Asking for an Apology (Part 2)

One of the most popular posts on this blog is one I wrote more than two years ago, about asking for an apology.  At least once a day, someone somewhere searches for the phrase “asking for an apology” or “how to ask for an apology” and finds my post.

Unfortunately, some who find the post will be disappointed because I do not actually explain how to ask for an apology.  So I decided to remedy that today.

First, a disclaimer:  I do not believe that those people searching for “how to ask for an apology” are searching for the right thing.  Asking for an apology is actually pretty easy.  “You owe me an apology” will do it.  The harder part – the part that people really need help with – is in telling someone else why they owe you an apology.  And that is what I want to help with.

1.  Raise your concern about a specific act or specific pattern of behaviour.  “You were an hour late meeting me” or “The last three times we’ve arranged to meet, you’ve been very late.”  Do not say something like:  “You are always late” or “Why can’t you get it together and be on time?”  Also resist attacking the person’s character:  “You don’t care about anyone but yourself!”
2. Tell the person how their actions effect you:  “When you are late to meet me, I feel like you don’t care about my time” or “I feel frustrated if I don’t know when you will arrive and I have to wait.”
3. Then pause.  Give the other person a chance to say something.  Maybe he or she will take the opportunity to apologize.  Maybe not.  Unfortunately, you risk the other person saying something like, “Gee, you’re so uptight.  What’s the big deal about being a few minutes late?”
4. If that happens – if the person you’re addressing attacks you or mounts a vigorous defense instead of apologizing – what you should do next depends very much on your relationship.  Is this someone with whom you can have a calm discussion?  Is this someone who is incapable of a genuine apology?  Is this someone you simply must get along with, such as a family member?  Unfortunately, there is no pat formula for what you should do.  But see the next step.
5. Apology received or not, you can say something like this:  “In the future, I would like you to…try harder to be on time or … call me if you’ll be late or …whatever you think would improve the situation for you.

Asking for an apology – and especially telling someone why you feel you deserve an apology – is risky.  Yet if you don’t do it, the person who has upset you may never understand the effect that their words or actions have had, and your relationship may never be the same.  You have to decide for yourself if taking the risk and asking for an apology is the right thing to do.

Apologies 201 (Advanced Course)

I wrote about apologies last January, and it seems like a good time to revisit the subject.  You can find a lot of information on the internet about how (and how not) to apologize.  You can find lists devoted to the worst ever apologies by public figures.  Admittedly, little of what I say below is original.  Still, I hope it will be useful.

1.  “I’m sorry that I…” vs. “I’m sorry that you …”

One of the key components of an effective apology is that the speaker takes responsibility for his or her actions.  If a speaker fails to take responsibility those on the receiving end of the apology are likely to be dissatisfied.  You can make sure that you are taking responsibility by formulating your apology with the words, “I’m sorry that I …”

An apology that starts with the words “I’m sorry that you …” (were offended, were upset, were inconvenienced, etc.) will do nothing to repair a broken relationship.  It might even make the other person feel insulted and resentful towards you.

This form of apology – called the “non-apology apology” is unfortunately so common that it has its own wikipedia entry.

2.  “I’m sorry if I …” 

Avoid this phrasing.  At worst, including the word “if” sounds like hedging and the attempt to evade responsibility.  At best, it makes you sound emotionally out-of-tune with the apology recipient.

Compare:

I’m sorry if I offended you.  [I’m not sure if I did or not.]

I’m sorry I offended you.  [Pause]  It certainly wasn’t my intention.

In the first, the speaker gives the impression that he or she isn’t sure that others have been offended.  There is room for doubt.  If you are not sure whether someone is offended or not, there is no harm is asking.  But apologise right away rather than waiting for an answer. 

Did I offend you?  If so, I’m sorry.

If you wait for an answer, you put the other person in the socially awkward position of having to say, “Yes, you offended me.”  It isn’t easy for most of us to say this.  It sounds confrontational.  Rather than put someone in an uncomfortable position of having to tell you that you offended them, apologize if you even suspect that you might have done so.

3.  I’m sorry but …

I’m sorry but I’ve been having a bad week …  I’m sorry but I’m under a lot of pressure at work … I’m sorry but you should have known better than to …

Where to start?  When you say “I’m sorry but…” the part that comes after “but” negates the apology.  People won’t hear “I’m sorry” because your self-justification will be ringing in their ears.

