Apologies and Transformational Leadership

Abstract

This empirical investigation showed that contrary to the popular notion that apologies signify weakness, the victims of mistakes
made by leaders consistently perceived leaders who apologized as more transformational than those who did not apologize. In
a field experiment (Study 1), male referees who were perceived as having apologized for mistakes made officiating hockey games
were rated by male coaches (n = 93) as more transformational than when no apology was made. Studies 2 (n = 50) and 3 (n = 224) replicated this effect in two vignette studies to enhance internal and ecological validity. Contrary to expectations
in Study 3, there were no apology×leader gender interactions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Full text

Apologies and Transformational
Leadership
Sean Tucker
Nick Turner
Julian Barling
Erin M. Reid
Cecilia Elving
ABSTRACT. This empirical investigation showed that
contrary to the popular notion that apologies signify
weakness, the victims of mistakes made by leaders
consistently perceived leaders who apologized as more
transformational than those who did not apologize. In a
field experiment (Study 1), male referees who were
perceived as having apologized for mistakes made offi-
ciating hockey games were rated by male coaches
(n = 93) as more transformational than when no apol-
ogy was made. Studies 2 (n = 50) and 3 (n = 224)
replicated this effect in two vignette studies to enhance
internal and ecological validity. Contrary to expecta-
tions in Study 3, there were no apologyleader gender
interactions. Theoretical and practical implications are
discussed.
KEY WORDS: apologies, moral leadership, transfor-
mational leadership
Introduction
‘‘If you have behaved badly, repent, make what
amends you can and address yourself to the task
of behaving better next time.’’ – Aldous Huxley
‘‘No sensible person ever made an apology.’’ –
Ralph Waldo Emerson.
With increasing media coverage of the self-serving
and often unrepentant behavior of certain corpo-
rate leaders, it would be easy to conclude that
modern leadership reflects the views of Emerson
rather than Huxley. While recent high profile
cases serve to reinforce waning public and em-
ployee confidence in corporate leadership, we
suggest that ethical leaders who attempt to ‘‘do the
right thing’’ with their words and actions will be
perceived as better leaders by followers. Instead of
denying their mistakes, ethical leaders apologize,
make amends, and take steps to avoid repeating
transgressions in the future. Indeed, some popular
writers have recently argued that apologizing is a
prerequisite for high quality leadership (Blanchard
and McBride, 2003; Lazare, 2004; Timson, 2003).
Although providing a genuine apology can be a
humbling experience, particularly for individuals in
leadership positions, research evidence is beginning
to suggest (e.g., Kim et al., 2004) that apologies
are critical in rebuilding and sustaining long-term
relationships.
While research and popular writings each point to
the interpersonal benefits of an apology, reports
suggest that sincere apologies actually occur rela-
tively infrequently in organizations (Timson, 2003;
Weeks, 2003). Two reasons might account for this.
Sean Tucker, MSc, is a PhD candidate in organizational be-
havior at the Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s Uni-
versity, Canada.
Nick Turner, PhD, is an assistant professor or organizational
behavior at Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University,
Canada.
Julian Barling, PhD, is a professor of organizational behavior
at Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University,
Canada.
Erin M. Reid, MSc, is an analyst in the Intergovernmental
Relations group, Human Resources and Skills Develop-
ment Canada.
Cecilia Elving, MSc, is a researcher at the Swedish Guide
and Scout Council.
Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 63: 195–207 Ó Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-3571-0

