When we make a mistake, most of us understand that we owe an apology.  We know this because when we are hurt by a mistake made by someone else, we want that person to apologize to us.   

There are many reasons why leaders don’t apologize when they make a mistake.  We may be afraid of the consequences of admitting our mistake.  We may be unsure about who we owe the apology to.  We may even be unaware that our mistake created victims.  But I think the main reason why leaders who make mistakes don’t apologize is because we really don’t know how, and we are afraid of doing something that will make a bad situation even worse.

This blog offers a quick course in how to apologize effectively. 

The first step is for leaders to understand that an apology is the most courageous conversation we can have with ourselves.  Yes, an apology is for the benefit of those we offend, and for their sakes we need to do it right, but it also has important benefits for the apologizer.  Apologizing brings a healthy dose of self-awareness, keeps the leader accountable, and generates clarity about the situation and how to avoid repeating it.   

Most of all, apology commits the leader to the practice of humility, which may be the most powerful position from which to lead.  Abandoning the need to be infallible allows leaders to be more curious and self-correcting.  The best leaders earn that distinction not by being perfect, but by acknowledging when their mistakes hurt someone, taking responsibility, expressing remorse, making restitution, and promising not to do it again.

Today, apology is increasingly accepted as a sign of strength, not weakness.  Leaders who apologize are seen as confident, signaling the three qualities that most modern leaders desire to communicate:  humility, transparency, and accountability.  Effective apology does not come easy—none of us likes admitting that we made a mistake—nor does it come without cost, but it is less costly than the alternatives of denial, deception, and cover-up.

Effective apologies are as unique as the offenses that inspire them, but they all have five components.  I call these the five Rs of effective apology.

Recognition—acknowledging the offense—establishes that an offense requiring apology has been committed. To the offender this step may seem as obvious as the offense itself, and therefore it may be tempting to just get through the apology or “get on with it.” But more often than not, skipping the recognition step results in a statement that just compounds the offense because it leaves the victim uncertain whether the apologizer understands why the victim is so upset.   Recognizing the offense requires the offender to consider at least three questions: 
1. What am I apologizing for?
2. What was the impact of my behaviors on the victim?
3. What social norm or value did I violate?

Responsibility—The key to effective apology is taking responsibility for your role in the consequences of your behavior.  It lays the moral agency for those offenses squarely and solely at the feet of the offender. What distinguishes effective from half-hearted apologies is the integrity that offenders demonstrate when they look deep into their hearts and reckon uncompromisingly with what they find there. In fearlessly pushing away all excuses, the apologizer retains undiluted responsibility. Underlying it all is the intention that the offender values the relationship and desires to rebuild it on terms agreeable to the victim.

Remorse—signals the offender’s contrition. Remorse is the feeling that we get when we realize that something we did harmed specific people, that it was wrong, and we wish we could undo what we did.  Using the words “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” is nonnegotiable. It is, in fact, the entire reason for the apology, and without such an expression you may as well not bother with the apology at all. Body language, facial expression, and tone of voice must be consistent with the words you use. 

Restitution—is the practical attempt to restore the relationship to what it was before you broke it. You can’t talk your way out of a situation you acted your way into.  For serious breaches, the apology must have some element of action. Without restitution, it becomes more difficult for offended parties to accept an apology, however well crafted. How could they? The relationship remains unbalanced. The offender continues to benefit to the disadvantage of the victim. It is no wonder that victims and judges alike pay careful attention to what an offender actually does in the way of restitution, because restitution is the clearest expression of the offender’s desire to restore the relationship.

Repetition—is a promise to the victim that the offender will not repeat the offense. A particularly effective phrase is a variant of, “I promise it will never happen again.”  It is often effective to end the apology with such a commitment; communication theory suggests that people remember best what they hear last.  An effective apology contains within it the answer to the question, “How am I to be held accountable?”  It takes more than apology to get past old habits. It requires a commitment to new values and a constant reminder that we have the ability to learn from our mistakes.

There are three things that are real: accidents, human fallibility, and apology. The first two are pretty much beyond our comprehension or control, so we must do what we can with the third.  The purpose of apology is to extend ourselves in such a way that relationships become deeper, and life becomes richer and more human in the process. All we have to do is honor the impulse—and practice. It’s not always easy, but we rarely wrestle with apology and lose.

An apology is the superglue of life. It can repair just about anything.

Lynn Johnston

Over the past week I experienced that the good old brainstorming techniques that are derived from de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats don’t need a nudge in the Web 2.0 age.

