The part about the medical malpractice lawsuits makes the article worth the read, but wtf is up with his opening anecdotes?
I was instantly furious. I pulled out fast to chase the other car, leaning on my horn and flashing my lights. Finally, the car stopped and I pulled up right behind him, still honking. We both got out of our cars.
Really? Because you almost pulled out in front of the guy? Why is he the one apologizing to you, again?
A friend of mine, Paul Rosenfield, was skiing with his six-year-old son Yonah when Yonah fell. It was not a terrible fall, but the binding didn't release and Yonah broke his leg. After an emotionally wrenching day spent in the emergency room tending to his child, Paul went to the shop to return the skis and speak with the owner.
Your kid breaks his leg skiing, just like a trillion other kids every winter, and you march up to the guy asking for what sounds like evidence you can take to court, wtf do you think his reaction is going to be? That he's going fall all over himself to admit that he screwed up when he probably doesn't remember your kid and probably honestly thinks he did nothing wrong? Like he hasn't seen a million assholes just like you who do want more than an apology?
Your kid breaks his leg skiing, just like a trillion other kids every winter, and you march up to the guy asking for what sounds like evidence you can take to court, wtf do you think his reaction is going to be? That he's going fall all over himself to admit that he screwed up when he probably doesn't remember your kid and probably honestly thinks he did nothing wrong? Like he hasn't seen a million assholes just like you who do want more than an apology?
You have just laid out the causality dilemma of this whole situation. Before the ski shop owner will own up to his mistakes, he must be convinced that the average patron is not confronting him to gather data for a lawsuit. Before the average person will forgo a lawsuit, he must be able to get a straight story from the ski shop manufacturer. Both parties enter into the confrontation with a defensive posture, expecting it to escalate, and so that is precisely what it does.
The author's point is to diffuse this sort of reaction, by explaining that all of this knee-jerk defensiveness is counter-productive, expensive, and becomes more about sabotaging the other person and less about resolving the original issue with a minimum of fuss. The problem is that when you start from the presumption that your customers are "a million assholes", the conclusion is already set in stone; you have already made it about these people being litigious assholes, and so that's what they will become. There is another option, but someone has to be willing to risk that option, go against conventional wisdom, and be the one to diffuse the tension before it escalates beyond repair.
By the author's own examples, going against conventional wisdom seems to work well. I'm not surprised, it usually does.
Of course you're right that this is the fundamental dilemma, and I generally agree with what you (and the author) are saying.
The point I was trying to make, though, is that it cuts both ways: If you know it's a litigious society, you have to be aware of what's going to be in the other person's mind when you flex your "I was wronged" muscles. Marching up to someone who isn't cut-and-dry responsible for wronging you and demanding an apology, that's a really assholish thing to do.
Before the average person will forgo a lawsuit
I really hope that the average person thinks of a lawsuit as a last resort, rather than as something to forgo.
"he must be convinced that the average patron is not confronting him to gather data for a lawsuit"
Well, convinced that few enough patrons are that the average cost of apologizing to this patron is low, which would mean essentially no lawsuits at all.
"Really? Because you almost pulled out in front of the guy? Why is he the one apologizing to you, again?"
I don't know about where you live, but here in FL I go very slow when backing out of a parking space because the visibility is bad. If I had a nickle for every time someone flew by in an attempt to be "first" I could quit my job. Would it be that hard to yield to the drive in the blind position and make sure you both go safely on your way? That's what I do and it usually takes only 3 to 5 seconds.
Sadly, in this "check with your attorney" world, the very first thing they tell you is never ever, under any circumstances or in any way indicate the possibility of any wrongdoing on your part, accidental or otherwise.
Who is at fault is something that should only be decided in court at $450/hour.
As businesspeople, it is our job to take the advice of counsel, and integrate that into our strategy. They do not dictate strategy.
In other words, its sometimes better to admit and apologize, even if it means you may face a worst court case by doing so. Depending on the situation, it may be beneficial to lose a court case but win customers over for the long run.
I remember reading about a proposal for a kind of "good samaritan" type law that would prevent people from being made liable through giving an apology. (I think this was specifically for medical malpractice.) It seems like a good idea.
I think some of this problem comes about because of ambiguity in the english language that prevents us from expressing ourselves properly. Saying sorry can mean both that you feel regret but it also can mean that you accept responsibility, and which is which is ambiguous. It's a shame that one can't apologize sincerely and then argue in court that your apology was the former and not the latter - but it seems you can't.
If we just had a better way of saying this kind of thing then I think a lot of the problem would go away.
We sure do, when a seemingly intelligent gentleman who "consults about how to lead and how to live" goes chasing after someone else over a minor issue. This is how road rage incidents start. Why are some people so quick to anger? There was no accident - just forget about it dude. I almost had someone reverse into me the other day - I just laughed it off.
People will always be crazy and do things you don't like. If you go around forcing everyone to apologize, your quality of life will suffer and you'll never be happy. Live and let live.
That said, the rest of his point is well made. If you're the one who does something wrong, apologizing is well worth the effort. If you're one who is wronged, however, don't expect it. Perhaps the guy who cut you up on the freeway really does feel a little sorry but can't admit it. Perhaps he's fighting to get a dying family member. Life is complex and we all have to apologize and forgive.
First of all, you should apologize to Peter for insinuating that his short temper is a major problem for our country.
All jokes aside, I sort of liked the journey this article took. Starting with a personal anecdote, moving on to some real data (albeit not much) and ending with a pro Obama/Anti-Bush commentary.
If they only lost on 25% of the 2001 suits (or just lost smaller amounts in general), compared to 95% of the 2007 ones - then they would come out behind.
Probably still a big saving.
I'm thinking about the times when I've been involved in a software deployment gone awry. In highly-politicized companies, everyone points their fingers at some other person/group. "If they had configured the database properly...." Nobody's taking even partial blame, so forget about apologies. In most cases, everybody's at fault in some way, so everybody ought to be taking blame for something. However, if one group does the "right" thing and admits a failure, the other groups seize the opportunity to exonerate themselves at the honest group's expense. So, nobody wants to be the first to flinch. How can cultures change so that the self-aware are rewarded for honesty and those in convenient denial are punished?
In my experience, it won't. As you pointed out, they are in a typical Nash equilibrium - everyone is maximizing their utility, and will be punishes severely for acting otherwise. Find another company.
Summary: Apologizing is free and it makes things better. Why not?
I got the same basic message from How to Win Friends and Influence People -- being nice/smiling/etc. is free, you just have to remember to do it and counteract any natural grumpiness.
I was instantly furious. I pulled out fast to chase the other car, leaning on my horn and flashing my lights. Finally, the car stopped and I pulled up right behind him, still honking. We both got out of our cars.
Really? Because you almost pulled out in front of the guy? Why is he the one apologizing to you, again?
A friend of mine, Paul Rosenfield, was skiing with his six-year-old son Yonah when Yonah fell. It was not a terrible fall, but the binding didn't release and Yonah broke his leg. After an emotionally wrenching day spent in the emergency room tending to his child, Paul went to the shop to return the skis and speak with the owner.
Your kid breaks his leg skiing, just like a trillion other kids every winter, and you march up to the guy asking for what sounds like evidence you can take to court, wtf do you think his reaction is going to be? That he's going fall all over himself to admit that he screwed up when he probably doesn't remember your kid and probably honestly thinks he did nothing wrong? Like he hasn't seen a million assholes just like you who do want more than an apology?