First, public admissions of fault are perceived by
many leaders as embarrassing, a sign of weakness that
threatens their authority (Jackall, 1988), even wors-
ening sensitive situations (Folger and Skarlicki,
2001). Second, organizational leaders are often
counseled that apologizing to the aggrieved could
expose the individuals or their organizations to liti-
gation (e.g., Neckers, 2002). In sharp contrast to this
apparent conventional wisdom, we suggest that
apologizing following wrong-doing will positively
influence leadership perceptions. In particular, we
believe that leaders who apologize will be perceived
as looking beyond self-interest for the good of the
relationship, thus embodying many elements of
transformational leadership (i.e., inspirational moti-
vation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration; Bass, 1998).
While the interpersonal effects of apology have
garnered increased attention, surprisingly little re-
search has examined the implications of an apology
on subsequent leader-follower relations. With few
exceptions (e.g., Giacalone and Payne, 1995;
Tomlinson et al., 2004), most studies on apologies
involve participants of equal role status in non-
organizational settings. In this paper, we present
three studies that examine follower perceptions of
leaders who apologize following misconduct. The
first study examines apology in a field context
involving ice hockey coaches. Studies 2 and 3
attempt to replicate findings in Study 1, enhance
internal and ecological validity, and explore the
effects of leader gender on perceptions of transfor-
mational leadership. Collectively, these studies pro-
vide compelling evidence that leadership perceptions
among followers are higher when an apology is
provided compared to when no apology is given.
The nature of an apology
Apologies belong to the class of speech acts known
as accounts, which are tools used to respond to
perceived offences or misunderstandings. Building
upon Scott and Lyman’s (1968) earlier work,
Schlenker (1980) classified accounts into four
categories: excuses, justifications, denials, and apol-
ogies (or concessions). Excuses involve admitting
wrong-doing but refusing to take personal respon-
sibility. Justifications are the opposite, involving an
admission of responsibility but a denial of wrong-
doing. Denials refute both responsibility and wrong-
doing. Finally, in an apology, the transgressor both
admits the act was wrong, accepts responsibility for
the offence, expresses empathy, offers penance, and
promises not to repeat the untoward behavior in the
future (Goffman, 1971; Schmitt et al., 2004).
Most explanations for the nature and conse-
quences of an apology fall under impression man-
agement theory. Goffman (1971) classified apologies
as a type of remedial work. Specifically, he used the
image of ‘‘splitting of the self ’’ (p. 113): one half of
the individual representing the wrongdoing, and the
other half sympathetic to the victim, hoping to be
forgiven. In a somewhat different view, Schlenker
(1980) argued that apologies are a more self-serving
impression management tactic that individuals use to
maintain their social standing and save face. From
both perspectives, apologies constitute a visible and
unambiguous behavior that enables victims to view a
leader’s behavior as a socially responsible reaction to
wrongdoing. A sincere apology signals vulnerability
and transmits moral meaning, allowing the repair of
interpersonal relationships to begin.
Research shows that apologies are complex speech
acts, which can have a range of positive effects,
including generating forgiveness (Exline et al.,
2004), restoring trust (Kim et al., 2004), reducing
aggression (Ohbuchi et al., 1989), enhancing future
relationship closeness, and promoting well-being
(Hodgins and Liebeskind, 2003; Witvliet et al.,
2002). Individual and situational correlates of apol-
ogies have included transgressor and victim gender
(e.g., Gonzales et al., 1990; Hodgins and Liebeskind,
2003), context of apology (Folkes and Whang, 2003;
Sigal et al., 1988), apology timing (Skarlicki et al.,
2004), perpetrator autonomy (Folkes and Whang,
2003; Hodgins et al., 1996), offence severity (e.g.,
Tomlinson et al., 2004), status of offender (Gonzales
et al., 1990), and degree of relationship (Hodgins and
Liebeskind, 2003).
While there has been considerable research
attention placed on understanding the nature and
consequences of apologies, research on the rela-
tionship between apologies and leadership is scant.
To our knowledge, only one laboratory-based study
of apologies has manipulated offender status
(Gonzales et al., 1990), and one study examined
follower reactions to excuses, denials, or justifica-
196 Sean Tucker et al.

