Apologizing: Good for Your Reputation

UPDATE OCT. 2: Since the discussion in the comments to this post quickly devolved into a flame war, I'm closing comments on this post. I don't think flame wars or personal attacks are constructive.

Often I'm amazed at how the universe conspires to hit me over the head with a theme, yelling "You MUST blog this!" That's just happened this morning on the theme of apologies. Particularly, how crucial apologies are to public discourse -- and to re-establishing broken trust with your core community and the general public.

Everyone messes up sometime. However, acknowledging your role in a problem, apologizing for it, and making amends is not a sign of weakness. In fact, it's often the bravest, strongest, smartest, and most constructive thing an individual, publisher, or organization can do. Especially because conversational media has a way of amplifying any failure to apologize, thus making the consequences of your original screw-up much worse in the long run.

Here are all the hints on this theme that fate has handed me in the last 24 hours...

• Burning Batteries and Sony's Silence: This post yesterday by Shel Israel noted how Sony, manufacturer of the faulty batteries that led to multiple recalls by Dell and other computer makers, has so far failed to apologize for its role in this flap. (UPDATE: As far as I can tell, this bland statement is the extent of what Sony has had to say publicly on the matter.)
  

   

• The Center for Citizen Media wants to reassure budding citizen journalists that even the pros aren't perfect. They're collecting anecdotes from news pros 'fessing up about factual or editorial mishaps.

   

• The Ventura County Reporter yesterday published an advice column by self-described "Advice Goddess" Amy Alkon bearing the headline "Along Came Polyamory." Unfortunately, the article involved an issue of blatant sexual/emotional irresponsibility in a relationship, not polyamory (which means being open to having more than one intimate, committed partner at a time with the full knowledge and consent of all involved). Alkon claimed in e-mail that she clarified that distinction, making her headine merely "ironic" -- but in fact she did not. Her off-target attempt at humor ended up perpetuating offensive misinformation and stereotypes about a growing community. That ain't funny.

  Seeing polyamory conflated so prominently with irresponsibility bothered me, so I contacted Alkon to politely let her know about her error. I promptly received a very snarky e-mail response from Alkon accusing me of not grasping her "irony." Hey, that's something you shouldn't say to an editor -- something I just clarified by e-mail to Alkon and the Ventura County Reporter.

  I'm hoping Alkon or the paper will apologize for the error -- but it's a shame that, given a polite opening to acknowledge her error and rebuild her credibility, she instead opted for denial and dismissal. I'll bet that will probably haunt her worse than simply owning up and moving on...

WHY APOLOGIZE?

Apologies are an important and un-missable step in moving on. As such, they're a crucial part of public discourse, of managing reputation, and of simply getting along in the world. Denial and defensiveness only keeps you stuck in a bad situation.

In this age of conversational media, failure to apologize always gets noticed and discussed. Thus, it ends up amplifying your error through search engines, blogging, forums, and subsequent media coverage.

You can't prevent those ripple effects by deleting comments on your blog, or by refusing to answer difficult questions. The public conversation is beyond your control. However, by making a sincere apology when warranted, you can influence the public conversation in a constructive way.

Case in point: On Sept. 8, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a sincere, plain-spoken apology for launching a new feature that ended up violating users' privacy and stirring up great public anger. Here's how he began that public letter:

"We really messed this one up. When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed we were trying to provide you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them. I'd like to try to correct those errors now..."

Now that's something I'd like to see more CEOs -- and others -- have the guts to say.

WHAT ABOUT LAWSUITS? COSTS AND BENEFITS

Yes, this is a litigious age. Hence, lawyers usually counsel their clients or employers that apologizing or even acknowledging the part you played in a problem can open you up to lawsuits. And, sadly, that's true -- although lawsuits tend to be triggered by screwing up, not by apologizing. But in the long run I don't think potential legal vulnerability is a good enough reason to avoid apologizing when necessary.

Like everything, apologizing is a tradeoff. When you apologize, you do make yourself vulnerable. You will continue to get criticism. You may be held accountable (legally or otherwise) for your actions, or asked/expected to make amends. However, chances are you'd face those same consequences even without apologizing.

But what you gain from making sincere apologies are respect, credibility, and goodwill. This action demonstrates that you are responsible, even if you sometimes screw up. Plus, sincere apologies and attempts at amends resonate deeply with people on a very basic, human level. That makes an apology a particularly effective communication tool (if sincere, not manipulative).