There may be a time to explain yourself and to offer testimony about extenuating circumstances.  The time to do this is not when you are offering an apology.  The apology is supposed to meet the needs of the other person.  In a proper and effective apology, one takes responsibility, offers contrition, and acknowledges the other person’s feelings.  Self-justification and explanation (if appropriate) can come later.

Compare:

I’m sorry … but I had a really bad day.

I’m sorry.  I shouldn’t have acted in the way that I did.  [Pause]  And I want you to know that I had a really bad day at work, although that is no excuse.

Which would you rather hear?

Finally, if you don’t feel sorry about something, don’t apologise.  Most people are pretty good at detecting insincerity.   A false or half-hearted apology is arguably more destructive of relationships than the lack of an apology.

Bill 168: A Recent Arbitration Decision

Bill 168 has been law now for just over two years, and we haven’t yet seen many decisions interpreting and applying the legislation.  A recent ruling by arbitrator David Starkman is of interest to labour and employment lawyers and HR professionals because it provides some guidance about Bill 168’s scope and application.  Below I briefly summarize and discuss this very interesting case.

Background:  In 2010 the Peterborough Regional Health Centre, faced with the need to reduce costs, took a decision to replace some of the Registered Nurses (RNs) in the Hemodialysis Unit with Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs).  RPNs have less education than RNs, earn less money, and have narrower scope of practice.  The Health Centre Management planned a 6-week orientation period for the RPNs when they would be mentored by the RNs.  However many of the RNs were unhappy about the introduction of RPNs, which would result in the layoff of RNs, and which they feared would compromise patient care.  Several RNs refused to volunteer to mentor their new colleagues.

Incidentally (or maybe, not so incidentally), the RNs’ concerns were later shown to be valid.  An Independent Assessment Committee found that the hospital failed to plan adequately for the staffing changes, and failed to evaluate whether the changes affected patient care.

Allegations:  Although there seemed to be a great deal of tension and bad feelings in the unit when the RPNs started, one of the RNs in particular was particularly hostile.  (I will call her Sally.)  She engaged in non-verbal behaviour designed to make the RPNs uncomfortable, including rolling her eyes at them, staring and flapping her hands as they walked by her work area, refusing to make eye contact, and on one occasion, walking directly toward an RPN and making contact with her shoulder.  Another RPN reported that, while she was washing her hands at a sink, Sally came behind her, tried to pull her hair in to a ponytail, and made remarks to the effect that, patients do not want hair in the way.

The Employer’s Response:  Reading the testimony presented to the arbitrator, there were clearly many problems on the unit.  Several of the RPNs quit and spoke of an atmosphere of bullying.  Morale was very low.  After a number of complaints abut Sally, the employer met with her to discuss their concerns.  Sally did not acknowledge any wrongdoing.  When her inappropriate behaviour continued, Sally was put on paid leave while the employer undertook an investigation.  The result of the investigation was that Sally was found to have engaged in a pattern of intimidation and harassment and was terminated for just cause.  Sally grieved both the decision to place her on leave and the firing.

The Arbitrator’s Decision:  Mr. Starkman found that the employer had just cause to discipline Sally and to put her on paid leave pending an investigation.  However, they did not have just cause to terminate her employment.  Although the employer had discussed their concerns with Sally she was never formally disciplined.  While Starkman acknowledged that Sally’s conduct was very subtle and therefore difficult to evaluate and discipline, he held that the principle of progressive discipline nonetheless applied, and that termination was too severe a penalty.  However, he also found that Sally’s conduct, her refusal to acknowledge that her behaviour was inappropriate, and her failure to apologize, meant that she should not be returned to the unit.  Instead, he directed that Sally be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement.

(Just an aside – some of you may be wondering, “Can Sally really not have understood that her behaviour was inappropriate?  I’m afraid that this is entirely possible.  For one thing, her co-workers were very reluctant to confront her about her actions.  And trying to understand it from Sally’s perspective, she likely saw herself as a strong advocate for patient care, not as someone who made the workplace a nightmare for others!)

Lessons for Employees:  If you disagree with management’s decisions, don’t take it out on others.  Even if you have a valid point, the organization’s code of conduct still applies.  And if management raises concerns about your behaviour, take it seriously.  If you are on the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour, speak up – either raise a concern directly with the offending party or if that is not possible, speak to management or HR.

Lessons for Employers:  Several of the people who spoke with the arbitrator reported that Sally’s behaviour in the workplace had been a source of tension for a long time.  When employers fail to deal directly with inappropriate behaviour, it rarely corrects itself on its own.  Inaction and delay result in greater costs down the line.  (See my post on the costs of workplace strife for more information.)

