Reflective Essay by using Gibbs Reflective Cycle

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies: Examining Follower Reactions to Leader Apology

Tessa E. Basford • Lynn R. Offermann •

Tara S. Behrend

Received: 21 October 2012 / Accepted: 28 December 2012 / Published online: 19 January 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Recognizing gaps in our present understanding

of leader apologies, this investigation examines how fol-

lowers appraise leader apologies and how these perceptions

impact work-related outcomes. Results indicate that fol-

lowers who viewed their leader as trustworthy or caring

before a leader wrongdoing were more likely to perceive

their leader’s apology to be sincere, as compared to fol-

lowers who previously doubted their leader’s trustworthi-

ness and caring. Attributions of apology sincerity affected

follower reactions, with followers perceiving sincere

apologies reporting greater trust in leadership, satisfaction

with supervision, leader–member exchange quality, affec-

tive organizational commitment, and forgiveness than

those reporting insincere or no apologies. A mediation

model was supported, showing that attributions of apology

sincerity fostered perceptions of humility, which enhanced

perceptions of transformational leadership, and conse-

quently garnered more positive follower reactions.

Keywords Apology � Leadership � Followership

No one is perfect, not even leaders. In the course of their

day-to-day activities, leaders may err and offend followers

through their words, behavior, or lack of action. Offended

followers might respond by losing trust in the leader,

experiencing a decrease in satisfaction with supervision,

sensing a decline in relationship quality, and feeling lower

levels of organizational commitment. Thus, examining

how leaders can enhance follower attributions of their

leadership qualities and improve follower reactions after a

transgression offers benefit to all involved—the leader, the

follower, and the organization as a whole.

The aftermath of a leader wrongdoing presents an

important opportunity for leaders. Hopefully, offensive

leadership behavior occurs relatively infrequently in most

leader–follower interactions, making such events likely to

stand out and lead followers to be especially attuned to

their leader’s response (Tucker et al. 2006). Tucker et al.

(2006) propose that these instances may serve as ‘‘critical

moments,’’ carrying particular weight in followers’ overall

perceptions of their leaders (p. 197).

How do leaders respond in these critical moments?

When people find themselves in identity-threatening situ-

ations where their reputation is at stake, they generally

adopt a strategy of remedial self-presentation designed to,

‘‘repair or minimize the damage done to their identities and

attenuate potential punishment from audiences’’ (Schlenker

and Darby 1981, p. 271). Apology is a form of remedial

self-presentation through which individuals admit blame-

worthiness, communicate remorse, and attempt to convince

another that the offense is not a reflection of their true

character (Schlenker and Darby 1981).

Apologies provide a means for a person to make sense

of an apologizer in the aftermath of the apologizer’s

wrongdoing. When perceiving a leader to have trans-

gressed, a follower experiences uncertainty. Is the leader

truly a bad person? Can the leader be trusted? Is the leader

capable of effective leadership? Uncertainty reduction

theory contends people are motivated to reduce such

T. E. Basford (&) � L. R. Offermann � T. S. Behrend Department of Organizational Sciences & Communication,

The George Washington University, 600 21st St. NW,

Washington, DC 20052, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. R. Offermann

e-mail: [email protected]

T. S. Behrend

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 119:99–117

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1613-y

uncertainty in order to make informed decisions about

others (Berger and Calabrese 1975). Receiving an apology

may help a follower manage this uncertainty, in that the

follower can use the leader’s apology to arrive at a better

assessment of the leader’s remorse.

Empirical findings indicate that apologies tend to be

effective (De Cremer and Schouten 2008). For instance,

research has shown that apologies can improve customer

satisfaction post-service failure (Wirtz and Mattila 2004),

compensate for unattractive boasting behavior (Levine and

West 1976), and facilitate forgiveness in romantic rela-

tionships (Bachman and Guerrero 2006). However, though

it has received attention in other contexts, investigation of

follower reactions to leader apologies is very minimal.

Despite evidence of its effectiveness in other settings,

reports suggest that leaders may be especially resistant to

apologize, perhaps fearing that apologizing shows weak-

ness and threatens authority (Tucker et al. 2006). Research

finding evidence to the contrary—that leaders who apolo-

gize for a perceived transgression actually accrue more

favorable follower perceptions of leadership and more

positive follower reactions—could help ameliorate some of

these leaders’ concerns and build more positive leader–

follower working relationships.

This study examines how followers appraise and

respond to leader apologies in the workplace. First, ante-

cedents to follower attributions of leader apology sincerity

are examined, as guided by theory and research in other,

non-organizational contexts. Next, the impact of these

perceptions on follower reactions is studied to test whether

the general consensus regarding apology effectiveness

extends to leader–follower relationships and workplace

outcomes. Finally, spurred by work linking leader apology

to transformational leadership (Tucker et al. 2006) as well

as transformational leadership to humility (Morris et al.

2005), mediators of the relationships between leader

apology and follower reactions are explored.

Apology Sincerity

All apologies are not created equal. While some apologies

are perceived as quite heartfelt, others are appraised as

insincere. These perceptions of apology sincerity matter, as

research indicates that targets respond more positively

to apologies that they consider sincere. For instance,

Tomlinson et al.’s (2004) work suggests that perceptions of

apology sincerity facilitate reconciliation between business

partners after a broken promise. Also, Scheleien et al.

(2010) found that children reacted more favorably to

spontaneously elicited sibling apologies, which were

believed to be seen as more sincere than apologies parents

ordered siblings to say.

In contrast, a leader whose apology is perceived to be

insincere may engender negative follower reactions. In

such cases, a follower may suspect that a leader’s apology

is more motivated by the leader’s desire to save face than

by the leader’s honest concern for the follower’s well-

being (Regehr and Gutheil 2002). In fact, when a leader’s

apology is appraised as insincere, it may do more harm

than good. Struthers et al. (2008) report that apologies can

backfire, contending that sometimes apologizers may be

viewed suspiciously, seen as potentially untrustworthy,

self-interested, and possessing an ulterior motive.

Source Credibility

Recognizing the importance of perceived apology sincer-

ity, leaders can benefit from learning what impacts follower

perceptions of apology sincerity. Research suggests that

source credibility—the believability of the communica-

tor—may play a key role. While various factors likely

contribute to followers’ assessments of leader credibility,

source credibility theory emphasizes the perceived exper-

tise and trustworthiness (Goldsmith et al. 2000) as well as

the perceived goodwill and caring of the source

(McCroskey and Teven 1999).

Followers who perceive their leader as a highly credible

source should be less inclined to question the sincerity of

their leader’s apology, as compared to those who view their

leader as a less credible source. Lending support to this

proposition, De Graaf et al. 2010 found that leaders reputed

to be fair prior to an ambiguously discriminatory exchange

were more likely to receive the benefit of the doubt than

their counterparts who had a negative reputation. A posi-

tive reputation helped shield leaders from harsh evaluations

and promoted more favorable follower reactions. Though

such work highlights the importance of follower percep-

tions of a leader prior to a leader’s offense, the question of

whether a leader’s source credibility affects follower

appraisal of apology sincerity has yet to be tested.

Hypothesis 1 Perceived source credibility will positively

relate to perceptions of apology sincerity, such that the

apologies of leaders who are viewed as more credible

sources prior to a perceived mistake or offense are rated

more sincere than the apologies of those who are viewed

as less credible sources prior to a perceived mistake or

offense.

Apology and Follower Outcomes

This study examines four highly relevant constructs as

possible outcomes of leader apology—trust in/loyalty with

the leader, satisfaction with the supervisor, leader–member

100 T. E. Basford et al.

123

exchange (LMX) relationship quality, and affective orga-

nizational commitment.

Trust is defined by Mayer et al. (1995) as, ‘‘the will-

ingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another

party’’ (Mayer et al. 1995, p. 712). In this context, trust in a

leader involves a follower’s willingness to be vulnerable to

his or her leader (Liu et al. 2010).

Job satisfaction reflects positive feelings about a job

based upon an assessment of its characteristics (Robbins

and Judge 2009). This investigation is particularly con-

cerned about employee satisfaction with one job element—

supervision.

LMX, described as a ‘‘relationship-based approach to

leadership,’’ addresses the nature of the dynamic dyadic

relationship between the leader and follower (Graen and

Uhl-Bien 1995, p. 225). According to LMX theory, when

leaders and followers experience positive exchanges, both

the leader and follower benefit; when leaders and followers

suffer negative interactions, their exchanges become less

favorable (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). Research indicates

that high-quality LMX relationships benefit organizations,

impacting outcomes such as job performance, organiza-

tional citizenship behaviors, and supervisory commitment

(e.g., Ilies et al. 2007; Walumbwa et al. 2011).

The final follower outcome examined, organizational

commitment, has been subdivided into affective, continu-

ance, and normative commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990).

This investigation focuses on affective commitment,

‘‘employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with,

and involvement in, the organization,’’ because this study

is concerned with whether employees stay at an organiza-

tion because they want to, rather than need to (i.e., con-

tinuance commitment) or perceive they ought to (i.e.,

normative commitment) (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 1990).

