I have to admit, I've never seen such a long apology that does not have even a hint of self-justification. Kudos to him, though too bad it wasn't enough to save his marriage.
There was a good piece on public apologies by the media critic of Time, James Poniewozik, before he went to the New York Times:
"Public apologies are different from, well, real ones. A real apology, between actual private humans, needs to demonstrate true remorse and learning on the part of the offender and needs to make the injured party feel better. But in a public apology, the apologizer, and maybe even the apologizee, is beside the point. The real point is the rest of us–the larger society, asserting the norms and changing boundaries of acceptable behavior… A calculated, self-interested apology at least tells the rest of the audience someone did something wrong, while the apologizer figures that out in his or her own time, if ever."
On the other hand, there are situations where some group gets offended by some statement or action and the apologizer doesn't really get the offense, and neither do a lot of other rational people, but the easiest path forward is to express a lack of intent to offend without actually apologizing.
The thing that struck me about it is that in the process of explaining the core of what makes a meaningful apology to children, it does a really nice job of reflecting where, exactly, most public (and, really, private!) apologies tend to fall down.
A lot of public apologies likely sound fake because they actually are fake. People frequently apologize publicly solely to maintain a good public image rather than to truly signal remorse.
I'm not sure this is always a bad thing. No, I don't go out of my way to cause offense. However, I've certainly said or written things that caused individuals and even groups of individuals to be pissed off in ways that I consider irrational. (And in ways many others would consider to be irrational as well.) Under those circumstances, if pressed, I might use that sort of formulation. Except under extreme duress, I'm not going to apologize for something I'm really not sorry about.
Except, under those circumstances, I'm probably not losing any sleep over the fact that I offended you. So that statement means I'm shouldering the blame at some level but it's also typically dishonest. I'm not actually sorry I offended you because I think you're being an oversensitive idiot.
Then don't apologize. If you're not actually sorry, don't say you are.
Edit: it occurs to me that this hooks straight back in to the article's question. Why are most public apologies so bad? Because most of them are made by people who aren't actually sorry.
But how to say in a polite and effective way, "you're behaving irrationally, the offence is something you created for yourself; I feel bad that you're feeling bad now, but I did nothing I should be apologizing for"?
I sometimes find myself tempted to use a non-apology like "I'm sorry if I offended you" in order to short-circuit the irrational anger in the other person quickly, so that we can get to the point of actually figuring out what I've said that triggered the problem and how their reaction was wrong, and what's the deeper issue underneath.
"I'm sorry I offended you" is a perfectly reasonable way to express "I feel bad that you're feeling bad now."
I personally don't understand why you'd feel bad about how another person feels as a result of something you've said, but not feel that you should apologize. To me, the two go hand in hand. It's not about "should," it's not about right and wrong, it's simply about expressing the sentiment that you regret what happened as a result of your actions.
Even if you said something totally innocent like "I like apples" and somebody got offended at that because they're crazy, you can still sincerely apologize for that if you actually care that they feel bad.
And of course you don't have to care that they feel bad. In many cases not caring would be a perfectly reasonable response. In which case, don't lie by saying sorry.
Well, I think a lot of English speakers are confused as well. There seems to be this idea that "I'm sorry" implicitly means, "I fucked up, it's all my fault, I'm a worm, I deserve to die," and so forth. But it's really just, "I wish it wasn't so, and I'd do it differently if I could go back and try again," or something along those lines.
It doesn't sound like you're actually sorry that they were offended in these circumstances, either, so "I'm sorry if you were offended" is still apologising for something you're not really sorry about, and poorly at that. Leaving aside the question of whether you should be sorry since that's too situational to discuss in generalities, if you're going to pretend you might as well pretend well, I'd say.
I don't know how people interpret the word "sorry" here, but for me "I'm sorry" means I feel bad about something and I don't want to do it again. Therefore I can honestly say "I'm sorry you're offended", or "I'm sorry if I offended you", by which I mean "if you were offended by what I said then I feel bad about you experiencing negative emotions; I don't want to say things that make you feel bad; but that doesn't change the fact that your outrage is ridiculous and completely irrational and totally your fault, so calm the fuck down for five seconds and let us resolve it". I am sorry for how they feel. I am not sorry for what I said.
