Diagnóstico diferencial

Several characteristics of the paradigm case have to do with the content of the apologia itself. Ideally, an ethical apologia:

• Explicitly acknowledges wrongdoing.

• Fully accepts responsibility.

• Expresses regret.

• Identifies with injured stakeholders.

• Asks for forgiveness.

• Seeks reconciliation with injured stakeholders.

• Fully discloses information related to the offense.

• Provides an explanation that addresses legitimate expectations of the stakeholders.

• Offers to perform an appropriate corrective action.

• Offers appropriate compensation.

Explicitly Acknowledges Wrongdoing

The best apologia, ethically speaking, makes no bones about the fact that an offense has been committed—wrongdoing is not merely implied in the wording so that the recipients have to “fill in the blanks.” Ethically, such clarity prevents possibly misleading the recipients of the apologia. But, more important, it respects the right of those who have been wronged to have their injury acknowledged and “owned” by the offender. In short, this char-acteristic validates the moral claims of the injured parties. Such was the ap-proach taken by the Chrysler Corporation in 1987 to revelations that it had disconnected odometers on cars, driven them for an average of 40 miles (al-though in some cases the mileage was as much as 400 miles), and then rehooked the odometers and sold the cars as new. CEO Lee Iacocca directly admitted to the wrongdoing; he remarked, “Disconnecting odometers is a lousy idea. That’s a mistake we won’t make again at Chrysler. Period”

(Hearit, 1994, p. 114).

Fully Accepts Responsibility

Ideally, the apologia not only makes clear that an offense has been committed but also that the apologist is guilty of committing it. This requirement

dis-courages the common practice of scapegoating, in which the apologist tries to rhetorically displace the blame onto a single individual or unit in a large orga-nization. It also discourages disassociation, in which the apologist uses strate-gic ambiguity to distance himself or herself from the offense and thus avoid, or mitigate, blame (Hearit, 1995a). This requirement acknowledges the need for honesty, opens up opportunities for self-improvement, and, again, respects the right of injured parties to validate their moral claim. With revelations that the Toshiba Machine Company had sold top-secret milling equipment to the then-Soviet Union in 1987, the Toshiba Corporation went out of its way to announce that its top two executives would resign. The company noted that in the Japanese business world there was no higher form of apology (Hearit, 1994). Such a strategy demonstrated that the company and its leadership fully assumed responsibility for the misdeeds.

Expresses Regret

Having admitted the offense and then responsibility for it, the apologist now is encouraged to convey dismay at causing harm and failing in his or her responsibilities. This restores trust with the injured parties by acknowledg-ing the injury as a moral offense. It also implicitly reinforces the relationship by suggesting that the offense is an anomaly, and not “the way things are go-ing to be from now on.” In other words, once everyone gets past this rough patch, the injured parties can go back to depending on the apologist with an increased amount of confidence. Such was the tack taken by executives at Texaco after allegations in 1996 of racism on the part of key executives, who called African-American employees “black jellybeans” that were “glued to the bottom of the jar” (Brinson & Benoit, 1999, p. 484). The company re-lied heavily on strategies of mortification, and the company chair, Peter Bijur, went out of his way to demonstrate his regret for what had occurred, admitting that he was “ashamed” (Brinson & Benoit, 1999, p. 493).

Identifies With Injured Stakeholders

In order to show that the individual or organization truly “gets it,” the apologist ideally should express empathy with the injured parties. This means that the apologist should frame the offense from the point of view of the injured parties.

This is a necessary step in order to comprehend the depth and effect of the of-fense in a way that honors the experience of those who have been wronged.

Without such an appreciation, appropriate (felt) regret may not even be possi-ble. Such an appreciation also will help the apologist choose the appropriate words, context, and tone to convey regret in a way that feels legitimate and pro-portionate to the offense. Identification also suggests acknowledging that the relationship will never be exactly the same again because of the loss of trust as-sociated with the injury. Perhaps it was his assuming such a stance that made

the aforementioned case of Don Carty’s apology at American Airlines so re-markable. Carty went out of his way to acknowledge that it was wrong to give out retention bonuses to senior executives when other employees were being asked to accept cutbacks (Reed, 2003).

Asks for Forgiveness

The ultimate goal of an apologia is to “make things right again.” If the apolo-gist is guilty of breaking faith with stakeholders, an actual apology will be necessary for reconciliation to take place. This works in tandem with the other characteristics to encourage a restoration of the damaged relation-ship. It says to the injured party, “I want to start over. I want to know I have your trust again.” Asking for forgiveness is important even when the pros-pects for forgiveness are slim (maybe justifiably so). In other words, the rela-tionship may realistically have no future, yet it is ethically desirable to express to the injured parties that they are, in fact, valued and that their opinion of the apologist matters. This honors the history between the apolo-gist and the injured parties, including the trust that has been violated with the accompanying harms and feelings of violation. One of the factors that makes the 2001 apology by the Roman Catholic Church so memorable (as fully explicated in chap. 7), is the fact that the Church so directly asked for forgiveness from God and from those it harmed for multiple sins and of-fenses (Stanley, 2000b).

