Repairing damaged professional relationships with leader apologies: An examination of trust and forgiveness

This explored the role that different apology types had in rebuilding professional relationships between a leader and team member.

Four studies were employed.

Providing background:

·       “Professional relationships are a vital part of organizational life, but such relationships are sometimes fraught with negative interpersonal interactions where one party offends the other”

·       Negative transgressions can affect performance, engagement and well-being in the workplace

·       People involved in the transgressions often need to reconcile and rebuild damaged relationships; and this process is particularly important for leaders “as repairing relationships can help to ensure interpersonal and organizational effectiveness”

·       Interpersonal forgiveness forms an essential foundation for restoring relationships after a transgression

·       Apologising is one repair strategy. Some data finds they can be an effective way to encourage forgiveness, whereas other data suggests that they don’t always foster forgiveness or relationship repair

·       “In this sense, apologies can be a double-edged sword for the apologizer: They can enable offenders to show vulnerability and remorse for their actions (Basford et al., 2014), but they may also cause victims to feel indifferent or even less forgiving”

·       In the workplace, apology effectiveness depends on the type of apology expressed

·       Some include (see figure below): basic expression, amends expression, remorse expression, responsibility express and sincere expression

·       They hypothesise that sincere expressions will outperform the other expressions, most effectively signalling a leader’s truthfulness; signalling that their sincerity is genuine

·       A basic apology, like ‘I a sorry’ without embellishment and elaborating info, may not lead to positive outcomes; although can be useful first steps

·       These types of expressions, besides the sincere expression, “may, however, arise from veneers of forbearance in the relationship – serving as excuses for misdeeds or a way for transgressors to “look good” and restore their image”

·       Thus, some “apology expressions may be viewed as “hollow” superficial or perfunctory apologies of pretence.”

·       Trust is a relevant concept – with two primary forms: cognitive and affective. Cognitive trust “stems from rational assessments and logical evaluations of an individual’s reliability and competence”, whereas affective trust, which is the focus in this study, “, is characterized by emotional closeness, empathy, and shared values”

·       Sincere apologies signal genuineness and an interest in the emotional and relational connection between leaders and followers, and can build affective trust by “showing empathy and forging an emotional connection”

·       Alternative apology expressions which offer an apology but lack elaboration or embellishment, may offer remorse, acknowledge responsibility or make amends but don’t share the same emotional connection

Results

Key findings were:

·       Sincere apology expressions had the greatest impact on forgiveness and trust

·       Participants who received or were exposed to sincere apologies showed higher levels of forgiveness and trust compared to those that didn’t

·       Individuals with higher levels of trust in their leaders were more likely to report receiving sincere apologies

·       Results were consistent across the vignette experiment, field studies and a causal-chain experiment

Hence, their findings “demonstrate that sincere apologies are not only more effective than insincere or no apologies, but also more effective than other apology expressions, consistent with our trust signalling theorizing”.

While prior research has shown that apologies can promote forgiveness, this work highlights that “apologies can be a double-edged sword, as certain apology expressions are no more effective than an insincere apology or a simple “I am sorry’”.

This suggests that forgiveness involves more than a social exchange where “an apology  balances out the transgression. Instead, it may be that certain apology expressions are perceived as attempts to pacify the victim rather than adequately restore their status and dignity”.

These types of apology expressions, therefore, may not enable the victim to regain their trust in the other party.

They also suggest that the findings support the idea that behavioural signalling can be an effective way for leaders to influence follower outcomes, including after a transgression. That is, sincere apologies are a strong signal of trustworthiness.

For practical insights, they suggest:

·       Top management should ensure that managers take remedial steps to repair work relationships resulting from intentional or unintentional transgressions

·       Be aware that not all apology expressions are equally effective “as followers are less likely to forgive leaders if the apologies offered do not instil or repair trust”

·       In contrast, apologies expressing remorse, taking responsibility, making amends or saying I’m sorry have low efficacy in repairing relationships

As expected, several limitations are present in the research.

Authors: Stackhouse, M., Turner, N., & Kelley, K. (2024). Repairing damaged professional relationships with leader apologies: An examination of trust and forgiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(3), 399-415.

Study link: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2319903

My site with more reviews: https://safety177496371.wordpress.com

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/repairing-damaged-professional-relationships-leader-trust-hutchinson-zyomc