The Business of Apology

Many businesspeople are terrified about apologizing for fear the apology will be used against them in court. 

There is a difference between expressing apology and accepting liability.  Increasingly, the law is recognizing this difference. 

If you want to minimize liability, the best thing to do is to keep your mistakes small.  But if you make a big one, there is still something you can do to minimize liability.  Just say you’re sorry.  Saying you’re sorry effectively is one of the most powerful small decencies available to any leader. It involves two words and only seconds of your time.  Far from diminishing your importance, an apology demonstrates humility, respect for others and a desire to learn, all of which are traits of strong leaders. Refusing to apologize after having made a mistake shows pomposity of the worst kind.

Doctors are learning that apology can be good medicine. An apology often prevents malpractice claims.  The Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky has proved that the rage that arises out of the injury and fuels so much of the animus is almost always drained away by a sincere apology.  Since 1998, this VA Center has a policy of admitting medical errors, apologizing for them and initiating a claim—even when the family itself has no idea medical error contributed to a patient’s death. Skeptics predicted that “extreme honesty” would be a liability nightmare. But legal costs at the hospital are now among the lowest in the VA system. An honest apology relieves suspicion and a sense of injury in the hearts of malpractice victims and their families.

"I'm Sorry" is Not a Guilty Plea

People often hesitate to apologize because they equate the words “I’m sorry” with a guilty plea. However, two new studies by a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that an apology favorably affects the prospects of averting lawsuits and promoting settlements. “Several factors, such as the nature of the apology, the severity of the injury and other evidence of responsibility, affect the capacity of an apology to facilitate settlement,” said Jennifer Robbennolt, professor of law at MU, who conducted the studies. “Policymakers and litigants must take into account these complex issues when making decisions about the appropriate role of apologies in settling civil disputes.”

In the 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.

Robbennolt found that when a full apology was given, 73 percent of the respondents would accept the settlement offer. When no apology was given, 52 percent would accept, but when a partial apology was given, only 35 percent would accept. “An offender who offered a full apology was seen as experiencing more regret, as being more moral and more likely to be careful in the future than one offering a partial or no apology,” according to Robbennolt. 

Because of studies like these, California, Texas, and Massachusetts have recently passed “expressions of sympathy” statutes.  These are laws that are intended to make it easier to apologize without liability attaching itself to the statement.  Many companies now recognize the redeeming character of a good apology—not least because victims and juries often accept it as grounds for reducing any damage award.

For instance, the Toro Company, a Minnesota manufacturer of snow blowers and lawnmowers, used to follow standard “deny and defend” practice, and its product liability costs soared. But in 1991 it switched to a more conciliatory approach. Now, when the company hears about a product-related accident, it immediately sends staff to visit the family. They begin by expressing regret: “Setting aside the question of who’s at fault, we want you to know that we feel terrible that this happened. We’re going to do our best to resolve this thing and make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Toro says the conciliatory approach has halved the time it takes to settle a claim and cut the average cost from $115,000 in 1991 to $35,000 in 2004.