The Influence of Post-Transgression Behavior: An Interplay between Elaborateness of Apology and the Managerial Disciplinary Action (1999)

INTRODUCTION In all human relationships, when a person transgresses against a rule, offending another, he or she is likely to apologize for doing so. The apology may serve to at least partially right the wrong. It may also lower the probability of an aggressive response on the part of the person offended. In the employment relationship, there are commonly a number of rules, and it is an offense, against both the abstract rule and the employer, for an employee to be guilty of a rule violation. In the typical American military-bureaucratic style work organization, the expected consequence of such misconduct is punishment. It is interesting to inquire whether, to what degree, and under what circumstances, an employee's apology for such misconduct affects the probability of punishment and its severity. This is the question that this paper examines. Although both practitioners and scholars are reluctant to admit it, workplace discipline in the U.S. is enforced in part through punishment or threat of it. Therefore, employees, managers, and scholars have strong reason to understand its determinants. In addition to other determinants, it seems worthwhile to consider the common human response of apology in different degrees and under different circumstances as a possible influencer of punishment of employees for violating workplace rules. The following section defines some terms and then introduce the questions to be studied. It will then review the literature in the area and subsequent sections will state the problem. APOLOGY Apology is the acknowledgment of blameworthiness and expression of regret for a transgression against a rule or a norm (Darby & Schlenker, 1989; Goffman, 1971; Schlenker, 1980). Such transgressions often result in injury to another. The apology may be made either to the person injured or to the person charged with enforcement of the rule that has been transgressed. The parties to the apology are the who makes the apology (sometimes called the perpetrator or violator) and the receiver of the apology (sometimes called the victim, discipliner, or punisher). In this thesis, the term offender will be used to denote the person who has committed the transgression. The term offendee will be used to denote the person injured or in charge of enforcing the rule that has been violated, to whom an apology might logically be directed under the circumstances. Where a workplace rule has been violated by an who is an employee, the person offended would usually be the employee's supervisor, although, depending on the rule violated, fellow employees might also be potential apology receivers. What is special about supervisors as persons offended is that they have the authority to impose punishment on the subordinate offender. Apologies relate to violations of social norms. They may reflect a sense of obligation on the part of the to make amends for the transgression against these norms. According to scholars who have studied this phenomenon, apologies perform several different functions. These include acknowledging that rules have been violated, recognizing the value of the rules, and acknowledging the interpersonal obligations involved (see Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Darby & Schlenker, 1989; Schlenker, 1980; Schlenker & Darby, 1981). Apologies may have a number of meaningful effects on the and the offendee, such as: (a) when the publicly acknowledges his or her responsibility for the violation, it may have the effect of restoring the offendee's self-esteem and social identity; (b) when the offers help or asks for forgiveness, it may be interpreted as expressing respect for the offendee; (c) when the apologizes in terms of self-disapproval, it may be taken as acknowledgment that the does not agree with his or her own behavior and is trying to give the impression to others that he or she is really not a bad person; and (d) when the subjects himself/herself to public disgrace or expresses remorse, this can be taken as a form of self-punishment that restores social justice (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989). …