Seeks Reconciliation

An ethical apology will help to effect the repair of the injured relationship.

Assuming that this relationship was mutually beneficial to begin with, it is in the best interest of all involved to get back to where the relationship was before the wrongdoing—or to make it better, by starting over with the in-sights that come from having weathered a storm in the relationship. As with other characteristics, this is an important step even when reconciliation is unlikely because it validates the worth of the injured parties. The aforemen-tioned Christian & Missionary Alliance (C&MA) case is admirable in the fact that the institution did not simply apologize but went out of its way to restore those who had been harmed into full fellowship with the church (Courtright & Hearit, 2002). The C&MA invited victims to a retreat, and apologized both privately and publicly, in an effort to promote reconcilia-tion on the part of the denominareconcilia-tion for its role in the misdeeds.

Fully Discloses Information Related to the Offense

Full disclosure of information as a characteristic presumes a degree of dis-cretion as far as what kind of information should be shared, how soon, and

in what form. In other words, the apologist is not expected to be rash in re-leasing sensitive information, for example. Some information should be evaluated carefully to determine whether it is accurate, whether its release would violate someone’s confidentiality or unduly harm someone, and if the injured parties are even entitled to it. That being said, this characteristic discourages the apologist from releasing pertinent information in a piece-meal fashion just to avoid conflict or embarrassment or to deny other par-ties’ rights. Full disclosure respects the injured parpar-ties’ right to an account of the offense. This step also may help to prevent further harm by giving those injured an opportunity to stem or reverse their losses, for example. It does, however, also provide those injured with resources to punish the apologist by seeking legal and financial penalties. In other words, such information may be used as legal evidence. Kauffman et al. (1994) rightfully pointed out that assessment of this criteria is difficult, given the fact that it is impossible to know when corporations have hidden information from those whom they have harmed. Nonetheless, organizations can meet this criteria by revealing all details that are relevant to victims.

Provides an Explanation That Addresses Legitimate Expectations of the Stakeholders

An apologist must meet the legitimate expectations of all stakeholders. This characteristic simply encourages the apologist to organize the apology within a framework that is meaningful to the injured parties. Closely linked with identification, this characteristic encourages discussion of the offense, its causes, and its effects in terms of the responsibilities the apologist has vi-olated. An injured party should not have to wonder, “What does this have to do with me?” Whether it be a failure to maintain confidentiality, to give truthful recommendations, or to correct mistakes as soon as possible, the explanation should make clear what exactly the apologist has done wrong regarding the injured parties. Such was the weakness of the apology of the Exxon Corporation after the oil spill in 1989. The company took out a re-sponse in Time magazine whereby it apologized to “the people of Alaska” but left those who were most directly harmed—the fishermen who made their livelihood from Prince William Sound—unaddressed in the advertisement and subsequent communications (Hearit, 1995a).

Offers to Perform an Appropriate Corrective Action

Performance of corrective action consists of expressing that one has learned one’s lesson, is committed to not repeat the offense, and wants to avoid the circumstances that contributed to the offense. This gives the injured parties reason to have confidence in the apologist again, to be open to rebuilding the

damaged relationship, and it also reassures them that “at least some good came out of this.” It additionally affirms to them that the apologist has good intentions, that is, the apologist will meet his or her responsibilities well and will try to constantly improve. This also is practically beneficial to the apolo-gist, who has a stake in the maintenance of the relationship and who wants to perform his or her duties optimally in the future. Such was the strategy taken by Jack in the Box after a tragic E. coli crisis killed three children in the Pacific Northwest in 1993. The company, along with its parent corporation, Foodmaker, became a leader in developing innovative technology to ensure that the problem would not recur (Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000).

Offers Appropriate Compensation

Compensation refers to the repayment of an actual debt now owed to the in-jured parties (e.g., giving a credit for an unfair charge) and/or self-imposed suffering that is roughly proportional to that of the injured parties. This may take the form of financial liability, but it also may be primarily ritualistic, such as an advertising campaign that exposes the apologist to shame. In this way, an apologist may offer compensation in the form of proportional humil-iation (Courtright & Hearit, 2002). Few examples of compensation are made public due to the fact that such an outcome is usually the result of pri-vate negotiations between a company and its victims. It is important to note that such compensation does not have to take the form of a financial settle-ment. The earlier-mentioned Chrysler odometer example is a case in which a company found nonfinancial ways to offer compensation—Chrysler of-fered a free checkup and extended warranties for those whose cars had been

“tested” (Hearit, 1994).

The idea of casuistry is that it presents a standard by which to adjudicate ethical questions. This chapter has applied casuistry to the problem of apol-ogetic discourse in situations in which the individuals or organizations are guilty of the allegations leveled against them. However, one of the advan-tages of casuistry is that it gives real weight to real-world circumstances. The next section attempts to address those complicating circumstances that might legitimately warrant departures from the ideal we have described.