Making Apologies as an Essential Aspect of Conflict Resolution - Essay Example

CULTURE AND ETHICS IN BUSINESS CASE STUDY- MAKING APOLOGIES Name Course Professor University Location Date Apologies are essential in resolving conflicts and earning lost trust among two groups of people or individuals. Conflicts normally have a tendency of intense anger and a concentration of power rather than interests. As a result, they cause unfair settlements or impasses. In bargaining situations, the lack of trust between parties frequently acts as a primary hindrance to effective agreements by preventing information exchange and the recognition of shared interests (Xue 2014, 1492). Nevertheless, apologies can be an efficient technique of winning back or developing trust in negotiations or any other conflict situation. A simple apology can change the perspectives of conflicted parties and drive them towards focusing on common interests and making settlements that are fair to all. However, different cultures have various views on apologies and how to communicate them (Bowe, Martin & Manns 2014, 73). This paper is a comparison between two chief executive officers, how they chose to apologize with a focus on apologies across different cultures and ethical theories. In the issue of accelerator difficulties in several of Toyota's vehicles, the CEO, Akio Toyoda made many clear and public apologies. During the World Economic Forum in Davos, 2010, Toyoda stated that he was honestly sorry for the problems and put forward a sequence of steps to address the issue as well as compensate consumers. Toyota took the initiative to respond their apologies through newspapers and other forms of media in the U.S, and a few cases were evident in Japanese print media. In contrast, such conflicts in the U.S rarely end with sincere apologies. The CEO of BP, Hayward on the other side spoke of their involvement in the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf, his apology for the incident was however demonstrated through defensiveness and justifications as well as ignoring the environmental implications of the issue. While Toyota was ready to take fault and compensate their customers for inconveniences, BP gave a half-hour, hearted apology and even acted like they were the victims despite the environmental pollution (Steers, Nardon & Sanchez-Runde 2013, 528). There is a clear contrast in conflict management approaches that the two CEOs took indicating a cultural variance in dispute resolution and negotiations in the U.S and Japan. The two cultures have a different perspective on the role and meaning of an apology. From the case study, it is evident that in the U.S, people use apologies to allocate and take blame for an occurrence with accountability given to individual characters. In Japan on the other side, accountability is a perception that is more diffused across people. As a result, an apology indicates sincere regret that does not necessarily generate blame. Therefore, with more global deals in the modern day, there are a lot of negotiations and conflict resolution among individuals from various cultures. Understanding different cultural views on making apologies is thus becoming significant (Wenzel et al 2016, 29). Although apologies can be useful in resolving conflicts, trust rebuilding, and building settlements, the two cases are clear evidence that cultural miscommunication can hinder the dispute-solving process. Hence, in the absence of cultural awareness, one's approach to a conflict based on their background lens may worsen the situation instead of resolving it (Maldonado & Vera 2014, 258). Therefore, looking at the two cases, Toyota's CEO apparently handled the situation well. The company is accountable to the customers for any problems with their products, and they took the right step in making public apologies and compensating consumers. BP on the other side could have tackled the issue in a better way. The first step should have been accepting their contribution in the issue. It was quite obvious that Bo was involved in the oil spill, however, instead of the CEO acknowledging it, he kept making several excuses. BP should have comforted the public and provided reassurance. Today's world deals with a lot of issues concerning environmental conservation, the impacts of the oil spillage on the eco would deter the efforts. Hence BP owed the public a sincere apology. To show that the company was sorry for the incident, they should have been able to make it clear what they plan on doing in the future to prevent a recap of the situation. Therefore, BP addressed the issue poorly, instead of defending themselves, they should have given a public apology. Deontological ethics emphasize on deciding what is right or wrong based on moral obligation (Bowe, Martin & Manns 2014, 80). In the two situations in the case, both companies had a responsibility. Toyota has the duty to ensure that their products are well manufactured in quality conditions to guarantee the safety of the consumer. Therefore, when accelerator problems came up with their cars, it was the customer's life that was at risk because they failed to act as per their responsibility. BP, on the other hand, has the duty to ensure ecological conservation and sustainability. The oil spillage scenario was an indication of a failure in meeting their responsibility. Utilitarian ethics focus on the consequences of an action. In the two cases, the implications put life at risk doing both wrong acts (Bowe, Martin & Manns 2014, 83). Therefore, ethically speaking, each of the two companies owed the public a sincere and formal apology. One of the principal roles of culture is to offer functional resolutions to vital matters of social interaction. Rebuilding trust is one of those crucial issues, and people from different cultures use apologies to solve the problem (Xue 2014, 1494). However, Maldonado and Vera state that the kind of trust violation determines whether or not an apology would be sufficient (2014, 260). For instance, when the conflict comes about as a result of a lack of competence, apologies are more likely to work than when the dispute stems from the absence of integrity. People are more probable to understand a mistake made out of ignorance than one resulting from the lack of moral consideration. In such cases, it may be necessary to make