Lessons for Everyone:  Eye-rolling?  Flapping one’s hands?  Is this really intimidation and harassment, such that discipline is appropriate?  The answer is yes.  It is clear from the testimony that the RPNs felt bullied, harassed, and unsupported in their work.  As Mr. Starkman wrote in his decision, Sally’s actions were “extremely subtle, and in that sense were extremely insidious. Bullying and harassment can consist of a single incident, or a series of repeated incidents both of which can have great impact upon the victim of the behaviour.”

Note:  I offer investigations of complaints related to workplace harassment, bullying, sexual harassment, and other matters covered under bill 168.  See my website for more information, or contact me directly to discuss the situation in your workplace.

Is it ever “too late” for mediation?

I was speaking with a potential client the other day.  He assured me that, as a reasonable person, he understood the many benefits of mediation.  But the conflict had gone on for so long, he said, that he feared it was “too late” for mediation.

His remark made me pause.  As mediators, we are eternally hopeful about the possibility of resolution.  (It would be hard to do this kind of work if we were not.)  Is there any point at which it is just “too late” for a negotiated agreement?

After thinking about this for a while, I realized that “is it too late?” is the wrong question.  Indeed, mediation may fail if it is attempted too soon as too late.  If a conflict is recent the parties may not yet be motivated enough to settle it.  In a long-standing dispute, the parties usually know exactly what the conflict has cost them and they may be eager to resolve things and move on.

Rather than ask when is it “too late” for mediation then, the right question to consider is, “under what conditions is mediation unlikely to be effective?”  I can think of at least two scenarios when reaching a mediated agreement is probably going to be particularly challenging.

First, mediation will be difficult if one (or both) of the parties has a strong psychological need for vindication.  Sometimes parties in a dispute feel it is important to be “right.”  (Of course, this is often combined with a desire to have the other party judged “wrong.”)  They want an authority figure – whether that is a judge, a member of the clergy, or the head of their family – to vindicate their version of events and proclaim their position the more compelling.

Second, mediation will be difficult if either (or both) parties disavow any responsibility for the conflict.  A party may see himself as a helpless victim who has done nothing to initiate or prolong the conflict.  If this is indeed correct – if we have a case of one-sided aggression rather than mutual hostility – then mediation is likely inappropriate.  The victimized party would be better off pursuing a rights-based approach.  While such one-sided conflicts exist, it is much more common that a conflict between two or more competent adults has been fed by contributions from both sides.  This does not mean, of course, that the contributions are necessarily equal.  Avoiding a conflict can prolong it, just as surely as can angry words.

Does the presence of either of these conditions mean that a mediated agreement is impossible?  I don’t think so.  A good mediator should be able to help parties reevaluate their priorities and question long-standing assumptions.  A mediator might help a party realize that an apology might be just as valuable (and more conducive to healing) than vindication by a third party.  A mediator can help both parties understand the origins of their conflict and accept shared responsibility.  These are just some of the ways in which mediation (and even good-hearted attempts at mediation) can empower parties and achieve more than the resolution of a conflict.

Apologies 101

You may have heard that Tuesday night’s performance by the New York Philharmonic at Avery Fisher Hall was abruptly halted because of a stubbornly loud and persistent cell phone.  The orchestra was playing the final movement of Mahler’s Ninth Symphony, considered by some to be one of the most emotionally rich and sublime pieces of music ever written.  Towards the end, at the worst possible moment, the insistent plinking of the iphone “marimba” ringtone completely shattered the atmosphere.  Alan Gilbert, the conductor of the Philharmonic, actually stopped the performance and glared at the offender until he managed to silence the phone.  (You can read an amusing account of the evening here.)

Blog postings and news articles about the event soon filled up with vitriolic comments.  What kind of a person forgets to turn off their cell phone before a concert, and then magnifies the error by failing to silence it promptly as soon as it sounds?  A New York Times article answered that question the next day.  The owner of the phone, far from being a thoughtless person who didn’t appreciate music, was a longtime subscriber to the orchestra and was absolutely mortified by what happened.  And there was an explanation:  The phone was new and he had indeed turned it off before the concert; but he hadn’t realized either that the phone’s alarm was set or that it would go off even though the phone was set to “silent.”

