9 ms·

I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual, especially in the current moral panic climate. Mobs don't accept apologies. Publ

I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual, especially in the current moral panic climate. Mobs don't accept apologies. Public apologies stamp official guilt on the individual and therefore serve as a license for the mob to further punish them because now they have admitted their fault and therefore are 'officially' guilty of the crime. Public apologies, therefore, are the metaphorical equivalent of blood in the water for attracting sharks. Maybe it's better to just ignore and maintain innocence because then at least there is some gray area? I don't know.

Pryde 6y ago
Surely with regards to outcomes, there's a good argument to be made that one shouldn't admit guilt. But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I personally quite liked the advice given, and wish I had held myself to it more often in the past. I think there's definitely some truth to what you're saying, but I also wonder how much this is a problem offline, I've not encountered it heavily, but I'm also not a particularly online person.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I'm not sure about that. I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemption because the wronged individual can accept the apology and forgive (or not). In the latter case, there is no acceptance, there's only the mob who wants to make an example of you because they now have 100% proof of your guilt.
  - Pryde 6y ago
    Fortunately I've never found myself in a position of sufficient power/responsibility to have to offer an apology to a group. Is there a balance to be struck between the difficulty the apologizer will undoubtedly face from rage mobs and the consolation some members of the wronged group may feel from the apologizer acknowledging wrongdoing and committing to do better in the future? I don't know that I could blame someone for avoiding a public apology, with the current nature of online harassment, but I think that's a question anyone who finds themselves in such a position should at least ask themselves. And of course, if everyone also adhered to the "What should I do when I see someone else is making a mistake?" section, then the world would be perfect and conflicts would be much more easily resolved.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemption because the wronged individual can accept the apology and forgive (or not)." Note that those to whom you apologize may communicate that apology to "the mob", with the result that they have proof of your guilt as well as proof of your lack of forthrightness. In the ultimate case, if you are following your own advice, Machiavelli and my bitter cynicism suggest that not leaving live enemies behind you is the best strategy.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  Yes, but do we live in that idealistic world? I would answer with a very firm no. The world would be a lot better place if everyone did (any number of things), but perfect compliance is just never going to happen. We cannot get people to not murder each other over shoes or sports teams. Any plan which depends on this compliance is doomed to failure.
  - Pryde 6y ago
    Yeah, I generally agree with you. Mostly just exploring thoughts here, the gp comment prompted a kinda unexpected re-examining of my hitherto un-examined ideas on the ethical basis of the advice in the post. I'd generally consider myself something of a utilitarian/consequentialist, and would normally accept the premise that apologizing in front of the Twitter mob would at best do nothing positive, but for whatever reason my brain wants me to say "apologizing is right, and consequences be damned"
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Might I suggest some research into Kant's categorical imperative, some time listening to your brain, and possibly the history of Joseph McCarthy?
    - laughinghan 6y ago
      I think you should also examine the possibility that gp is straightforwardly wrong, and that a good apology can make things better, even (or especially) in the face of being called out on Twitter. Consider how Dan Harmon reacted to Megan Ganz calling him out on Twitter: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-apology-megan-ganz-community https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap... Doubtless many people have made things worse with "non-apology apologies" [1]. But your brain wants to say "apologizing is right" because when done right, it is right. To me, truth and reconciliation are self-evidently how we build a better world, and refusal to take responsibility for mistakes is self-evidently corrosive to the individual and to society. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology
mannykannot 6y ago
Denying that you have made a mistake is likely to piss off the people who would otherwise be willing to move on. As the "mob", which may or may not exist in any given situation, is not going to be swayed by protests of innocence, the former are the only people you should care about.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jmartrican 6y ago
  Agreed. Apologizing may keep the mob size small and insignificant.
  - draw_down 6y ago
    macspoofing is right. This stuff works opposite to how you and GP are describing.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    Did it ever happen? Did anybody actually get out of being cancelled by mobs by apologizing?
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
      The point of apologising isn't to avoid consequences. It's intended to mitigate three sorts of damages: that inflicted on whoever suffered because of you, the damage society experiences any time its rules are broken, and the damage you have done to yourself by breaking some moral standard you believe in. To that end, an apology that allows s/o to "get out" as in "saw no further consequences" isn't necessarily what's being claimed, because it still needs to come with (some) costs, even if they are mostly symbolic. And, yes, of course there are people apologising for all sorts of behaviour that's being criticised every day. A Google News search has about five dozen examples from just the last day or two[1]. If apologies are never beneficial, I doubt they would be used that often. Apologies are also a central factor in the most formalised system of "being cancelled" we have, the criminal justice system. As to "getting out" of "being cancelled" by "mobs" I wouldn't know since I already have trouble identifying what that's supposed to mean. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=apologized&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk015YH3KfbTXXzdxGIp7ude9dVVZ9Q:1605312453030&ei=xR-vX9mWAYKMrwSH5LegAw&start=50&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiZjZD03oDtAhUCxosKHQfyDTQQ8NMDCM0D&biw=1415&bih=739&dpr=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=apologized&client=safari&rls...