use of other conflict resolution approaches (Maldonado & Vera 2014, 261). In the case discussed, the issues were as a result of the absence of competence and the public could easily extend forgiveness to the two companies. Culture can also determine the effectiveness of an apology while at the same time looking at the type of offense. The interpretation of what an apology is and what the use varies considerably based on the cultural context. As discussed earlier there are different functions and meaning of apologies in the US and Japan depending on the various explanations that people take on actions. Xue defines an apology as an acceptance of accountability followed by the expression of remorse (2014, 1492). Therefore, an apology in the US may demonstrate both an admittance of wrong doing and a show of regret. Xue explains that Americans are more likely to explain their actions when apologizing than the Japanese because they attach an act to duties and responsibilities (2014, 1493). In Japan, an apology has a different meaning and function; it refers to an individual's acknowledgment of the suffering caused to the other person in such a way that saying sorry depicts the sense of indebtedness. Therefore, the Japanese view apologies as a technique to relieve interpersonal stress resulting from strained relationships, and to recognize the liability to others (Wenzel et al 2016, 28) Maldonado and Vera suggest that role and meaning of an apology vary between US and Japan mainly due to the varying psychological conjecture of personal involvement (2014, 262). In individualistic cultures like the US, the chief cause of an occurrence is individuals. There is an essential supposition of different agency in US culture with the focus of control for happenings residing within people. As a result, there tends to be attribution error in the Western culture, that is, people hold others responsible for events without considering the contextual factors involved. In Japan, the standard locus of involvement is in the society or a group. There is little probability that the Japanese can hold a person responsible for an occurrence but a high likelihood that they will see a group as the cause of an event. Thus, society or groups and situational factors are the chief causal agents in Japan (Maldonado & Vera 2014, 263). Therefore, having discussed the causal agents in both cultures, one can easily relate it to the situation in the case of the two CEOs making apologies. Toyota's CEO knew that he was representing the whole company when summoned over the accelerator problems with their cars. He believed that the entire organization was responsible for any inconveniences the consumers underwent. Hence, his sincere apologies were for the purpose of winning the customers' trust back for the company. By offering compensation, the customers would be confident that Toyota takes responsibility for their actions. BP's CEO on the other side was defensive in such a way that suggests he was individually held accountable for the oil spillage. He even talks about how much the situation has affected him instead of focusing on BP as the causal agent. Hence, from his apology, it is clear that he is from an individualistic culture (Steers, Nardon & Sanchez-Runde 2013, 528). Therefore, it is clear that the meaning of an apology in Japan is comparable to a general expression of regret with the role of a conventional social intervention aimed at recognizing that one has hurt or inconvenienced another without necessarily focusing on responsibility. Hence Xue explains that those from high context cultures like Japan are more likely to accept apologies that demonstrate empathy (2014, 1494). Thus, the person apologizing in Japan is not fundamentally blameworthy, and apologies are essential in sustaining interpersonal relationships. The Japanese are likely to apologize in a broad range of situations even when they are not responsible for an event. Americans on the other side use apologies to restore their sense of self-worth and credibility and are more probable to apologize only when they are accountable for an occurrence (Wenzel et al 2016, 29). In the business world, consumers trust companies to act for their best interest in the delivery of quality products and services. When they fail to act as per their duty, the organizations are accountable. As part of the corporate social responsibility, companies have an obligation to act in such a manner that promotes environmental sustainability and social well-being (Bowe, Martin, & Manns 2014, 58). Toyota's problem with accelerators could have led to accidents among other inconveniences that would fall on their consumers. BP's oil spillage on the other side was environmentally disastrous due to pollution. Hence each company had failed to ensure corporate social responsibility. However, their reaction to the situation demonstrates what they are willing to do to restore consumer trust. Toyoda speaking on behalf of Toyota as a whole offers sincere apologies and compensations. Hayward on the other side gives a half-hearted apology and several excuses. Clearly, Toyota is ready to take up action to prevent the recurrence of the complications while BP does not express any willingness to act on the situation. Therefore, apologies have different functions in the various global cultures. For instance, they help restore broken trust. When an individual wrongs the other, the victim loses confidence in the wrongdoer, apologizing is one way to regain their trust. Apologies also function to repair relationships and take accountability for one's deeds. Conflicts affect interpersonal harmony, to restore proper interrelations, an apology is essential. They are also a way of expressing regret as the wrongdoer demonstrates that they understand the harm they caused and are remorseful. Apologies help to rebuild dignity for the victims and as a result relieve the stress that they experience due to the situation. They also have a role in sustaining social order, without apologies, disputes can intensify leading to direr consequences that affect the society as a whole. Lastly, some people apologize for the purpose of reducing the costs of their actions by showing that they are regretful (Maldonado & Vera 2014, 264). There are situations in which apologies are appropriate and those where they are