that not only have people responded but the board itself fills a need for many. These folks seem to feel that posting an apology on the internet somehow gives their mea culpas more credibility. Perhaps being live on the web for all the world to see does in some way add to the effectiveness of an apology.

The problem is that many of the apologies we receive and post don't even come close to fulfilling the basic ingredients of a proper apology. We post them anyway, hoping that those who are not forgiven will take another look at their apologies, figure out why they remain in the situation they're in, and learn to improve things next time around....(there are also many others we receive and don't post for various reasons...)

The satisfying part in all of this is that there are some stellar examples of near perfection posted to the board. They shine bright and make the not-so-good apologies look even worse. Whether these individuals learned how to apologize effectively on their own or through the site, we can all learn something from the way these guys did it. These are the folks who gave thought to their situation and the parties involved, have taken the time to learn about what constitutes a sincere apology, and tailored their apologies appropriately.Hopefully future posters will read some of them prior to posting their own apologies.

Unfortunately for many, the few minutes of thought and research that it would take to craft a heartfelt apology is simply too much effort.... If they aren't even willing to try and figure it out, what are the chances of their apologies being well received? Is simply posting any old apology on the web enough to be forgiven?

To Apologize or Not to Apologize?

In his February 28 Blog posting entitled "On the Inadvisability of Apologizing," Stanley Bing commented on the Maxim debacle and the implications for the practice of apologizing more generally. He writes:

"I read an interesting item in a trade publication this morning. It’s about Maxim Magazine, which many men read for the articles....Okay, now what strikes you about this? Several things occur to me:

1. If Mr. Kaminsky had not apologized, I would not have been aware of his distress or the depredations his magazine had wrought on contemporary culture;

2. The apology did not make Maxim look any better, in fact created the impression that this happens all the time and that on this occasion they got caught;

3. It was probably better for the Black Crowes that nobody knew about it either. Now not only readers of Maxim know that the magazine’s reviewer thought the album was so boring he couldn’t even finish listening to it, but readers of the Hollywood Reporter do, too, and that includes a lot of people in the entertainment business, whereas readers of Maxim are not always in that psychographic."

I responded to Bing's post by pointing out that his argument was interesting but incredibly weak. As I explained in my comments, I can easily think of (and offer) hundreds of reasons, examples, research reports and studies from the business, medical and sports worlds that support the exact opposite argument. In fact, the Maxim example disproves Bing's point -- had the magazine's editors issued a "better" apology the entire matter would have disappeared. It was the absence of an apology that escalated their PR crisis and will probably lead to the firing of Maxim's managing editor and music critic.

Bing's reply appears below:

"You know, what really interests me about the whole apology thing is not really whether people should do it or not. We know that an apology is appropriate and necessary in a lot of situations. What I think I’m writing about here is that in our culture apologies are not sufficient. They are received poorly and often function not as they were intended to do… rather, they incite those who have been wronged to ever-greater levels of indignation. Maybe what I’m thinking about is how we’ve lost the ability to accept an apology with grace. For some reason, only decent people tend to be the ones who offer apologies, and are punished for it. It’s the losers who never apologize and therefore never have to pay for their actions. This all comes back to corporations. Corporations that apologize for things, like governments that do so, are not rewarded for their honesty and humility. They are crushed. So what’s the upside?"

My response follows:

I appreciate your concession, Bing, that “an apology is appropriate and necessary in a lot of situations.” But you go on to argue “that in our culture apologies are not sufficient. They are received poorly and often function not as they were intended to do… rather, they incite those who have been wronged to ever-greater levels of indignation.”

Bing, this is simply not the case, but I don’t fault you for thinking it is. As someone who has spent a great deal of time working through so many different aspects of apologies I can assure you that if delivered well they can do wonders — in any business, political or sports setting. For example, we recently reviewed several HGH-steroid-induced-apologies from several MLB players for CNN’s Sports Illustrated.

What we found, as expected, was that Andy Pettitte did much better job than everyone else — including Eric Gagne and Paul Lo Duca — for very predictable reasons. We haven’t “lost the ability to accept an apology with grace”, we’re just becoming a little tired of weak, self-serving apologies that are dishonest and dismissive. And with respect to corporations, those executives and CEOs who take customer service and customer loyalty very seriously are rewarded with an expanding customer and client base usually taken from other companies whose executives just don’t get it. The facts on this issue are not on your side, Bing, but your opinion about apologies, unfortunately, does represent the conventional wisdom.

Thanks for a great exchange on an important subject

Peter

Our Growing Addiction to Public Apologies…and Soap Operas:

A Google News search for the keyword 'apology' would list thousands of business, sports, entertainment and political stories written by distinguished journalist and covered by prominent media outlets. The most fascinating thing about trends for public apologies is that the number of mea culpas is steadily escalating. What is it about apologies that we find so interesting and absorbing to us, and so important to the press?

We at PA believe that public apologies are intriguing because they raise captivating questions about our own principles and standards of morality and ethics, our own hopes and wishes to be forgiven for our transgressions and mistakes, and our interest in figuring out how to apoligize well when we have to (or how to avoid doing it really poorly when the time comes). It's as if we live vicariously through those who are faced with the burden of coming clean when challenged to correct their mistake. It's the secular version of the Catholic confessional, except in these cases the punishment is often more painful than having to recite ten Hail Mary's or a dozen Our Fathers.