There's a lot going on here and it's hard to properly talk about it all at once so I'm going to try to discuss some pieces and hope I don't lose an aggregate meaning in the process.
I see a few key points in what you said that I want to respond to in particular.
> I am sorry for how they feel. I am not sorry for what I said.
You don't have to be sorry for what you said to be sorry for offending or hurting the person. You can stand by what you said entirely while still being sorry that what you said hurt them. Saying "I'm sorry I said something that offended you" doesn't mean you're retracting your words but it does mean that you are saddened for having caused the other party pain, even if you don't think their pain is rational.
> but that doesn't change the fact that your outrage is [...] totally your fault
If you're concerned about "fault" in this case, I'm not really convinced you do feel bad. "I'm sorry I said something that offended you" isn't "I'm a terrible person who is totally in the wrong"; it's "I regret that I did something that resulted in you being hurt." If you stand entirely by what you said it might even mean something like "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you."
> "I'm sorry" means I feel bad about something and I don't want to do it again
Ultimately, I think this is what it's all about. "I'm sorry you were offended" is (at its absolute best) "I feel bad about you being offended"; "I'm sorry I offended you" is "I feel bad about you being offended and I don't want to do it again."
I think you haven't lost the aggregate meaning, and in fact you've managed to capture my own view on this issue perfectly. Thank you for this point-by-point elaboration.
I usually go out of my way to play cooperative with people. It often means that I try to say, "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you".
Someone's surprising outrage at something I think is innocent also reveals my lack of understanding of that other person. Assuming their honesty, I want to go into this in order to better understand what's going on. Maybe we both actually think the same way about the issue, maybe it's just an unfortunate phrasing on my part that caused the problem? It happened this way many times.
So to circle back to the beginning of the whole thread - I don't think that "I'm sorry (if) I offended you" is always a non-apology. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted (and honestly, I'm not angry at them anymore - I grew to understand it was complicated and messy situation for both of us, as relationships sometimes turn out to be; the point is, it revealed a flaw in trying to atone for offending someone at all costs).
> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted
I actually spent a couple years in a similar-sounding situation (and have similarly moved past the anger) so I unfortunately have a pretty good idea where you're coming from here. It's also a pretty different situation from what I think the discussion has mostly been centered around. I'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique. I think it's a fair bit different from the general case, especially when public apologies are involved.
> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.
I don't think "right" is the way to put it at all. Even if we can say someone is or isn't right to be offended, I don't think it really matters. If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place? That's not rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious but my expectation is that it's the latter. And note that for this I'm trying to differentiate between "feel bad about how they feel" and the sort of "feel bad about having to deal with this situation of them acting offended" I alluded to above.
I'm usually pretty good at empathy and understanding others' viewpoints but maybe some people are different enough from me in a way I'm having difficulty comprehending because I cannot imagine a situation where an action I take causes somebody to feel bad and where I genuinely feel bad about their feelings but I don't regret my role in causing that state. And I'm all too familiar with cases where somebody might have to apologise when they don't mean it but very, very few where they wouldn't benefit from trying to act sincere about it.
> 'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique.
For me the relationship ended basically the day after I refused to apologize again, because at this point the pattern went to ridiculous extreme; apologizing then would require me to explicitly lie to myself about what I believe is true, and I do value truth very much.
> If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place?
I say (or do) something. The other party gets offended. I will feel bad regardless of who is "right". The situation sucks, yes, but I care about feelings and internal emotional state of others much more. Can't help it, empathy turns itself on automatically. I feel compelled to resolve the issue as soon as possible not just because there's someone angry in front of me, but because I genuinely feel bad about causing them to feel bad. That's my weak spot that was used to take advantage of me once.
