Question: One of the senior employees of our organization wants our board to apologize for treating him unfairly. We have met with him and heard his concerns, but although we are willing to acknowledge that we probably didn't handle the situation 100%, we don't think we should apologize. We think that would send the wrong message. How would you advise us to handle this situation?
Answer: It is really not possible for me to advise you on this particular situation, since I have almost no information about the matter. Perhaps with some general principles that I can offer, you can answer your own question. It does sound to me that you have not really dealt properly with the concerns and that you have not dealt with the reality that your process was flawed. But I'm not sure that I am putting the right interpretation to your comments.
First of all, there is a lot of confusion about the terms "acknowledge" and "apologize". Clarity in the meaning and use of these two entirely separate concepts may help.
An acknowledgement is an act of the head. It is an intellectual act. When a person or a group acknowledges that some decision or action was wrong, unethical, insensitive, illegal, unfair or the like, it is an admission regarding the facts of the situation. An acknowledgment is not an apology.
Usually, when a person requests an apology, he or she is more often than not actually requesting an acknowledgment that the allegation the person is making is factually correct. In other words, the person wants justice.
An apology is an act of the heart. It is the step that may follow acknowledgment. It occurs when a person or group says, "I'm sorry" for the injustice that has been acknowledged.
Acknowledgment produces justice. Acknowledgment plus apology may lead to reconciliation. I say "may", because reconciliation also involves forgiveness and the making of amends.
The misunderstanding surrounding these words and what they mean often prevents achieving justice or reconciliation.
For example, when a person or groups says, "If I/we have ever done anything to hurt you, I/we apologize," you have neither an apology nor an acknowledgment. What you have is a meaningless expression that will not satisfy anyone seeking justice or reconciliation.
On the other hand, when a person or group acknowledges the inappropriateness of some decision or action but doesn't apologize, you may have achieved justice (although not necessarily), but you have not yet achieved reconciliation.
Here is another factor you may wish to consider. Even though your board may seem to have more power than the person bringing the complaint, you are peers with respect the matter at hand.
What boards often fail to realize is that it is not possible to act as the "defendant" (the recipient of someone's allegation, as in your case) and also the "judge and jury" that decides the matter. If your board seeks justice and reconciliation in this matter, you may have to go a second step beyond having a private meeting with the person who is aggrieved. That is, you may have to take the matter to mediation. In other words, if your board cannot settle the matter with the individual, you may have to involve a third party to facilitate the process. That's mediation.
If that fails, you may have to take it to arbitration. In this case your board and the individual are submitting your cases to a third party for the "verdict" in the matter. This is, of course, is what happens when a matter comes before the courts. As you might expect, there is often little likelihood of justice being perceived by both parties and almost no likelihood of reconciliation when the matter goes to arbitration.
The process of reconciliation is a complex one. What makes it even more so is that in many organizations there is confusion between forgiveness and accountability. Your board would be wise to realize that the individual challenging your board is holding you accountable for your decision or action. In order for that process to produce both justice and reconciliation, there will need to be forgiveness as a foundation and a just process that builds on that foundation.
Les Stahlke, President
| 