6 Thinking Hats

I have used this brainstorming technique in a variety of different settings: to generate ideas, to solve complex problems, etc.  The Six Thinking Hats method provides a way for groups to think together more effectively. ‘Together’ is the absolute key word here: instead of having individuals reacting their own way (as usual), the group agrees to deliberately step into each possible ‘way of thinking’ sequentially. There are 6 different types of thinking or hats one can wear in a discussion:

* Neutrality (white) - considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
* Feeling (Red) - instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
* Negative judgment (Black) - logic applied to identifying flaws or barriers, seeking mismatch
* Positive Judgment (Yellow) - logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony
* Creative thinking (Green) - statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes
* Process control (Blue) - thinking about thinking

In my experience until last week - the Six Thinking Hats was a powerful tool to generate ideas and solve complex problems through parallel thinking. On top of that it creates a greater feeling of momentum in team that otherwise would be cluttered in a ‘being right’ discussion.

6 hats on Web 2.0??

By now most readers of this blog must have noticed that I am making my first babysteps into the Web 2.0 communities. One of them is LinkedIn, where I am lucky enough to manage the Organizational Change Practitioners group (4.722 members subscribed at the time of writing). Recently I decided to have ask the members contribute in which subgroups we would create in this forum.

What I witnessed next was multi-thinking at different dimensions at the same time. One of the most beautiful examples of Six Thinking Hats I have ever witnessed from close by!  At the time of writing, there were over 85 reactions that demonstrated the six thinking styles:

* Neutrality: people responding directly to the question at hand (e.g.:"I suggest to creat a subgroup on human behavior")
* Feeling: people volunteering to become a subgroup manager (e.g.: "Great idea, Luc. If you need help, I would be ready to facilitate/moderate the Web 2.0 group")
* Negative judgement (Black): people opposing to the idea of subgroups (e.g.:"Seems to me the additional structure may add bureaucracy rather than make it easier to navigate and participate.")
* Positive Judgement (Yellow): people supporting the idea (e.g.: "I think having focused discussions would be great so that when dealing with a particular issue, you wouldn’t be all over the place.")
* Creative thinking (Green): people suggesting additional ideas (e.g.:"Maybe a poll would be a good idea to select the final five")
* Process control (Blue): people looking at this process happening (e.g.: "watching and participating in a wonderful new (to me at least) process: asynchronous, large-group virtual conversation and decision making"); one participant even Twittered this discussion thread!

Invisible Hand

The most fascinating observation however, was that the discussion thread almost chronologically went through all of these hats. In the same way as during brainstorming sessions each thinking hat is triggered by one reaction, which sparks a range of reactions that belong to the same thinking type.

Coincidence? Not in a million years. But then, what caused this to happen? How did the group trigger a specific hat, go to a climax of reactions, a decline and then moved on to a next hat? How did the group decide the order of the hats to think by? Honestly - I DON’T KNOW. But I did experience that we were parallel thinking! We simply cannot deny that there is some kind of invisible hand doing some fine work.

The only limit to your impact is your imagination and commitment.

Anthony Robbins

Stakeholder management passed away June 20, 2009 surrounded by his family. He died of top-down-command-and-control disease. He was the widow of certified nincompoops. Born in theory to social scientists, he leaves his beloved children Dullness and Cognitive Dissonance. He is also survived by his grandchildren Workshop-till-you-drop, Toolkit-from-here-to-Tokyo and Audit-the-hell-out-of-you. He leaves behind numerous devoted flipchart papers and Post-its. A private ecology service has been held.

Connections in lieu of flowers to Organizational Change Practitioners or any other community you are passionate about!  Stakeholder Management’s death leaves a void in all our lives. Although we shall gather together to remember our friend in the near future for now, we welcome Community Facilitation!

- date of birth – since the beginning of mankind
- time of birth – any time, any generation
- weight – immune to gravity
- length – a multiplication of connections

Join us for a baby shower honoring, the Web 2.0 and all its web applications that grant us a new literacy.
RSVP by yesterday @ Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, Wikipedia, any blog and friends.

Related articles:
Web 2.0 is a Major Organizational Change Accelerator - August 10th, 2008

Learning is not compulsory. Neither is survival.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming

‘Forward’ instead of ‘backward’

In the light of last week’s post (which sparked an interesting discussion on the LinkedIn Organizational Change Practitioners group) a fascinating point of view was unveiled. As one of the participants in te discussion put it:

"Instead of looking to recruit people who already have all the qualifications, we should be looking for people with the ability and willingness to develop the skills and knowledge and allow them to grow into the job."

