Organizational and Supervisory Apology Effectiveness: Apology Giving in Work Settings

We synthesize the interdisciplinary literature into a heuristic for crafting effective organizational and supervisory apologies (the OOPS four-component apology). In the first experiment, we demonstrate how an offense committed by an organization is perceived to be more egregious than an offense committed by a friend or supervisor. Furthermore, results did not support that OOPS apologies are unequally effective if issued by a friend, supervisor, or organization. In the second experiment, we test OOPS apology-training effectiveness. Results indicated that trained participants crafted more effective apologies. Our apology heuristic is an innovation for training business communicators how to apologize effectively.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

The apology mismatch: asymmetries between victim's need for apologies and perpetrator's willingness to apologize

Although previous research on apologies has shown that apologies can have many beneficial effects on victims’ responses, the dyadic nature of the apology process has largely been ignored. As a consequence, very little is known about the congruence between perpetrators’ willingness to apologize and victims’ willingness to receive an apology. In three experimental studies we showed that victims mainly want to receive an apology after an intentional transgression, whereas perpetrators want to offer an apology particularly after an unintentional transgression. As expected, these divergent apologetic needs among victims and perpetrators were mediated by unique emotions: guilt among perpetrators and anger among victims. These results suggest that an apology serves very different goals among victims and perpetrators, thus pointing at an apology mismatch

Settler state apologies and the elusiveness of forgiveness : The purification ritual that does not purify

Peer reviewedPostprin