New Congressman Apologizes for Assault

May 26, 2017 – 9:10 am

Greg Gianforte won a special election yesterday for Congressman from Montana. His acceptance speech last night included an apology for assaulting a reporter the day before.

“When you make a mistake, you have to own up to it. That’s the Montana way. Last night, I made a mistake and I took an action that I can’t take back, and I’m not proud of what happened. I should not have responded in the way that I did, and for that I am sorry. I should not have treated that reporter that way, and for that I am sorry, Mr. Ben Jacobs. That’s not the person I am, and that’s not the way I’ll lead this state. Rest assured, our work is just beginning, but it does begin with me taking responsibility for my own actions.”

Jacobs allegedly questioned Gianforte Wednesday about his position on health care, and Gianforte responded angrily; the two got into a scuffle, during which Jacobs’ glasses were broken. The Gallatin County sheriff issued a warrant to Gianforte on a charge of misdemeanor assault, for which he’ll answer next week. Gianforte’s campaign office originally blamed Jacobs for the incident, but last night, Gianforte took responsibility. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Reporter Ben Jacobs had said publicly that an apology would be appropriate.

The apology itself is not bad. He calls it a “mistake” and says he’s “not proud” of it. He says he’s sorry, and names the reporter he harmed. He sounds contrite. He doesn’t specify exactly what his mistake was but, with criminal charges pending, perhaps he was advised by counsel not to admit guilt. A good apology offers plans for avoiding similar offenses in the future, and this one has none of that. (His “rest assured” offers no assurance for rest.)

What undermines this apology is the timing. He waited until after he’d won the election. Would he have apologized had he lost? We would have admired him more had he apologized immediately, willing to accept the consequence of losing the election. But it takes courage to apologize publicly, perhaps even moreso in the midst of an otherwise happy event. He will not regret it.

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on New Congressman Apologizes for Assault

First Do No Harm

May 25, 2017 – 2:25 pm

Australian mediator Greg Rooney posted an interesting article on mediate.com this month, The Profound Apology, about managing apologies in mediation. Three aspects stand out: (1) Don’t permit an offender in a sexual abuse case to apologize to the victim; (2) Prepare each party ahead of time by telling them not to prepare; (3) An example of a formal apology that might come from an institution responsible for harm done.

(1) Not permitting an abusive offender to apologize: In cases involving sexual and extreme physical abuse, he advises against permitting an offender to deliver a personal apology to the victim, out of fear that the original harm will “be compounded” for the victim. Instead, he advises mediators to follow the rule of “do no harm,” by having a third party apologize on behalf of the actual offender.

The advice to “do no harm” is sound. It comports with the mediator’s ethical duty to honor party self-determination by truly eliciting what the parties—not just one, but all, and not their lawyers but the clients themselves—seek to accomplish in the mediation. This duty takes on heightened importance in cases of power imbalance, such as those involving sexual or physical abuse; sexual harassment could be added to this category. If the victim in mediation still has less power than the offender, the victim might agree in mediation to hear the offender’s apology, not out of the victim’s desire for an apology but rather out of fear of the offender, thus perpetuating the abuse. This is the concern Rooney would have mediators avoid. I imagine Rooney is making it a blanket statement because mediators cannot always discern whether a party is agreeing to hear an apology out of genuine desire or out of a sense of coercion, so it’s safer simply to adopt a rule of never permitting an abuser to apologize directly to their victim.

I have not mediated a case involving sexual or physical abuse, but I know colleagues who have done so. In some cases, permitting the abuser to apologize (in Christian cases, to confess sin) to their victim can begin the healing for both parties. While “do no harm” may be their default stance, mediators also need to discern when to “do some good,” by permitting offenders to apologize to their victims in those rare cases where it may help.

(2) Preparing each party for a mediated apology: Rooney recommends that the mediator develop a personal relationship with both the victim and the offender to discern whether an apology will be helpful. But he then advises that the offender not prepare ahead of time what to say. This is the opposite of my practice, so I’m intrigued by Rooney’s reasoning: He acknowledges this is a “paradox” that “helps create dissonance” and believes it draws the offender “away from the rational intellectual plane,” which is essential if the offender is going to connect personally with the victim.

