Willingness Is Key

In one of the biggest art scandals in recent history, Sotheby’s former chairman, A. Alfred Taubman, went so far as to depict himself as “dumb” and “hungry” in order to seem unaware of his company‘s illegal collusion with competing auction house Christie’s. Long thought of as archrivals, the two auction houses were exposed by a 4-year investigation of price fixing, cheating their customers out of more than $400 million. Both houses admitted to the conspiracy—and paid $512 million for the misdeed—but Taubman, who was found guilty in December 2001, tried to get out of a prison sentence by presenting himself as unaware of his company’s wrongdoings and as an elderly man (he was 76 at the time) inclined to catnaps and more interested in lunch than in Sotheby’s bottom line.

It is astonishing what people will do to protect their reputations. Owning up to a misdeed is often a last-resort measure. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made a bigger mess for himself when he did not immediately recant and apologize for his remark that if America had elected Strom Thurmond during the 1948 presidential election, when he ran as a segregationist protest candidate, “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.” Lott’s first attempt to dodge a controversy began “with the classic words of the non-apologetic apologist, expressing sorrow if anyone had taken offense at his remarks, and making an oblique reference to ‘discarded policies’” [“Fire Trent Lott” (editorial), New York Times, December 12, 2002, p. A34]. As everyone, including some of Lott’s Republican peers, continued to express outrage over his comments, Lott’s explanations got increasingly humble in tone until he eventually said what sounded like a true apology and regret over his words at Thurmond’s birthday celebration. Whether a more forthcoming apology would have allowed Lott to remain as majority leader is doubtful, but he surely would have quelled the media frenzy and public backlash had he been willing to immediately offer up humble apologies.

In assessment surveys, 62 percent of leaders said that they could improve at admitting mistakes.

It is unlikely that our mistakes will make the news or be contemplated behind bars. Instead of suffering newsworthy public humiliation, we often can make amends for our wrongdoings by presenting ourselves to those we have harmed, choosing the right words in offering our regret, and hoping for forgiveness. And yet, in business, we usually do not. Admissions of mistakes do not flow easily in the workplace. In assessment surveys, 62 percent of leaders said that they could improve at admitting mistakes.

I once coached a driven, successful senior executive of a major financial company on developing his leadership skills. While we were reviewing feedback from his direct reports, John, in his middle fifties, began pacing back and forth in his Manhattan office. He could not understand why all eight of his direct reports scored him low on their expectation that he “willingly admits mistakes,” whereas he had rated himself as high as possible.

“Obviously,” he reasoned, “they read the question wrong or didn’t understand it.” I expressed doubt and noted that they seemed to read and understand correctly the other 68 questions. John received high marks on a number of other behaviors of credibility. This one was apparently not his strength.

“But Barbara,” he pleaded, “I do admit my mistakes.”

Trying to make sense of the situation, I sat quietly for a minute, and then I asked, “John, do you willingly admit your mistakes?”

He didn’t hesitate. “Hell no, not willingly. But I do admit them.”

There’s a big difference between choosing to confess and having to confess. The people who worked for John were not misreading that question on the assessment surveys. They fully understood it and made a valuable observation about one of John’s behaviors that was damaging his credibility. Willingness is key. Being sincere and forthcoming in admitting your mistakes is far more meaningful than having them dragged out of you.

Clearly, there’s much to consider before rushing forth with your wrongdoings. There are risks, the severity of which is usually tied to the consequences of your mistake and whether it was made honestly or deliberately. And the risks and repercussions often are not clear until after you have spilled the beans, making whether to do so in the first place a very difficult decision.