microtherion 6y ago
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I see the "never apologize" philosophy as having an utterly corrosive effect on the person who made a mistake. What I try to do is apologize concisely, but then feel free to ignore people who want to drag this out into "that was not a REAL apology" / "now confess to your OTHER crimes" territory.
- fastball 6y ago
  Things like this can be hard to ignore when, say, the angry mob is trying to get you fired.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    Admittedly, this can be a problematic situation, especially when part of the original mistake was speaking about something employment related without being a spokesperson for said employer. Another problematic situation can be if the mistake involves actual illegal acts. In those cases, discretion (omitting the apology or keeping it to an absolute minimum) may indeed be the better part of valor. But even in those situations, I see absolutely no upside in publicly denying your mistake at length, if in fact you've made one.
    - fastball 6y ago
      I think people in this thread are talking at cross-purposes. On the one hand, you have the people who are talking about when you genuinely make a mistake, and recognize it as such before public outcry. On the other end of the spectrum, you have people that maybe feel that they were acting / talking / behaving in a way that is normal but are being told that they made a mistake. In these circumstances, there is usually the issue that the nature of the mistake is quite subjective. In the former case, your strategy is probably a good one. In the latter, I think the "don't apologize" is probably the better way to go, for the reasons outlined by GC.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
> No. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as Judge Brandeis observed. Proper handling of mistakes is a sterling quality in anyone, and particularly important in a leader or public servant of any kind. It pays long-term dividends.
NalNezumi 6y ago
The best course of action in public apology that includes potential mobs running rampant is to wait. If possible, do not immediately make any statement and if in a organization, make an "we are investigating" response. Most mobs are moved by emotions and herd mentality so just being silent for a while can disperse the worst of the mobs. Make an thorough apology (like the guideline here) later. Most internet mobs just move on to the next totem pole to burn in days so this seems to work (and is indeed how a lot of companies respond if they can't just fire someone and get over it) A real mob, such as campus students can be a bit more troublesome.
mcguire 6y ago
Let's pretend for a minute that you have a conscience and feel bad about the effects of the mistake---not just the effects of having the mistake discovered. What if you have harmed someone you cared about? Would you still apply the strategy you are advocating? Perhaps apologies do "serve as a license for the mob to further punish". Even so, what is the result to your life or to an organization of doing what you suggest?
bserge 6y ago
You don't apologize, you just own it. "Yeah, I made a mistake, shit happens, now I know better". Though looking at current leaders of industries and countries, you could get away with just pretending you did nothing wrong.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  And talking (tweeting) about other unrelated things that make people upset but aren't about your mistake. Diverting attention
prepend 6y ago
I kind of skip apologies now and either look at changed behavior or set up some reminder to check for changed behavior. This is legally because apologies from companies are so full of doublespeak and low value language that it’s a waste of my time to read, much less expect any understanding. Here’s an example from Pichai [0]. I do like the outage report style that some companies use [1] and think this is the way to repeat a problem and what you do to fix it. This takes the place of an apology or denial. [0] https://www.axios.com/google-ceo-apologizes-past-sexual-harassment-aec53899-6ac0-4a70-828d-70c263e56305.html https://www.axios.com/google-ceo-apologizes-past-sexual-hara... [1] https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/ https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/
throw7 6y ago
There's only one rule for apologizing: You apologize if you actually believe that you've done wrong. NEVER apologize for something you believe was done correctly or in good faith or for "PR" or whatever else.
- freehunter 6y ago
  Not listening to this advice is 100% the reason why people don’t trust a lot of public apologies: too many people/companies “apologizing” by saying “I’m sorry you got mad” or “I’m sorry you found out about this”. If you apologize, mean it. If you don’t mean it, don’t apologize. Every time a person/company apologizes for getting caught, it demeans public trust in everyone’s apologies.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Should you not apologize for unintended consequences, i.e. done in good faith, but on your authority/responsibility?
  - throw7 6y ago
    I think only you can answer that question. Part of a good apology is knowing one-self and self-reflection. Unintended consequences happen, yes, and I don't think one could argue one way is always the right answer in all cases. Just remember rule 1 and that is _you_ that is giving the apology.
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  The problem is the "good faith" bit ... that often isn't visible downstream, and to external stakeholders it looks like you are making excuses. For example, if I make a commitment to somebody and then circumstances outside my control prevent me from fulfilling it, I may very well say "it's not my fault, apologising would be insincere". But to an external stakeholder what they see is they are wearing consequences and I am not accepting accountability. There are a million shades of gray according to how much I could / should have anticipated the eventuality ... but that makes it really not simple to make this kind of call, and I would have to say, if you are going to err, I would rather err on the side of apologising than not.
