How do you apologize like that?
Don't get the scope wrong - if you are only going to make such a minor change that lots of almost-identical incidents will still happen in future, don't bother. Conversely, if you make quite exaggerated claims about the change you will make, also maybe don't bother.
If in contrast to a real apology that promises change, your "apology" is really a backhanded promise that it'll all happen again and probably soon; don't expect that to be gracefully accepted.
For example, I might have an apple and you might say to me 'give me your apple'. For me to distinguish between that being a 'request' or a 'demand', I need to observe what you do if I say no. If you try and take my apple by force, it was a demand. If you shrug and move on, or offer something in negotiation, it was a request. This is orthogonal to the fact it wasn't polite - it can be an impolite request. A lot of people can't distinguish a polite demand not backed by physical violence from a request, and that causes problems.
Similarly, for me the difference between an apology and say a status play is whether someone changes their behaviors meaningfully after they apologise. If behaviors do not change, it was just a status thing or some other form of insincere apology.
Another way is to make the apology conditional, which is really a form of polite demand (ie, demanding the conditional aspect of the apology with the threat of doing whatever the apology was for). This is subtle and can be quite manipulative. People sometimes recognise there is a problem but can't quite identify it.
I’m having trouble grokking this: do you have an example?
That is a basic example. This isn't going to be a genuine apology, even if the apple-eater says sorry it is in context of something more akin to a negotiation.
There is an implicit "if you cause me trouble, I am morally free to eat your apple in retaliation". There is no element of regret or mistake in this 'apology', which robs it of genuine impact.
Incidentally, that sort of negotiation in this example is a bad idea because it immediately entangles actions (eg, being late), guilt (something has happened that demands an apology, ie, hurt must be immediately acknowledged) and a level of threat (future actions may still be met with retaliation because it was justified this time).
If you reflect on that little 'apology' you can have quite a fun armchair psychology experience picking apart all the ways it conflates emotion, intent and action in ways that are unlikely to be helpful. Using the same approach on a subject more important than food can cause real damage. Many people would probably struggle to pick what was going wrong though, because on the surface it might look like an apology.
You’re basically coming clean with yourself first so that you can be solid with the rest of the world.
The way you forgive is to understand how these actions served and how they did not and recognize that at the moment of taking them you weren’t present to the second part, or deprioritized it etc.
And you spend a minute feel the emotion associated with that lack of awareness or choice. That’s the alchemy which changes your state and the state of the world. It’s simple but I usually need to teach it face to face.
Then, after you’re clean with yourself, you can communicate with the person who you want to apologize to.
- what happened, in factual, concrete language (“in the Wednesday meeting I said I’d be surprised if your code didn’t bomb, in front of the team.”)
- what you feel in the moment of the apology. Needs to match what you actually feel (not think) or its a lie. (“I am feeling some sadness and shame.”)
- what values/universal needs did the actions not accomplish, and possibly, hoped to accomplish. You figured these in the self forgiveness part. (“I realize it’s important for me to be respectful to my peers. And inclusive. The way I want to be respected and included. These words were not either. I tried to make a joke, but forgot about the rest. I apologize, wish I hadn’t done that.” And, if your introspection had this element, “I must admit I was annoyed by the issues in your last two commits because I had to stay after hours to do fixes. My remark communicated some of that but was not clear nor constructive nor respectful.”)
Then, you can
- check if they understand (this may be too formal for casual environments but can vary from “can you tell me what you heard me say?” to “how is it for you to hear this?”)
- check if you need to make amends. (“Would you like me to have a conversation with Bob and make it clear that despite two commits with issues, I do believe that you produce good quality — because that’s what I really think — and that I’d do a code review with you?”)
The big picture is: reconnect to yourself, come clean with yourself, connect + come clean with the other. Be and make it clear that you’re in the same side.
When you are clean with yourself and have grieved (strong word but actionable even in small situations. It takes one honest sigh. ) the repercussions of the actions, you are able to own up to them because you know why you took them. Very hard to manipulate / shame / guilt.
It is based on NVC.
Edit: fixed typos.
>- check if they understand (this may be too formal for casual environments but can vary from “can you tell me what you heard me say?” to “how is it for you to hear this?”)
comes off as incredibly condescending. It's hard to do that check without being condescending. You are the one (correctly) lowering your status to apologize. Putting the onus on them to signal acceptance on the spot is out of place.
Could be a few words, or could be a look in the eye and a nod.
I usually say something along the lines of “I’d appreciate if you could let me know if that cleared things for you.”
If it doesn’t feel right, don’t do it. In my experience it’s good to let the other person let me know how they are in the context of the situation and be willing to hear them out.
This is better than saying something that implies you are afraid they didn't understand because you think they are a poor listener.