A sincere apology is expected to positively relate to

each of these four follower outcomes. Sincerely apologiz-

ing may disassociate a transgression from the leader’s

character, making the follower less inclined to form an

internal attribution for the leader’s wrongdoing (Schlenker

and Darby 1981). In contrast, receiving no apology or an

insincere apology would not serve to as effectively separate

the transgression from the leader’s character. Thus, a sin-

cere apology is hypothesized to elicit more favorable

reactions than no apology or an insincere one.

Hypothesis 2 Followers who perceive their leader to

have sincerely apologized will report more (a) trust in/

loyalty with the leader, (b) satisfaction with supervision,

(c) LMX relationship quality, and (d) affective organiza-

tional commitment than those who received an insincere

apology or did not receive an apology from their leader.

As esteemed writer G. K. Chesterton once noted,

‘‘A stiff apology is a second insult’’ (Risen and Gilovich

2007, p. 418). When insincere, a leader’s apology may

negatively impact follower outcomes. Rather than discon-

nect the transgression from the leader’s character, an

insincere apology might actually reinforce followers’

negative impressions. Receiving an insincere apology may

provide evidence to followers that their negative impres-

sions of their leader following a wrongdoing are warranted.

Hypothesis 3 Followers who perceive their leader to

have insincerely apologized will report less (a) trust in/

loyalty with the leader, (b) satisfaction with supervision,

(c) LMX relationship quality, and (d) affective organiza-

tional commitment than those who did not receive an

apology from their leader.

Mediators of the Apology–Outcome Relationship

If leader apologies are found to impact follower outcomes,

the next question becomes why. Why does a leader who

sincerely apologizes for a wrongdoing garner more positive

follower outcomes? Why might an insincere apology be so

harmful? Two potential mediators—humility and transfor-

mational leadership—may add insight into the explanatory

mechanisms underlying the relationships between follower

appraisals of leader apology and follower reactions.

Humility

Descriptions of humility note that it involves openness to

accurate self-appraisal and consideration of oneself in

relation to others (e.g., Morris et al. 2005; Nielsen et al.

2010; Owens 2009). Morris et al.’s (2005) definition of

humility reflects this general conceptualization: ‘‘a per-

sonal orientation founded on a willingness to see the self

accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective’’

(p. 1331). While such definitions often conceptualize

humility as a relatively stable trait (e.g., Morris et al. 2005),

Davis et al. (2010) propose a ‘‘theoretical shift’’ (p. 248).

Rather than view humility as a quality of an individual,

they attest that humility may sometimes be more aptly

conceived from the perspective of perceiver evaluations.

Termed ‘‘relational humility,’’ Davis et al. (2010) describe

this as a ‘‘relationship-specific judgment’’ in which

observers assess a target on qualities of other-orientedness,

positive other-oriented emotional expression, emotional

regulation, and accurate self-appraisal (p. 248).

Followers who receive a sincere apology from a leader

following a wrongdoing may be more likely to attribute

humility to their leader, perceiving the leader possesses

Davis et al.’s (2010) relational humility qualities. A sincere

apology might signal that the leader is not self-absorbed,

but rather is concerned with the impact of the transgression

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 101

123

on the follower. Also, the leader’s sincere apology could

communicate other-oriented emotions (e.g., sympathy,

empathy) and show that the leader can regulate emotions in

difficult situations, rather than respond defensively or by

ignoring the issue. Finally, a sincere apology might dem-

onstrate the leader holds an accurate self-assessment, rec-

ognizes personal faults, and is willing to accept blame and

responsibility when warranted.

In contrast, leaders delivering insincere apologies may

not earn attributions of humility. Nielsen et al. (2010) note

that pro-social self-presentation tactics, such as apologiz-

ing, may not always lead to their intended consequences.

For instance, if a leader is viewed as insincere in his or

her apology, the leader may not receive high follower

appraisals of humility.

Relational humility may link follower appraisals of

leader apologies to their perceptions of transformational

leadership. Leaders who sincerely apologize following a

mistake or offense, as compared to those that do not, likely

receive greater attributions of humility from their follow-

ers. Perceived as humble, these leaders will also be more

likely viewed as transformational, as described below.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership involves motivating followers,

appealing to their values, and inspiring them to rise above

their self-interest for the benefit of a greater shared purpose

(Bass 1985). Definitions of transformational leadership are

largely behaviorally based, stemming from a taxonomy of

four leadership behaviors: idealized influence, intellectual

stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational

motivation (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). As defined by

Bass (1997), idealized influence is behavior that stimulates

follower identification with the leader. Intellectual stimu-

lation involves behavior that raises follower awareness of

issues, leads followers to reframe problems, and to helps

followers to consider matters from a new perspective (Bass

1997). Individualized consideration includes behavior that

attends to each follower’s needs, and inspirational moti-

vation encompasses behavior that stimulates and encour-

ages followers (Bass 1997).

By fostering perceptions of humility, leaders who sin-

cerely apologize may increase follower attributions of

transformational leadership. For instance, humble leaders

might be granted greater perceptions of idealized influence,

in that followers are more likely to view such leaders as

acting morally and doing what is right (Morris et al. 2005).

Also, humble leaders may be viewed as demonstrating

individualized consideration. In showing that they are not

self-centered and care about the follower, they communi-

cate that they value their relationship with the follower

(Morris et al. 2005). However, when genuine remorse is

not perceived, a leader may be viewed as insincere, seen as

less humble, and thus assigned lower attributions of

transformational leadership. A leader who does not com-

municate humility would not demonstrate individualized

consideration, instead appearing inconsiderate, self-

focused, and caring little about follower well-being. Such

leaders may lead followers to feel less inspired and

motivated.

The positive effects of transformational leadership have

been demonstrated on a range of work outcomes, includ-

ing: follower organizational commitment (e.g., Ismail et al.

2011), follower trust in the leader (e.g., Liu et al. 2010),

follower satisfaction with supervision (e.g., Erkutlu 2008),

and leadership effectiveness (e.g., Erkutlu 2008), among

others. Likewise, in this study, perceptions of transforma-

tional leadership are expected to relate to positive out-

comes, specifically: trust/loyalty in the leader, satisfaction

with the supervisor, LMX relationship quality, and affec-

tive organizational commitment.

Research suggests that transformational leadership acts

as an antecedent to follower trust. Studies have examined

trust in leadership both as an outcome of transformational

leadership (e.g., Liu et al. 2010) and as a mediating vari-

able explaining the impact of transformational leadership

on other outcomes (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 1990). Dirks and

Ferrin’s (2002) meta-analysis of precursors of trust reports

a strong relationship between transformational leadership

and trust in leadership. Thus, a positive relationship

between perceptions of transformational leadership and

trust/loyalty in leadership is hypothesized.

Similarly, perceptions of transformational leadership are

expected to positively impact satisfaction with supervision.

Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) meta-analysis of transformational

leadership studies revealed a strong positive relationship

between transformational leadership and satisfaction with

leadership. This relationship was documented across a vari-

ety of contexts, supporting the proposition that transforma-

tional leadership fosters follower satisfaction in the leader.

Also, followers who view their leader as transforma-

tional are predicted to experience higher quality LMX

relationships. As both Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) and

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) note, transformational leaders

motivate followers to look beyond their own self-interests

to pursue greater shared goals. This ability for transfor-

mational leaders to direct followers’ efforts towards

mutually beneficial interests can help foster high-quality

LMX relationships in which both leaders and followers

succeed.

Further, the benefits of transformational leadership are

believed to reach beyond follower reactions to their leader.

Research has shown that transformational leadership

relates to organizational commitment overall (Ismail et al.

2011) as well as to specific components of it (Korek et al.

102 T. E. Basford et al.

123

2010). Therefore, followers who perceive their leader to be

transformational are expected to experience greater affec-

tive commitment to the organization.

Hypothesis 4 Perceptions of leader humility will mediate

the relationship between leader apology and transforma-

tional leadership.

Hypothesis 5 Perceptions of transformational leadership

will mediate the relationship between leader apology and

(a) trust in/loyalty with the leader, (b) satisfaction with

supervision, (c) LMX relationship quality, and (d) affective

organizational commitment.

Apology, Forgiveness, and Follower Outcomes

The importance of forgiveness has long been recognized,

with written accounts of forgiveness dating back thousands

of years (Fehr et al. 2010; Waldron and Kelley 2008).

Forgiveness still holds consequence today, likely impacting

leader–follower relationships.

Interpersonal forgiveness has been conceptualized as a

motivational construct (McCullough et al. 1998). In par-

ticular, avoidance and revenge motivations are proposed to

underlie forgiveness (McCullough et al. 1998). As descri-

bed by McCullough et al. (1998), avoidance is character-

ized by the strong motivation to avoid contact with the

offender and revenge is conceptualized as a desire to see

harm befall the offender, thus decreasing forgiveness.

Recent investigation also acknowledges the importance of

a third motivation underlying forgiveness—benevolence.

Benevolence, a ‘‘conciliatory motivation toward the

transgressor’’ (Bono et al. 2007, p.184), involves a wish to

set aside the transgression, desire to regain a positive

relationship with the offender, and a possession of goodwill

for the offender (McCullough et al. 2006).

Apologizing is a ‘‘forgiveness-seeking strategy’’ (Wal-

dron and Kelley 2008, p. 112). In researching tactics people

employ to convey a desire to be forgiven, Kelley (1998)

found that explicit acknowledgement of a perceived

wrongdoing was the most frequently reported technique.

