Bankers apology – the verdict
My friend and blog advisor Matt Cain has come up with a visual representation of apologies scorecard. We can use this again for the current bankers being grilled by the Select Committee.
The apology continuum
A few comments on yesterday’s performance. I give Sir Fred Goodwin the highest marks: 4 out of 6 as he recognised the distress that has been ‘caused’ and he used the phrase ‘I fully accept my responsibility in the matter’ although he then qualifies it with ‘I imagine there are many others who think there but for the grace of God’. To which latter reply one is tempted to say that given Sir Fred is still a very rich man many people may think God has been unduly beneficent to the bankers. Sir Fred gets 1.5 out of 3 for apologising for the act, as he implies we would all have done the same as him in his shoes, but 2.5 out of 3 for recognising the consequences. Goodwin also engages most fully with the question of personal culpability although he is tendentious in implying those seeking to establish personal culpability want to ‘blame it all on me’.
Lord Stevenson gets a much more modest 2.5 out of 6. ‘We are profoundly, and I would say unreservedly, sorry at the turn of events’ seeks largely to evade any guilt of commission while ‘I am sorry about the effect that it has had on the communities we serve’ gets 1.5 for a rather mealy-mouthed apology for consequences.
Andy Hornby gets a mere 1 and that is for bringing himself to utter the ‘s’ word. He uses the ‘turn of events’ phrase (clearly one taught to the former HBOS team by their media advisors). Hornby explicitly rejects any personal culpability and even asks us to sympathise with him – ‘it has been an extremely stressful time’.
Sir Tom McKillop gets 2 out of 6. He apologises, says it was a bad mistake then says anyone would have done what he did.
As I said yesterday grovelling apologies may have a cathartic effect but they don’t necessarily offer insight. The collective failure of the bankers yesterday is to provide a vivid and credible account of how personal vanity and greed interacted with systemtic problems. It is this we need to understand more than anything else; how do systems interact with individual psychological frailties to generate bad outcomes? I guess we will just have to wait for the autobiographies.
Sorry bankers – a scorecard
As befits a time of victimhood and self doubt, the demand for an apology from someone in a prominent position has become a routine news story. Today it is the turn of the bankers appearing at the Treasury Select Committee.
Perhaps it’s time to take a more systematic approach to apologies. After all, not all ‘sorries’ are worth much. When I worked in Number Ten, Tony Blair used occasionally to admit he’d made a mistake but only when he wished he had listened to himself earlier!
A distinction to start with when grading apologies is between apologising for the act and apologising for the consequences. Insincere apologies will tend to be weak on one or other side; either ‘I’m sorry for what happened but there was nothing I could have done about it’, or ‘I made a mistake but I’m not responsible for what happened as a result’.
In saying sorry for the act there are three key points on a continuum. At the strongest end the confessor admits that they knew what they were doing was wrong but, for self interested reasons, they still chose to do it. In the middle of the range the apologiser recognises they did the wrong thing but argues that there were mitigating circumstances that stood in the way of them appreciating that it was the wrong thing, (most often that everyone else was doing it as well). The weakest version (‘wise after the event’) is when someone apologises formally but refuses to admit they could have realistically chosen any other action at the time.
In terms of consequential apology, there are again three points. The strongest is for the apologiser fully to recognise that it was their action that led to the consequences and that they owe a debt to society. The next level is for the apologiser to agree that their actions may have contributed to the consequence but that these need not have happened had other factors not been at play. The weakest position is to recognise that there have been consequences but to essentially separate the action from the unpredictable events that subsequently occurred.
There is, of course, an even weaker apology which takes the form ‘I didn’t do anything wrong at all but I’m sorry you don’t see it that way’. But I’m not even counting that.
So multiplying the two dimensions gives us a nine point scale ranging from:
‘I am sorry, I knew what I was doing was wrong and I accept personal responsibility for the consequences that have flowed from my action’
Through to
‘I am sorry but I had no choice at the time and what has happened since, however terrible, cannot be directly traced to anything I did’.
A final point to bear in mind: if what we want is catharsis it may be we are hoping that Sir Fred and his mates score a full nine. However, if what we want is explanation it may actually be more useful to get a lower score in the context of understanding how intelligent senior people got themselves caught up in mass hysteria.
I will reflect tomorrow on how the bankers rate.
Twitter @RSAMatthewRSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.