DenisM 6y ago
People in strong position stand to gain by apologizing, while people in weak position stand to lose. One must consider one's standing before dabbling. In my own company I try to apologize every time I screw something up. I know my position is unassailable, and my team members should have trust that their leadership is in touch with reality. I am also cognizant of the fact that no hired employee has the same level of security, and it troubles me.
- 0000011111 6y ago
  Apologizing is a good leadership strategy regardless of standing IMO. It shows that you are human which can help one gain and maintain report with fellow workers. Refusing to apologize has the opposite effect.
  - thebean11 6y ago
    If others are looking for any reason to get rid of you, it might put them in a better position to pull the trigger. Obviously that doesn't describe the vast majority of situations though.
  - curiousllama 6y ago
    Strong disagree. I want to follow someone who knows when not to apologize: when it’s _not_ their/our mistake, when assigning blame doesn’t help, and when they’re fighting for us.
    - loufe 6y ago
      I don't see how this contradicts the parent's post at all?
- dustinhayes 6y ago
  I’m my experience it is up to the entire team or organization to cultivate such an environment. I do agree, it has to start somewhere.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
beingHacker 6y ago
I will also agree with you accepting makes only weaker. Nowadays, being cool in the team means troll others and joke about your mistakes or put it under the carpet. When someone agrees for mistake and apologies for doing that it gives trolls food for the next year. This post says the right thing to do from book theory. I have tried this. it doesn't work in practical terms. I want opinion from troll camp (who have done trolling others for making mistakes)
laughinghan 6y ago
I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual Sure it has, for example Dan Harmon's public apology to Megan Ganz: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-apology-megan-ganz-community https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap... Public apologies, therefore, are the metaphorical equivalent of blood in the water for attracting sharks. What are some examples of public apologies that met all 5 of these criteria [1], but made things worse rather than better? Would you consider the possibility that maybe the apologies that made things worse were actually done wrong, but they could have helped if they were done right? More generally, apologies, restorative justice, truth and reconciliation, and related ideas seem to me like the obvious and only way to we can heal from injustice in our society. Refusing to admit fault seems obviously corrosive to society, and to a person's ego. [1]: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/5/16710430/sexual-harassment-apologies-matt-lauer-louis-ck https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/5/16710430/sexual-har... [Edit: man, I feel stupid for complaining about downvotes, but I am really not sure how I could have been more constructive with my disagreement in this comment. I cited examples, suggested an alternative explanation for observations my parent described, and didn't criticize anyone. What did I do wrong? I am ready and willing to apologize if I made any mistakes]
- humannature1 6y ago
  This is a great apology. Of course, he was wrong. Very wrong. But, I think there is one power dynamic that's missing in the entire #metoo discussion. The power advantage that young women have on men; due to evolutionary pressures. Harmon didn't mean to be attracted to her. It happened. I know biology isn't important in 2020. But I listened to his apology and realized that the human nature discussion is never part of this situation. Ted Chiang's "liking what you see a documentary" is a good case study of a world where attraction's turned off. As a woman, I sometimes think we aren't empathic enough about how attraction works in men. It doesn't mean they are excused for sexual harassment. I just think evolutionary pressures should be part of the discussion. Neither person should be setup to fail.
smsm42 6y ago
Well, that depends on a situation. If you're in an environment where people are united by a common goal and assume good faith, then admitting you done goofed up (when you did) is the best way - everybody knows you realized your mistake and will try to do better, and people can move on - and usually will be glad to offer you to help fixing it. And they'd know they can count on you to own up to your mistakes - so they'd be ready to listen if you say something isn't a mistake. If you are in a "cancel culture" situation, then people that surround you are not you friends, and they do not have common goals with you. You can not win. Best thing is to get out of that situation ASAP, if you can not - minimize your losses in any way you can. And continue looking to get out of this situation, because you can not win, and you will surely lose sooner or later. Try to still be kind to others - you won't fix the broken culture, but at least you can have a little island of non-awfulness around you.
munificent 6y ago
> especially in the current moral panic climate. A side effect of everyone getting 15 minutes of fame/infamy is that it means an increasing fraction of social interactions are one-shot. Often, the only time you will ever hear about someone is when they do something dumb that catches the Twitter zeitgeist. Once the moment has passed, they fade from view. The optimal strategy for iterated prisoner's dilemma where you will interact with an opponent multiple times involves some level of fairness and give and take. The optimal strategy for single-turn prisoner's dilemma is to assume bad faith and selfishly betray your opponent. Infer from that as you will.
pkukkapalli 6y ago
One of the bosses I had at a big bank told me the one thing she observed about successful people was that they never got hung up on mistakes. If they made a mistake, they just moved on as if it didn't happen, but would apologize if you asked sincerely one on one. I think that's a pretty good middle ground. Apologizing too readily might also signal you lack self-respect or confidence which may invite even more vitriol.
baby 6y ago
I like how everybody is talking about cancel culture without saying the words. We’re at a point where it’s definitely not just the right complaining about it.