The most recognizable type of explicit acknowledgement is

apology (Waldron and Kelley 2008). It also appears to be

the best one, with Waldron and Kelley (2008) contending

that apology is the approach most likely to be associated

with forgiveness.

Theoretical explanations regarding how apologies

engender forgiveness generally tie back to Goffman’s

(1971) work. Goffman (1971) described apologies as

functioning to disassociate an offender’s bad self from his

or her good self. By apologizing, a person strives to sep-

arate the part of the self that committed the wrongdoing

from the part of the self that is sympathetic and remorseful,

thus allowing the good self to be forgiven. In addition to

this ‘‘splitting of the self’’ theory (Goffman 1971, p. 113),

other explanations have been offered to explain why

apologies are often effective image-restoration and rela-

tionship-repair strategies. For instance, correspondent

inference theory (Jones and Davis 1965) contends the

inferences that victims make about a transgressor depend

on factors such as the degree to which the wrongdoing is

perceived to be under the actor’s control and the extent to

which it benefits the actor. An apology may help to com-

municate that the apologizer did not intend to harm the

victim, is suffering as consequence of his or her bad

behavior, and deserves forgiveness. Though some details of

these theories slightly differ, they converge on the notion

that apology should facilitate forgiveness. Empirical

investigation lends support to this proposition. In a recent

meta-analysis, Fehr et al. (2010) found a substantial overall

relationship between apology and forgiveness.

Despite considerable study of forgiveness in other

settings, the construct has garnered little attention from

organizational researchers and theorists (Aquino et al.

2006). Based on investigations in other contexts, a positive

relationship between leader apology sincerity and follower

forgiveness is expected. A leader who sincerely apologizes

may communicate to an offended follower that the trans-

gression is not indicative of his or her true self. As con-

sequence, the follower may be less likely to avoid the

leader or seek revenge and more apt to respond in a posi-

tive, benevolent manner.

However, research also indicates that apologies do not

always generate forgiveness. Struthers et al. (2008) found

that forgiveness was actually less likely following an

apology when a wrongdoing was intentional, as compared

to when no apology was given. Also, Skarlicki et al. (2004)

report that apologizing, rather than not apologizing, for a

low offer in an ultimatum game increased punishing

behavior (i.e., preventing a partner to continue participat-

ing in the game). How is it that apologizing might some-

times reduce forgiveness and amplify revenge?

Though yet to be tested, apology sincerity may help

address this question. In emphasizing the importance of

apology sincerity, Waldron and Kelley (2008) contend that

‘‘apologies must be authentic to advance the forgiveness

process’’ (p. 147). When a follower perceives a leader’s

apology to be sincere, the follower may disassociate the

event from the leader’s true self and attribute it to other

factors. In contrast, an insincere apology may do little to

separate the event from the apologizer. In fact, an insincere

apology may be even worse than no apology at all if it

reaffirms the follower’s perception that the wrongdoing is a

function of the leader’s character.

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 103

123

Hypothesis 6 Followers who perceive their leader to

have sincerely apologized will report more forgiveness

than those who received an insincere apology or did not

receive an apology from their leader.

Hypothesis 7 Followers who perceive their leader to

have insincerely apologized will report less forgiveness

than those who did not receive an apology from their

leader.

Forgiveness is associated with a number of important

benefits both for the victim and the victim-perpetrator rela-

tionship. Longitudinal research has found forgiveness relates

to improved victim life satisfaction, increased positive

mood, and decreased negative mood (Bono et al. 2007). In

addition to these psychological effects, forgiveness appears

to offer the victim physical benefits (e.g., Bono et al. 2007;

Waldron and Kelley 2008; Worthington 2006). Also,

research indicates improvements in interpersonal relation-

ships to be another important consequence of forgiveness

(Tsang et al. 2006). In fact, ‘‘relationship restoration’’ is

believed to be one of the primary motives underlying both a

transgressor’s forgiveness seeking and a victim’s forgive-

ness granting (Waldron and Kelley 2008, p. 107).

Despite evidence of these benefits, forgiveness is often

underappreciated in organizations. Posner and Schmidt

(1982) found that managers ranked forgiveness as 15th

in importance out of 18 values. Perhaps forgiveness is

undervalued because managers cannot see how it links to

work outcomes. Thus, the present research draws attention

to the importance of follower forgiveness by testing the

relationships between forgiveness and four critical orga-

nizational outcomes.

First, follower forgiveness is proposed to raise trust and

loyalty in the leader. In fact, forgiveness is often described

as a trust-building process (Waldron and Kelley 2008). In

forgiving, followers stop avoiding their leader and release

their intentions to seek revenge. They open themselves up

to repairing the damaged relationship, put the past behind

them, and move forward in their relationship. This process

allows followers to regain faith in their leaders and place

themselves in a position of willing vulnerability (Mayer

et al. 1995).

Follower forgiveness is also expected to positively

impact satisfaction with supervision. Enright’s (2001)

research indicates that people who forgive an offender

develop more positive feelings and thoughts toward the

person. Though not specifically studying leader–follower

dynamics, we expect Enright’s (2001) findings will gen-

eralize to satisfaction with supervision.

In addition, followers who forgive their leaders are

hypothesized to enjoy higher quality LMX relationships. In

forgiving, followers commit to advancing and rebuilding

the relationship and, thus, may be more likely to act in

ways that facilitate higher quality LMX relationships.

Further, as Wieselquist’s (2009) research on romantic

relationships shows, individuals who believe they have

earned their partner’s forgiveness experience greater trust

in their partner. Though yet to be examined in an organi-

zational context, leaders who feel forgiven might also be

more prone to trust their followers and behave in ways that

promote high-quality LMX relationships.

Finally, affective organizational commitment may also

be impacted, with followers who forgive their leaders more

likely to make a commitment to remain attached to their

organization than those who fail to find forgiveness.

Studying general, interpersonal transgressions, Tsang

et al.’s (2006) longitudinal investigation found a relation-

ship between victim forgiveness and subsequent victim

commitment to the offender. Whether these findings extend

to the relationship between follower forgiveness and fol-

lower affective organizational commitment has not yet

been empirically examined.

Hypothesis 8 Follower forgiveness of a leader will be

positively related to (a) trust in/loyalty with the leader,

(b) satisfaction with supervision, (c) LMX relationship

quality, and (d) affective organizational commitment.

Model of Follower Reactions to Leader Apology

Figure 1 models these hypothesized relationships. At the

far left, source credibility is explored as a possible ante-

cedent of apology sincerity perceptions. The upper portion

of the model outlines the expected relationship between

leader apology and follower outcomes, highlighting the

potential mediators of humility and transformational lead-

ership. The lower section of the model explores the influ-

ence of leader apology on forgiveness as well as the impact

of forgiveness on follower outcomes.

Method

Sample

An online survey was made available through Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk (AMT), an online marketplace that pro-

vides a virtual space for researchers to post studies and for

interested users to respond in exchange for small monetary

compensation. AMT participants tend to be diverse with

regard to variables such as gender, age, race/ethnicity,

educational attainment, occupational industry, and work

experience (Behrend et al. 2011). This study was restricted

to U.S. residents with at least six months of prior work

experience in the U.S.

104 T. E. Basford et al.

123

After data cleaning, the total sample consisted of 511

participants. The sample was representative of both gen-

ders: 49.1 % female (n = 251), 48.5 % male (n = 248),

and 2.3 % non-response (n = 12). Participants primarily

classified themselves as: Caucasian/White (43.6 %;

n = 223), Asian/Pacific Islander (38.4 %; n = 196),

African American/Black (5.7 %; n = 29), Hispanic/Latino

(2.9 %; n = 15), Mixed-Race (2.2 %; n = 11), and Other

(4.5 %, n = 23), with 2.7 % (n = 14) of participants

choosing not to respond. Participants varied widely in age

(19–64 years), averaging 32.85 years (SD = 10.21), and

they ranged in total work experience from less than a year

to 52 years, with a mean of 11.92 years (SD = 10.51).

Respondents held a vast array of job titles, including:

teacher, truck driver, architect, accountant, human resour-

ces manager, nurse, and computer programmer, among

many of others. Participants worked in various industries,

such as: health care, sales, finance, media, information

technology, food service, law, hospitality, and education,

and many others.

Procedure

Study procedures were reviewed and approved by the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the authors’ mid-size,

Mid-Atlantic U.S. University. In accordance with ethical

standards, participants were provided with information

about the purpose, procedures, possible risks, possible

benefits, and costs associated with participation as well as

their right to withdraw from the study, confidentiality of

research records, and contact information in the case of

questions.

After gaining informed consent, a critical incident

technique was employed. Participants read and responded

to the following prompt, adapted from Aquino et al.’s

(2001) work:

Think back over the last 6 months as an employee to

recall an incident where your supervisor offended you

or made a mistake that negatively impacted you.

Please write a two or three sentence description of the

incident below explaining what your supervisor said

or did. Be as specific as possible. If you have not been

offended by your supervisor or negatively impacted

by a mistake your supervisor made within the last

6 months, think about the last time you were offen-

ded or negatively impacted by a supervisor.

