Touch. Tod Maffin
Читать онлайн книгу.
is sadly wanting in sincerity. And, it gets worse.
“But”: The Anti-Thank
Mark hadn’t considered the impact of the word “but” until he and his wife, Andrea Ross, went for premarital counselling. Their family therapist explained that “but” is an exclusionary word whereas “and” is inclusionary. He converted Mark into the cult of “every ‘but’ can be replaced with an ‘and.’”
Consider the phrase “Thanks, but you didn’t have to do that.” It’s a perfect illustration of how the “but” disqualifies the initial “thanks” and chases it with a “no thanks.” The second part of the phrase seems to suggest the speaker doesn’t really appreciate whatever was done.
Now consider the phrase “Thanks, and that was completely unnecessary.” Suddenly the appreciation of what was done and the fact that it was unnecessary can happily coexist. In fact, you could even remove the “and” and make the statement even more direct: “Thanks. That was completely unnecessary.”
The important point here is that both wanting to thank someone and thanking someone with a “but” are noncommittal. It doesn’t take much effort to be direct and remove all doubt.
Surprise someone. Next time you or your organization need to thank someone, thank them, full stop. Don’t keep talking. Don’t drain the humanity from your statement.
I’m Sorry
Leaders don’t like having to apologize. They feel it makes them appear at fault, a fallible human being. Apologizing is often done as an act of defiance — or at least as an act of reluctance. They fail to see the value of a meaningful apology as the first act of reconciliation. More importantly, they fail to see the potential to convert a challenge into an opportunity to earn respect. By phrasing their statements in a certain way, leaders convince themselves they’ve answered to the public when all they’ve really done is ensured they’re in a legally defensible position.
Mistakes are big news. Often the apologies are as well.
Apologies are especially interesting since they come in a variety of forms. There are deflecting apologies: “I’m sorry, but if A didn’t do B then I wouldn’t have done C.”; anti-apologies: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”; and woe-is-me apologies in which the apologizers twist things to make themselves appear to be the victims: “I just want my life back.” Some apologies are hard to place. Count, among those, the epic apology issued by South Carolina governor Mark Sanford for having an affair and lying about it. He covers a lot of ground and weaves together a number of experiences and people as he fumbles through his eighteen-minute press conference. Apologies can be hard. Dragging them out can only serve to make them harder for you to deliver and harder for the intended audience to follow.
Apologies are important enough for someone to have created PublicApologyCentral,[8] a YouTube library of apologies — good, bad, and diabolical. You’ll find the bizarre, two-part “Mel Gibson Accounts for his Drunken Anti-Semitic Tirade,”[9] “Serena Williams Apologizes for Threatening Line Judge at the U.S. Open,”[10] (in which Williams manages to “flip channels” and mug in a way as to distract from her mistake), and the David Letterman segment “Michael Richards Apologizes for Racist Rant at Comedy Club.”[11] It’s noteworthy that Richards speaks directly to the point and never deflects or makes light of his mistake, even if he does stutter while collecting his thoughts.
The Right Way
An effective apology requires the right balance of three critical elements:
the right words, which involves knowing which words to use and which to leave out;
the right delivery, which involves using a personal tone and embodying sincerity in the delivery; and
the right timing, which involves knowing when the apology should be issued.
A Model Apology (To a Point)
One particularly big SNAFU that received significant media attention was borderline high art. It involved now-former Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Director Chris Spence. He had penned “Without School Sports, Everyone Loses,”[12] an op-ed for the Toronto Star, which contained five instances of plagiarism.
It goes without saying this is terrible, particularly given the position Dr. Spence (as he was known at the time) held in the education ecosystem. We’ll leave the criticism to others.
It was a model apology. It should be studied and understood for its speed, decisiveness, clarity, and undeniable commitments by anyone who thinks they may have to apologize at some point (read: everyone).
Unlike public figures who have reason to be embarrassed by their actions (or at least humiliated for being caught), Spence took ownership of his mistake.
In his published apology, since removed from the Toronto District School Board’s website, Spence
explained what he did: “I wrote that op-ed and — in no less than five different instances — I did not give proper credit for the work of others. I did not attribute their work.”
illustrated how he failed to attribute work because he mixed assignments with other activities and didn’t properly track his obligations: “I did research and wrote down notes and came back at it the next day and wrote down the notes.”
highlighted the reasons he should hold himself to a higher standard: “There is no excuse for what I did. In the position I am honoured to occupy, in the wonderful job I do every single day, I of all people should have known that.”
owned his mistake: “I am ashamed and embarrassed by what I did. I have invited criticism and condemnation, and I richly deserve both.”
detailed a plan to better himself: “I intend to enroll myself in the Ethics and Law in Journalism course offered by Ryerson University.”
In fact, Spence did something particularly important. He noted that, in his role as director of education, the consequences assigned to him should be more substantial than those assigned by the school board’s policy for students.
Spence achieved something significant in his statement. By being quick to acknowledge his mistake, direct and clear in his apology, and by declaring that he will better himself, Spence set himself up for a new and even higher degree of credibility should he follow through on his commitment. He also helped to make sure the issue became “yesterday’s news today.” At the time, Mark suggested a successful reinvention would lead to a lucrative book deal and professional speaking career.
Alas, it was not meant to be. Spence submitted his resignation two days later[13] after media reports revealed that, among other things, his Ph.D. dissertation also included unattributed quotes.
You Don’t Need a Crisis
The SWARM section of this book provides a thorough framework for dealing with handling issues and crises. These situations typically involve issuing an apology.
However, an apology does not always need to be in response to a crisis. Sometimes you or your organization can unintentionally offend someone with an offhand tweet or blog post. A crisp, clear apology is definitely merited in these situations. They shouldn’t be left to snowball into a crisis that demands media attention. In fact, a prompt and definitive apology can often thwart a crisis.
Courier companies have been the subject of high-profile apologies over the last few years. FedEx, UPS, and other courier companies have been at the centre of videos featuring delivery-people who have applied creative interpretation to the phrase “Handle with care.”
One such example involves a FedEx employee captured on video throwing stacks of boxes into the back of her truck. The video was taken on July 24, 2013, and clearly shows the uniformed FedEx employee standing at the back of truck 203 997 JRB laughing while playfully showing a co-worker, not in uniform, how to get distance when throwing the boxes.
The video gained a lot of attention. Very quickly.
FedEx