The Perfect Apology

Have you ever found the words “I’m sorry” fall short of accomplishing anything?   Sometimes they seem to hover ineptly above us.  Not only do they fail to penetrate the hurt of the other person, they leave us feeling foolish, confused, and frustrated.  Rather than repairing the damage, they increase the divide leaving us both feeling angry and misunderstood.  As the apologizer, we may even come to the conclusion that it isn’t worth the trouble.  And yet, without it, our relationships suffer. 

Here’s why it often goes wrong.  For the words “I’m sorry” to hold any true meaning, two fundamental things are required:  Head and Heart.  

 

HEAD

When we are hurt, especially by a loved one, we want them to know the reasons we feel hurt or injured.  Our desire to feel understood is profound, even if it is never verbalized.  That is why an apology that lacks clear understanding, whether it’s made out of pity or love, falls short of repairing the damage. 

To get it right:  Ask questions to learn, or clarify, why the other person is sad or hurt.  Seek to understand them and your apology - if sincere - will have true depth and meaning.

HEART

Being understood is important for any apology.  But so is the feeling that we matter.  We want the other person to feel a concern that we were hurt and a desire to make it better.  Without that, the words “I’m sorry” seem intended only to appease us, not to repair.  And they fail to do so. 

To get it right:  Genuinely show you care about the other person and their concerns.  Validate their feelings.  Acknowledge the reasons you are sorry and find out what they need (from you) to move on. 

When both our head and our heart feel satisfied, an apology feels sincere and is easy to accept.  We can move forward with renewed trust and a deeper more meaningful love and understanding of each other.  With head and heart, our apologies are accepted, and our relationships can be repaired.

Stuck - With A Big Black Man

I learn a lot from my clients.  While listening to their concerns, I also learn about them, and sometimes, about myself.  A few weeks back, while interviewing a young man, the question of racism came up.  The man described that he had been subjected to racism at work, and described how a colleague had referred to him as “a big black man”.  I waited for the rest of the story.  But that was it.  That was his story. 

Twice before I had heard that exact same expression, “a big black man”.  Once, as said by a relative; the other time by a different client who was relating an issue of conflict in her workplace.  In all three circumstances, it was a middle-aged (or older) white woman who gave that depiction. 

This had me thinking.  I too felt this statement was descriptive, yet innocuous.  But was it?

I asked the young (black) man further about the situation and shared with him my confusion.  I suggested to him that this expression was intended to be descriptive, not judgmental or racist.  He shared how it felt unfair and biased.  Together we agreed, the expression was used to describe a feeling of being fearful or intimidated.  We continued talking.

It turns out that beyond the words, the context of the message had been missing.  The colleague who casually made this reference, had not explained that she was relaying the fears of another person (an elderly white woman).  Nor had she intervened in her conversation with the elderly woman, to defend the character of her black colleague.  Instead, she merely informed him, matter-of-factly, as if the fear the old woman expressed was reasonable or even justified.  This young man was subject to prejudice at work, as his colleague stood idly by.

There are several learning points here. 

First - Context.  It’s the “why” of what we’re saying.  “Why” the elderly woman (might have) said that.  “Why” the colleague wanted her co-worker to know.  This essential part of our communication is lost more and more in part because we rely on a tweet, text, or a quick email, to share information.  We need to work a lot harder to relay all the information at hand – including the “why?” Read more about the need for "Why".

Second – Teamwork.  This colleague did not demonstrate that she had her co-worker’s back.  She did not speak to his good character or gentle spirit, but instead let the prejudicial opinion sit unquestioned.  If she felt compelled to remain quiet, she could at least share that with her co-worker (and offer context).

Third – Trust.  This young man did not trust in the good intentions of his colleague.  He didn’t question why she would so openly share the information she did.  Instead, he jumped to the conclusion that she herself was racist and was lumping him into some stereotypical pile.  Ironically, doing the same thing to her, that he thought she had done to him. 

Fourth - Responsibility.  The young man did not share his frustration or anger with his colleague.  Instead he stewed about it.  But without knowing how her comment came across, how could his female colleague learn what to change? 

This is our biggest lesson. We are all responsible. For understanding the “why?” For sharing what upsets and hurts us.  For learning what we’ve done wrong and what to change.  For making the changes that matter.  Without this, we are likely to remain stuck.  Stuck in our own sheltered, often misinformed opinions of each other.  Stuck following rules (like political correctness) that don’t necessarily help, but separate us more.  Let’s be better.  Let’s make new rules.