After reading and responding to the prompt, participants

completed a number of quantitative measures. For scales

relating to participants’ perceptions of their supervisor,

they were instructed to think about ‘‘My supervisor’’ as

being the same individual who they wrote about in

response to the prompt. In other words, even if the follower

was no longer working under that same supervisor, the

follower’s responses to the measures still reflected his or

her perceptions about the offending leader.

Like the participants, leaders described were also

diverse. With regard to gender, 65.5 % (n = 336) of par-

ticipants reported instances involving male leaders, 31.1 %

(n = 159) reported instances involving female leaders, and

3.1 % (n = 16) did not identify their leader’s gender. Most

leaders were described as Caucasian/White (45.6 %;

n = 233), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (36.2 %;

n = 185), African American/Black (6.7 %; n = 34), His-

panic/Latino (2.7 %; n = 14), Other (3.7 %; n = 19), and

Mixed-Race (2.3 %; n = 12), with 2.7 % (n = 14) of

participants not indicating their leader’s gender. Leader job

title varied widely, including: project manager, trainee

supervisor, branch manager, chief executive officer, crea-

tive director, and line lead supervisor, among many others.

Measures

Source Credibility

Source credibility was measured with McCroskey and

Teven’s (1999) validated seven-point scale. Participants

were instructed to rate how they perceived their supervisor

before the apology occurred on six competence factor

+ + ++

Outcomes (trust in leader, satisfaction with

supervision, LMX relationship quality,

org commitment)

Source Credibility

+ +

Perceived Humility

Perceived Transformational

Leadership

Forgiveness

Leader Apology (sincere apology, insincere apology,

no apology)

Fig. 1 Theoretical model

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 105

123

items (e.g., ‘‘Incompetent-Competent,’’ ‘‘Inexpert-Expert’’),

six trustworthiness factor items [e.g., ‘‘Untrustworthy-

Trustworthy,’’ ‘‘Honest-Dishonest’’ (reverse coded)], and

six caring/goodwill factor items [e.g., ‘‘Cared about me-

Didn’t care about me’’ (reverse coded), ‘‘Not understanding-

Understanding’’]. These three factors of source credibility

were designed to be assessed independently, not combined

(McCroskey and Teven 1999). They have been found to

show reliability and criterion-related validity, predicting

outcomes of source likability and believability (McCroskey

and Teven 1999). In this study, the three factors demon-

strated good reliability: competence (a = .80), trustworthi- ness (a = .91), and caring/goodwill (a = .88).

Apology

Supervisor apology was measured with the item, ‘‘My

supervisor apologized to me for this incident,’’ to which

participants could either agree or disagree. Participants

were given the following definition of apology: an explicit

verbal or written ‘‘statement of apologetic intent such as

‘I’m sorry’’’ (Schlenker and Darby 1981, p. 272).

Apology Sincerity

Apology sincerity was assessed using a four-item scale

with a five-point Likert response format (strongly disagree

to strongly disagree). This measure was previously devel-

oped by the first author on the basis of extensive literature

review and was subject to content validation, pilot testing,

reliability analysis, factor analysis, and construct validation

using a different sample.

The four items included: ‘‘My supervisor’s apology was

sincere,’’ ‘‘My supervisor sincerely apologized for the

incident,’’ ‘‘My supervisor was truly sorry for the harm or

ill-will caused to me,’’ and ‘‘My supervisor felt genuine

remorse for the harm or ill-will caused to me.’’ Because

this scale was self-developed and had not been used in

published research, an exploratory factor analysis was

conducted to examine the scale’s dimensionality. An

oblique rotation (Promax) was selected, since any factors

that appeared would likely be related. A clear one-factor

solution emerged. This scale was shown to be highly reli-

able (a = .95).

Relational Humility

Relational humility was measured using Owens’ (2009)

nine-item, other-report scale of humility on a five-point

Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Partici-

pants assessed their current feelings about their supervisor

when responding to items (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor admits it

when they don’t know how to do something,’’ ‘‘My

supervisor acknowledges when others have more knowl-

edge and skills than themselves’’). Research supports the

psychometric soundness of this scale (Owens et al. in

press), and the measure also was shown to be reliable in the

present investigation (a = .93).

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership was measured using an adap-

ted version of the validated Global Transformational

Leadership scale (GTL; Carless et al. 2000), with partici-

pants asked to assess their current feelings regarding their

supervisor. The GTL has been well-validated and has been

shown to demonstrate strong reliability (Carless et al. 2000;

Tucker et al. 2006). Like Tucker et al. (2006), the item

‘‘My leader fosters trust, involvement, and cooperation

among team members’’ was removed from the GTL

because of the item’s emphasis on teams, rather than the

individual leader–follower relationship. Participants

responded to the remaining six items (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor

communicates a clear and positive vision of the future,’’

‘‘My supervisor gives encouragement and recognition to

staff’’) on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to

strongly agree). The measure demonstrated strong reli-

ability in this study as well (a = .92).

Forgiveness

Forgiveness was assessed with McCullough et al.’s (2006)

Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory

(TRIM), using a five-point, Likert scale (strongly disagree

to strongly agree). Participants evaluated their current

feelings about their relationship with their supervisor in

responding to the 13-item avoidance-benevolence factor

(e.g., ‘‘I avoid him/her,’’ ‘‘I withdraw from him’’). The

validity and reliability of the scale is well-documented

(McCullough, Root, and Cohen 2006), and the measure

was also found to be reliable in this investigation

(a = .93).

Trust in/Loyalty to the Supervisor

Trust in/loyalty to the supervisor was measured using

Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) six-item scale with a five-point,

Likert-type rating format (strongly disagree to strongly

agree). Participants were instructed to describe their cur-

rent feelings about their supervisor when responding to

items (e.g., ‘‘I have complete faith in the integrity of my

supervisor,’’ ‘‘I feel a strong loyalty to my supervisor’’).

The scale has been shown to be unidimensional and reli-

able, and it possessed adequate reliability in this study

(a = .82).

106 T. E. Basford et al.

123

Satisfaction with Supervision

Satisfaction with supervision was measured with the four-

item supervision subscale from Spector’s (1997) Job Sat-

isfaction Scale (JSS), employing a six-point, Likert-type

rating format (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Par-

ticipants were asked to assess how they currently felt about

their supervisor when responding to items (e.g., ‘‘I like my

supervisor,’’ ‘‘My supervisor is quite competent in doing

his/her job’’). This four-item scale demonstrated adequate

reliability (a = .84).

Leader–Member Exchange

LMX was assessed with Graen and Ul-Bien’s (1995)

widely used LMX 7 Scale. This measure employs a five-

point Likert response scale and contains seven items (e.g.,

‘‘How would you characterize your working relationship

with your leader?’’ ‘‘How well does your leader understand

your job problems and needs’’), which were slightly

modified by replacing the term ‘‘leader’’ with ‘‘supervisor’’

for the sake of consistency. This widely used scale has been

found to be reliable (Yukl et al. 2008) and demonstrated

strong reliability in this study (a = .92).

Affective Organizational Commitment

Affective commitment was measured using Allen and

Meyer’s (1990) eight-item affective commitment scale,

assessed on a five-point, Likert-type rating scale (strongly

disagree to strongly agree). Participants were asked to

describe how their current feelings about their organization

when responding to items [e.g., ‘‘I would be very happy

to spend the rest of my career with this organization,’’

‘‘I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization’’

(reverse coded)]. This scale, found to demonstrate good

internal consistency in other research (Allen and Meyer

1990), also showed sufficient reliability in this investiga-

tion (a = .85).

Contextual Variables

Contextual variables, many of which other researchers

have also identified as affecting reactions to apologies,

were also measured, including: time elapsed since incident

(McCullough et al. 2003), perceived severity of offense

(Bradfield and Aquino 1999; Waldron and Kelley 2008),

perceived intentionality of offense (Struthers et al. 2008;

Waldron and Kelley 2008), history of leader offenses,

whether the leader made amends, apologizer gender, victim

gender (Miller et al. 2008), victim ethnic group member-

ship, apologizer ethnic group membership, victim-apolo-

gizer racial heterogeneity, victim age (Mullet and Girard

2000), tenure at organization prior to incident, industry of

organization where incident occurred, time working under

supervisor before the incident, time working under super-

visor after the incident, and overall work experience.

Recognizing that memory is subject to retrospective bias,

Schwartz’s (1999) recommendation to use open-ended

items (e.g., ‘‘How long ago did the incident occur?’’) to

assess relevant variables (e.g., time elapsed since incident,

time working under supervisor before the incident) was

employed to reduce the risk that scale values might serve as

anchors and affect responses.

Because some people find it easier to forgive than others

(Waldon and Kelly 2008; Worthington 2006), individual

differences in the tendency to forgive were assessed using

Brown’s (2003) Tendency to Forgive (TTF) scale. The

measure consists of four items [e.g., ‘‘I tend to get over it

quickly when someone hurts my feelings,’’ ‘‘I have a ten-

dency to hold grudges’’ (reverse coded)], rated on a five-

point, Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Though scale has been validated and shown to demonstrate

reliability (Brown 2003; Brown and Philips 2005), Cron-

bach’s alpha for the scale in the present investigation was

low (a = .58). While this low reliability is not ideal, ten- dency to forgive does not serve as a central variable in the

model, acting only as a control variable in the analyses.