tions offered by organizational leaders for decisions
(Schaubroeck et al., 1994). No studies directly
examine how followers perceive leaders who ac-
count for their mistakes with apologies. We believe
that apologies can play an important role in devel-
oping and repairing leadership perceptions in orga-
nizations, and ground this prosocial orientation in
transformational leadership theory.
Apologies and socially constructing leadership
Among all theories of leadership, transformational
leadership theory was the most frequently studied in
the 1990’s (Judge and Bono, 2001) and has been
shown in various contexts to be related to higher
socio-moral reasoning (Turner et al., 2002), in-
creased motivation (e.g., Charbonneau et al., 2001),
higher business performance (e.g., Barling et al.,
1996), and reduced workplace injuries (e.g., Barling
et al., 2002. Transformational leadership is primarily
distinguished from other theories of leadership by its
focus on follower development (Avolio, 1999).
Transformational leaders display four specific char-
acteristics: idealized influence, inspirational motiva-
tion, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. Idealized influence stems from lead-
ers’ ethical behavior. As role models, leaders build
respect and trust among followers. Leaders create
inspirational motivation by raising followers’ per-
sonal expectations and setting new, higher aspira-
tions for individuals and groups. Intellectual
stimulation is enhanced when leaders challenge fol-
lowers to think for themselves and re-consider old
problems in new ways. Lastly, transformational
leaders grant their followers individual consideration
by paying attention to their unique needs and abil-
ities (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999).
While a great deal is known about the effects of
transformational leadership, a key issue remains
unexamined: when and how do followers begin to
see leaders as transformational? In everyday life,
people may pay little attention to routine social
interactions (Berger and Luckman, 1966). In times
of crisis, however, individuals become more cog-
nizant of the behavior of others as they seek to
make sense of the abnormal situation. These situ-
ations may lead to the development of strong
impressions based on observed reactions and
responses of others, particularly those in positions of
authority. This perspective is consistent with a so-
cial constructionist view of leadership, which con-
ceptualizes leadership as constructed through
language, social interaction, and the formation of
shared meaning (Chen and Meindl, 1991). We
propose that followers’ lasting and most salient
perceptions of their leaders are primarily based on
distinct interactions that, while occurring relatively
infrequently, serve to punctuate or reinforce the
status quo. We will refer to these situations as critical
moments.
In organizational contexts, significant points in
time in working relationships provide opportunities
for supervisors and employees to construct leader-
ship. For example, how a manager copes with a
sudden drop in sales may function as an opportu-
nity for the employee to evaluate the manager’s
leadership skills. The manager who unfairly blames
employees for the decline is likely to decrease
subordinates’ perceptions of her leadership; the
manager who shares responsibility and apologizes
for acute problems may be perceived more posi-
tively. In these hypothetical but highly salient sit-
uations, the reaction to the critical moment
supersedes in importance previous taken-for-gran-
ted interactions with the leader, which followers
use as a wellspring of cues for forming leadership
perceptions.
Surprisingly, researchers have yet to test the
widespread belief in many managerial circles that
leaders should avoid apologizing for mistakes lest
they be seen as weak. In contrast, we hypothesize
that a leader’s apology for a transgression will en-
hance follower perceptions of their transformational
leadership for two reasons. First, when individuals
perceive their leader is fair based on the way he or
she behaves (e.g., apologizing), they are likely to
believe their leader engages in those behaviors
willingly. This is critical as one major component of
transformational leadership is idealized influence,
which is manifested when leaders act on their values
and are guided by their beliefs, choosing to do the
right thing (Bass, 1998). Second, leaders who
apologize will be seen as doing so because they care
for the individual and the relationship, which re-
flects individualized consideration, another integral
component of transformational leadership. We
argue that mistakes, wrongdoing, and other unusual
Apologies and Transformational Leadership 197

situations are critical moments that attune followers
to the behavioral intentions of their leaders. Fur-
ther, that apologies offered in response to these
types of incidents are associated with higher trans-
formational leadership perceptions. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1: Leaders who apologize for mis-
takes will be perceived as more transforma-
tional than leaders who do not apologize for
mistakes.
Research on gender and leadership indicates that
women struggle to be perceived as leaders in orga-
nizations (Liu and Wilson, 2001). A number of
studies have shown that women are rated higher in
transformational leadership than males (e.g., Bass
et al., 1996; Eagly et al., 2003), and that the com-
ponents of transformational leadership are more
consistently linked with positive outcomes than the
components of transactional leadership, on which
men on average score higher than women. There is
also some evidence suggesting that perceptions of
leaders who apologize may be influenced by leader
gender. Laboratory-based studies have found that
women tend to offer more frequent and richer
apologies than men (Gonzales et al., 1990, 1992). In
contrast, men are more likely to avoid apologizing,
and instead show a greater preference to use aggra-
vating accounts such as denials (e.g., Hodgins and
Liebeskind, 2003). However, Tata (1998) illustrates
what may be a gender bias among followers against
female managers. She found that female managers
were evaluated more harshly by subordinates than
male managers when they used aggravating accounts
(denials). The inconsistency between gender-fo-
cused research on transformational leadership and
apologies leaves us with a necessarily more explor-
atory set of research hypotheses regarding the
interaction of apologies and leader gender on
transformational leadership. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2a: Female leaders who apologize
will be rated more highly on transformational
leadership than will male leaders who apolo-
gize.
Hypothesis 2b: Female leaders who do not
apologize will be rated lower on transforma-
tional leadership than will male leaders who do
not apologize.
We conducted three studies to test our three
hypotheses (Hypothesis 1 and Hypotheses 2a and
2b). To our knowledge, no studies that investigate
apologies have been conducted in field settings.
Replication beyond the laboratory to situations that
maximize ecological validity remains a next step.
Thus, our first study tests the effect of apologies
offered by amateur ice hockey referees to competi-
tive level hockey team coaches for mistakes com-
mitted during officiating a hockey game.
Study 1
Method
Overview and context
This study was conducted in the context of referees
apologizing (or not) to amateur competitive league
hockey coaches for mistakes made while officiating a
game. Amateur hockey players who aspire to pro-
fessional careers compete at the competitive level for
positions on junior hockey teams, from which pro-
fessional teams recruit prospective players. The
opportunity to play elite hockey, and potentially be
rewarded with lucrative contracts in the future, raises
the salience of errors committed by referees in call-
ing plays. Indeed, hockey referees are frequently
targets of strong criticism from spectators, players,
and coaches for perceived errors (Irvin, 1997).
Referees do more than apply rules and procedures
to ensure fair outcomes between teams; they serve as
leaders when they seek to influence coaches and
players to engage in appropriate behaviors, and im-
pose penalties (discipline) when infractions occur.
Indeed, research suggests that amateur players per-
ceive sports officials as influential figures during
games (Wann et al., 2000). Further, studies of both
American college football officials (Ittenbach and
Elter, 1988) and German referees of a range of
competitive sports (Brand and Ness, 2004) found
that referees’ personality traits were similar to other
individuals with ‘‘well-developed qualities of lead-
ership’’ (Ittenbach and Elter, 1988, p. 121).
Reports of apologies offered by professional sports
referees and umpires to coaches, players, and spec-
198 Sean Tucker et al.