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL

In the long run, integrity does more to build reputation and trust than anything else. This has real value, even in business. Look how much companies spend on PR and marketing to create those benefits. Look how often elected officials are voted out based on failures to own up to mistakes or misdeeds.

I don't think that, in this world, anyone really expects perfection from any person or organization. Sincere apologies reflect this reality and attempt to build something positive from it. Truth and reconciliation shouldn't just apply to the extremes of genocide or political repression. They're core values we all can -- and should -- practice routinely in work and life.

So the next time you mess up, remember the long-term benefits of a prompt, sincere apology. Take a deep breath and just get through it. You'll be better off, and you'll be able to put unpleasant episodes behind you faster. You may even end up looking stronger and more credible than before.

Comments

[Howard Owens]

I'm missing the point, apparently, on Amy. As always, her column was wickedly funny and well written. Her snarkiness is right in keeping with her usual style.

I've been reading Amy for years and have the pleasure of attending a few of the same parties with her. She's a hell of a nice person.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you say.

[Amy Gahran]

Howard, if you found that headline funny in the context of that article, then fine for you, I'm sure Amy Alkon will be pleased. However, some poly people found it at least ignorant and annoying, at worst offensive and insulting.

- Amy Gahran

[Howard Owens]

I didn't say I found it funny. I never even heard the word before ... didn't even read the headline when I read the column yesterday ... I just don't get the whole controversy.

I like Amy. And I don't get it. That's all.

[Howard Owens]

Just to clarify ... I found the column funny. I didn't read the headline ... glossed right over it.

I thought writers didn't write headlines anyway ... and Amy is syndicated ... doesn't even work for the VCReporter.

[Amy Alkon]

Howard gets it.

Regarding apologies: Amy, you seem intent on hammering me, and seem to take some enjoyment from repeatedly e-mailing me and the VC Reporter about how wrong I supposedly was -- despite the fact that what you clearly didn't read the column closely enough to see that I'm quite precise (and quite correct) about what ethical polyamory is.

Perhaps you were just looking for fodder for your apologies blog item -- regardless of whether it really fit the bill? I have to tell you, I'm big on accountability, and when I make a mistake, I own up to it. About a month ago, my friend Rob Long told me I'd been a jerk about something. My response: "Yeah, you're right. I was."

In this case, I maintain my point from before: The headline was ironic and I made clear in the column that what they had wasn't polyamory, but a case of a guy cheating.

The real shame here is that I have about 30 requests for advice, just from today, and I'm repeating the same thing over and over to you, which is kind of a waste. By the way, I got only three complaints, all from Ventura. None from any other paper that runs me, and there are quite a few.

If I felt I'd been cryptic, I'd apologize. If I felt I didn't understand polyamory, and didn't advise well on it, I'd also apologize and educate myself further. On the contrary, I put a lot of work into that column, into being precise about stating what polyamory is and isn't, and I feel I stated it rather clearly.

By the way, Nena O'Neill herself was a fan of my work and of my thinking. Obviously she certainly had a clear grasp on what it means to have a sexually open marriage, as do I. -Amy Alkon

[Amy Alkon]

I do write the headlines for my column. Daily papers tend to write their own. Alts will run mine.

I hope it isn't all polyamorous people that have such a hard time with irony! Here, I'll strip it down and explain it for the oversensitive and in need of assistance:

The headline in question: "Along Came Polyamory." It wasn't consenting polyamory, but the guy was groping a whole bunch of women; ie, he was forcing polyamory on his girlfriend without asking for her consent. To explain further: Along came polyamory without her consent...well, how fun for her.

There's a book I recommend often to readers called "The Ethical Slut." It talks about consenting polyamory - that's the ethical part. Fantastic book.

Ultimately, this has been a really silly waste of time spent on a manufactured problem. I wish I'd spent it giving free advice to people with real problems, but there are women with blog space to fill with huffy bits about uppity people who won't apologize, so...so be it!

Additionally, I'd never get out of bed if I were this sensitive. Luckily, I'm a godless harlot with a rather thick skin.

There has been one pleasant note -- connecting with Howard. Hi, How, hope you're well. Hope to see you down here in LA one of these days!