Finally, to minimize the impact of affect on participants’

pattern of responses, the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule (PANAS) (Crawford and Henry 2004) was

administered and individual differences in positive and

negative affect were controlled. The PANAS is composed

of a ten-item scale of positive affect and a ten-item scale of

negative affect, both measured on a five-point Likert scale.

Participants were be asked to indicate the extent to which

they experienced different affective mood states (e.g.,

excited, alert, irritable, upset) over a designated period of

time. A time-frame of ‘‘during the past week’’ was selec-

ted, consistent with that used by Crawford and Henry

(2004) in their research on the construct validity and

measurement properties of the scale. Both the positive

affect and negative affect scales demonstrated strong reli-

ability (a = .93). Instead of automatically controlling for all potentially

confounding variables, a practice which Spector and

Brannick (2010) rightly criticize, the pattern of relation-

ships between the contextual variables and the model’s

constructs was first examined. In examining the correla-

tions, nine potentially problematic contextual variables

were identified: positive and negative affect, tendency to

forgive, months elapsed since incident, months working in

organization prior to incident, months working under lea-

der prior to incident, history of leader wrongdoings prior to

incident, transgression severity, and transgression inten-

tionality. Because these variables were strongly related to

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 107

123

both independent and dependent variables in the model and

could be theorized to contaminate the proposed relation-

ships, they were controlled (Spector and Brannick 2010).

Other potential confounding contextual variables (e.g.,

gender, work experience) did not strongly covary with the

constructs and, therefore, were not controlled.

Analysis and Results

Sincerity Grouping

Participants were grouped for analytic purposes according

to their responses on the sincerity scale. For participants

receiving an apology, scores on the apology sincerity scale

were examined. The scale was not normally distributed,

with participants tending to rate leader apologies at either

the very low or the very high ends of the scale. Likewise, in

responses to qualitative questions (e.g., ‘‘Describe how

your supervisor conveyed sincerity or insincerity in his/her

apology’’), participants tended to describe apologies as

either sincere or insincere; few mentioned apologies as

being somewhat sincere or somewhat insincere. Thus,

apology sincerity appeared to be perceived as a dichoto-

mous variable (i.e., sincere or insincere) rather than as a

continuous construct.

Having determined the scale should be dichotomized,

two options were considered. The first, a median split (3.75

on the apology sincerity scale), was rejected because it

created ambiguity by retaining mid-scale responders who

could not be clearly assigned to either the sincere or

insincere apology group. The second option, grouping

participants according to the upper and lower quartiles of

the apology sincerity scale, was preferable as it clearly

identified participants who perceived a sincere apology and

those who perceived an insincere apology. Participants in

the upper quartile, scoring 4.50 or higher on the apology

sincerity scale, were placed into the sincere apology group

(n = 87); those in the lower quartile, scoring 2.75 or lower,

were assigned to the insincere apology group (n = 92).

Participants who reported that they did not receive an

apology were assigned to the no-apology group (n = 165).

Descriptive Statistics

Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1,

along with the Likert values used for each scale to facilitate

interpretation. Offering an initial glimpse into the rela-

tionships between variables, Table 2 presents correlations

among all constructs of interest and contextual variables.

All variables were standardized when computing these

bivariate correlations.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1

Path analysis was used to test Hypothesis 1, predicting

that source credibility positively impacted perceptions of

apology sincerity. Mplus Version 5.21 (Muthén and

Muthén 1998–2006), one of the most common programs

utilized for path analysis, was employed. The three source

credibility factors were included in the path analysis

along with the leader apology variable. The contextual

variables of history of leader wrongdoing, incident

severity, and intentionality were modeled as antecedent

variables, and other potentially confounding contextual

variables (i.e., months elapsed since incident, months

working under leader prior to incident, months working in

organization prior to incident, tendency to forgive, posi-

tive affect, negative affect) were controlled. Because this

hypothesis specifically pertains to followers who received

an apology, participants who did not receive one were

excluded from this analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the model

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of quantitative study variables

Scale N M SD Likert

point scale

Source credibility

Competence 417 4.48 1.24 7

Trustworthiness 415 4.27 1.60 7

Caring/goodwill 433 3.83 1.52 7

Apology sincerity 334 3.48 1.20 5

Humility 493 3.03 .97 5

Transformational leadership 493 2.96 1.04 5

Forgiveness 481 3.18 .96 5

Trust in/loyalty to supervisor 488 2.92 .95 5

Satisfaction with supervision 495 3.59 1.26 6

Leader–member exchange 483 2.94 .97 5

Affective organizational

commitment

489 3.96 1.34 7

Contextual variables

History of leader wrongdoing 498 2.85 1.16 5

Transgression severity 509 3.61 1.04 5

Transgression intentionality 502 3.42 1.25 5

Months elapsed since incident 503 9.97 24.88 Open-

ended

Months working under leader

prior to incident

495 20.47 28.61 Open-

ended

Months working at

organization prior to incident

491 36.03 47.82 Open-

ended

Tendency to forgive 498 4.03 1.08 7

Positive affect 476 3.47 .91 5

Negative affect 482 2.13 .91 5

108 T. E. Basford et al.

123

used to test this first hypothesis. Constructs of interest

appear in white; contextual antecedent variables are por-

trayed in gray.

Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. The path between

trustworthiness and leader apology was statistically sig-

nificant, b = .33, p \ .001, as was the path between

Table 2 Correlation matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Competence –

2. Trustworthiness .67*** –

3. Care/goodwill .58*** .79*** –

4. Sincerity .35*** .55*** .56*** –

5. Apology group .27*** .46*** .44*** .96*** –

6. Humility .41*** .59*** .64*** .70*** .46*** –

7. TFL .41*** .57*** .62*** .63*** .45*** .88*** –

8. Forgiveness .40*** .60*** .58*** .58*** .44*** .69*** .66*** –

9. Trust/loyalty .42*** .60*** .61*** .66*** .48*** .84*** .84*** .74*** –

10. Satisfaction .52*** .67*** .65*** .64*** .47*** .75*** .77*** .81*** .77*** –

11. LMX .48*** .65*** .65*** .66*** .51*** .76*** .76*** .74*** .78*** .80***

12. Commitment .29*** .40*** .38*** .33*** .22*** .47*** .47*** .48*** .50*** .49***

13. Wrongdoing history -.40*** -.49*** -.51*** -.26*** -.30*** -.41*** -.45*** -.44*** -.40*** -.52***

14. Severity -.13** -.27*** -.25*** -.11 -.15** -.22*** -.20*** -.30*** -.26*** -.28***

15. Intentionality -.27*** -.38*** -.35*** -.25*** -.33*** -.37*** -.36*** -.38*** -.38*** -.42***

16. Time/incident -.06 -.09 -.09 -.12* -.09 -.13** -.10* -.09 -.12** -.11*

17. Time/leader .13* .02 -.01 .04 .17** .01 .01 .05 .05 .07

18. Time/Org .09 .04 .01 .08 .19** .04 .06 .15** .11* .11*

19. Tendency forgive .11* .12* .15** .22*** .19*** .21** .21** .28** .30** .24**

20. Positive affect .16** .10* .16** .16** .25*** .19*** .19*** .18*** .21*** .18***

21. Negative affect -.13* -.08 -.06 .09 -.14** .03 -.01 -.15** -.01 -.15**

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1. Competence

2. Trustworthiness

3. Care/goodwill

4. Sincerity

5. Apology group

6. Humility

7. TFL

8. Forgiveness

9. Trust/loyalty

10. Satisfaction

11. LMX –

12. Commitment .50*** –

13. Wrongdoing history -.38*** -.25*** –

14. Severity -.23** -.14** .22*** –

15. Intentionality -.36*** -.23*** .42*** .44*** –

16. Time/incident -.10* .08 .00 .09* .14** –

17. Time/leader .05 .16*** .05 .06 -.05 .10* –

18. Time/Org .12* .25*** .01 .07 -.06 .12* .67*** –

19. Tendency forgive .24** .20** -.11* -.01 -.08 .05 .03 .06 –

20. Positive affect .32*** .26*** .03 .18*** .05 .01 .09* .14** .17*** –

21. Negative affect -.07 -.10* .23*** .04 .11* -.10* -.13** -.17*** -.20*** -.14**

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 109

123

caring/goodwill and leader apology, b = .32, p \ .001, suggesting that the source credibility factors of trustwor-

thiness and caring/goodwill positively impact perceptions

of apology sincerity. However, the path between compe-

tence and leader apology, b = -.05, p = .498, did not reach statistical significance. The R

2 value of apology,

R 2

= .54, p \ .001, indicates a moderate to strong effect size.

Hypotheses 2 and 3

Hypothesis 2 and 3 were tested using the general linear

model, with leader apology entered into the model as a

discrete, independent variable and the outcome variables

included as continuous, dependent variables. Once again,

contextual variables of intentionality, severity, and nega-

tive history of wrongdoing were modeled as antecedent

variables, and the other potentially confounding contextual

variables were controlled.