Having presided over delivery of ineffective apologies, my response as a mediator has been to prepare both parties carefully. I typically give the offender the “Seven A’s of Confession” from Peacemaker Ministries as an outline to help them collect their thoughts, encourage them to write out their thoughts, and even rehearse with me privately. I also typically talk with victims about their expectations, and how they’ll respond if they don’t hear everything they want. In my experience, people appreciate this aid.  Not preparing them feels like abandonment. But I do like Rooney’s emphasis on the importance of the offender connecting personally with the victim. I wonder if preparation and personal connection are mutually exclusive; perhaps the ideal mediator does both?

(3) Example of a formal apology: Rooney also describes the very different situation where a person apologizes on behalf of an institution (a police department, a church, a business, etc.). Here he agrees that preparation helps, and offers a sample of what the person might say. Mediators could add this sample to their tool-kit to aid in these situations.

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on First Do No Harm

Baseball Player Apology

April 21, 2017 – 3:55 pm

A major league baseball player issued an apology this week. Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Starling Marte was suspended for 80 games after testing positive for a performance-enhancing drug, the steroid Nandrolone. Here’s his statement:

“In this very difficult moment I apologize to my family, the Pittsburgh Pirates, my teammates, my fans, and baseball in general. Neglect and lack of knowledge have led me to this mistake with the high price to pay of being away from the field that I enjoy and love so much.

“With much embarrassment and helplessness, I ask for forgiveness for unintentionally disrespecting so many people who have trusted in my work and have supported me so much. I promise to learn the lesson that this ordeal has left me.”

What’s good about this apology:

  • He addresses everyone involved, recognizing that this affects not only his family and fans, but the public perception of baseball.
  • He asks for forgiveness.
  • He acknowledges that his act conveys a sense of disrespect to people who trusted him.
  • He admits feeling “embarrassed.”
  • At least he issued a statement of regret.

What’s wrong with this apology:

  • For what is he apologizing? He never explains what “this mistake” was.
  • He’s not taking responsibility. He attributes his mistake to “neglect and lack of knowledge” rather than to anything he actually did. No one takes a steroid by neglect.
  • He almost sounds like he’s sorry that he got caught, rather than for taking a banned drug. Words like “neglect,” “lack of knowledge,” “unintentional” and “helpless” are words from a victim, not from an offender taking responsibility for his actions. One gets the impression that he either did not know he was taking a steroid, or did not know that it was a banned drug, but if he’s truly sorry, he would admit that he should have known.
  • A good apology includes a willingness to accept the consequences. Being suspended from playing baseball is a logical consequence of breaking its rules, but he calls it a “high price to pay.” What does he think would’ve been a reasonable price?
  • He would sound more sincere if he had already learned the lesson, instead of promising that he will learn it.
  • He wants us to forgive him for “unintentionally disrespecting” us. Even if we can forgive him for that, can we forgive him for this weak apology?

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on Baseball Player Apology

More on Public Apologies

April 13, 2017 – 10:15 am

Today’s New York Times has an article saying, more eloquently and thoroughly than I could have, what I was suggesting in yesterday’s post about the difficulty of making a good public apology, as exemplified this week by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and United Airlines CEO Oscar Munez.

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on More on Public Apologies

Public Apologies Are Tough to Get Right

April 12, 2017 – 10:14 am

Two apologies are evolving in this week’s news cycle: from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, regarding his comparison of Syria’s use of chemical weapons to Hitler’s, and from United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a plane this week. Each man has offered successive apologies, after his original apology was rejected. It goes to show how difficult it is to make a good apology, especially a public one.

In each case, I think the problem with the original apology was that the speaker was still trying to save face just a little: Spicer was still trying to emphasize the unique horror of a leader dropping bombs of lethal gas on his own people, and the United CEO wanted to imply that the passenger was at least partly at fault for what happened. Each had a point; but an effective apology needs to take full responsibility. The further explanation can come later.

Each man’s apology would’ve been better had it started with a gasp. If Spicer had reacted with shock when the reporter pointed out what he had just communicated, and said something like, “Oh my, I really blew it, that’s not at all what I meant to say,” he might have been forgiven. Might. If the United CEO had started off with a huge statement of regret about the whole incident — “What happened was horrible and I will make sure it never happens again” –, he might have had a chance to minimize the damage. Might. The statement Munoz issued today comes closer to a good apology, but it’s his third try.

It’s tough to make a good apology.

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on Public Apologies Are Tough to Get Right