Apologies and Transformational Leadership

Abstract

This empirical investigation showed that contrary to the popular notion that apologies signify weakness, the victims of mistakes made by leaders consistently perceived leaders who apologized as more transformational than those who did not apologize. In a field experiment (Study 1), male referees who were perceived as having apologized for mistakes made officiating hockey games were rated by male coaches (n = 93) as more transformational than when no apology was made. Studies 2 (n = 50) and 3 (n = 224) replicated this effect in two vignette studies to enhance internal and ecological validity. Contrary to expectations in Study 3, there were no apologyÂleader gender interactions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The Perceived Impact of Leaders’ Humility on Team Effectiveness: an Empirical Study

“…giving orders and reprimanding) as expressing low humility, inhibiting their ability to report the true humility of their leaders. It is also possible that even very humble leaders avoid some humility-related actions (e.g., apologizing) toward subordinates fearing that such behaviors will be interpreted as a weakness and thereby undermine their authority (Basford et al 2013;Tucker et al 2006). Such a possibility is more likely in cultures characterized by high power distance and modest human orientation (Ou et al 2014), as is the case in Portugal (Hofstede 1991), the country where this study was conducted, and where humility in leaders is also less valued than it is in other cultures (Mittal and Dorfman 2012).…”

Forecasting Errors in the Averseness of Apologizing

“…Moreover, research among leaders in organizational settings suggests that apologizing is associated with psychological well-being for perpetrators, including emotional health and authentic pride (Byrne et al, 2014). And lastly, as noted, research has shown that apologies may effectively promote outcomes that are valuable to perpetrators in the aftermath of transgressions, such as more favorable impressions, reconciliation, forgiveness and reduction of conflict (e.g., Aquino et al, 2001;Bottom et al, 2002;Leunissen et al, 2013;Tucker et al, 2006). In sum, these findings suggest that after having apologized, perpetrators may look upon apologies rather favorably.…”

“…Perpetrators fear that by apologizing, they surrender power by providing the victim with the choice to forgive or not, and fuelling demands for compensation (Leunissen et al, 2012;Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). This is paralleled by studies conducted in organizational settings, which shows that leaders may fear that apologizing makes them look weak and could threaten their authority, or may harm their interests by increasing the risk for demands of financial compensation (Cohen, 1999;Tucker et al, 2006). In light of such potentially averse effects of apologizing, it may not be surprising that perpetrators hold negative expectations with the act of apologizing (Lazare, 2004).…”

“…Perpetrators' reluctance to apologize is particularly problematic, however, when considering that apologies are often effective as a means to resolve conflicts and promote forgiveness and reconciliation (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001;Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, 2002;Leunissen, De Cremer, Reinders Folmer, & Van Dijke, 2013;McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). For example, research in organizational settings suggests that apologizing for injustices promotes more favorable impressions and trust in the offender, both among victims and third party observers (Basford, Offermann, & Behrend, 2013;Byrne, Barling, & Dupré, 2014;Cugueró-Escofet, Fortin, & Canela, 2013;Tucker et al, 2006). In light of these findings, the reluctance to apologize by perpetrators seems all the more puzzling and problematic (Lazare, 2004;Leunissen, De Cremer, & Reinders Folmer, 2012).…”

“…This prediction that perpetrators overestimate the negative effects of apologizing while underestimate the positive effects of apologizing follows from research showing that the potential for negative effects of behavior cause more distress and has a greater influence on representation of that behavior than the potential for positive effects of behavior (Baumeister et al, 2001or Taylor, 1991. As a consequence, when predicting how they will experience the act of apologizing, perpetrators may place disproportionate weight on the potential negative effects of apologizing-while their actual experience of apologizing is likely to be characterized by more positive effects, given the generally positive impact that apologizing has on forgiveness and reconciliation (see Aquino et al, 2001;Bottom et al, 2002;Lazare, 2004;Leunissen et al, 2013;Tucker et al, 2006) and on perpetrators' personal well-being (Byrne et al, 2014;Exline et al, 2007). This results in a forecasting error in which perpetrator overestimate the experienced averseness of an apology.…”