Hypothesis 2a received support, indicating that attribu-

tions of leader apology sincerity fostered greater trust in/

loyalty with the leader than appraisals of insincerity or non-

apology. Leader apology had a significant main effect on

trust in/loyalty with the leader, F (2, 281) = 73.67,

p \ .001. Partial eta-squared was found to be .34, indi- cating a moderate effect. A post-hoc least squares means

test was conducted to assess whether the means signifi-

cantly differed in the predicted fashion. As predicted, the

mean of trust/loyalty for the sincere apology group,

LSMean = 3.84, was significantly higher than that of the

insincere apology group, LSMean = 2.31, t = 11.33,

p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 2.53, t = 10.42, p \ .001, findings which held even after applying the Bonferroni correction.

Hypothesis 2b was also supported, showing that that

perceived leader apology sincerity generated greater

satisfaction with supervision as compared to perceived

insincerity or non-apology. Leader apology exerted a sig-

nificant main effect on satisfaction with supervision, F (2,

284) = 75.94, p \ .001. The computed value of partial eta- squared, partial g2 = .348, indicates a moderate effect size. A post-hoc least squares means test revealed that the mean

of the sincere apology group, LSMean = 4.88, was sig-

nificantly higher than that of the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 2.71, t = 11.70, p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 3.09, t = 10.32, p \ .001, findings which held after employing the Bonferroni correction.

Hypothesis 2c also received support, finding that attri-

butions of leader apology sincerity garnered higher quality

LMX relationships than perceptions of insincerity or non-

apology. Leader apology had a significant main effect on

LMX relationship quality, F (2, 278) = 64.13, p \ .001. The computed value of partial eta-squared, partial

g2 = .22, indicates a moderate effect size. The post-hoc least squares means test found that the mean of the sincere

apology group, LSMean = 3.86, was significantly higher

than that of the insincere apology group, LSMean =

2.37, t = 10.56, p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 2.55, t = 9.84, p \ .001, findings which held after applying the Bonferroni correction.

In addition, support was found for Hypothesis 2d, which

had predicted that appraisals of leader apology sincerity

would foster greater affective organizational commitment

than attributions of insincerity or non-apology. Leader

apology had a significant main effect on affective organi-

zational commitment, F (2, 284) = 11.68, p \ .001. The value of partial g2 = .08 suggests a small effect size. The post-hoc least squares means test showed that the mean of

the sincere apology group, LSMean = 4.44, was signifi-

cantly higher than that of the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 3.40, t = 4.82, p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 3.78, t = 3.24, p = .001, findings

which held even after using the Bonferroni correction.

Mirroring Hypothesis 2, post-hoc least squares means

tests were employed to assess Hypothesis 3, predicting that

leader apologies perceived to be insincere would garner

more negative reactions (i.e., trust/loyalty in leader,

Leader Apology (sincere apology,

insincere apology)

Source Credibility Factor 1:

Competence

Source Credibility Factor 2:

Trustworthiness

Source Credibility Factor 3:

Caring/Goodwill

Intentionality

Severity

History of Leader Wrongdoing

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

-.13*

.10

-.01

.32***

.33***

-.05

Fig. 2 Path coefficients of leader apology antecedent variables

110 T. E. Basford et al.

123

satisfaction with supervision, LMX relationship quality,

affective organizational commitment) than no apology at

all. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. The mean of

satisfaction with supervision for the insincere apology

group, LSMean = 2.71, was significantly lower than that

of the no apology group, LSMean = 3.09, t = -2.46,

p = .015. Likewise, the mean of affective organiza-

tional commitment for the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 3.40, was significantly lower than that of the no

apology group, LSMean = 3.78, t = -2.10, p = .037.

However, while the mean of trust/loyalty for the insincere

apology group, LSMean = 2.31, was lower than that of the

no apology group, LSMean = 2.53, this difference did not

achieve statistical significance, t = -1.95, p = .05. Also,

the mean of LMX relationship quality for the insincere

apology group, LSMean = 2.37, was less than that of the

no apology group, LSMean = 2.55, but this difference was

not statistically significant, t = -1.60, p = .11. Figure 3

illustrates these results for Hypotheses 2 and 3.

Hypothesis 4 and 5

Path analysis was employed in testing Hypothesis 4 and 5,

which proposed that humility and transformational lead-

ership mediated the relationship between appraisals of

leader apology and follower reactions (i.e., trust/loyalty in

leader, satisfaction with supervision, LMX relationship

quality, affective organizational commitment). All con-

structs of interest were included, with contextual variables

modeled as antecedent variables or controlled as previously

specified. The hypothesized path analysis model was tested

for each of the four follower outcome variables. Chi-square

tests of model fit for each of the four models were signif-

icant: trust in/loyalty with leader, v2(29) = 410.27, p \ .001; satisfaction with supervision, v2(29) = 423.65, p \ .001; LMX relationship quality, v2(29) = 422.07, p \ .001; affective organizational commitment, v2(29) = 385.57, p \ .001. Other indices also suggested poor fit for each of the four originally proposed models:

trust in/loyalty with leader (CFI = .78; SRMR = .14;

RMSEA = .20); satisfaction with supervision (CFI = .77;

SRMR = .14; RMSEA = .120); LMX relationship quality

(CFI = .76; SRMR = .14; RMSEA = .20); affective

organizational commitment (CFI = .73; SRMR = .13;

RMSEA = .19).

Alternative models were tested to improve model fit. In

Model 2, the first alternative model tested, four nonsignifi-

cant paths were removed (caring/goodwill ? apology; history of leader wrongdoing ? apology; severity ? apology; intentionality ? apology). As shown in Table 3, Model 2 appeared to slightly improve model fit. Next, in

Model 3, a path was added between humility and forgive-

ness, resulting in improved model fit indices. Subsequently,

Model 4 added a path between trustworthiness and humility,

further improving fit. While adding additional paths would

have continued to slightly impact model fit, improvements

were not noteworthy. Model 4 fit indices point to four

parsimonious, well-fitting models: trust in/loyalty with

leader (CFI = .96; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .13); satis-

faction with supervision (CFI = .95; SRMR = .04;

RMSEA = .14); LMX relationship quality (CFI = .95;

SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .14); affective organizational

commitment (CFI = .97; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .11).

Model 4 for each of the four dependent variables is

presented (Fig. 4). Constructs in white represent variables

of interest in the model; constructs in gray indicate con-

textual antecedent variables. Standardized estimates of

each path, along with their corresponding significance

values, are provided.

Hypothesis 4 and 5 were supported. First, support was

found for the indirect relationship from leader apology to

humility to transformational leadership to trust in/loyalty in

the leader. The direct path between leader apology and

humility was significant, b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path between humility and transformational leader-

ship, b = .88, p \ .001, as was the direct path between transformational leadership and trust in/loyalty with the

leader, b = .61, p \ .001. The indirect path (apol- ogy ? humility ? transformational leadership ? trust in/loyalty with leader) also achieved statistical signifi-

cance, b = .11, p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval estimates of the standard error of this indirect effect did not

include zero, lower 2.5 % = .07; upper 2.5 % = .16,

providing confidence in the existence of this indirect

effect.

Fig. 3 Trust/loyalty, satisfaction, LMX, commitment, and forgive- ness least squares means for no apology, insincere apology, and

sincere apology groups

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 111

123

Second, support was found for the indirect relationship

from leader apology to humility to transformational lead-

ership to satisfaction with supervision. The direct path

between leader apology and humility was statistically sig-

nificant, b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path between humility and transformational leadership, b = .88,

p \ .001, as was the direct path between transformational leadership and satisfaction with supervision, b = .42, p \ .001. The indirect path (apology ? humility ? transformational leadership ? satisfaction with supervi- sion) also was significant, b = .08, p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval estimates of the standard error of this

Table 3 Trust/loyalty, satisfaction, LMX, and commitment model fit indices

Proposed model Alternative models

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Trust/loyalty v2(29) = 410.27 v2(13) = 329.46 v2(12) = 165.48 v2(11) = 74.99

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 CFI = .78 CFI = .81 CFI = .91 CFI = .96

SRMR = .14 SRMR = .13 SRMR = .10 SRMR = .03

RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .27 RMSEA = .19 RMSEA = .13

Satisfaction v2(29) = 423.65 v2(13) = 340.05 v2(12) = 176.08 v2(11) = 85.59

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 CFI = .77 CFI = .80 CFI = .89 CFI = .95

SRMR = .14 SRMR = .13 SRMR = .11 SRMR = .04

RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .27 RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .14

LMX v2(29) = 422.07 v2(13) = 340.28 v2(12) = 176.30 v2(11) = 85.81

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 CFI = .76 CFI = .79 CFI = .88 CFI = .95

SRMR = .14 SRMR = .13 SRMR = .10 SRMR = .04

RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .27 RMSEA = .20 RMSEA = .14

Commitment v2(29) = 385.57 v2(13) = 307.03 v2(12) = 143.06 v2(11) = 52.57

p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 p \ .001 CFI = .73 CFI = .76 CFI = .89 CFI = .97

SRMR = .13 SRMR = .11 SRMR = .09 SRMR = .03

RMSEA = .19 RMSEA = .26 RMSEA = .18 RMSEA = .11

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Total R2 estimates: apology = .27***; humility = .43***; transformational leadership = .78***; forgiveness = .55***; trust/loyalty = .78***; satisfaction = .76***; LMX relationship quality = .71***; affective organizational commitment = .34***.