I worked hard for that experience to not destroy my empathy. Instead, I settled on following defense mechanism: if I start to feel that someone is playing me this way on purpose, I pause the situation and calmly but explicitly note that I feel I'm being emotionally manipulated and do not wish for it to continue. So far it only happened once, and the person involved backed down immediately, and the problem did not occur again with them.
Public apology situations are usually different than private ones, but the manipulative element can be still present. Looking at Twitter outrages in particular, it's more often present than not - probably due to the fact that the most outraged people are the ones who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Here, outrage is far too often used as a tool to control the words and actions of the accused party.
> I'm not going to apologize for something I'm really not
> sorry about.
In this circumstance, it may be better not to apologize at all. "I'm not sorry" is at least sincere, relative to the typical nose-thumbing pseudo-apologies.
If I'm going to give a lousy, insincere public apology, I prefer it to be "sorry you chose to take offense at my actions. I didn't mean for that to happen". Might as well go all in if I'm not actually sorry and don't intend to apologize.
Apologies by politicians and CEOs should be accompanied by a resignation. There is a military tradition that they should be followed by ritual suicide, but that tradition has declined.
The article highlights a great apology made by Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman after the train accident that killed and injured multiple people. Do you feel that he should have resigned following that?
In that case, I feel that although he was the right person to make the apology, it's not necessarily his own personal fault, nor would his resignation help make amends.
On September 21, 1985, Hiroo Tominaga, a Japan Air Lines maintenance supervisor, committed suicide following the crash of JAL Flight 123. The plane had crashed due to maintenance errors, killing 520 people. He left a note, ''I am atoning with my death.'' The CEO of Japan Air lines, Yasumoto Takagi, resigned, after personally delivering apologies to the families of each victim.
In Japan, if you have disgrace yourself and bring shame upon your family, you have to kill yourself. If you don't kill yourself, honor can not be restore to your family.
This means that when your wife goes grocery shopping, people will not sell her food.
When your children goes to school, teachers will talk down on your children. Students will bully your children. Neighbors will assault your children.
At work, all the women will call your wife a slut behind her back, but making sure it's loud enough for her to hear it. Your wife's boss will make sexual advances toward your wife because she is now no longer a respectable woman.
You clan members will disown your father and make fun of him for birthing such a disgraceful son.
When disown by a clan, you and your family can no longer go to them for support in any form (financial, emotional, social, etc).
Police will purposely pulled you over and give your a ticket.
You son will not be able to get a job because no one will want to hire him. No one want to associate with a disgraceful person like him.
All these societal pressures will not stop until you kill yourself and bring honor back to your family's name.
So yes, you have to kill yourself, if you don't want your family to suffer.
John I normally enjoy your posts, but suggesting suicide is ever a responsible way to atone is totally wrong. It is a coward’s option - if you did something really wrong then live everyday of the rest of your life with your guilt.
I don't think suicide is a proper apology; it makes the world poorer of both a mind an experience learned from the mistake. I can understand if guilt drives someone to take their life, but not when it's cultural pressure that's doing it.
CEO's reaction, on the other hand, is commendable. This is how you're supposed to apologize after a serious fuckup.
Thankfully, an increasing number of young people here in Japan start thinking that committing a suicide is one of the most cowardly and irresponsible ways to settle issues. Some older generations still might like the idea of "atonement with death" which might explain why death penalty is still so popular here. But there's a hope for changes for good.
I loaded the page, started reading and the ENTIRE PAGE scrolled away as a giant "Lessons In Startups" mail-signup-modal rolled in from above. GO AWAY YOU SCOURGE OF THE INTERNET.
I don't know if anyone ever reads those e-mail addresses or if they just go to a big database, but this time it was enough and instead of an e-mail, I wrote a very short opinion piece on this practice of modern beggary.
This might get a negative response, but let me present a contrarian view: apologies aren't always wise, even when you screw up and feel bad about it.
To explain with an example: I learned to dance salsa a few years ago. I wasn't advanced, but I was pretty good. I was a favorite for many - I could dance with a beginner and make it smooth and fun.
