David Greenberg, '81, Writes about Apologies in the NYTimes

Apologies Become a Tool, Not a Goal

David Greenberg

June 24, 2014

In 35 years as a corporate insider, adviser and critic, I’ve been on both sides of dozens of apologies played out in the public domain — and the most striking common denominator is how few of those apologies were either genuinely given or received. In fact, I’d suggest that one reason for supporting Dov Seidman’s call for an apology cease-fire is that the modern apology has strayed far from its purpose — acknowledgment and redress of a wrong — and is simply a tactic played out in a larger zero-sum game of winners and losers.

The reason that so many apologies seem unsatisfying is that neither side really wants the apology. Instead, they are both seeking to use the underlying situation to their advantage. The apology is not judged on its own merits — Is it genuine? Does it redress the wrong? Will it be the source of learning? Is there closure? — but rather whether it advances a different agenda — Does it avoid or promote liability? Does it minimize or maximize reputational harm? Does it advance or detract from a policy agenda?

Cut to a boardroom or C-suite conference room when a company discovers it may have done something that merits an apology. What’s the first step? Get the facts. What’s the second step? Summon the lawyers and the communications team. You can see how things start heading in a direction that makes a simple, genuine apology unlikely. With the lawyers and public relations people involved, what are the odds of a simple “We’re sorry”?

Read more at the New York Times website.