.61***(trust/loyalty)

.42*** (satisfaction)

.46*** (LMX).52***

.21*** .88***

.61***

.12** .31*** (trust/loyalty)

.47***

-.13* Humility Transformational Leadership

Forgiveness

Leader Apology (sincere apology, insincere apology,

no apology)

Source Credibility Factor 2:

Trustworthiness

.54*** (satisfaction)

.42*** (LMX)

.25*** (commitment)

.28*** (commitment)

Source Credibility Factor 1:

Competence

Outcomes

Fig. 4 Path estimates

112 T. E. Basford et al.

123

indirect effect were greater than zero, lower 2.5 % = .05;

upper 2.5 % = .11, offering confidence in the presence of

this indirect effect.

Third, the indirect relationship from leader apology to

humility to transformational leadership to LMX relation-

ship quality also received support. The direct path between

leader apology and humility was statistically significant,

b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path between humility and transformational leadership, b = .88, p \ .001, as was the direct path between transformational leadership and

LMX relationship quality, b = .46, p \ .001. The indirect path (apology ? humility ? transformational leader- ship ? LMX relationship quality) also was significant, b = .08, p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval esti- mates of the standard error of this indirect effect were

above zero, lower 2.5 % = .05; upper 2.5 % = .12, giving

confidence in the existence of this indirect effect.

Fourth, support was found for the indirect relationship

from leader apology to humility to transformational lead-

ership to affective organizational commitment. The direct

path between leader apology and humility was statistically

significant, b = .21, p \ .001, as was the direct path between humility and transformational leadership,

b = .88, p \ .001, as was the direct path between trans- formational leadership and affective organizational com-

mitment, b = .28, p \ .001. The indirect path (apology ? humility ? transformational leadership ? affective organizational commitment) also was significant, b = .05, p \ .001. Bootstrapped confidence interval estimates of the standard error of this indirect effect did not include zero,

lower 2.5 % = .03; upper 2.5 % = .08, giving confidence

in the existence of this indirect effect.

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 and 7 were tested with the general linear model.

Leader apology was entered into the model as a discrete,

independent variable, and forgiveness was included as con-

tinuous, dependent variable. As specified before, contextual

variables were modeled as antecedent variables or controlled.

Hypothesis 6 received support, finding that followers

who appraised their leader’s apology as sincere reported

greater forgiveness than those who viewed the apology as

insincere or did not receive one. Leader apology had a

significant main effect on forgiveness, F (2, 280) = 54.17,

p \ .001. Partial g2 = .28, indicates a small to medium effect. As predicted, a post-hoc least squares means test

found that the mean of forgiveness for the sincere apology

group, LSMean = 4.06, was significantly higher than that

of the insincere apology group, LSMean = 2.63, t =

9.77, p \ .001, and no apology group, LSMean = 2.85, t = 8.89, p \ .001, findings which held even after applying the Bonferroni correction.

Hypothesis 7

Paralleling Hypothesis 6, post-hoc least squares means

tests were employed to assess Hypothesis 7, which pro-

posed that followers would experience less forgiveness

when they perceived a leader’s apology as insincere as

compared to when they did not receive an apology.

Hypothesis 7 was not supported. Though the mean of

forgiveness for the insincere apology group,

LSMean = 2.63, was lower than that of the no apology

group, LSMean = 2.85, this difference was not statistically

significant, t = -1.84, p = .067. Figure 3 illustrates these

Hypothesis 6 and 7 results.

Hypothesis 8

Hypothesis 8 received support, suggesting that forgiveness

leads to favorable follower outcomes (i.e., trust/loyalty in

leader, satisfaction with supervision, LMX relationship

quality, affective organizational commitment). As dis-

played in Fig. 4, the path between forgiveness and trust in/

loyalty with the leader was significant, b = .31, p \ .001, as was the path between forgiveness and satisfaction with

supervision, b = .54, p \ .001, forgiveness and LMX relationship quality, b = .42, p \ .001, and forgiveness and affective organizational commitment, b = .25, p \ .001.

Discussion

This investigation adds insight into how followers appraise

leader apologies and how these perceptions impact their

reactions. First, aspects of source credibility were examined

to better understand how followers assess leader apology

sincerity. Two source credibility factors—trustworthiness

and caring/goodwill—demonstrated significant, positive

relationships with leader apology sincerity. Followers who

viewed their leader as a trustworthy and caring source prior

to the transgression were more likely to form impressions of

apology sincerity; followers who viewed their leader as an

untrustworthy and uncaring source tended to make insincere

appraisals. However, the source credibility factor of com-

petence did not significantly impact perceptions of apology

sincerity. Followers who received an apology did not appear

to use their prior perceptions of leader competence to form

attributions of apology sincerity.

Do follower assessments of a leader’s apology impact

follower reactions? The answer to this question is a

resounding, ‘‘yes.’’ Follower appraisals of leader apology

matter. Followers who viewed their leader’s apology as

sincere experienced greater forgiveness, trust in/loyalty

with their leader, satisfaction with supervision, LMX

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 113

123

relationship quality, and affective organizational commit-

ment, as compared to followers who considered their lea-

der’s apology to be insincere or who did not receive an

apology. These favorable reactions benefit the follower,

leader, and the organization overall.

Whereas sincere leader apologies generated the most

favorable follower reactions, insincere apologies often

appeared worse than non-apologies. Compared to followers

who did not receive an apology, followers who appraised

their leader’s apology as insincere had significantly lower

satisfaction with supervision and affective organizational

commitment. Apparently Chesterton was right—insincere

apologies may add insult to injury. While not reaching sta-

tistical significance, followers who perceived their

leader’s apology as insincere also reported lower trust in/

loyalty with the leader, LMX relationship quality, and for-

giveness as compared to followers who did not receive an

apology. Such findings suggest that an apology, if considered

insincere, may do more harm than no apology at all.

Finally, the question of why was examined. Why do

sincere apologies inspire favorable follower reactions? To

provide insight into the explanatory mechanisms of these

relationships, two mediators—humility and transforma-

tional leadership—were examined. Findings revealed that

both of these constructs mediated the relationships between

leader apology and follower reactions. Leader apologies,

when appraised as sincere by followers, engender percep-

tions of humility, which consequently foster perceptions of

transformational leadership, which in turn lead to favorable

follower outcomes. Thus, rather than a sign of weakness,

sincere apologies might be better considered a sign of

humility and transformational leadership.

Limitations

Two main limitations should be noted. First, participants

were asked to recall past events, raising possible concerns

about the limits of human memory. Although psychologi-

cal researchers have long-recognized that human memory

is imperfect and subject to error, rare and important

behaviors and events—such as leader offenses—are less

affected by such issues, thereby minimizing retrospective

bias (Schwartz 1999). Even so, followers’ present evalua-

tions of their leader and job might still somewhat impact

the nature of their recollections. However, using a stan-

dardized scenario-based approach as an alternative to a

retrospective design was believed to pose greater risk than

benefit. Because people tend to overestimate the extent to

which they will value an apology when they imagine

receiving one (De Cremer et al. 2011), studying how fol-

lowers expect they will respond to an apology in a vignette

could result in an inflated estimate its impact. This inves-

tigation’s retrospective approach offers a better assessment

of how people really respond to actual events, lending

external validity to the research.

Second, concerns regarding common methods bias may

arise. As suggested by Conway and Lance (2010) and

Podsakoff et al. 2003), the following steps were taken to

reduce the likelihood of common methods bias: lowering

evaluation apprehension by guaranteeing respondents of

anonymity, using unambiguous items, and ensuring items

did not overlap between scales. Also, a Harman one-factor

analysis was conducted to assess whether variance could be

attributed to a single factor (Podsakoff et al. 2003); it could

not. In addition, affect was controlled to ensure partici-

pants’ affective state was not obscuring the relationships.

Implications and Future Directions

Despite these limitations, this investigation adds to past

research, refining our understanding of the role of leader

apologies in workplace leader–follower dynamics. Building

on Tucker et al.’s (2006) finding of a link between leader

apology and transformational leadership, our research

identifies humility as a key mediator of this relationship.

Humility is an under-researched area within leadership

studies, and the present work suggests it may play an

important role in improving understanding of leader–fol-

lower relations. Leaders who were believed to sincerely

apologize following a wrongdoing were viewed by followers

as more humble and, consequently, more transformational.

These perceptions of transformational leadership were in

turn shown to promote positive follower reactions that not

only helped the leader–follower relationship but also

extended to benefit the organization overall.

Also, this study opens new areas for continued research

exploration. While the present investigation highlighted the

importance of aspects of leader source credibility, other

factors also likely influence followers’ appraisals of leader

apology sincerity. Continued research into additional

antecedents of leader apology sincerity perceptions, such as

aspects of message content and delivery style, are needed

to further improve our comprehension of how followers

appraise leader apology sincerity. Also, future investiga-

tions might extend beyond the follower, perhaps consid-

ering the impact of bystander appraisals of leader

apologies. While research indicates that observers and

targets of apologies appraise messages differently (Risen

and Gilovich 2007), such effects have yet to be examined

in an organizational context.

Further investigation is needed to translate this research

into effective leadership trainings, programs, and initiatives.

Recognizing the value of sincere apologies, organizations

may desire to increase the likelihood that leaders will apol-

ogize when appropriate and that their apologies will be

appraised as sincere. Future efforts should focus on how.