[Amy Gahran]

Amy Alkon, to clarify, I didn't go looking for ammunition to my column. It got handed to me in a Google alert this morning. For some reason, the VC Reporter was the only paper so far, of all your syndication outlets, that showed up in Google News. When it starts appearing more widely online, you'll undoubtedly be getting more complaints from the poly community.

You actually did not clarify that the man's behavior described in the letter you published and answered was not polyamory. In fact, you did just the opposite. By giving a leading headline "Along came polyamory" and then describing behavior that has nothing to do with polyamory, and by failing to mention later that this wasn't polyamory, you implied that his behavior had something to do with polyamory.

You did write, "There are "sexually open relationships," but none other than the late Nena O'Neill, coauthor of Open Marriage, admitted to me that few couples can make a go of them. Of course, without an explicit agreement for, let's say, a feel-up free-for-all, you don't have a sexually open anything, just a partner who's cheating." Nowhere there do you mention the word polyamory again.

As Howard's comments above indicate, "polyamory" is an unfamiliar term to many people. What you did was foster confusion and stereotyping for people who are unfamiliar with the term -- and offended some people who are familiar with the term, especially poly people.

Nothing ironic, or funny, about that.

- Amy Gahran

[Amy Alkon]

Amy, here's the relevant passage.

There are "sexually open relationships," but none other than the late Nena O'Neill, coauthor of Open Marriage, admitted to me that few couples can make a go of them. Of course, without an explicit agreement for, let's say, a feel-up free-for-all, you don't have a sexually open anything, just a partner who's cheating.

If readers want to know what a word means, they'll do as I do and open the dictionary.

I'm not the polyamory publicity society. Perhaps if you spent more time telling people about what it is instead of attacking people like me who actually write fairly about it, the word wouldn't be such a mystery.

Jeez, what a time-waste.

[Amy Gahran]

Amy Alkon: yes, I saw that passage, as I noted above. And I explained why it didn't clarify anything, contrary to your contention.

It might be more professional to just acknowledge that your headline, in the context of the article, could be construed as offensive to people in the poly community, and leave it at that.

- Amy Gahran

[Amy Alkon]

Amy, a lot of my headlines are probably offensive to people. Unfortunately, I seem incapable of writing vanilla. If you don't have a sense of humor, don't read my column.

[Tom Vilot]

I just can't see how you, Amy Alkon, can say your article explains what polyamory is. You don't even use the word in the piece, except in the title.

> Along came polyamory without
> her consent...well, how fun for her.

Then that's not polyamory. Thus, you are demonstrating a profound ignorance as to what it is. Thus you have no business writing about it, let alone using it in the title for this piece.

> There's a book I recommend often to readers called
> "The Ethical Slut." It talks about consenting polyamory -
> that's the ethical part. Fantastic book.

Yes, it is widely know in the poly community. I'm having a hard time believing you have read it if you can describe polaymory as something she entered into without consent.

Finally, there is no discussion of the relationship. All you do is bash the man for his behavior, and bash the woman for being spineless.

If you were actually writing about polyamory, I'm sure you would introduce the word to the original writer, and explain what it is. You could then compare and contrast what he is talking about and what he is doing with what polyamory is.

Nothing in this man's behavior can be nailed down as "polyamorous." He's describing what he likes, what he would like, and disclosing it to his partner. That's a great opportunity for communication.

Instead, you advocate "running away."

Your depth of understanding of couples and polyamory is truly unimpressive.

[Amy Alkon]

Tom...I wasn't writing ABOUT polyamory. It was a side remark in a column.

Again, I'm not the polyamory PR society. Do your own work. I mean, after you finish your lifelong search for a sense of humor.

[Jackie Danicki]

I count Amy Alkon amongst the most conscientiously ethical people I have known in my life; if she puts a foot wrong, she admits it and apologises. In this instance, she has not put a foot wrong, and no amount of chest-beating outrage will make it otherwise.

[Tom]

> Just to clarify ... I found the column funny.

I found the entire article offensive, given the title. Without the title, it might have struck me as humorous.

What she is basically doing (because of the title) is describing this scenario as if it were poly.

It's not. In fact, it bears absolutely no relationship to it. She could just as easily have said "Along came a Christian" and it would be equally as offensive --- to Christians.

[Amy Alkon]

I offend Christians all the time, but mainly on my blog.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/goddessblog.html

[Howard Owens]

I wonder, Amy G., if part of the miscommunication here might be that you don't regularly read Amy A.?