Pryde 6y ago

Surely with regards to outcomes, there's a good argument to be made that one shouldn't admit guilt. But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I personally quite liked the advice given, and wish I had held myself to it more often in the past. I think there's definitely some truth to what you're saying, but I also wonder how much this is a problem offline, I've not encountered it heavily, but I'm also not a particularly online person.

macspoofing 6y ago
>But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I'm not sure about that. I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemption because the wronged individual can accept the apology and forgive (or not). In the latter case, there is no acceptance, there's only the mob who wants to make an example of you because they now have 100% proof of your guilt.
- Pryde 6y ago
  Fortunately I've never found myself in a position of sufficient power/responsibility to have to offer an apology to a group. Is there a balance to be struck between the difficulty the apologizer will undoubtedly face from rage mobs and the consolation some members of the wronged group may feel from the apologizer acknowledging wrongdoing and committing to do better in the future? I don't know that I could blame someone for avoiding a public apology, with the current nature of online harassment, but I think that's a question anyone who finds themselves in such a position should at least ask themselves. And of course, if everyone also adhered to the "What should I do when I see someone else is making a mistake?" section, then the world would be perfect and conflicts would be much more easily resolved.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemption because the wronged individual can accept the apology and forgive (or not)." Note that those to whom you apologize may communicate that apology to "the mob", with the result that they have proof of your guilt as well as proof of your lack of forthrightness. In the ultimate case, if you are following your own advice, Machiavelli and my bitter cynicism suggest that not leaving live enemies behind you is the best strategy.
at_a_remove 6y ago
Yes, but do we live in that idealistic world? I would answer with a very firm no. The world would be a lot better place if everyone did (any number of things), but perfect compliance is just never going to happen. We cannot get people to not murder each other over shoes or sports teams. Any plan which depends on this compliance is doomed to failure.
- Pryde 6y ago
  Yeah, I generally agree with you. Mostly just exploring thoughts here, the gp comment prompted a kinda unexpected re-examining of my hitherto un-examined ideas on the ethical basis of the advice in the post. I'd generally consider myself something of a utilitarian/consequentialist, and would normally accept the premise that apologizing in front of the Twitter mob would at best do nothing positive, but for whatever reason my brain wants me to say "apologizing is right, and consequences be damned"
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Might I suggest some research into Kant's categorical imperative, some time listening to your brain, and possibly the history of Joseph McCarthy?
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    I think you should also examine the possibility that gp is straightforwardly wrong, and that a good apology can make things better, even (or especially) in the face of being called out on Twitter. Consider how Dan Harmon reacted to Megan Ganz calling him out on Twitter: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-apology-megan-ganz-community https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap... Doubtless many people have made things worse with "non-apology apologies" [1]. But your brain wants to say "apologizing is right" because when done right, it is right. To me, truth and reconciliation are self-evidently how we build a better world, and refusal to take responsibility for mistakes is self-evidently corrosive to the individual and to society. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