114 T. E. Basford et al.

123

How can leaders be trained to deliver apologies that are

appraised as sincere by followers? Practitioners should be

aware that the application of this research in practice might

pose risks. Learning that their organizational leaders

received ‘‘apology sincerity training’’ might heighten fol-

lowers’ skepticism and cause them to doubt the veracity of

even truly sincere leader apologies. Also, the ethicality of

such training is questionable. Leaders, armed with knowl-

edge about how to best communicate sincerity, might use

these techniques to ‘‘dupe’’ their followers into forming

attributions of sincerity.

In spite of these concerns, efforts to apply this research in

practice should not be abandoned. Leaders, followers, and

organizations stand to benefit if leaders can learn how to best

convey apology sincerity. As other work indicates (Tucker

et al. 2006), leaders are all too often reluctant to apologize.

Showing leaders that sincere apologies generate more favor-

able results than no apologies may help increase the likelihood

that leaders will apologize when they make a mistake or

offend an employee, as they inevitably will at some point in

their career. Further, since leaders may be unsure how to best

convey sincerity when they find themselves in the aftermath of

a transgression, awareness of the impact of source credibility

could help reduce their anxiety and reluctance to apologize.

Future efforts to develop leadership programs that stress the

importance of establishing trustworthiness and caring repu-

tations may help avoid ‘‘duping’’ concerns and build more

positive, effective workplaces.

Given the restriction of the sample to U.S. employees,

the generalizability of these findings outside of the U.S.

requires future attention. Because cultural differences in

apology exist (Guan et al. 2009), the extention of this

study’s findings to other countries is unclear. For instance,

the factors impacting apology sincerity perceptions in the

U.S. may differ from those in other countries. Also, dif-

ferences in cultural variables such as power distance may

reduce the importance of attributions of leader humility.

These exciting opportunities for continued cross-cultural

research on leadership and apology are just a few of the

numerous questions open for exploration. However, at least

in the U.S. workplace, our work suggests that leaders may

benefit from overcoming their concerns about apologizing.

In the wake of a wrongdoing, a sincere ‘‘I’m sorry’’ can

make all the difference.

Acknowledgments The research described in this paper was sup- ported in part by a grant to the first author from the American Psy-

chological Association.

References

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of

affective, continuance and normative commitment to the

organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T., & Bies, R. (2001). How employees respond

to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim

status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the

workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52–59.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.52.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T., & Bies, R. (2006). Getting even or moving on?

Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors

of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in orga-

nizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653–668.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653.

Bachman, G., & Guerrero, L. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and

communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication

Reports, 19(1), 45–56. doi:10.1080/08934210600586357.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.

New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leader-

ship paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?

American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic

transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly,

10(2), 181–218. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8.

Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The

viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research

Methods, 43(3), 800–813. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.

Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some exploration in initial

interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of

communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x.

Bono, G., McCullough, M., & Root, L. (2007). Forgiveness, feeling

connected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182–195.

doi:10.1177/0146167207310025.

Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions

and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the

workplace. Journal of Management, 25(5), 607–631.

Brown, R. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency

to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759–771.

doi:10.1177/0146167203029006008.

Brown, R., & Philips, A. (2005). Letting bygones be bygones:

Further evidence for the validity of the Tendency to Forgive

scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 627–638.

doi:10.1177/014920639902500501.

Carless, S., Wearing, A., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of

transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychol-

ogy, 14(3), 389–405.

Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What reviewers should expect

from authors regarding common method bias in organizational

research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.

doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement

properties and normative data in a large non-clinical

sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.

doi:10.1348/0144665031752934.

Davis, D., Worthington, E., Jr, & Hook, J. (2010). Humility: Review

of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality

judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 243–252.

doi:10.1080/17439761003791672.

De Cremer, D., & Schouten, B. (2008). When apologies for injustice

matter: The role of respect. European Psychologists, 13(4),

239–247. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.239.

De Cremer, D., Pillutla, M. M., & Folmer, C. R. (2011). How

important is an apology to you? Forecasting errors in evaluating

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 115

123

the value of apologies. Psychological Science, 22(1), 45–48.

doi:10.1177/0956797610391101.

De Graaf, S., Basford, T., Offermann, L., Graebner, R., & Jaffer, S.

(2010). Can leader behavior reduce perceptions of racial

microaggressions at work? In L. Offermann (Chair) (Ed.),

Leadership and diversity: Science meets practice. Paper pre-

sented in a symposium at the Society for Industrial Organiza-

tional Psychology Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-

analytic findings and implications for research and practice.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.87.4.611

Enright, R. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process

for resolving anger and Restoring hope. Washington: APA

LifeTools.

Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on

organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case.

The Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708–726.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A

meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and disposi-

tional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914.

doi:10.1037/a0019993.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper Colophon

Books.

Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B., & Newell, S. (2000). The impact of

corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer

reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising,

29(3), 43–54.

Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to

leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX)

theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-

domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.

Guan, X., Park, H., & Lee, H. (2009). Cross-cultural differences

in apology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33,

32–45. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.10.001.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member

exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.92.1.269.

Ismail, A., Mohamed, H., Sulaiman, A., Mohamad, M., & Yusuf, M.

(2011). An empirical study of the relationship between trans-

formational leadership, empowerment and organizational com-

mitment. Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(1),

89–107.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The

attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2,

pp. 219–266). San Diego: Academic Press.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.89.5.755.

Kelley, D. (1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication

Studies, 49(3), 255–271. doi:10.1080/10510979809368535.

Korek, S., Felfe, J., & Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010). Transformational

leadership and commitment: A multilevel analysis of group-level

influences and mediating processes. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 364–387. doi:10.1080/

13594320902996336. Levine, R., & West, L. (1976). Attraction as a function of boasting,

self-apology, and credibility of an actor. Psychological Reports,

38, 1243–1246. doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1243.

Liu, J., Siu, O., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and

employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader

and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

59(3), 454–479. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative

model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,

20(3), 709–734.

McCroskey, J., & Teven, J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the

construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs,

66(1), 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness,

forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-

related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84(3), 540–557.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L.,

Jr, Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving

in close relationships: II. Theoretical and measurement. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.6.1586.

McCullough, M., Root, L., & Cohen, A. (2006). Writing about the

benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 887–897.

doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.887.

Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr, & McDaniel, M. A. (2008).

Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research

agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8),

843–876. doi:10.1521/jscp. 2008, 27(8), pp. 843.

Morris, J., Brotheridge, C., & Urbanski, J. (2005). Bringing humility

to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader

humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323–1350. doi:10.1177/

0018726705059929.

Mullet, E., & Girard, M. (2000). Developmental and cognitive points

of view on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament,

& C. E. Thorsen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and

practice (pp. 111–132). New York, NY: Guilford.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los

Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Nielsen, R., Marrone, J., & Slay, H. (2010). A new look at humility:

Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized

charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organization

Studies, 17(1), 33–43. doi:10.1177/1548051809350892.

Owens, B. (2009). Humility in organizational leadership. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (in press). Expressed

humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams,

and leadership. Organization Science.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review

of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’

trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship

behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7.

Posner, B., & Schmidt, W. (1982). Managerial values and expecta-

tions: The silent power in personal and organizational life. New

York: American Management Association.

Regehr, C., & Gutheil, T. (2002). Apology, justice, and trauma

recovery. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the

Law, 30, 425–430.

Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in

the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418–433. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.92.3.418.

Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behavior. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

116 T. E. Basford et al.

123

Schleien, S., Ross, H., & Ross, M. (2010). Young children’s apologies

to their siblings. Social Development, 19(1), 170–186.

Schlenker, B., & Darby, B. (1981). The use of apologies in social

predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(3), 271–278.

doi:10.2307/3033840.

Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the

answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.

Skarlicki, D., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts

backfire: The exacerbating effects of a polite message or an

apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 34(2), 322–341.

Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes,

and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P., & Brannick, M. (2010). Methodological urban legends:

The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational

Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305. doi:10.1177/1094428110

369842.

Struthers, C., Eaton, J., Santelli, A., Uchiyama, M., & Shirvani, N.

(2008). The effects of attributions of intent and apology on

forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 983–992. doi:10.1016/

j.jesp.2008.02.006.

Tsang, J., McCullough, M., & Fincham, F. (2006). The longitudinal

association between forgiveness and relationship closeness and

commitment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(4),

448–472. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.4.448.

Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to

reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile

following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2),

165–187.

Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E., & Elving, C. (2006).

Apologies and transformational leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 63, 195–207. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3571-0.

Waldron, V., & Kelley, D. (2008). Communicating forgiveness.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How

leader–member exchange influences effective work behaviors:

Social exchange and internal–external efficacy perspectives.

Personnel Psychology, 64, 739–770.

Wieselquist, J. (2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the

investment model of commitment. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 26(4), 531–548. doi:10.1177/0265407

509347931.

Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. (2004). Consumer responses to compensation,

speed of recovery and apology after a service failure. Interna-

tional Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(2), 150–166.

Worthington, E. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and

application. New York: Routledge.

Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2008). Influence of leader

behaviors on the leader-member exchange relationship. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 289–299. doi:10.1108/

02683940910952697.

Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies 117

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.