An apology is an attempt to repair a damaged relationship. For that repair to happen, both parties have to want it. Getting to that point is half the battle. Once you're there, somebody has to swallow their pride and admit their injurious actions. Doesn't necessarily have to be the party most at fault - has to be the party that most wants peace. It still might not work. It's a mistake, I think, lil, to "#2: acknowledge the effect on the other person." Assumptions are often what got you there in the first place. You may have no idea why the other party is pissed off and you're going to get a lot further if you give them a chance to air their grievances than you will if you attempt to fill in the blanks for them. You also open yourself to this: if you figured out why it was such an injury, why did you do it? "Well, I'm an idiot." No you're not, I don't associate with idiots and if I thought you were going to do something idiotic I wouldn't have gotten in league on this in the first place. By attempting to play the idiot card you're throwing my judgment into question as well as pissing me off. #3 and #4 may flow from the conversation that happens, but don't front-load them. Have them in mind. I ripped thenewgreen a new one for this. I asked to mix it. He asked if he could post it. The answer was "yes" in both cases. From his perspective, it was a cool thing he wanted to share. From my perspective, it's bullshit having your work held up against a standard you are unaware of and invited for scrutiny by people whose opinions you don't value and whose presence you resent. The problem? For TNG, this was "music is great, these people are great, let's share the great." For me, it was "my girlfriend thinks the guitar is too loud. Fix it." And that phase of my life is over over over. I'm in the credits of Pro Tools. There are plugins with presets organized under my name. My hair is a bird. Your girlfriend's opinion is invalid. I didn't spend three days in the mud on $80k worth of gear to be told "I can hear the plug-in-ishness of the amp sound now, especially in the sustained notes" when I'd replaced some bullshit $150 Line Six plugin with an $2000 chain. My offense was entirely rooted in having my work subjected to critique by people who hadn't earned the right. TNG, to his credit, bent over backward apologizing. Said many many extremely nice, extremely contrite things. He did, however, misunderstand the source of my anger... and per point #2, attempted to tell me why I was mad, rather than asking. And as a consequence, I stayed mad for a good three weeks. I've since apologized to TNG for getting so pissed off and, as far as I know, alles gute. However, "Step 2" added many many days of anger to the problem. Steps 3 and 4 never happened and don't need to - "don't do that" is pretty simple.Tagging ghostoffuffle, T-Dog and jonaswildman because I'd like to know what you think..
kb, thanks for reading and responding. I appreciate it. #2 is problematic - but I'm not sure it should be tossed out. You're right that a) we don't really know the effect on the other person and would be making a possibly false assumption. For that reason, it should be said tentatively. Maybe instead of You suggest that if I show an awareness of the other person's feelings, I might also be opening myself up to this response: "if you figured out why it was such an injury, why did you do it?" Maybe, if the person is still totally and justifiably pissed, they might say that -- but I doubt it, because this is the apology for after the blow-up. This is the apology for when you finally have realized that maybe what you did was hurtful. By showing the impact of your crappy action, in my world, the other person really feels understood. Take just now, for example: I just returned from a two-week trip and my current spousal unit is trying to connect with me, so he invites me downstairs to watch an inning of the ball game and promises to hold my hand. When I join him, he's eating, and then he jumps up to find out some info on the computer, then he answers some email. The inning ends and he's still on the computer, so I remind him that he invited me down to watch the game. He makes a bunch of "I'm sorry but this and I'm sorry but that." Now, if he had just said, "Oh shit - I got distracted. You must feel ignored or misled." I'd go, "yeah, that's it exactly" and I'd believe his apology and we'd sort it out from there. The conversation is a connecting one, not a disconnecting one. Do you see what I'm getting at? #2 is problematic mostly because it's so damn hard to put yourself in the other person's shoes and imagine how your own behaviour made them feel. To imagine yourself as hurtful (especially when you see yourself as helpful and heroic) is very very difficult. But because it is hard and almost impossible to do is no reason for me to leave it out as a possible step. OK - have at me."When I behaved like that, you must have felt completely misunderstood, falsely accused, and disconnected from me."
maybe something more tentative like, "I guess you felt . . . Is that it."
Here's a guess: I read "Acknowledge the effect on the other person" as "acknowledge the effect to that person" whereas you might mean "acknowledge the effect to better apologize." From my perspective, "acknowledge the effect on the other person" is Step Zero: apology begins with empathy and without an attempt to put yourself in their shoes, you aren't really going to internalize your crimes. We're imperfect, however, and the process is going to be a lot smoother if you attempt to figure out where you fucked up and then give them the opportunity to fill you in without your preconceived plan of attack getting in the way. Had you written "acknowledge the effect on the other person (but keep it to yourself until your apology is accepted)" I'd agree 100%. By saying "I'm sorry for ignoring you, it didn't occur to me that you might not want me checking my email while we hang out" you're also saying "I'm sorry for checking my email while we hang out" and very specifically not saying "I'm sorry for not holding your hand while we hang out" which may, in fact, be a far more important apology to make. Putting yourself in the other person's shoes is perhaps the most important social skill you can learn. Emotional intelligence has a much stronger correlation with success and happiness than intellectual intelligence does. Most people use The Golden Rule as a platitude to explain karma; few people use it forensically.
Ah, the crux of every apology. Unfortunately, this often results in the person receiving the apology not recognizing that the apology is less about saying, "I harmed you, and I'd like your mercy," and something more closely resembling, "I value our relationship more than I value my pride, so I'd like to do what I can to fix this, starting now." However, a one way apology rarely, if ever, can work, because even in the case when one person clearly wronged another, it's still up to the party who was wronged to accept the apology, explain fully why they reacted the way they did, and to forgive. Although I didn't follow that thread, and I have no idea what happened there, it's interesting and instructive to have the anatomy of a conflict and the ensuing apology laid out. I think many conflicts could be avoided by clearer explanations of why we're angry or upset in the first place. I'm personally terrible at expressing negative emotions, but mainly that leads to me just getting more upset down the line (sunlight being the best disinfectant and all). Step 1 is next to impossible if you don't know what the specific thing that made the other person upset is. Sometimes we harm each other with the best of intentions in mind. Perspective is impossible in the case when you've not had a shared experience with the other person. Ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant.Once you're there, somebody has to swallow their pride and admit their injurious actions. Doesn't necessarily have to be the party most at fault - has to be the party that most wants peace. It still might not work.