• Barbara Kellerman.
• Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
• Harv Bus Rev. 2006 Apr 1; 84 (4): 72-81; 148.

AbstractWhen corporate leaders or the organizations they represent mess up, they face the difficult decision of whether or not to apologize publicly. A public apology is a risky move. It's highly political, and every word matters. Refusal to apologize can be smart, or it can be suicidal. Readiness to apologize can be seen as a sign of character or one of weakness. A successful apology can turn enmity into personal and organizational triumph--while an apology that's too little, too late, or too transparently tactical can open the floodgates to individual and institutional ruin. Since the stakes are so high, Kellerman says, leaders should not extend public apologies often or lightly. One or more of the following conditions should apply: The apology is likely to serve an important purpose. The offense is of serious consequence. It's appropriate that the leader assume responsibility for the offense. The leader is the only one who can get the job done. The cost of saying something is likely lower than the cost of staying silent. The author draws her conclusions from hard data and abundant anecdotal evidence, examining notoriously bad apologizers as well as exceptionally good ones. While selectivity is key, good apologies usually do work. What constitutes a good apology? Acknowledgment of the mistake or wrongdoing, acceptance of responsibility, expression of regret, and assurance that the offense will not be repeated.

6 keywords...

hide…