Hard to Say I'm Sorry

Ronald Alsop has an interesting report on the BBC on apologies by management and the effect that it has.

Honesty clearly is the cornerstone of trust, and that includes owning up to mistakes and apologising. Some respondents to the UK study said they would admire leaders if only they admitted their mistakes.

This is what is Alma calls "acknowledg[ing] your faults" (Alma 39:13). It is part of the repentance process. And interestingly, those who repent by acknowledging their faults receive and increase in trust, that is faith.

Beyond engendering trust, acknowledging an error and making amends can encourage greater openness throughout an organisation.

But this greater openness comes from not only acknowledging errors but making amends. It is what Alma called "repair[ing] that wrong which ye have done" (Alma 39:13) and is the other half of the repentance process.

And what happens when this is not done?

Failing to apologise can cause more damage than loss of trust.

What sort of damage can occur?

The refusal to ‘fess up to mistakes can poison the relationship between supervisors and their subordinates to such a degree that it may even contribute to depression. A study in Denmark found that it isn’t a burdensome workload, but rather feelings of injustice that lead to depression.

 “An important element of what we call relational justice is when supervisors treat employees with consideration and truthfulness,” said Matias Brodsgaard Grynderup, a researcher who works in the public health department at the University of Copenhagen. Consequently, he believes admitting mistakes and apologising would make the workplace seem more just.

This is in line with Moroni's observation that "despair cometh because of iniquity" (Moroni 10:22). Despair can come not just because of one's own iniquity, but also because of iniquity in general. And we should remember that the term iniquity originally came from a term for being unequal or unjust.

Failure to apologize not only destroys the trust of those directly affected:

“When a leader makes a mistake like lying or taking credit for another employee’s idea and doesn’t apologise immediately, it begins to chip away at the trust the employee feels towards them,” said Andrew Graham, CEO of Forum. “This is true even if the employee observes this behaviour in his or her boss and isn’t the direct victim of the incident.”  

On the other hand, apologies can help rebuild eroded trust.

Apologies can help restore a manager's credibility after a damaging error, and they also can inspire greater trust in management at a time when many workers are feeling disillusioned with employers.

So with all the positive benefits of apologizing, one would think it takes place frequently.

How common are apologies from bosses? It depends on whom you ask. Many employees believe managers don’t take responsibility for their screw-ups and don’t express regret. Only 19% of employees said their managers often or always apologise.

Even more managers think they apologize (87%) than employees think they don't (81%). This illustrates a disconnect between what managers think they are doing and what they are actually doing.

It’s also wise to apologise clearly and sincerely — but concisely.

Since when employees observe management making mistakes which are not apologized for immediately it erodes the employees' trust in the management, one wonders if it is possible for managers to reach a point where it is impossible to regain the trust of the employees.

Employers also shouldn’t expect apologies to work magic in every situation. They may not be very beneficial when office relationships were already badly strained before the mistake occurred.

Is it possible for efforts to be a little too little, a little too late?

More on Repentance and Forgiveness

Hannah Bird has some interesting thoughts here about repentance and forgiveness. She argues that unless a person takes responsibility for their actions and repents, they cannot be truly forgiven even if others say that they forgive them. Without repentance they cut themselves off from real forgiveness.
It might be worth rereading Greg Smith's observations on false forgiveness, and on the abuse of forgiveness.

Thoughts on the Story of Joseph

This last week I had the opportunity of discussing the biblical story of Joseph to a very polite audience. Some aspects of that story are more striking this time reviewing it.

One of the highlights of Joseph's story is his forgiving his brothers. But Joseph does not just blindly forgive his brothers. He remembered what they did to him. So, he tested them to see if their repentance was real. He first threw them in prison (Genesis 42:17) just as he had been cast into prison because of their actions. Then he took Simeon as a hostage (Genesis 42:24) and demanded that they bring their younger brother with them next time (Genesis 42:15, 20). Their younger brother was, of course, Benjamin, the only one of the brothers with whom Joseph shared a mother. In doing this, Joseph could see whether they would be willing to betray another brother for monetary gain (and perhaps revenge) the way that they had him. If they returned, he could see if they had been mistreating Benjamin. When they came back, he contrives to have Benjamin imprisoned indefinitely (Genesis 44:1-13) to see if they cared at all about his mother's children.

Three chapters narrate Joseph's tests of his brother's forgiveness (Genesis 42-44) before the one that narrates his forgiveness (Genesis 45). Joseph did not practice blind forgiveness.

Resignation as Repentance

This week Rabbi Norman Lamm resigned as the chancellor of Yeshiva University. The evil deed that caused his resignation was his failure to see that justice was done for evil acts committed by one of his subordinates thirty or more years ago. This is a very sad case. What intrigues me most about it is the reasoning cited in the article for his resignation:

At the time that inappropriate actions by individuals at Yeshiva were brought to my attention, I acted in a way that I thought was correct, but which now seems ill conceived. I understand better today than I did then that sometimes, when you think you are doing good, your actions do not measure up. You think you are helping, but you are not. You submit to momentary compassion in according individuals the benefit of the doubt by not fully recognizing what is before you, and in the process you lose the Promised Land. . . . And when that happens -- one must do teshuvah. So, I too must do teshuvah. True character requires of me the courage to admit that, despite my best intentions then, I now recognize that I was wrong.

