The Art of Apologizing

 

The best performing teams are characterized by psychological safety. An honest apology for a mistake can play a big part to create a psychologically safe space. It repairs a relationship and can transform the way teams work. A proper apology is not just right from a relationship point of view. It also makes business sense. 

 

We all make mistakes for which an apology will be in order. In a professional context those mistakes can take many forms. Missing deadlines, forgetting a colleague’s request, showing little patience for new colleagues, going on our own ego trip all the way to toxic backstabbing and scheming.

 

Seizing the Opportunity

When such offences occur, they present a unique opportunity to set things right and to change the dynamics of a relationship and even entire teams. There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to apologize. In order to get it right, consider the right timing, expressing regret, explaining, an acknowledgment of responsibility, repentance, a suggestion for repairing the situation and forgiveness. 

 

According to Roy Lewicki of Ohio State University, some of these factors are more important than others. For example, acknowledging responsibility is the most important one, followed by an offer to repair the situation.

 

Justin Bieber Shows How Not to Do It

To illustrate, I will do something I thought I’d never do — ask people to listen to the Justin Bieber song “Sorry”. Musical tastes aside, the song teaches us a lot about what not to do when apologizing. For example, consider the line “Yeah, is it too late now to say sorry?” 

 

The question whether it is too late to apologize confronts us with the first mistake we can make when we offended someone else — wait too long to say sorry. What kept us from apologizing in a timely manner? For example, are we apologizing late because it was only now that we were found out? Did we wait, fingers crossed hoping the offended party would forget or ignore the offence? If we delay the apology we may undermine it from the get go as it can come across as an afterthought or chore. A late apology can send the signal you are simply going through the motions but not because it is a priority for you.

 

Offence? What Offence?

How does Mr. Bieber’s song show regret? Unless it was penned for a private performance in person, going up on stage (or a business meeting to use a corporate example) and making a show of it may suggest your apology is designed more to impress a crowd than to address the offence.

 

Herein lies the next problem of this musical apology. What exactly is the offence? If that song is supposed to resemble an apology it has very little to say for what and how the recipient of the apology was wronged. The listener (“Belieber” or not) has to accept vague hints at repeated mistakes. 

 

What Is below the Surface of the Apology?

Also, the recurring theme of “Cause I'm missing more than just your body,” says a lot about some of Mr. Bieber’s true motives.

 

First, we have no explanation of what exactly went wrong. Second, we do not learn what Mr. Bieber is missing beyond a body. This is a “me, myself and I” apology. In fact, the lyrics to the entire song run over 338 words. The word “I” occurs 46 times, “we” once and “you” 17 times. That means 15% of the apology’s wordcount is about the offender compared to 5% which acknowledge the “you”. 

 

Je Ne Regrette Rien

Where the song utterly false short of a proper apology is the author’s dance around responsibility. The song even starts out accusing the offended person of getting ”angry at all [his] honesty.” Way to start an apology. Mr. Bieber still offers to “take every single piece of the blame” but only if the offended party wants him to. Does he imply he won’t if not required? To top it all up he continues to say, “there is no innocent one in this game for two”. So, he is if anything only partially responsible after all. At least, this seems to suggest the other party should think about admitting to some responsibility, too. 

 

A Questionable Suggestion for a Solution

Mr. Bieber’s suggestion for repairing the damage done appears a little dodgy if not self-serving as well. He does offer to repair the situation when he says, “So let me, oh let me redeem, oh redeem, oh myself tonight.” Call me a dirty old man – and white at that -, but am I wrong in surmising this will involve sex? He is missing the body after all. Additionally, there is little clarity around how the implied make-up sex will repair anything. Further, I doubt there is anything sacrificial about this idea.

 

In the end, the quality of this apology can be summarized by what Mr. Bieber has to say right at the beginning of the song. “I don’t do too well with apologies.” No kidding.

 

Composing an Honest and Effective Apology

So, if I were to put myself into Mr. Bieber’s shoes — indulge me — how would I have phrased an apology? First let’s assume a concrete offense. Since this is a business coaching blog, let’s not go with a lover’s tiff but create an office scenario: At a team meeting, the team leader yells at a junior staff for making a mistake that caused a delay in the project.

 

Since timing is important, if possible approach the particular staff member the same day. If your anger was justified perhaps wait a little to cool off. The best way is not to beat about the bush, but we often start such sentences with “I wanted to apologize.” Well, if you want to then just do and say, “I apologize for expressing my frustration about the delay by yelling at you in front of everybody.” This is a clear expression of regret and it already includes a little explanation because the offender was frustrated. 

 

Be Specific about What You Apologize for

It is OK to provide a little more context to explain as long as it doesn’t turn into an attempt to find an excuse. For example, the offender could elaborate and say the reason for the frustration was that it caused stress and potentially impacted the budget for the project. 

 

You can continue by ensuring you are not excusing your outburst. You should have handled this differently, possibly in a short one on one meeting. However, you make clear you are sorry for your behavior — not the fact that in this scenario your anger may have been perfectly justified.

 

Keep the Objective in Mind

In order to rectify this situation, you could offer to figure out a way to get the project back on track with the junior staff. This could involve a quick follow up discussion with the team. You could even use this follow up meeting to explain that your outburst was not the right way to handle this. A better way is to now figure out a solution as a team.

 

Here is the interesting bit. As a leader you can further use this to learn more about how that mistake occurred in the first place. Perhaps there are some structural issues. However, if the junior staff is solely responsible for that mistake, your apology does not absolve that person from his/her accountability. That can be reflected in the next performance review session.

