Public figures who apologize for transgressions are often perceived as 'wounded prey,' triggering more attacks rather than redemption. This dynamic makes admitting fault a confession of weakness, incentivizing politicians to instead ignore or deny wrongdoing to maintain power, as seen with Al Franken's resignation.
Related Insights
Simply saying sorry or explaining your mistake is less effective than taking ownership and outlining a specific, measurable plan to change your behavior in the future. This provides a compelling signal of sincerity and allows the other person to see follow-through.
Once a person becomes sufficiently famous, a large portion of the public stops seeing them as a person and instead views them as a 'conglomeration of ideas' or a story. This dehumanization allows people to justify saying and doing things to them that would be unacceptable toward an ordinary individual.
In analyzing a public scandal, Scott Galloway notes that the greatest damage in a crisis typically isn't the initial event but the subsequent "shrapnel": the attempts to cover up, excuse, or avoid accountability. An effective response requires acknowledging the problem, taking responsibility, and overcorrecting.
Making public mistakes feels like a reason to disappear, but it's an opportunity to model resilience. The goal isn't to avoid messing up, but to learn how to handle being wrong, listen without defensiveness, and let your actions rebuild trust.
By openly admitting your inconsistencies while still advocating for a principle, you remove the deceptive claim to unearned status that angers people. This vulnerability prevents a 'gotcha' moment and fosters a more honest conversation, building trust and allowing imperfect people to advocate for important causes.
The common instinct in a brand crisis is to repeatedly apologize. However, after acknowledging the mistake and the fix, the best path is to stop talking about it. Loyal customers want the brand to return to being trustworthy, and over-apologizing keeps the focus on the failure.
A strategic reason for a leader to resign is to de-escalate public tension. After a crisis, the leader can become a symbol of that difficult period. By stepping down, they absorb the negative sentiment, lower the political temperature, and allow their organization to move forward.
While apologies are crucial, over-apologizing can be detrimental. Research suggests that apologizing more than twice for the same issue in one conversation can act as a constant reminder of the transgression, bringing focus back to negativity instead of allowing progress.
Stakeholders demand courageous leadership but foster a culture of intolerance. By failing to distinguish between major offenses and minor infractions and "canceling" leaders for mistakes, the public itself disincentivizes the very courage and authenticity it seeks, creating a paralyzing circular problem.
The "Smellgate" incident at Klein shows that caving to online outrage by firing an employee is a flawed strategy. The initial controversy is often replaced by a more severe backlash against the company's leadership for perceived cowardice and disloyalty, causing greater brand damage.
