• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

“I accept full responsibility” is the politically correct statement when mistakes are made. We’ve heard this over and over from CEO’s, government officials, and other leaders. Like many politically correct phrases, it so often rings hollow and is followed by a list of reasons justifying a lack of responsibility for the “mistakes.”

The reasons usually begin with, “If I knew then what I know now…” Yet, so often, a lot was known then that is not being acknowledged now. Words are important and they must match behavior—actions. Accepting responsibility and taking responsibility are two parts of the equation. Taking is a verb, which by definition expresses an act—doing something. Accepting (a transitive verb) responsibility means “to willingly receive, to endure without protest.” Accepting and taking responsibility are different, yet they must be part of a sequence of behavior to restore trust.

This is both a communication and a moral issue. When you communicate accepting and taking responsibility, there is a moral imperative to act congruently with what you said. So, when mistakes were made and the responsible party indicates willingness to accept and take responsibility, there must be action to back it up.

A heartfelt “I’m sorry” is necessary as part of the process. We, the listeners, must feel the genuineness of the apology. But even if we feel an appropriate level of sorrow, more is required before trust can be restored. The next step requires action that is transparent, where accountability is welcomed: “Here’s what I will do…” Then, of course, you must do what you said you would do in a way that is visible and can be verified. But it doesn’t stop there because when trust has been broken, the repair process (if it is successful) takes time—it is a process, not an event.

Whether we are talking about restoring the public trust or personal trust in a relationship, the same process is required. If you give a press conference or sit down to talk with your spouse about your transgressions, you express your sorrow for the specific hurts you caused and discuss your plan for attempting to restore the trust. Beyond that there is a responsibility to check back with those who were hurt to see how your corrective actions are affecting them.

Good leadership, like good friendship and parenting, requires backing up healing words with healing actions. We all make mistakes and must learn how to talk about them and what to do about them. We must not condemn each other for our mistakes. But it is hard not to when real responsibility is not taken. We must hold each other accountable, not to punish but to maintain a level of humanity and accountability for the common good.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

Two people in the news this past week were fired from their jobs for being honest—and human. One was a journalist, the other a Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Both were honest and open in their public comments with good intentions and clear purpose.

The journalist was a twenty year CNN veteran. She made a tweet (as in Twitter) about the death of a founding member of Hezbollah. The tweet expressed a sense of loss, which CNN saw as compromising the journalist’s objectivity. How could she have credibility if she expressed her private feelings publicly?

Two things are wrong here. The first is that the medium only allows 140 characters, so a complete understanding of what she meant is unlikely. The second is CNN didn’t bother to find out before firing her. That’s just wrong. She, of course, explained herself. Her comment was not a vote of confidence for Hezbollah, it was made out of respect for someone who had advanced the cause for women’s rights in the Middle East. That’s all.

The Department of Ag official (black) was talking honestly about her struggles with race as a young women and how she handled a situation with a man (white) who exhibited racism. His whiteness influenced her decision. She told this story in a context that was not promoting racism but doing the opposite. She appeared to have been forced to resign. Fortunately, the Department of Agriculture learned the whole story, apologized, and re-offered her the job. It shouldn’t have been necessary.

I understand the difficulty for CNN and the Ag Department in terms of public perception. They must be scrupulous with the public trust, so certain behaviors must not be allowed—discrimination and bias among them. Yet, we’ve become so jumpy about every utterance, without considering context, intention, and real impact (not imaged impact). It puts everyone on edge, trying to be politically correct all the time or you will lose your job and credibility.

It takes time and effort to understand one another. We must accept this reality, which means giving the benefit of the doubt by asking thoughtful questions until we have an absolute understanding of what was meant. That is a basic human courtesy and a basic and necessary communication skill. We must practice this in both our personal and public lives or risk continuing a climate of paranoia that fosters extreme political correctness—neither of which serves us well on any front or forum.