Teshuvah is the Hebrew word for repentance. It comes from a Hebrew root meaning to turn or to return. It means, thus, a turning away from one's wicked ways and a turning towards or return to God.

Over thirty years ago, Rabbi Lamm tried to cover up some terrible accusations, which ended up being true, of evil at the school that he had oversight for. They would have had, and eventually did have, terrible repercussions for the reputation of the school. Rabbi Lamm decided to bury the accusations of wrong-doing and stonewall for the sake of his school's reputation. He thought that was the correct thing to do at the time but now recognizes it as a mistake.

I salute Rabbi Lamm, not for what he did then, but having the courage to invoke repentance as he resigns. The relevant scriptures are as follows:

When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, . . . and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 4:22–26)

And if a soul sin, . . . and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, . . . and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 5:1–11)

Administrators often do not have to live with the consequences of their bad choices, even if others must. So it is nice to see a university administrator who takes some responsibility for the evil he has wrought.

Repentance for Cain

We typically think of Cain as one of scripture's first lost causes. The readings of the Targums provide some insight into Cain's situation before his turn for the worst. Abel's sacrifice had been accepted but Cain's had not. He was feeling dejected and like he was always under his younger brother's shadow. Genesis 4:7 reads as follows (the parenthesis shows a textual variant):

If you do good, it shall be forgiven you; and if you do not do good, (your) sin is retained until the day of judgment; recompense will be required of you if you do not do good; but if you do good, it will be forgiven you.

In the Targum for this verse (which reflects a first-century Judean understanding of the text) Cain is offered the chance to repent. The terms of repentance offered Cain are:

• He can do good. Doing good shows his repentance. Doing the right thing is what God asked Cain to do.


• Doing good brings a remission or forgiveness of his sins. The Aramaic term here, yištabêq, is the same verb used in the Aramaic version of Psalm 22:1 that Jesus quotes on the cross (the sabachthani in Matthew 27:46), and means to abandon, to desert, or to forgive. If we abandon our sins, God will abandon them as well. Forgiveness in Genesis 4:7 is God abandoning our sins and abandoning keeping track of them. They are not retained for the day of judgment.


• If he does not do good, his sin is retained and he is not rid of it, and it will come back to him at the day of judgment.

Cain was offered a clear choice. He could do good or not. Doing good would count as repentance and bring a remission of his sins. Or he could hold on to his sins.

Cain, however, chose not only to hang on to his sins but magnify them. His envy of Abel, who did well and was accepted, caused him to betray and murder Abel. When confronted with his iniquitous deed, Cain denied it, and rationalized it. He did not even try to repent of his treachery against his more righteous brother.

The Targum does not supply a motive for Cain's actions. The Book of Moses, however, does:

And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands (Moses 5:33).

Cain thought that being rid of his pesky righteous brother would make him somehow free to pursue his own agenda. He also confiscated his brother's possessions that he had labored to acquire. They were now his to do with as he pleased. Cain sold his soul for a few flocks.

So in the end, if Cain was a lost cause, his own choices and his own sins made him so.

Reading Yahya ibn Adi I

Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn Adi ibn Hamid ibn Zakariyya al-Tikriti al-Mantiqi is an author who has not made the best seller list for a millennium. Born in A.D. 893, Yahya was an influential scribe and scholar in Baghdad in the mid-940s who attracted both Christian and Muslim disciples. A dual language edition of his work, The Reformation of Morals is available.[1] This is a remarkable work that deserves to be better known.

While today it is popular to claim that one cannot or should not change because one is born that way, Yahya ibn Adi argues that individuals can and should change their behavior to have better morals. Yahya’s comments compare interestingly with those of two Book of Mormon kings: Benjamin and Mosiah.

Yahya argues that “people are disposed to bad morals, inclined to yield to base desires.” [2] “There are some people who take no notice of the matter; but when they are put to notice, they perceive the foulness, and so sometimes their soul brings them to renunciation.”[3] King Benjamin was more emphatic: “the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19‎).

Yahya also argues for the flip-side of something that King Mosiah argued. King Mosiah argued that: “how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage.” (Mosiah 29:17–18‎). Yahya argues that “the advantage of kings of good conduct is immense. They will dissuade the wrongdoer from his wrong, they will hold back the angry man from his anger, they will punish the immoral man for his immorality, and they will restrain the tyrant to the point that he reverts to moderation in all his affairs.” [4]

 
Because we all need repentance and improvement, Yahya ibn Adi’s work, The Reformation of Morals, is as relevant now as it was a millennium ago.

---

[1] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002).

[2] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 11.

[3] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 11.

[4] Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, ed. and trans. Sidney H. Griffith (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 11.