mannykannot 6y ago

Denying that you have made a mistake is likely to piss off the people who would otherwise be willing to move on. As the "mob", which may or may not exist in any given situation, is not going to be swayed by protests of innocence, the former are the only people you should care about.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jmartrican 6y ago
Agreed. Apologizing may keep the mob size small and insignificant.
- draw_down 6y ago
  macspoofing is right. This stuff works opposite to how you and GP are describing.
- smsm42 6y ago
  Did it ever happen? Did anybody actually get out of being cancelled by mobs by apologizing?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    The point of apologising isn't to avoid consequences. It's intended to mitigate three sorts of damages: that inflicted on whoever suffered because of you, the damage society experiences any time its rules are broken, and the damage you have done to yourself by breaking some moral standard you believe in. To that end, an apology that allows s/o to "get out" as in "saw no further consequences" isn't necessarily what's being claimed, because it still needs to come with (some) costs, even if they are mostly symbolic. And, yes, of course there are people apologising for all sorts of behaviour that's being criticised every day. A Google News search has about five dozen examples from just the last day or two[1]. If apologies are never beneficial, I doubt they would be used that often. Apologies are also a central factor in the most formalised system of "being cancelled" we have, the criminal justice system. As to "getting out" of "being cancelled" by "mobs" I wouldn't know since I already have trouble identifying what that's supposed to mean. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=apologized&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk015YH3KfbTXXzdxGIp7ude9dVVZ9Q:1605312453030&ei=xR-vX9mWAYKMrwSH5LegAw&start=50&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiZjZD03oDtAhUCxosKHQfyDTQQ8NMDCM0D&biw=1415&bih=739&dpr=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=apologized&client=safari&rls...

microtherion 6y ago

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I see the "never apologize" philosophy as having an utterly corrosive effect on the person who made a mistake. What I try to do is apologize concisely, but then feel free to ignore people who want to drag this out into "that was not a REAL apology" / "now confess to your OTHER crimes" territory.

fastball 6y ago
Things like this can be hard to ignore when, say, the angry mob is trying to get you fired.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Admittedly, this can be a problematic situation, especially when part of the original mistake was speaking about something employment related without being a spokesperson for said employer. Another problematic situation can be if the mistake involves actual illegal acts. In those cases, discretion (omitting the apology or keeping it to an absolute minimum) may indeed be the better part of valor. But even in those situations, I see absolutely no upside in publicly denying your mistake at length, if in fact you've made one.
  - fastball 6y ago
    I think people in this thread are talking at cross-purposes. On the one hand, you have the people who are talking about when you genuinely make a mistake, and recognize it as such before public outcry. On the other end of the spectrum, you have people that maybe feel that they were acting / talking / behaving in a way that is normal but are being told that they made a mistake. In these circumstances, there is usually the issue that the nature of the mistake is quite subjective. In the former case, your strategy is probably a good one. In the latter, I think the "don't apologize" is probably the better way to go, for the reasons outlined by GC.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

> No. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as Judge Brandeis observed. Proper handling of mistakes is a sterling quality in anyone, and particularly important in a leader or public servant of any kind. It pays long-term dividends.

