Earlier this week, my colleague, Jennifer, published a blog post about understanding trust and why it matters. The post was inspired by a series of articles published in the Harvard Business Review analyzing the current lack of trust with large companies, including Boeing, Facebook and Nike.
The final article, “The Elements of a Good Company Apology,” written by Sandra J. Sucher and Shalene Gupta, breaks down effective company apologies, while analyzing apologies issued by Boeing, Apple, United, JetBlue, Airbnb, Toyota and more. Although no apology secured perfect marks from the authors, some clearly did better than others and made important strides in winning back stakeholders’ trust.
According to research, an effective apology meets three criteria: it’s credible, it works to restore goodwill with stakeholders, and it assumes responsibility for correcting the error.
While reading this series, the team at Communiqué PR couldn’t help but consider a recent crisis at Seattle Children’s Hospital. In the spring of 2019, it was revealed that Seattle Children’s Hospital’s operating rooms were infected with mold and that this mold had led to the death of at least one patient and illness to at least five others. Since the story broke, more and more information has revealed the depth of the problem and that the oversight had led to the sickening of 14 patients – six of whom died –and spanned from 2001 until now.
This hospital has always been a trusted source of care and one of the most respected medical establishments in the region. However, the severity of these errors and failures have had terrible consequences and major impacts on many individuals’ lives.
In November this year, the CEO of Seattle Children’s Hospital released an apology both via a press release, and an abbreviated version in a full-page ad in The Seattle Times.
After reading the Harvard Business Review article about the elements of an apology, I’ve analyzed the apology issued by Seattle Children’s Hospital CEO, Jeff Sperring, to determine if it includes the most important elements of an apology (the full apology can be found here).
1: Determine what you’re apologizing for.
Sucher and Gupta indicate that there are two types of issues: competence and integrity. An issue of competence stems from problems that relate to a failure of reliability. For example, when a product or service does not live up to its promise. A failure of integrity, however, is a failure of responsibility; or when a company does not treat stakeholders fairly.
Regarding Seattle Children’s Hospital, this is somewhat difficult to decipher as new information continues to emerge about the length and depths of the mold issue. What appeared to initially be an issue of competence, now may be a multi-year problem that continued to go ignored. Based on Sperring’s statement, leadership was unaware of the connections between the mold-induced illnesses. If this is truly the case, this would likely be considered an issue of competence, however the investigation is still ongoing, and it is possible new information indicates otherwise
2: Take ownership.
The article recommends that in the case of a competence problem, a company take ownership and issue an apology. It’s important that organizations clearly understand they did something wrong and that they understand exactly what was wrong.
In the statement, Sparring assumes ownership immediately. He uses verbiage such as:
“We’ve let [patients and families] down.”
“…we have not been successful.”
“I need to apologize to patients who developed infections and to their families … .”
He quickly assumes responsibility for the problem, addresses those impacted and apologizes.
3: Is the apology statement credible?
A statement needs to be factually true, include information publicly available (or that may soon be publicly available), and explain what went wrong. This may all seem obvious, but people are inclined to leave out details or make vague promises which can further damage an organization’s credibility.
In the November statement, Sperring addressed the newly uncovered issues, that the mold dated back to 2001 and led to death of five patients. He stated that, at the time, they assumed the events were isolated, but now believe there are connections between those and the recent deaths and illnesses. Again, he assumes ownership of and apologizes for these specific failures. Additionally, based on news coverage, it was a Seattle Children’s executive who initially shared this information with the public.
4: Does this establish goodwill?
How do you go about establishing goodwill? Keep the focus on your stakeholders, not you. Be detailed. Apologize in a timely manner.
For the most part, Sperring does keep the focus on the patients and families impacted by the tragedy, however, there are a couple of instances in which he brings it back to the emotions of Seattle Children’s. He opens the apology statement with, “This is a heartbreaking time for all of us at Seattle Children’s.” He also states, “This is devastating for [patients and families] – and for us.” While I believe he is trying to portray the weight of the situation and remorse felt by Seattle Children’s, I don’t believe adding in the “and for us” is necessary. It brings the attention back to their emotions, instead of solely remaining on those most impacted – patients and families.
Sperring goes on to refer to “every mom, dad or caregiver” they let down. He references specific dates and number of patients impacted by the mold, indicating he understands specific individuals were affected by this situation, not just the organization.
Finally, it’s our understanding that the new information was disclosed by the hospital on Monday, Nov. 11, and this statement was issued one week later. The sooner the better, however, given the details in the statement, we can assume that the organization waited to distribute it until their plan was in place and details were confirmed.
5: Does it assume responsibility over the long term?
Sucher and Gupta say it best in their article. “After all, an apology is just words if the company can’t show stakeholders that it will offer reparations or ensure the situation will never happen again.”
In his statement, Sperring indicated the hospital will be closing the operating rooms that tested positive for mold and that new filtration systems will be installed in every operating room and adjacent supply rooms. Additionally, in the statement issued in The Seattle Times print addition, Sperring indicated that Seattle Children’s is engaging independent experts to conduct a comprehensive review and “understand how [they] got to this point and how [they] can improve.” He clearly outlines a plan of action designed to immediately address the problem, providing details on the steps they will take.
Additionally, by bringing in experts, the organization is introducing unbiased opinions as well as introducing individuals that have no reason to be distrusted.
Overall, Sperring’s apology very closely follows the recommended steps and approach. From a communication perspective, it appears to be effective. He apologizes, takes ownership, is detailed, and outlines a solution. However, the errors that occurred go far beyond words. Only time will tell if the organization will be able to rebuild its trust with patients, families, staff, and the community at large.