As a reader very familiar with Amy A.'s style, everything makes sense (note, I fell in love with Amy's writing long, long before I ever met her). And, if Amy were to write vanilla, I and a lot of other people would stop reading her.

If you want vanilla, read Dear Abby or Ann Landers.

Also, for a variety of reasons, every appearance of Amy's column will not show up in Google News.

[Amy Gahran]

Howard, it's true that I'm not familiar with Amy A's style. However, I don't believe I need to be familiar with the body of an author's work in order to have a reaction to a particular example of her work.

That's the thing about the internet -- every piece of content stands on its own, since it can be discovered, read, and discussed on its own.

But even if I was familiar with Amy A's body of work, this particular column still would have bothered me, and I still would have brought it to her attention (and the VC Reporter's) as I did - politely, and assuming no ill intent.

Amy A. seems to think I've attacked her and perhaps trashed her personally. I've tried very hard not to create that impression here -- but if you feel attacked, Amy A., I sincerely apologize for contributing to that impression. That was definitely not my intent.

- Amy Gahran

[Howard Owens]

Amy, G: FWIW, I'm didn't get involved in this thread to pick on you, either. I like and respect your writing on new media. I was just baffled by your calling out Amy A. on this topic, and Amy A. is somebody else I like and respect, so I piped up.

Related: I haven't forgotten that you came to my defense when Belardes was picking on me, so to speak. Interestingly, Nick and I have become good friends over the past four months.

[Amy Gahran]

No problem Howard, we're cool, I never felt you were picking on me. And you can totally disagree with me on whatever you like, anytime. :D

- Amy Gahran

[Crid]

> You actually did not clarify that the man's
> behavior described in the letter you
> published and answered was not
> polyamory

People into weird sex usually have two other characteristics. 1.) They're precious about it. 2.) They're dull as dirt otherwise. (And by weird sex I mean, like, whatever.)

Churchill said a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. That's how it is when your average bondage enthusiast or rubber fanatic starts talking you up at a cocktail party. It's not really that they won't change the subject, but their feelings get hurt if you use the wrong terms for things just as a conversational expedience. (See "weird," above.) If you say it's wife-swapping when actually it's a time-sharing, half-phased three-way over a holiday weekend, they'll spend twenty minutes correcting your error. This insistence on linguistic precision drains the topic of whatever interest it might have held. It's rude.

But I've known good, steady people who were into all kinds of nonstandard conduct, erotic and otherwise. The thing that made them good and steady was that they didn't get all cranked if you made a mild error when talking about it. It would be like if you'd said his truck was Ford instead of a Dodge... Wut-evar.

> could be construed as offensive
> to people in the poly community,

Are you a member of the editorial staff of the Los Angeles Times? Does "could be construed as offensive" describe the line you want to toe as you move through the world? Sometimes when people's feelings get hurt, it's because they deserve to.

[Amy Gahran]

One final footnote on the Advice Goddess flap...

This morning I got an e-mail from a reader who pointed out that her same column, which ran 9/25 in the Orange County Register, bore the far more accurate headline "Serial hugger is just a groper with a unique excuse."

See: http://snipurl.com/xswh

It's common for news organizations to change headlines for syndicated content.

This reader, who prefers to remain anonymous, wrote, "I wonder if they changed her original headline because they didn't understand the word polyamory -- or maybe because they did."

- Amy Gahran

[Amy Alkon]

Sorry, Amy, I thought you worked as an editor. Apparently, your knowledge of the newspaper business is about on par with your grasp of the concept of irony. Here, I'll help you out:

Dailies almost always write their own headlines. In fact, I can't think of one occasion a daily has run one of mine. Most alt weeklies, on the other hand, run the headlines I write.

I can understand that you'd be hungry for blog traffic, but this is a controversy that isn't. Here's the line from my column:

There are "sexually open relationships," but none other than the late Nena O'Neill, coauthor of "Open Marriage," admitted to me that few couples can make a go of them. Of course, without an explicit agreement for, let's say, a feel-up free-for-all, you don't have a sexually open anything, just a partner who's cheating.

Apparently, yes, I do understand polyamory. I still don't understand how you get out of bed every day without a sense of humor.

[Luighseach]

How strange... I wasn't offended by the column, but it was worth an eyeroll. I don't see why anyone would bother mentioning polyamory at all in that context.