NalNezumi 6y ago

The best course of action in public apology that includes potential mobs running rampant is to wait. If possible, do not immediately make any statement and if in a organization, make an "we are investigating" response. Most mobs are moved by emotions and herd mentality so just being silent for a while can disperse the worst of the mobs. Make an thorough apology (like the guideline here) later. Most internet mobs just move on to the next totem pole to burn in days so this seems to work (and is indeed how a lot of companies respond if they can't just fire someone and get over it) A real mob, such as campus students can be a bit more troublesome.

mcguire 6y ago

Let's pretend for a minute that you have a conscience and feel bad about the effects of the mistake---not just the effects of having the mistake discovered. What if you have harmed someone you cared about? Would you still apply the strategy you are advocating? Perhaps apologies do "serve as a license for the mob to further punish". Even so, what is the result to your life or to an organization of doing what you suggest?

bserge 6y ago

You don't apologize, you just own it. "Yeah, I made a mistake, shit happens, now I know better". Though looking at current leaders of industries and countries, you could get away with just pretending you did nothing wrong.

cutemonster 6y ago
And talking (tweeting) about other unrelated things that make people upset but aren't about your mistake. Diverting attention

prepend 6y ago

I kind of skip apologies now and either look at changed behavior or set up some reminder to check for changed behavior. This is legally because apologies from companies are so full of doublespeak and low value language that it’s a waste of my time to read, much less expect any understanding. Here’s an example from Pichai [0]. I do like the outage report style that some companies use [1] and think this is the way to repeat a problem and what you do to fix it. This takes the place of an apology or denial. [0] https://www.axios.com/google-ceo-apologizes-past-sexual-harassment-aec53899-6ac0-4a70-828d-70c263e56305.html https://www.axios.com/google-ceo-apologizes-past-sexual-hara... [1] https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/ https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/

throw7 6y ago

There's only one rule for apologizing: You apologize if you actually believe that you've done wrong. NEVER apologize for something you believe was done correctly or in good faith or for "PR" or whatever else.

freehunter 6y ago
Not listening to this advice is 100% the reason why people don’t trust a lot of public apologies: too many people/companies “apologizing” by saying “I’m sorry you got mad” or “I’m sorry you found out about this”. If you apologize, mean it. If you don’t mean it, don’t apologize. Every time a person/company apologizes for getting caught, it demeans public trust in everyone’s apologies.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
Should you not apologize for unintended consequences, i.e. done in good faith, but on your authority/responsibility?
- throw7 6y ago
  I think only you can answer that question. Part of a good apology is knowing one-self and self-reflection. Unintended consequences happen, yes, and I don't think one could argue one way is always the right answer in all cases. Just remember rule 1 and that is _you_ that is giving the apology.
zmmmmm 6y ago
The problem is the "good faith" bit ... that often isn't visible downstream, and to external stakeholders it looks like you are making excuses. For example, if I make a commitment to somebody and then circumstances outside my control prevent me from fulfilling it, I may very well say "it's not my fault, apologising would be insincere". But to an external stakeholder what they see is they are wearing consequences and I am not accepting accountability. There are a million shades of gray according to how much I could / should have anticipated the eventuality ... but that makes it really not simple to make this kind of call, and I would have to say, if you are going to err, I would rather err on the side of apologising than not.

DenisM 6y ago

People in strong position stand to gain by apologizing, while people in weak position stand to lose. One must consider one's standing before dabbling. In my own company I try to apologize every time I screw something up. I know my position is unassailable, and my team members should have trust that their leadership is in touch with reality. I am also cognizant of the fact that no hired employee has the same level of security, and it troubles me.

