Session 4: Who Does This Serve?

Diagnose which of four functions — repair, self-protection, reputation management, closure — a real apology's wording actually serves

Weight: 1%

Before the session, find two apologies responding to broadly comparable incidents — two public figures apologising for similar conduct, two companies apologising for similar failures, or two people you know apologising for a similar kind of mistake. They don’t need to be identical situations, just close enough to compare.

In the session, for each apology, work out which of the lecture’s four functions — repair, self-protection, reputation management, closure — its actual wording, timing, and cost seem built to serve. Evidence only: point at a specific phrase, a publication date relative to other events, or a concession that cost the speaker something. “I think they were being fake” is not an answer the session accepts; “this was released the same day as an unrelated announcement” is.

Then, for one of your two apologies, write down what its wording would have to contain for repair to be the primary function — something answerable to what the specific harmed party needed, which usually requires knowing what they needed. Check whether that’s actually there. If it isn’t, say what function the apology serves instead, and what in the text tells you so.

If an apology seems to serve two or three of the four functions about equally, with no single one clearly dominant, say so directly rather than picking whichever function your evidence happens to support best. A statement built to do repair and reputation management at once isn’t a diagnostic failure on your part — it’s often exactly how a self-serving apology is designed to read, so that no single function can be pointed to as the real one.

Afterwards, compare your two apologies directly: did the more repair-oriented one cost the speaker something the other didn’t?

Check your understanding