At first, I apologized for a mistake even if it was the girls' fault. But if I apologized, the girl stopped following my lead and it would go pretty bad and there was nothing I could do to fix it.
I learned not to apologize until the partner had danced with me a couple times and learned to trust me. I suspect with public leaders, it's much worse because most of their interactions are with people who don't know them well.
I get the impression that the parent is relating instances where it is obvious that the one apologizing is not at fault. The question of "who isn't to blame" is much easier to answer.
The important question people too often forget to ask instead is "why blame anyone in the first place?" and "ok, how are we going to make it better now?".
Apologising for mistakes that aren't your own can also be a sign of supplicating - saying anything to get on the other person's good graces. If the other person's in a confident and strong position often there's no need to apologise for things that are not your fault. If you're dancing with a very good dancer and you're a poor dancer, and she knew that to begin with, there's no need to apologise. Instead, own your poor dancing ability. Exaggerate a little your poor movements. Laugh. Often a person of high skill level don't want to play with a person of low skill level might not even be the skill difference but because they don't want to deal with the low skill level person's insecurities. But if the other person is, for example, was the victim for a crime, then you might apologise even though you weren't the person who broke into their house.
> But if the other person is, for example, was the victim
> for a crime, then you might apologise even though you
> weren't the person who broke into their house.
Saying "I'm sorry" to someone that has suffered a tragedy isn't an example of offering an apology, it's an offering of sympathy. It's a bit strange that we overload the phrase in this way, but I can't imagine a situation where the distinction wouldn't be clear from context.
It could apply if the person apologising is part of the police force, or if it's a family member of the perpetrator. I think it can be a little more than sympathy - a person is apologising on behalf of the society the person is a part of. A visitor to a crime ridden suburb is mugged. A passerby, feeling ashamed of his neighbors could apologise with a meaning more than sympathy. The scope of responsibility increases the less confident and less secure the receiver of the apology is. That's what I'm getting at.
But just for clarification: sometimes it was my fault. And when it wasn't and the partner was a beginner, I pretended it was my fault so that the beginner wouldn't feel bad.
Definitely. A student doesn't apologise for losing some marks in an exam either. It's part of the process to get better at dancing. You're not advanced dancer, and the other partner can accept that, or she wouldn't dance with you in the first place. Apologise when there's no need to smells of supplication. I think the only situation where it's suitable to apologise was if you were dancing and you accidentally made a movement that appeared like you were sexually harassing her. (e.g. I don't know how it would happen, but if you accidentally cupped your hand around her breast and squeezed it in a really pervy way, and that action isn't her expectation, then it's time to apologise profusely), or if you kicked her in the leg and broke her ankle. Depending on how she reacts, I'd apologise in either a humorous or serious way.
Anyone who feels actual remorse goes through all of the key "requirements" of an apology anyway without even trying. Maybe the biggest problem with public apologies is that they are, in fact, insincere. If I was a board member of a major company, a requirement I would have for a CEO is their ability to feel responsibility and remorse.
I would be happy with public figures like CEO’s not personally apologising for the mistakes of their organisation if they also refused to take personal credit for the successes.
63 comments
[ 1884 ms ] story [ 2882 ms ] threadhttp://m.ajc.com/news/sports/text-of-tiger-woods-full-statem...
That's the core of it. Words are wind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei0cAaC1Yx4
"Public apologies are different from, well, real ones. A real apology, between actual private humans, needs to demonstrate true remorse and learning on the part of the offender and needs to make the injured party feel better. But in a public apology, the apologizer, and maybe even the apologizee, is beside the point. The real point is the rest of us–the larger society, asserting the norms and changing boundaries of acceptable behavior… A calculated, self-interested apology at least tells the rest of the audience someone did something wrong, while the apologizer figures that out in his or her own time, if ever."
http://entertainment.time.com/2014/02/27/defense-of-the-fake...
