Service apology

The key term 'Service apology' covers service business apologising, using the Erebus (Air New Zealand) disaster as an example (based on Hearit's 2006 criteria).  An ebook is available on this entry.

Apologizing in service management and marketing texts is universally advised if an error occurs in a process, and since errors are unavoidable all the time apologies are an integral part of the service recovery process. 

When a significant crisis occurs (e.g. an oil spill like BP's in the Mexico Gulf) or newspaper phone tapping (News of the World) then sometimes leaders apologise, other times not, and those apologies or non-apologies are often put under intense scrutiny and criticism.

Service organisations are 'promise systems'. Sometimes promises are not kept. So apologies can be part of the normal everyday communication fabric of the organisation; the mundane organisational apology is part of everyday service life. 

Generally speaking, apologising is almost universally seen as being the only real morally acceptable option after a wrong-doing or mistake has been made. This norm is closely tied to moral expectations in Western (Christian-originating) societies where self-sacrifice is valorised (but apologies are important to people of all cultures and religions).

Individual or inter-personal apologising may seem fairly straightforward but an apology is always a complicated business. Some excellent books have been written on the apology (e.g. Lazare, 2004; Tevuchis, 1991). Alan Lazare (2004) identifies ten functions of an effective apology. Eight of the most relevant functions are: 

1. First and foremost an apology provides the offended party with a restoration of self-respect and dignity (sometimes requiring the offending party to suffer), 
2. a need to know that values are shared,  
3. an apology is a promise about behaviour in the future,  
4. an apology provides validation to the victim and an acknowledgement of freedom from fault,     
5. acknowledgement that something really did happen,  
6. reparation, 
7. dialogue is healing, and 
8. empowerment of offending party.

There are four parts of a complex apology: 

1. acknowledging the offence,   
2. communicating remorse, forbearance and shame,  
3. offering an explanation for the offence, and 
4.  making reparations.

Lazare says social apologies of nations and other collectives of people (e.g. for historical wrongs like apartheid, genocide and land confiscations) also conform to many of the functions and structures of inter-personal apologising. Organisational apologising is a form of social apologising. The person issuing the apology may not have been obviously directly responsible for the wrongdoing as it may have occurred, for example, in the past. 

One of the best resources for understanding the organisational apology is Keith Michael Hearit’s (2006) book on crisis management and the apology. Hearit argues that an apologetic exchange can be viewed as a three-act play or ritual consisting of an act, a charge of wrongdoing, and a defence. An apology is a drama. And in drama guilt is central. If an organisation (or person) is accused of wrongdoing then that organisation or person has violated some cherished social value. In order for order to be restored, there must be a purging of the guilt of this violation and restoration into the community by the apology. 

Hearit lays out a method for ethically judging the apologetic decisions of individuals and organizations. The method involves evaluating both the method the apology is delivered and the content of the apology.  With regard to the method of delivery an ‘ideal’ ethical apology should be: 

• truthful,  
• sincere,  
• timely, 
• voluntary,     
•  must address all stakeholders, and 
• be performed in an appropriate context.

In terms of content an ‘ideal’ ethical apology should:  

• acknowledge wrongdoing,  
• accept responsibility,    
• express regret, 
•  identify with the victims,  
• ask for forgiveness,  
• seek reconciliation,  
• disclose relevant information, 
• provide an explanation that addresses the victims’ questions and concerns, and  
• offer corrective actions and compensation. 

Not every apology needs to meet each of the conditions above in order to be considered ethical, but the apology needs to be judged ‘ethically acceptable’ by its audience. At least five factors, according to Hearit’s analysis justify departures from this ideal case, whilst still retaining the essential ethical character of the apologia (the difference between the apology and the apologia, is that the apologia defends actions rather than says sorry). These departures are: 

1. catastrophic financial losses,
2. grave liability issues,
3. a moral learning curve, 
4. questions over full-disclosure, and 
5. situations where confidentiality or discretion are expected.

With these concepts about the apology, we next look at a worked example. 

The Air New Zealand Apology for the Erebus Disaster

Antartica

Erebus Disaster: What happened?

New Zealand History online provides an excellent summary of the facts of the air disaster. The best website I could find that provides all available material on the accident, including original reportage from the accident site, radio coverage, the reports and even scripts of talk between pilots before they crashed, is available here.  

A distillation of the reports leads one to conclude that the Antarctic climate is extreme, dangerous and creates optical effects that are not normal for pilots. These conditions, coupled with miscommunication over the flight path led to the plane flying into the mountain. After the accident, there was a general outpouring of blame and denial, of the accusation of cover-ups, and of resignations. Despite a general agreement as to the multi-faceted causes of the crash, and the obvious learnings that have emerged from it (including cancelling all scenic flights over Antarctica), the controversy lingers.  

In a moving ceremony CEO Rob Fyfe apologized to the families of those affected. In this crash, an Air New Zealand sightseeing flight to Antarctica TE901 crashed into Mt Erebus killing all 237 passengers and 20 crew. This apology occurred in the wake of another air disaster in France, and also involved the unveiling of a remembrance sculpture.

Read the following newspaper article of Rob Fyfe's Apology on Behalf of Air New Zealand

It is possible to critique Fyfe's apology, or examine it for its 'ethical acceptance' using Hearit's criteria outlined above.

How does Fyfe's apology measure up vis-a-vis this criteria? Notes and a conclusion are provided below (these are constructed from students in the classroom who view the apology and then give their reactions):

1. a acknowledge wrongdoing - the apology is for how families were treated after the disaster, not the disaster itself 
2. accept responsibility - responsibility is accepted for not communicating better with the families 
3. regret - responsibility is accepted for not communicating well enough 
4. identify with the victims - yes, especially with Fyfe's own recent experience dealing with the French crash  
5. ask for forgiveness - Not explicitly but implicitly  
6. seek reconciliation - symbolic acts of reconciliation - the statue? the trip to Antarctica, the public event itself
7. disclose relevant information - none disclosed 
8. provide an explanation that addresses the victims’ questions and concerns, and - partially 
9. offer corrective actions and compensation - symbolic 

An apologia is not an apology. Apologias in the organisation sense consist of a series of mitigating factors that might prevent a proper apology being given (Hearit,2006).

1. catastrophic financial losses, 
2. grave liability issues, 
3. a moral learning curve - main emphasis is here 
4. questions over full-disclosure, and 
5. situations where confidentiality or discretion are expected. 

Conclusion: Apology is an apologia for the disaster itself, and apology is for treatment to families. The focus of the apology is on the learning that occurred from the tragedy and on making sure Air NZ is seen to be acting correctly re. the French crash. 

References

Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20, 113—125

Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Laxon, A. (2011, 27 August). Erebus book 'to right a wrong'. New Zealand Herald, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10747717

Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. London: Oxford University Press.

Tevuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.