Why leaders shouldn’t have to apologize for private remarks
If you’re in a public-facing role, you are likely to get caught up in some kind of “hot mic” event in which an offhand remark said in private gets aired publicly. (Indeed, this piece was inspired by the recent experience of a former colleague.) These events are embarrassing, and they almost always end with a standard—and unsatisfying—apology in which the speaker regrets the remarks and says that…
In a public role, it's common to find oneself in situations where an offhand remark made in private gets aired publicly. This often leads to embarrassment and a standard, unsatisfying apology where the speaker regrets the remarks and claims they didn't mean them. While some leaders may need to apologize or even step down for racist or sexist remarks, most private-turned-public comments should not warrant such an apology. Leaders are human and deserve privacy, just like everyone else.
Leaders face immense stress in their roles, bombarded by requests and complaints. They must deal with numerous people who have demands, all while maintaining a calm demeanor. Occasionally, they may lapse and have a heated public exchange or complain in private. These complaints are usually expressions of frustration rather than complaints about specific individuals, and even when a leader has a gripe about someone, they typically respect their contributions.
The belief exists that leaders must maintain a superhuman ability to keep their emotions in check at all times. Before smartphones and internet-enabled recording devices, there was an expectation that people could have private moments to let their guard down, especially when talking with longstanding relationships. Apologies for private remarks bug me because they reinforce the idea that private statements reflect a leader's true attitudes more than their public actions. They also suggest that having private conversations is a wrong.
I believe it's time to normalize the importance of private conversations. If a leader's words betray deeply inappropriate prejudices or attitudes, an apology is warranted. However, their accomplishments should carry more weight, and their positive contributions to their organization should speak louder than leaked remarks. When played out of context, private conversations can be misunderstood as more deliberate opinions than intended.
These private conversations serve two essential functions, dampening leaders' effectiveness if they have to monitor their speech constantly. Firstly, petty whining, or "whingeing" as it's known in the UK, serves a social function, solidifying connections among people in similar roles. Often, these complaints exaggerate leaders' true feelings to affiliate with conversation partners. Losing tools to build these bonds would be a shame.
Secondly, leaders need to discuss various things with each other, even topics that some may find distasteful. For example, a university leader may need to consider cost-cutting measures, and faculty might believe it unacceptable to close down a department or program. Leaders should not be penalized for considering all options, even those that others might object to on moral grounds.
Making good decisions in an organization requires questioning deeply held assumptions, and routine leaks of private conversations could hinder this process. It's impossible to make good decisions without challenging assumptions, and leaks could lead leaders to avoid discussing potentially controversial policy decisions, ultimately hampering decision-making.
Written by urgent.news from Fast Company's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