On the other hand, there are situations where some group gets offended by some statement or action and the apologizer doesn't really get the offense, and neither do a lot of other rational people, but the easiest path forward is to express a lack of intent to offend without actually apologizing.
http://www.cuppacocoa.com/a-better-way-to-say-sorry/
The thing that struck me about it is that in the process of explaining the core of what makes a meaningful apology to children, it does a really nice job of reflecting where, exactly, most public (and, really, private!) apologies tend to fall down.
A good addition to this article.
It's the same basic statement, except it places you as the active party, rather than putting the onus on the person you're apologizing to.
Edit: it occurs to me that this hooks straight back in to the article's question. Why are most public apologies so bad? Because most of them are made by people who aren't actually sorry.
I sometimes find myself tempted to use a non-apology like "I'm sorry if I offended you" in order to short-circuit the irrational anger in the other person quickly, so that we can get to the point of actually figuring out what I've said that triggered the problem and how their reaction was wrong, and what's the deeper issue underneath.
I personally don't understand why you'd feel bad about how another person feels as a result of something you've said, but not feel that you should apologize. To me, the two go hand in hand. It's not about "should," it's not about right and wrong, it's simply about expressing the sentiment that you regret what happened as a result of your actions.
Even if you said something totally innocent like "I like apples" and somebody got offended at that because they're crazy, you can still sincerely apologize for that if you actually care that they feel bad.
And of course you don't have to care that they feel bad. In many cases not caring would be a perfectly reasonable response. In which case, don't lie by saying sorry.
Thank you. The whole subthread confused me mostly about how the word "sorry" in English works.
> it's not about right and wrong, it's simply about expressing the sentiment that you regret what happened as a result of your actions.
Yes, exactly this.
I see a few key points in what you said that I want to respond to in particular.
> I am sorry for how they feel. I am not sorry for what I said.
You don't have to be sorry for what you said to be sorry for offending or hurting the person. You can stand by what you said entirely while still being sorry that what you said hurt them. Saying "I'm sorry I said something that offended you" doesn't mean you're retracting your words but it does mean that you are saddened for having caused the other party pain, even if you don't think their pain is rational.
> but that doesn't change the fact that your outrage is [...] totally your fault
If you're concerned about "fault" in this case, I'm not really convinced you do feel bad. "I'm sorry I said something that offended you" isn't "I'm a terrible person who is totally in the wrong"; it's "I regret that I did something that resulted in you being hurt." If you stand entirely by what you said it might even mean something like "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you."
> "I'm sorry" means I feel bad about something and I don't want to do it again
Ultimately, I think this is what it's all about. "I'm sorry you were offended" is (at its absolute best) "I feel bad about you being offended"; "I'm sorry I offended you" is "I feel bad about you being offended and I don't want to do it again."
I usually go out of my way to play cooperative with people. It often means that I try to say, "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you".
Someone's surprising outrage at something I think is innocent also reveals my lack of understanding of that other person. Assuming their honesty, I want to go into this in order to better understand what's going on. Maybe we both actually think the same way about the issue, maybe it's just an unfortunate phrasing on my part that caused the problem? It happened this way many times.
So to circle back to the beginning of the whole thread - I don't think that "I'm sorry (if) I offended you" is always a non-apology. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted (and honestly, I'm not angry at them anymore - I grew to understand it was complicated and messy situation for both of us, as relationships sometimes turn out to be; the point is, it revealed a flaw in trying to atone for offending someone at all costs).
I actually spent a couple years in a similar-sounding situation (and have similarly moved past the anger) so I unfortunately have a pretty good idea where you're coming from here. It's also a pretty different situation from what I think the discussion has mostly been centered around. I'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique. I think it's a fair bit different from the general case, especially when public apologies are involved.
> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.
I don't think "right" is the way to put it at all. Even if we can say someone is or isn't right to be offended, I don't think it really matters. If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place? That's not rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious but my expectation is that it's the latter. And note that for this I'm trying to differentiate between "feel bad about how they feel" and the sort of "feel bad about having to deal with this situation of them acting offended" I alluded to above.
