In the words of Ben Franklin, “Never ruin an apology with an excuse.” (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
The call to make an apology is one of life’s most consistent expectations. We’re all called to make them, whether in our personal, social, professional or organizational capacities. While stakes can be high, we often extend an apology without giving much thought to what we’re really saying, or how the apology will be received.
Because if you’re going to make an effective apology—whether on your own behalf or on behalf of an organization—you’ve got to really mean it. That’s why the current controversy surrounding San Diego Padres star Fernando Tatis, Jr. offers such a useful reminder of the power of remorse in the context of an apology.
Tatis is one of baseball’s great young stars. Before his 22nd birthday, he earned an incredible $340 million dollar, fourteen-year contract from the Padres in 2021, based on his performance over less than two full seasons. The Padres in turn structured their strategic future on Tatis’ skills and youth, and made several foundational player transactions premised on his continued high-level performance.
But what is it said about the best laid plans? Tatis broke his wrist in a motorcycle accident this spring requiring a multi-month recuperation. Then, earlier this month as he was preparing to rejoin the team for the pennant race, he received an 80-game suspension for violation of baseball’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. He tested positive for the banned steroid Clostebol. He likely won’t play a single game this season.
Team ownership, and his teammates reacted negatively, with questions about Tatis’ maturity and commitment. His credibility has been broadly challenged in the media. Serious questions have arisen about his future with the team.
The baseball players’ union released a written apology on Tatis’ behalf in which he apologized to his team and its leaders, blaming the failed drug test on his ‘inadvertent’ use of ringworm medication containing the steroid.
Needless to say, the apology doesn’t seem to have worked. The statement was broadly criticized for its formalistic tone (i.e., not necessarily the words a 22-year-old might choose) and for its exculpatory nature (i.e., a mistake in medication choice). A prominent baseball writer suggested that Tatis "needs to employ better liars.” Tatis may indeed be totally contrite about the circumstances, but the statement doesn’t seem to have expressed that effectively.
While perhaps unsuccessful in its primary purpose, the Tatis statement has broader value as a lesson on the importance that contrition and remorse contribute to a successful apology.
Americans generally are a forgiving people. They believe in second chances when others shoot square with them. It’s something along the “seventy times seven” orientation; a cultural attribute. But the mere making of an apology doesn’t always guarantee that it will be accepted. For many, that acceptance has to be earned: by a sincere acceptance of responsibility for the wrong that occurred and remorse for the harm it caused.
That should be the goal of any apology-whether it comes from a friend, a partner, an advisor, a service provider, a professional athlete, a company, or others. And it shouldn’t be marginalized by exculpation or excuse; by circumstance or bad luck. As the author Mignon McLaughlin once expressed, “True remorse is never just a regret over consequence; it is a regret over motive.”
As Politico has noted, this distinction was famously demonstrated by former President Bill Clinton’s two public apologies for the Monica Lewinsky affair. In his first public statement. Clinton adopted an indefinite approach (not actually referencing “apology”): “I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.” In response to heavy criticism of this “lawyerly” approach, his subsequent comments were far more personal (and effective), stating that he had “sinned,” asked for forgiveness, and specifically identified by name those he knew to have been harmed by his actions.
These are lessons of particular relevance to organizations and their board and executive leaders. The organizational reputation is an asset for which these leaders are responsible for protecting. In times of corporate controversy, the reputational risks can be extremely high.
Officers and directors are thus increasingly willing to make timely public apologies for corporate failings, whether those may relate to their products, their service, their employees, their operational results and even their compliance with the law. These apologies are typically directed at a broad range of their constituents that may include consumers, investors, vendors, employees and the communities in which they operate.
The Tatis controversy offers guidance to these leaders on how best to express the organizational remorse. Get to the heart of the matter; communicate as genuinely as possible the organization’s regret and commit to learning from the mistakes made. Don’t make excuses; don’t point fingers elsewhere; don’t blame it on taking the wrong ringworm medication.
And while the advice of seasoned communications experts should be sought in developing the apology strategy, don’t delegate the entirety of the process to those experts. The best firms wouldn’t be comfortable with such an arrangement. The substance of the ultimate communication should reflect, in the vernacular, the personal contrition of the board of directors and of the chief executive officer.
The refrain “Never apologize, never explain” is often attributed to Winston Churchill. Yet, as history has noted, some of Churchill’s most entertaining observations proved long on cleverness but short on correctness. Like this one. For now, more than ever there is a premium on the effective apology, whether made for personal or professional reasons. If it’s not from the heart, it’s not likely to work.