not. Apologies are effective when they are truthful and meaningful. However, when one gives a half-hearted apology, it becomes clear that they don't mean it and it thus serves no purposes. Apologies also work in situations resulting from a lack of competence about knowledge or technicality. The victim can understand that the wrongdoer did not mean to cause harm. When the conflict is due to an absence of integrity, apologies can be ineffective because the event occurred out of choice to go against one's moral or ethical responsibility. Apologies are appropriate when one's action leads to harm or hurt unlike when there is no reason to say sorry. Making empty promises makes apologies ineffective just as shifting blame instead of accepting accountability. Lastly, it is inappropriate to apologize for the purpose of having a sense of power over the other person (Xue 2014, 1494). Based on the discussion, there is an appropriate manner to make an apology. The first step is to recognize the damage done. Without being able to see the consequences of one's action, an individual cannot sincerely understand why they should show remorse. Second, one should be ready to correct the situation and ensure that the same does not recur. An individual should acknowledge the situation and the role that comes with it. During conflict situations, one may have to take on other responsibilities to show that they are willing to correct the situation. Thus, to give a sincere apology, one should recognize the necessary adjustments. Lastly, the person apologizing should make an expression of regret and offer a mode of resolution (Bowe, Martin & Manns 2014, 72). For instance, Toyoda was remorseful for the problems with their cars and offered to compensate their consumers. It is thus evident that apologies are fundamental for interpersonal interactions. They open up opportunities for communication and mutual understanding between individuals. They also foster reconnection among people who had fallen apart (Wenzel et al 2016, 29). Through the reconnections, people can relate better thus ensuring social order. It also allows one to tune in with others' feelings and emotions and consequently enhances the ability to understand the various reactions to different situations. Apologies make an allowance to discuss and put in place new regulations that are fair and promote healthy interpersonal relationships. They also minimize the effect of an event on people by relieving stress and showing empathy. Apologies save time spent arguing over issues and prevent the problems that could arise from unresolved conflicts. Apologies also take various cultures into consideration and enhance harmony among people from different backgrounds (Steers, Nardon & Sanchez-Runde 2013, 529). Therefore, there are ethical implications in both situations. It is evident that both companies did not act promptly in the interest of the consumers and the public at large. Toyota failed in their duty to provide safe cars for customers putting their lives at risk. They also did not uphold their main values, "safety, quality, and customer satisfaction." BP on their other side failed on their social obligation to promote environmental sustainability. The oil spillage led to pollution of the environment endangering the life of various species. They also misinformed the public by providing wrong information that was unethical. The CEO, Hayward's public statement, " I want my life back," shows BP's inability to accept responsibility for the damages they caused. It was also wrong to apologize for the sake of publicity and building back their reputation rather than sincere remorse. It is thus clear that apologies are essential in interpersonal relationships. The world today has become smaller due to global interactions. The relations can only work if people understood the significance of apologies in conflict resolution. However, they also have to consider the various cultural interpretation and meaning of apologies. It is better to be willing to take responsibility for one's actions and avoid strains in relationships. Without apologies, there would be no conflict resolution. In the absence of dispute solving processes, there would be poor interpersonal interactions. Consequently, a lot of societal activities would face hindrances and development as well as progress in the modern world would be a challenge (Xue 2014, 1492). Therefore, it is right to conclude that making apologies is an essential aspect of conflict resolution even though people's expectations and interpretations vary from one culture to another (Bowe, Martin, & Manns 2014, 75). For instance, the Western world is a low context society and tend to hold individuals responsible for events (Xue 2014, 1493). The eastern side, on the other hand, is high context and looks into situational causal agents and groups rather than individuals. Irrespective of the differences, an apology should be sincere, demonstrate regret and willingness to take the essential steps to correct the situation and avoid recurrence of the same (Wenzel et al 2016, 32). Apologies are significant in allowing for communication where people can reach a level of mutual understanding and settle on fair agreements. Companies should always consider the ethical implications of their actions and be ready to take responsibility. It may not cost much to make an apology. However, the impact of one is quite substantial in relationships. References Bowe, H., Martin, K. and Manns, H., 2014. Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world. Cambridge University Press. Maldonado, T. and Vera, D., 2014. Leadership skills for international crises: The role of cultural intelligence and improvisation. Organizational Dynamics, 43(4), pp.257-265. Steers, R.M., Nardon, L. and Sanchez-Runde, C.J., 2013. Management across cultures: Developing global competencies. Cambridge University Press. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G., Hornsey, M.J., Lawrence-Wood, E. and Coughlin, A.M., 2016. The mandate of the collective: Apology representativeness determines perceived sincerity and forgiveness in intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, p.0146167217697093. Xue, J., 2014. Cultivating intercultural communication competence through culture teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(7), p.1492. Read More