Maryannaville™

“I’m Sorry”

People who have been hurt or humiliated often hope for an apology. They may hope that an apology from the offender will restore trust, dignity, and, perhaps, a sense of justice. A thoughtful apology is a powerful means of indicating self-awareness and of showing respect for the person who was offended. But a facile and unreflective “I’m sorry” may exacerbate the situation and be perceived as rubbing salt in the wound. A successful apology achieves closure; an apology that backfires escalates a conflict.

Friends may counsel and help the offended party consider what it means to want an apology, e.g., as a step toward reconciliation; as a confirmation that the other party was to blame; as an assurance that repetition of the offense will be avoided; or as a humiliation to the alleged offender. A public apology may help restore the reputation of the person who was hurt; a private apology may open a path toward discussion, improved mutual understanding, and interpersonal trust. Apologies can take many different forms, and it is part of the role of the ombuds to help the parties identify their underlying interests in the process of facilitating either one-way or reciprocal apologies.

In order for an apology to be received as complete and sincere, it may need to include the following elements:

A specific statement of what was done.
It is important to clarify the exact nature of the offense, both for the accountability of the offender and also to avoid misunderstandings. The need for an apology usually occurs when two individuals or groups do not share the same perspective — or when inadvertently or intentionally — they did not do so at the time of the hurtful event. The first step is to seek common understanding of what action or omission was rude or wrongful. In some situations, a preliminary discussion or communication, or shuttle diplomacy by a third party — such as the ombuds — can help identify and, if necessary, make adjustments to the definition of the offense.

Recognition of responsibility and accountability on the part of the one who did the offending.
This admission is perhaps the most important but also the most frequently overlooked element of an apology. This is the “I-statement,” the recognition by the offending party that he or she had a choice to act (or speak, or not take action) in that particular way. “I knew better,” Senator D’Amato said succinctly. The offender who is a public official, a senior manager, a parent, a teacher, or another role model might also acknowledge how he or she is entrusted with this particular responsibility. Some offenses, of course, are unintentional; therefore, it may be helpful, if it is true, for the offender to explain if there was no way that he or she could have predicted the impact of his or her action (or inaction) on the recipient. But, in any case, most offended people will appreciate any efforts made by the offender to explore how he or she might have anticipated the outcome — both as an indication of the sincerity of the regret and as an implied suggestion of how a recurrence might be avoided.’

Acknowledgment of the pain or embarrassment the offended party experienced.
A non-judgmental expression of empathy is a basic step toward restoring trust. The offender may be able to identify with the offended person, e.g., “If someone had made a joke about my religion, I wouldn’t have found it funny, either.” or even if the offender would have personally reacted differently, he or she might intellectually empathize: “It’s understandable that hearing the bad news through the grapevine was upsetting.’ The acknowledgment does not necessarily imply that the recipient’s response is typical, mature, or appropriate. It may be expressed only as a fact: “I now know that receiving a prompt reply is very important to you.’ But it undercuts sincerity when the offender seems to question the recipient’s claims of hurt or injury (‘I’m sorry if anyone was upset…”). And it subverts the purpose of the apology to dwell on a judgmental “you-statement”: “I’m sorry you’re so impatient,” or, “It’s too bad you have no sense of humor.” An apology is not a suitable occasion for self-congratulation on the part of the perceived offender with regard to his or her honesty or opinions. In Edward Albee’s play, A Delicate Balance, Claire says to Agnes, “I apologize that my nature is such to bring out in you the full force of your brutality, ” and Agnes soon responds, “. . . I apologize for being articulate.” (New York: Atheneum, 1966, p. 13)

A judgment about the offense.
When the offender agrees that what he or she did was wrong, saying so is an important part of making amends. The story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, though perhaps lacking in historical veracity, has had enduring appeal in United States culture because of its insistence on the honor of acknowledging one’s own wrongdoing. Many world religions emphasize confession. But status differences, cultural patterns, and advice of legal counsel may present obstacles to formal confirmation of having made mistakes. Nevertheless, a direct self-judgment (“I was insensitive.” “What I did was wrong.”) is often a way to establish common ground with the offended party.

A statement of regret.
If the offender has fully taken responsibility for how he or she acted wrongly or at least for having hurt the recipient, a simple statement of “I’m sorry” sometimes may be sufficient. The impact of an apology on its audience generally depends on the context — not on the words themselves. Senator D’Amato’s two statements each contained those words, but one created more anger and the other may have decreased the tension. Except in relationships with a history of shared understanding and deep trust, simply saying “I’m sorry” is rarely sufficient. But an attitude of contrition and a statement of regret are basic elements of an apology that will build future trust. [Personal change is in order with a plan of action to execute it.]

Future intentions.
These details are often an important aspect of an apology. In some situations, the apology is requested when no future interaction is expected, but even then the offended party is often relieved to hear if steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the offense. When the two parties are likely to interact in the future, it is helpful to discuss the offender’s intended self-restraint; improved behavior in the future; how the offender would like attention brought to a possible subsequent misunderstanding; or other means of preventing recurrence. Sometimes the offender will wish to ask the recipient for forgiveness; for an acceptance of the apology; or for another chance to gain that individual’s respect. An apology may offer an opportunity not only to restore trust but also to achieve a better relationship.

Finally, it is important not to overlook the means of communication of the apology. Because the recipient’s response emphasizes sincerity, any form of communication that appears offhand or trivializing may be resented. In contrast, any gesture of seriousness and personal investment will reinforce the genuine conviction behind the message. The above elements may help the offended person “accept” the apology, move on, and put the offensive incident behind. An additional aspect of the communication might also help the offended party have increased understanding and respect for the offender.

An explanation of why the offender acted in this way.
This component is often not the first priority of the offended party, but it may be very important both to the offender and also to the future relationship of mutual respect between the two parties. An explanation may be the most risky element to include within an apology because it can so easily appear as a flippant excuse; as a defensive justification; or as a reiteration of what was already felt as offensive. Senator D’Amato’s first explanation exacerbated the controversy and the outrage: “I was making fun of the pomposity of the judge,” but his second presented a point of view that everyone could share: “What I did was a poor attempt at humor.”

An explanation that includes a recognition of the offense; the pain it caused; and/or a clear statement of wrong as perceived by the offended party, can be a means of showing more respect for the recipient by making the apology a more reciprocal process of increased understanding.
When people who have been offended say, “I demand an apology,” it is helpful to probe which aspects of an apology they are seeking. Compelling an apology is usually counter-productive, and the suggestion, “just apologize and it will blow over,” is generally misleading. Anyone considering offering an apology should consider the potential damaging results of an inadequate “apology.”

Sometimes the relationship is too adversarial; the differences are too great; and/or, the legal liability too profound for an apology to be offered or received as sincere. In many situations, a future apology would be possible, but only after a process of conflict resolution — such as mediation — that involved increased mutual understanding of both parties’ needs, interests, and emotions.

Originally posted 2007-05-12 20:40:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter