Conflict management: is an apology enough to repair the damage?
After a broken commitment or concealed information, managers often look for words that will allow work to resume. The more useful question is precise: under what conditions can an apology help repair trust after a conflict?
What the literature establishes
Peter H. Kim, Donald L. Ferrin, Cecily D. Cooper and Kurt T. Dirks (2004, Journal of Applied Psychology) show experimentally that the effect of an apology depends on the nature of the alleged violation. In the situations studied, apologies repair trust more effectively than denials when competence is questioned, whereas denial is more favourable when integrity is at stake. The same verbal response therefore has different effects depending on whether someone doubts our ability or our honesty.
Repair also depends on actions
Maurice E. Schweitzer, John C. Hershey and Eric T. Bradlow (2006, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) examine trust recovery after untrustworthy behaviour, with and without deception. Their experiments show that a series of trustworthy actions can restore trust, but that prior deception undermines this recovery, even when apologies and promises are offered. The relevant mechanism is therefore not merely the expression of regret: it is also the opportunity to observe different behaviour.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that any accusation involving integrity should be denied, but that would turn an experimental finding into advice to conceal the truth. Comparing the effects of an apology and a denial never justifies disputing an established fact. For managers, the useful distinction is instead to clarify the allegation, then combine acknowledgement of the facts with observable commitments. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these data cannot establish
These studies rely on experimental situations and primarily measure trust, rather than the lasting resolution of workplace conflicts. They cannot establish a universal recovery period or guarantee that a hierarchical relationship or longstanding collaboration will respond in the same way. Nor can apologies replace an investigation, protective measures or a formal procedure when the facts require them.
A practical check in Berne
In Berne, across the federal administration, public health, telecommunications and precision manufacturing, SHR's « Gestion du conflit » programme can provide a framework for an exercise: translating a verbal attempt at repair into a verifiable work commitment. For an ordinary disagreement, record the agreed commitment, its owner, its deadline and the expected evidence, then review progress after four weeks. The proposed measure is the proportion of commitments due for completion whose fulfilment is documented, supplemented by separate feedback from each party on cooperation. This monitoring does not prove that apologies caused an improvement; it checks whether they were followed by action. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Bern, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Bern
- conflict management
- Bern
- research
- training bern