This shows that we should actually be recruiting-FORWARD - not only because recruiting BACKWARD (by looking in the rearview mirror of predictability) is not satisfying; but rather because we need to spark potential (as opposed to ‘actual’) performance. In that sense, a recruitment interview is more than a measurement or an observation; it is a process of becoming aware of the potential (from one side) and becoming committed to the challenge (from the other side of the table). This ‘forward’ way of thinking reverses the dynamics completely.

‘Giving an A’

The same is true for performance appraisals. Ben Zander, conductor for the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, was faced with the same problem every year for 25 years: Teaching students who were in such a chronic state of anxiety over the measurement of their performance, they were reluctant to take creative risks. So he changed his appraisal strategy: he decided to give everyone an A, at the beginning of the course. The A was not intended as a way to measure someone’s performance against standards, but as an instrument to open them up to new possibilities.

Students were required to write a letter that began with “Dear Mr. Zander, I got my A because…” and they had to describe in as much detail as possible, how they came to achieve this “extraordinary grade". Students must “place themselves in the future, looking ‘back’, and report on all the insights they acquired and the milestones they attained during the year, as if those accomplishments were already in the past.

According to Zander “the A is an invention that creates possibilities for both mentor and student, manager and employee, or for any human interaction.” Zander applied this kind of thinking to his conducting and it transformed him from being a dictator, to an orchestrator of collaboration. This new openness in communication had a huge effect on the morale of the orchestra, improving the performance of both conductor and players.

What would happen if we started to recruit and appraise by giving an A?

Related articles:
- Music and Leadership - Sunday, July 20th, 2008
- Always Remember Rule Number 6! - Thursday, December 6th, 2007 
- Redefining ‘Responsibility’ - Monday, October 22nd, 2007

If you want happiness for an hour - take a nap.
 If you want happiness for a day - go fishing.
If you want happiness for a year - inherit a fortune.
If you want happiness for a lifetime - help someone else.

Chinese Proverb

I was just wondering how the hell I can be sure that the person I am interviewing is the right man/woman for the position. Sure, making a clear description of the skills, knowledge and attitudes we need in order to get the job done is a must; and so is the selection of CV’s that come your way.

But once I’ve taken those steps, I have found that the predictive validity of my interviewing skills and the list of smart and astute questions I ask is not that reassuring. Being aware of all that psychometric stuff like the halo effect, STAR questions and all that did not make the job any easier. It just left me feeling a bit more guilty (’I should have known’)

I have come across candidates that I hired just because "we need somebody yesterday", zero confidence that they could get the job done, etc… and they turn out to be the best performers! On the other hand - and admittedly more frequent - I have recruited people with high expectations, a bright CV, outstanding answers, etc. and they turn out to be complete zero’s. On other occasions I have recruited people whilst heavily investing in a headhunter and a recruiter, just to see the new hire leave after 6 months and tons of education (note: I live in Belgium, where you are in no way insured against that phenomenon). As a result I feel a bit more guilty (’I should have managed better’).

Though the years I’ve built up a set of fundamental question marks, such as:
- Which are the interview blind spots I am missing?;
- Am I setting the wrong expectations?
- Am I mismanaging by sticking to my own wrong expectations?
- Who am I being that their eyes aren’t shining?
- Etc.

So I was wondering ‘How do other people recruit?’. Until one day I met Eddy, the owner of a homecare nursery that employs about 30 nurses. As you may guess, nursing is a profession that requires quite some professional vocation. The jobs is tough, the pay is low, the working schedules are irregular, time pressure is high and not all patients are friendly people. In short: if you’re not made for this job, you’re not gonna make it through a working week.

Eddy told me that he had a particular way of recruiting. In fact, he was not even like recruiting at all - it was confessing.  Each time he would invite the candidates based on the same criteria as I did: a selection of the CV’s according to the job description. So far so good. The next thing he did is inviting the candidate and then he started to talk…for more than one hour long… about his passion for nursing and about where he thinks the heart and soul of good nursing lies. About the results of their work, rather than the list of tasks. About the quality he is entitled to as a patient when he gets old and helpless. He asks zero questions. Then he invites the candidate for a second conversation a few days later. A lot of people call their office before the second conversation in order to cancel the second meeting.

Those that do show up are committed and perform above expectations. Note that Eddy is an extremely empowering manager, trusting people to an extreme extent. And it pays, as they are known for being the ‘home care nurses that care more’.

Wow… passion and excellence woven into what I would call ‘viral interviewing’.

Change is more effective when people are shown a truth that influences their feelings, than if they are given analysis to shift their thinking.

John Kotter