My colleague, Tom Heinselman, once coached a Fortune 100 company’s female executive, Claudia, who received terrible ratings on integrity in a 360-degree assessment conducted with all seven of her direct reports. Claudia, it turned out, had created a mess for herself in trying to help her boss, who was competing for a new position with the head of another business unit within the company. To improve her boss’s chance of winning the promotion, Claudia withheld business information from the other unit that could have helped its quarterly revenue picture. As a result, her unit looked better, and so did her boss. Claudia’s team knew what she had done and told her through her 360-degree assessment that she was way off base. Tom suggested to Claudia that she get her team in a room, admit the wrong, apologize, and commit to making it right. Claudia expressed concern that the company’s top management would find out about her wrongdoing and she might lose her job. Tom argued that she had essentially already lost her job because she could never be an effective leader with her current team unless she made amends. “I also told her she was in a fantasy if she thought her seven direct reports were the only people who would ever know about what she had done,” Tom said.

Tom was right. In the long run Claudia would have been much better off accepting the risks of facing her team. She had made an error in judgment, and it was no secret. While stepping forward and showing accountability could have resulted in Claudia losing her job, she would have at least allowed herself the chance to earn back her reputation. By not handling the mistake properly, she reinforced her discredit and still remained vulnerable to be fired. (Tom never found out what Claudia chose or how things turned out.)

Tout the merits of admitting mistakes in certain work climates, and it sounds like a loud belly smacker hitting the water. Organizational experts tell us that teams and companies with low-trust environments—usually rooted in an organization’s structure, processes, and practices—set the stage for hiding mistakes. If your boss owns the business and is a micromanager on the lookout for every little thing you do wrong, the notion of revealing errors could cause you severe lip quivers. In a work culture where a “rank and yank” philosophy rules, is it really smart to admit a mistake when your mistakes are being tallied? We all wrangle with how to clean up our messes. If your situation is complicated and you are unsure whether to confess, ask yourself these questions:

• Will this indiscretion keep me up at night?

• Will other people suffer because of my failure to come forward?

• If I explain my decision to a person who respects me, what might he or she say?

• What is the worst thing that can happen?

• If I do not confess and someone uncovers it, what might happen?

• Five years from now, will I be proud of this decision?

It is entirely possible that a mistake can cost you a job, but most of the time I do not find people dismissing a chance to demonstrate accountability because of some high-stakes consequence. Instead, they are not honest about their mistakes because doing so would be uncomfortable, unpleasant, and hard to do. People respect humility, and that is what is required in admitting fault. The leaders I coach often expect to be judged harshly for acknowledging weaknesses or offering apologies, yet they typically end up being trusted and respected more, not less.

And handling mistakes well, as EMC proved, can be a powerful, good business practice. Mike Woods, M.D., an expert in physician leadership, encourages his doctor clients to openly acknowledge minor errors because it can reduce the risk of punitive actions. According to a study conducted by California’s Loma Linda University Medical Center, patients are significantly more likely to consider litigation if a physician fails to disclose moderate or severe mistakes. Woods adds that when doctors not only admit to severe mistakes but also apologize, the chance for a malpractice suit is lowered by 50 percent (author interview on 5/21/2003 with Mike Woods, M.D., founding director of the Woods Development Institute and author of “Applying Personal Leadership Principles to Health Care: The DEPO Principle,” American College of Physician Executives Publication, Tampa, Florida, 2001). If you have made a mistake that has legal implications, get yourself a lawyer. Legal brawls aside, however, studies show that customers appreciate companies that show accountability.

According to one survey, companies can get as much as 50 percent of their former customers back simply by picking up the phone and apologizing for past mistakes ( Your Company magazine). Often all it takes is a conversation in which a company representative apologizes for a past flub—a late shipment, a miskeyed order entry, and so on. The apology— which costs the company nothing—makes the customer feel valued, so he or she is more willing to return. Some companies know so well the power of apologies in sustaining a solid reputation that they offered “apology bonuses“ to class of 2001 MBA students. After offering jobs to graduates, Cisco, Intel, Dell, Sapient, and Nortel, tightening their belts because of a slipping economy, had to rescind their offers. The bonuses were up to 3 months’ salary.

We work fiercely to protect our reputation and appear competent, so it seems dangerous to point out our mistakes. Doing so would make us look weak and cause others to lose confidence, we think. Yes, it may—especially if done without thought and preparation. Done well, however, admissions of failures are a show of strength and credible transparency.