| Review of: | Crisis Management by Apology edited by Keith Michael Hearit |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Ira Helsloot |
| Reviewed in: | Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management |
| Date accepted online: | 10/04/2008 |
| Published in print: | Volume 15, Issue 04, Pages 232-238 |
Book Reviews
Keith Michael Hearit has written a very interesting book on the use of apology as an instrument of crisis management. Starting with a theoretical introduction based on ethical principles and an overview of the literature, the book continues with a rich series of examples. To name a few: Bill Clinton's apology campaign in the Monica Lewinsky affair, the problems with Fire Stone tires on Ford SUVs, the USS Greenville ramming of a Japanese Fishership and the problems the American Red Cross faced when it diverted some of the money collected after 9/11 to its own bureaucracy. In a short last chapter Hearit gives a clear summary of the contents of the book.
Hearit himself would probably frown at the solely instrumentalist vision on apology in the first sentence of this review because Hearit takes an ethical stand regarding the use of apologies. For example, on page 64 he explains that 'several characteristics have to do with the manner the apology is presented. Ideally, an ethical apology is: truthful, sincere, timely, voluntary, addresses all stakeholders, is performed in an appropriate context [...]. Several characteristics have to do with the content. Ideally, an ethical apology is: explicitly acknowledges wrongdoing; fully accepts responsibility, expressed regret, identifies with injured stakeholders, asks for forgiveness, seeks reconciliation with injured stakeholders, fully discloses information related to the offence, provides an explanation that addresses legitimate expectations of the stakeholders, offers to perform an appropriate corrective action, offers an appropriate compensation'.
Of course in this not-ideal world the apology more often than not is a mere symbol or ritual used in effective crisis management. The apology then often is devoid of the ethically ideal content. Hearit cannot but acknowledge this fact of life, which is clearly visible in the series of examples presented. Hearit says the following on this theme on page 205: 'because a perceived offence is in the territory of an individual or institution, apologiae are a form of secular remediation rituals - rituals that acknowledge wrongdoing and place it on the public record as a memorial. In so doing, they do not have as their desired outcome the forgiveness of the guilty party, but rather the exacting of a proportional humiliation by which to propitiate the wrongdoing. Socially, such acts function to restore faith in the social hierarchy by a discourse that praise the very values individuals and organizations are accused of having broken'. The ethical stand on apology thus is not only threatened by cynical use of it by clever public relation officers but also by the expectations of the general public. Relevant research cited by Hearit is the article of Brandford and Garret (1995), which shows that the general public expects corporations accused of wrong-doing to choose the path of reconciliation. Any attempt to explain, let alone justify, the actions under fire will be considered negative just like trying to keep silence.
Another problem with the ethical stand Hearit takes is that in our modern culture of 'suing' any ethical correct apology may be used in court against the apologist. Once again Hearit later in the book acknowledges this fact. On page 209 he does so implicitly by proposing that a generous financial compensation given may be seen as the new type of apology. He also refers to the research of, for example, Cohen (2002) who tries to develop a juridical non-implicating apology, i.e. formulae that strive to show compassion but don't imply responsibility.
As a sideline, one cannot but observe that in his book Hearit uses a distinction between individual, corporate and institutional apologies. In the end this distinction proves to be of little value he himself acknowledges because all apologies researched tend to be 'corporate' in nature i.e. developed and presented by a professional team of public relation experts. It is therefore less clear as to why this distinction, corresponding with different chapters, is introduced by Hearit at all.
Overall my opinion is that this is a very interesting book because of the following three reasons: it presents a nice overview of the literature, it presents a rich series of examples and because it shows the battle between the ethical stand and the cynical use of apology in the real world, which is fought within the author and which the ethic Hearit cannot win.