There is something to be learned here beyond the obvious lesson of “be familiar with all of the noise-making features of any device you carry.”  The day after the concert, an orchestra official called the owner of the cell phone (following the NYT, I’ll call him “Patron X”) and politely asked him not to do it again.  Patron X asked if he could be put in touch with Alan Gilbert, in order to apologize to the conductor personally.  Patron X, through a NYT reporter, also apologized to the whole audience.  Here is what he said:

 “It was just awful to have any role in something like that, that is so disturbing and disrespectful not only to the conductor but to all the musicians and not least to the audience, which was so into this concert,” he said by telephone.
“I hope the people at that performance and members of the orchestra can certainly forgive me for this whole event. I apologize to the whole audience.”

Patron X’s apology hits all the right notes.  Here’s why:

1. He accepts responsibility.  There is a world of difference between “I’m sorry that I disturbed you” and “I’m sorry that you felt disturbed.”
2. He does not try to justify his actions.  In making an apology, one must absolutely avoid the phrase, “I’m sorry, but…”
3.  He acknowledges the harm he has caused.  He does not try to minimize what happened.
4.  He apologizes to everyone effected – the conductor, the musicians, and the audience.
5.  His apology is sincere.  He is genuinely upset about what happened and really contrite.  An insincere apology can damage a relationship more than the absence of an apology.
6. The apology is well-timed. Patron X sought out the opportunity to apologize and did so at the earliest possible opportunity.  

Patron X gets extra points for apologizing in person, rather than by text message, email, or letter.  It isn’t easy to confront someone whom we have disappointed, and it cannot have been easy for Patron X to seek out the conductor who had been glaring at him only the night before.  But if a relationship is important, it is worth making the effort and setting aside one’s own discomfort to apologize personally.

Happily, the NYT reports that Mr. Gilbert accepted the apology.

Asking for an Apology

One of the more bizarre items in the news last week was the revelation that Virginia Thomas, wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, had phoned Anita Hill, requesting an apology. Nearly twenty years ago Anita Hill testified against Clarence Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearing, accusing him of workplace sexual harassment. I was an undergraduate at the University of Toronto at the time, and remember the incident and the debates it provoked very well. The news of Mrs. Thomas’s early morning telephone call to Hill’s office made me think about the nature of apology, and in particular about the dynamics of requesting an apology.

Apologies are an example of what philosophers call “speech acts” In a speech act, one does more than just say something; one performs an action at the same time. There is something deeply mysterious about speech acts. Saying “I’m sorry” or “I promise” or “I forgive you” might seem like little more than uttering a phrase. Yet it is clear that someone who speaks one of these phrases has done something more than make a verbal utterance, although they have done that as well. Someone who says “I’m sorry” acknowledges that their previous conduct has harmed another and that they regret this. Someone who asks for an apology asks not just for a string of words to be spoken, but that another party acknowledge and regret an injury against them. The power of this acknowledgment is such that we tend to be very upset when we suspect that an apology is made insincerely. We don’t like it when a speaker seeks the recognition of making an apology without doing the hard work of examining his or her conduct and thinking about what it would meant to atone for it.

Asking for an apology means telling another person that their conduct has been hurtful, and this can be very difficult to do. Yet if one doesn’t request an apology, the other person may never understand the effect that their words or actions have had. The person who feels that he deserves an apology yet fails to ask for it may continue to feel hurt and resentment toward those who have injured him. If an apology is requested and granted, there is a chance that the relationship between the parties might yet be repaired. Parties in mediation may want an apology as much as they want other forms of restitution. Many people choose mediation over other forms of dispute resolution precisely because they expect to have an ongoing relationship with the other party, and mediation can actually help strengthen relationships.

If asking for an apology is sometimes the right thing to do, what was it about Mrs. Thomas’s request for an apology from Hill that struck many as unseemly? The first and most obvious answer is that it is far from clear that Hill owes anyone an apology. She stands by her testimony. Second, if she does owe anyone an apology, it isn’t Mrs. Thomas. While there may be special circumstances in which one may ask for an apology on behalf of another, this doesn’t seem to be one of them. If Justice Thomas feels he is owed an apology he is capable of asking for one himself. But some additional considerations are also important here. Asking for an apology is a gesture towards repairing a relationship. If you’ve hurt me and I tell you, you can make things right by apologizing, then maybe we can be friends again. However the way in which Mrs. Thomas asked for an apology is at odds with the goal of restoring a relationship. If you want to repair a relationship with another person you may have to face them directly, as difficult as this might be. Sneaking around and telephoning when the other person is almost certain to be unavailable is not the way to begin to mend a relationship. What we say is important, but the way we say it, and the circumstances in which we say it, may be equally as important.