0000011111 6y ago
Apologizing is a good leadership strategy regardless of standing IMO. It shows that you are human which can help one gain and maintain report with fellow workers. Refusing to apologize has the opposite effect.
- thebean11 6y ago
  If others are looking for any reason to get rid of you, it might put them in a better position to pull the trigger. Obviously that doesn't describe the vast majority of situations though.
- curiousllama 6y ago
  Strong disagree. I want to follow someone who knows when not to apologize: when it’s _not_ their/our mistake, when assigning blame doesn’t help, and when they’re fighting for us.
  - loufe 6y ago
    I don't see how this contradicts the parent's post at all?
dustinhayes 6y ago
I’m my experience it is up to the entire team or organization to cultivate such an environment. I do agree, it has to start somewhere.
crispyporkbites 6y ago

beingHacker 6y ago

I will also agree with you accepting makes only weaker. Nowadays, being cool in the team means troll others and joke about your mistakes or put it under the carpet. When someone agrees for mistake and apologies for doing that it gives trolls food for the next year. This post says the right thing to do from book theory. I have tried this. it doesn't work in practical terms. I want opinion from troll camp (who have done trolling others for making mistakes)

laughinghan 6y ago

I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual Sure it has, for example Dan Harmon's public apology to Megan Ganz: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-apology-megan-ganz-community https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap... Public apologies, therefore, are the metaphorical equivalent of blood in the water for attracting sharks. What are some examples of public apologies that met all 5 of these criteria [1], but made things worse rather than better? Would you consider the possibility that maybe the apologies that made things worse were actually done wrong, but they could have helped if they were done right? More generally, apologies, restorative justice, truth and reconciliation, and related ideas seem to me like the obvious and only way to we can heal from injustice in our society. Refusing to admit fault seems obviously corrosive to society, and to a person's ego. [1]: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/5/16710430/sexual-harassment-apologies-matt-lauer-louis-ck https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/5/16710430/sexual-har... [Edit: man, I feel stupid for complaining about downvotes, but I am really not sure how I could have been more constructive with my disagreement in this comment. I cited examples, suggested an alternative explanation for observations my parent described, and didn't criticize anyone. What did I do wrong? I am ready and willing to apologize if I made any mistakes]

humannature1 6y ago
This is a great apology. Of course, he was wrong. Very wrong. But, I think there is one power dynamic that's missing in the entire #metoo discussion. The power advantage that young women have on men; due to evolutionary pressures. Harmon didn't mean to be attracted to her. It happened. I know biology isn't important in 2020. But I listened to his apology and realized that the human nature discussion is never part of this situation. Ted Chiang's "liking what you see a documentary" is a good case study of a world where attraction's turned off. As a woman, I sometimes think we aren't empathic enough about how attraction works in men. It doesn't mean they are excused for sexual harassment. I just think evolutionary pressures should be part of the discussion. Neither person should be setup to fail.

smsm42 6y ago

Well, that depends on a situation. If you're in an environment where people are united by a common goal and assume good faith, then admitting you done goofed up (when you did) is the best way - everybody knows you realized your mistake and will try to do better, and people can move on - and usually will be glad to offer you to help fixing it. And they'd know they can count on you to own up to your mistakes - so they'd be ready to listen if you say something isn't a mistake. If you are in a "cancel culture" situation, then people that surround you are not you friends, and they do not have common goals with you. You can not win. Best thing is to get out of that situation ASAP, if you can not - minimize your losses in any way you can. And continue looking to get out of this situation, because you can not win, and you will surely lose sooner or later. Try to still be kind to others - you won't fix the broken culture, but at least you can have a little island of non-awfulness around you.

munificent 6y ago

> especially in the current moral panic climate. A side effect of everyone getting 15 minutes of fame/infamy is that it means an increasing fraction of social interactions are one-shot. Often, the only time you will ever hear about someone is when they do something dumb that catches the Twitter zeitgeist. Once the moment has passed, they fade from view. The optimal strategy for iterated prisoner's dilemma where you will interact with an opponent multiple times involves some level of fairness and give and take. The optimal strategy for single-turn prisoner's dilemma is to assume bad faith and selfishly betray your opponent. Infer from that as you will.

pkukkapalli 6y ago

One of the bosses I had at a big bank told me the one thing she observed about successful people was that they never got hung up on mistakes. If they made a mistake, they just moved on as if it didn't happen, but would apologize if you asked sincerely one on one. I think that's a pretty good middle ground. Apologizing too readily might also signal you lack self-respect or confidence which may invite even more vitriol.

baby 6y ago

I like how everybody is talking about cancel culture without saying the words. We’re at a point where it’s definitely not just the right complaining about it.