 

The strength and performance of teams depends on how safe people feel in those teams. Apologizing goes a long way to create such a psychologically safe space. Done right it can lead to a transformation and change behavior. It shows the relationship is important to you. Not in a touchy-feely way but for the sake of the team.

 

This blog post was first published in German on March 16, 2023 on crimalin.com. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Delegate — It’s for Your Own Sake

 

Managers often misunderstand what it is they delegate because many organizational cultures almost exclusively focus on tasks. However, tasks are just steppingstones to the ultimate goal. So, what do managers really delegate?

 

Paraphrasing Jack Welch, the late CEO of GE, managers allocate resources. At the end of the day allocating tasks really means delegating resources and responsibilities. That involves two parties, one allocating the resource — time, money, people, materials — and one receiving these resources. 

 

Risk Aversion vs. Opportunity to Improve

This delegation occurs against the background of personalities, roles and the organizational context. For example, if delegation plays out in an organization with little tolerance for mistakes, what is being delegated will likely resemble a list of to-do’s or just tasks. Managers will be less likely to delegate responsibility and subordinates are more likely to fear taking on such responsibilities. One extreme outcome is that managers jealously guard information and subordinates stop thinking because all they have to do is to move from task to task.

 

On the contrary, for learning organizations mistakes are an opportunity for improvement. They are more likely to tolerate risk. Managers tend to delegate goals rather than task lists. They will encourage subordinates not to fear accountability because they can rely on the organization to focus on learning from failure rather than punishing it. And in situations where mistakes have to be rectified, the team or department will pull together to resolve the problem.

 

It Takes Two to Tango

All this to say that real delegation requires two willing and able parties, one able and willing to let go of something and the other willing and able to accept something. Where this happens naturally, the culture can be described as “we are all in the same boat” and the outcome is what counts. That is contrary to a culture focused on who gets the credit.

 

The two operating words are of course “willing” and “able”. It is no use overwhelming newly hired junior staff with a project beyond their current abilities. Senior executives will also need and actively seek something resembling an onboarding even if required to manage a departmental transformation. For that reason, managers who aspire to be leaders should look at the five steps of delegation as a way to train their staff to become able to make independent decisions.

 

 

The Steps of Delegation

There are different approaches to the levels of delegation. Some count five steps, others count four but generally speaking they comprise the following:

1.     Directing

·      Basically the employee gets a list of tasks to do, when to do them and in what order. There is very little to no autonomy.

2.     Coaching 

·      The employee will get familiar with the topic and will be hand-held by his/her superior as he/she delivers ideas on how to address the issue.

·      The employee will work on ideas and suggestions with different levels of hand holding.

3.     Supporting 

·      The employee works almost autonomously on the project and reports back on the results before presenting them to the customer be that an internal or external stakeholder.

4.     Delegating

·      At this stage, the superior more or less throws the entire project across the fence for the employee to finish and present.

 

The more experienced staff are and the more leaders can trust them, the less leaders need to be involved and can expect them to make the right decisions. The overall idea is to develop people as shown in this graph. 

 

 

Managers Who “Risk” Believing in their Staff’s Abilities Benefit – Always

Unfortunately, there are too many organizational cultures with many experienced people but too little trust. They barely progress beyond step two or three of the five steps of delegation. Culture is a top to bottom process. Leaders can create a learning culture in their sphere of influence. This will be much more difficult where this sphere needs to be carved out in an organization driven by fear. However, even there, managers who successfully delegate will benefit from better ourcomes.

 

How so? Because they will benefit from the most important resource — people. Probably any organizations will at least pay lip service to the importance of their people. Those which live by this concept understand commitment to people goes both ways. The organization has expectations from its employees/people but the people working in that organization will also expect things. And there is evidence that skilled employees will not be motivated by more money. They want mastery (gain experience), autonomy (be able to make decisions and be accountable) and purpose (everyone – not just the millennials).

 

In the context of “hiring slowly and firing quickly” this means the hiring managers in an organization need to vet candidates for both attitude and aptitude. That will take time and may not fit with the schedule. However, the drain on time and energy with a hire gone wrong is too high a price. And if the wrong candidate slipped through, terminating the relationship sooner rather than later will save everyone a lot of headache down the road. It will also send a message to current staff and underline that culture is taken seriously.

 

Do You Really Want Brains or Just Hands on Deck?

How can managers learn to delegate? As Steve Jobs once said: “It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” Here are some useful questions to gauge whether you let your smart people do their job: The first should be whether you hired smart people in the first place. If the answer is no one thing to think about is what prevented you from hiring them. With that come some follow up questions:

·      Was it down to budgetary constraints? 

·      Did you inherit a department? 

·      Did you create a clear job description with clear expectations?

·      Did you not really think about who would be the best person for the job? 

·      Were you scared that a smart hire would outsmart you? 

 

Once you have been able to honestly narrow it down you will be able to address the issue.

 

Learning organizations need people who are willing to take risks and be accountable. Risk averse organizations might prefer any set of hands and feet who just follow orders. Bums on seats do not need the full picture. And that may initially look easier to handle for managers. At the launch of a project, the manager might have thought through most of the steps at hand and then just needs people to execute. The temptation is to believe this will take less time. 

 

For the early project phase that may even be true. However, how much time do managers have to spend along the way checking in on (or possibly micro-managing) the employees who have been allocated to that project? Also ask yourself whether you would give your best for something whose full ramifications have never been explained to you. People will not feel invested if they believe their manager will take care of everything at the end of the day. They will be less likely to think of alternative and possibly better solutions. Will this result in the best possible project outcome? And how will a mediocre outcome further anyone’s career?

This post was first published March 3rd, 2023 in German on crimalin.com