Apologies are also intriguing because it seems as though everyone -- Olympic athletes and other sports heroes, movie stars, CEOs of major corporations, senior political officials, and even a Queen -- is compelled at some point in time to face the music. And we are captivated by these apologies because, in some small way, we get to witness the spectacle of an accomplished, rich, powerful individual at a low point in their lives. Their pain makes our world seem a little more appealing by contrast, if only very briefly. It usually doesn’t last, and once the PR machine kicks in and an effective enough apology is delivered to manage the crisis, their lives go back to being a little more impressive and ours a little more regular. But for that brief, fleeting moment in time it was better to be us than them. The same principle explains the enormous appeal of soap operas -- public apologies are like micro-soap operas for people who don’t have the time to watch a lot of tv.

Delivering and Demanding Apologies

In addition to baseball's recent steroid-induced apologies (covered here), we've also come across several other apology-related stories that we'd like to comment on. Some stories are about delivering apologies, others about demanding apologies, and one story dealt with a royal apology to a six year-old girl after a run in with a hungry (or angry) royal swan.

Delivering Apologies:

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband apologized for Britain's role in US Extraordinary Rendition efforts in 2002. In this case the practice involved the kidnapping and arrest of terrorist suspects who were then transported, confined and tortured (including water boarding) on route to the US through British territory -- the flights landed on the island of Diego Garcia, a British protectorate, before moving on to the US. Miliband began his statement to the British Parliament by admitting that "the House and the Government will share deep disappointment at this news and about its late emergence. That disappointment is shared by our US allies (who) recognize the absolute imperative for the Government to provide accurate information to Parliament." The Foreign Secretary stated the government was "very sorry indeed" for the role British territory played. The categorical assurances from the US State Department that British territory was not used obviously put the British government in a particularly embarrassing position of having to admit they accepted the misleading American assurances in good faith. In addition to the British apology, Miliband went on to acknowledge that US officials also "expressed regret" for not acknowledging the renditions through Diego Garcia. "We have to assure ourselves these procedures will never happen again," Miliband stated. Expressions of regret by Washington in no way constitute an apology by any stretch of the imagination -- Bush administration officials are likely convinced that these are necessary evils in a post-9/11 world. The real question today, of course, is whether a Clinton or Obama presidency will change the policies or produce an apology for past American foreign policy decisions and actions. We at PA are not holding our breath.

CBS' Big Brother contestant Adam Jasinsky issued a very weak apology to the various branches and affiliates of the American Autism society for his truly idiotic comments on the show over a week ago. In a conversation with one of the other contestants on the show, Adam explained what he would do with the money should he win the contest (fat chance of this happening). He was quoted as saying that, among other things, he would invest in a beauty and hair salon "so retards can…get their hair done." As someone who claims to be the public relations person for the United Autism Foundation (it's not yet clear whether this foundation even exists) Adam was either lying about his job/position or is incredibly incentive for a "public relations" expert responsible for pushing this particular cause. In either case he owes a lot of people a sincere and credible apology that goes well beyond his expression of regret for "any and all inappropriate, unprofessional and misleading comments" he made on the show. This apology is perhaps one of the worst we've come across. In addition to the obvious people who deserve Adam's mea culpa, this guy should also be apologizing for seriously undermining the credibility of so many national and regional autism organizations trying to generate funding and support for their incredibly important and worthy cause. That is perhaps one of the more unfortunate consequences of this screw-up. Hopefully the real costs (which will still not be sufficient by any means) will be incurred when the viewers kick the jerk off the show. Big Brother's producers should also have considered a more meaningful apology -- "We certainly find the statements made by Adam to be offensive, but believe they were countered by the immediate reaction of shock and condemnation from a fellow houseguest, Sheila." We at PA completely understand the slippery slope associated with chastising (or throwing off) a "reality show" contestant for offensive comments, and we understand there is screening to minimize the risk of something like this happening. But this was a battle the network should have picked and exploited for a truly good cause, if only to make an important point that even reality TV shows have limits. The only reasonable alternative at this point is for the CBS producers of the show to issue their own apology and emphasize the crucial importance of the autism cause. Hopefully they will do this when Adam is inevitably kicked off for his stupidity.

Chinese movie star Edison Chen issued an apology for inadvertently letting some very private videos and pictures of former girlfriends get into the wrong hands. Chen decided, following his apology, to take a leave of absence once his current contract obligations were fulfilled. As apologies go, Chen's expression of remorse came with an announcement that he will be taking a break from acting and giving up potentially lucrative scripts and projects. This is noteworthy gesture.

And finally, even the Queen was compelled recently to offer a royal apology for the injury to a little girl after she was bitten by one of the Queen's royal swans. Six-year-old Elishia Stevenson sent the Queen an email note about the incident and, in return, received a brief email reply written and sent by the Queen's lady in waiting -- "The Queen thought it kind of you to write to her and was sorry to hear about the swan." As apologies go this one is far from emotionally draining, but that's besides the point in light of the completely blameless nature of the incident. The Queen's problem now, of course, is that she didn’t personally craft the reply and may have to apologize for this.

Check back tomorrow for Part II: Demanding Apologies