I'm usually pretty good at empathy and understanding others' viewpoints but maybe some people are different enough from me in a way I'm having difficulty comprehending because I cannot imagine a situation where an action I take causes somebody to feel bad and where I genuinely feel bad about their feelings but I don't regret my role in causing that state. And I'm all too familiar with cases where somebody might have to apologise when they don't mean it but very, very few where they wouldn't benefit from trying to act sincere about it.
For me the relationship ended basically the day after I refused to apologize again, because at this point the pattern went to ridiculous extreme; apologizing then would require me to explicitly lie to myself about what I believe is true, and I do value truth very much.
> If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place?
I say (or do) something. The other party gets offended. I will feel bad regardless of who is "right". The situation sucks, yes, but I care about feelings and internal emotional state of others much more. Can't help it, empathy turns itself on automatically. I feel compelled to resolve the issue as soon as possible not just because there's someone angry in front of me, but because I genuinely feel bad about causing them to feel bad. That's my weak spot that was used to take advantage of me once.
I worked hard for that experience to not destroy my empathy. Instead, I settled on following defense mechanism: if I start to feel that someone is playing me this way on purpose, I pause the situation and calmly but explicitly note that I feel I'm being emotionally manipulated and do not wish for it to continue. So far it only happened once, and the person involved backed down immediately, and the problem did not occur again with them.
Public apology situations are usually different than private ones, but the manipulative element can be still present. Looking at Twitter outrages in particular, it's more often present than not - probably due to the fact that the most outraged people are the ones who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Here, outrage is far too often used as a tool to control the words and actions of the accused party.
I love defensive people. /s
In that case, I feel that although he was the right person to make the apology, it's not necessarily his own personal fault, nor would his resignation help make amends.
That is a proper apology.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/22/world/jal-official-dies-ap...
In Japan, if you have disgrace yourself and bring shame upon your family, you have to kill yourself. If you don't kill yourself, honor can not be restore to your family.
This means that when your wife goes grocery shopping, people will not sell her food.
When your children goes to school, teachers will talk down on your children. Students will bully your children. Neighbors will assault your children.
At work, all the women will call your wife a slut behind her back, but making sure it's loud enough for her to hear it. Your wife's boss will make sexual advances toward your wife because she is now no longer a respectable woman.
You clan members will disown your father and make fun of him for birthing such a disgraceful son.
When disown by a clan, you and your family can no longer go to them for support in any form (financial, emotional, social, etc).
Police will purposely pulled you over and give your a ticket.
You son will not be able to get a job because no one will want to hire him. No one want to associate with a disgraceful person like him.
All these societal pressures will not stop until you kill yourself and bring honor back to your family's name.
So yes, you have to kill yourself, if you don't want your family to suffer.
No, there aren't. Just because the Japanese have an old barbaric and dying tradition of ritual suicide, doesn't mean it's proper in this day an age.
> In Japan, if you have disgrace yourself and bring shame upon your family, you have to kill yourself.
No you don't. Those "old traditions" are dying out and no longer seen as necessary by the younger generations.
CEO's reaction, on the other hand, is commendable. This is how you're supposed to apologize after a serious fuckup.
I don't know if/when this culture will ever change.
One measuring stick will be when we see baseball pitchers apologizing to the batters they hit (intentionally or not).
To explain with an example: I learned to dance salsa a few years ago. I wasn't advanced, but I was pretty good. I was a favorite for many - I could dance with a beginner and make it smooth and fun.
At first, I apologized for a mistake even if it was the girls' fault. But if I apologized, the girl stopped following my lead and it would go pretty bad and there was nothing I could do to fix it.
I learned not to apologize until the partner had danced with me a couple times and learned to trust me. I suspect with public leaders, it's much worse because most of their interactions are with people who don't know them well.
But just for clarification: sometimes it was my fault. And when it wasn't and the partner was a beginner, I pretended it was my fault so that the beginner wouldn't feel bad.