The power of apology.

It is rare in a dispute for some persons’ feelings not to have been hurt. For example, in construction disputes there is often unfinished or poorly finished work that has raised the emotional temperature. In employment disputes perceived discrimination may have cause offence. Divorce and community disputes almost always contain real and perceived injustices. In medical negligence, disputes involve physical harm or even death. More generally in the process of mediation or negotiation, we all say things we’d like to take back. The test of true character rests not with what was said, but rather the nature of the response. Saying sorry – the S word – is often a critical part of the settlement or process towards it.

Much has been written about the power and importance of apology in mediations and negotiations[1].What can apologies achieve? Apologies can improve understanding if they help explain previous actions, sometimes even an underlying altruistic motive. They can ameliorate bruised emotions. Ultimately, and most importantly from the success driven mediator’s perspective, a good apology can improve negotiation outcomes.

This was demonstrated in research by Jennifer Robbennolt[2]. In two studies, participants, ages 21 to 70, read a scenario describing a pedestrian-bicycle accident. They were asked to take on the role of the injured person and evaluate a settlement offer from the other party, based on information about the injuries, the other party’s conduct, and each party’s responsibility for causing the accident.

Professor Robbennolt found that when a full apology was given, 73% of the respondents would accept the settlement offer. When no apology was given, 52% would accept, but when a partial apology was given, only 35% would accept. Even when she changed the scenario and made the evidence of fault less clear, a partial apology was still often perceived no different to no apology at all. Results also showed that the severity of the injury mattered: the more severe the injury, the more the need to fully apologize.

Apologies are often hard to offer because the giver may feel vulnerable, blamed, or shamed. Indeed they may feel they deserve to get an apology more than give one. Denying the incident, justifying behaviour or making light of the situation (“it wasn’t as bad as you make out”) only exacerbates feelings of injustice, as the results above suggest. To rebuild trust, you must sincerely admit that you are sorry for the hurt caused.

Maurice Schweitzer, Jack Hershey and Eric Bradlow[3], professors from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, have identified seven elements that can comprise an apology. Effective apologies can include some or all of the following:

1. An apology statement: “I’m sorry.”

2. An expression of remorse: “I feel awful!”

3. An offer to help:“I will do whatever is possible to rectify this situation.”

4. Self-castigation: “I can’t believe these words even came out of my mouth.”

5. A direct request for forgiveness: “Please forgive me.”

6. A promise regarding future behaviour: “In the future, I promise to think before I speak.”

7. An explanation: “I was frustrated and I took my frustrations out on you, which was totally inappropriate.”

These Professors argue that effective apologies should include some or all of these components. The more serious the violation, the greater the need to use more of these apology components.

Because saying sorry is often a costless gesture, it is frequently dismissed by economists as “cheap talk”. And rarely is an authentic apology issued because it was demanded. I see it in my own children and remember my own feeble begrudging apologies when they were demanded by my parents.Apologies therefore need to meet certain minimum “quality” criteria. The key is sincerity.

Tomlinson and Lewicki[4] found that apologies containing internal attributions (eg “it was my fault”) were regarded as more sincere than external (eg “not me, market conditions were bad”). Clearly, sincerity is associated with expressing an apology in person, with emotion and when it is conveyed with a sense of personal responsibility and remorse. Of course, prior deception or misleading will significantly reduce the credibility of an apology. Great care therefore needs to be taken over apologies. If they are perceived as insincere, a false apology may inflame passions, heightening barriers to settlement, rather than smoothing the passage to resolution, as the Robbennolt numbers suggest.

When lawyers are present in mediation it is generally more difficult to apologise. Lawyers are long trained in the role of guarding against their client’s unwittingly giving away legal entitlements. They want to see their clients apologise in a way that admits no liability or fault. Of course, in the “without prejudice” context of mediation this should not be a problem. However, old habits die hard…

In summary, using the S word can materially affect the outcomes of negotiations. However, apologies have to be delivered sincerely and will only be effective if there is no history of deception. Mediators should encourage parties to look for opportunities for sincere and heartfelt expressions of apology as part of the route to successful resolution.

[1] See for example www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/june_2007/apology.cfm

[2] “Apologies and Settlement Levers,” 3 Journal on Empirical Legal Studies 333 (July 2006)

[3] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperID=1332

[4] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/bustrust.htm

Tags: apology, mediation, negotiation, sincerity, Sorry