tators illustrate the complex roles and responsibilities
of these officials. Decisions by referees can have large
consequences for the outcome of a game, and as
many spectators and commentators attest (e.g., Irvin,
1997), mistakes are not uncommon although apol-
ogies are. Nonetheless, consistent with our first
hypothesis, apologizing may be an important way in
which referees can enhance their status as perceived
by athletes and coaches.
Participants
Head coaches of competitive level hockey teams
located in two geographically separated hockey
associations in Canada were invited by telephone
to participate in the study. Coaches were ran-
domly assigned to receive one of two question-
naires, which asked them to recall one of two
conditions: (1) a situation in which a referee with
whom they are familiar apologized for making a
mistake in a game; or (2) a situation in which a
referee with whom they are familiar did not
apologize for making a mistake in a game.
Questionnaires provided no definitions of what
constituted an apology or a mistake, asked
respondents to describe briefly how they felt about
the situation in which the mistake had occurred,
and contained the transformational leadership
measure described below. In addition, participants
indicated their own age, gender, number of years
coaching a competitive level team, and the gender
of the focal referee. Coaches were asked to return
their survey completed if they could recall the
situation assigned to them, and return it blank if
they could not. Four lotteries of fifty dollars each
were offered as an incentive for participation in
this study.
Three hundred and thirty-eight head coaches of
competitive level hockey teams (with players aged
8–17 years) agreed to participate and were sent
questionnaires, and 156 surveys were returned (46%
response rate). Of these, 94 were usable as the coach
had recalled the situation as described in their
instructions (43 for the apology condition, 51 for the
no apology condition).
The mean age of respondents with useable data was
42.35 years (SD = 6.83 years), all were male, had
coached an average of 7.89 years (SD = 6.66 years),
and all game situations involved male referees.
Respondents who recalled the situation described in
their instructions were, on average, 2.59 years
younger (p < 0.05) than those who did not, but did
not differ on amount of coaching experience. There
were no significant differences on demographic
variables for those in the apology condition versus
those the no apology condition. As transformational
leadership perceptions did not differ significantly
across demographic variables, we collapsed analyses
across age and coaching experience.
Measure
Transformational leadership was measured using a
modified version of Carless et al. (2000) seven-item
Global Transformational Leadership scale (see
Appendix 1 for the items). We chose this shortened
and validated scale instead of the more widely used
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and
Avolio, 1995) because of its brevity and clear uni-
dimensionality. We eliminated one of the seven-
items (i.e., ‘‘My leader fosters trust, involvement,
and cooperation among team members’’) given its
focus on team, instead of the individual relationship
with the leader represented in the remaining six
items. These items were adapted to fit the situation.
For example, one item was re-worded to state:
‘‘This referee approaches each game with a clear and
positive outlook.’’ Participants responded on a
5-point Likert scale measuring behavioral frequency
(0 = rarely or never to 4 = very frequently). The
coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.93.
Results and Discussion
Our first hypothesis was supported: referees who
apologized were rated by coaches as more transfor-
mational (M = 2.50, SD = 0.81) than those who
did not (M = 1.51, SD = 1.04), t(91) = 5.07, p <
0.001.
Results from Study 1 offered preliminary support
for the hypothesis that leaders who apologize for
mistakes are viewed as more transformational.
Nonetheless, despite the fact that the study was
conducted in a field setting, some limitations limit
the robustness of the main finding. First, the absence
of formal definitions of what constituted an apology,
and to a lesser extent what a mistake was, made each
phenomenon open to individual interpretation,
representing a possible threat to internal validity.
Apologies and Transformational Leadership 199

Second, while many referees influence coach
understandings and behaviors through open com-
munication and assessing fouls (e.g., punishment), the
relevance of this specific setting to the relationship
between leaders and subordinates in organizations
remains to be demonstrated. To overcome these
limitations, we conducted a second study to enhance
the construct validity of an apology, provide
respondents with a common mistake stimulus, and to
better reflect a more traditional leader-subordinate
interaction in an organizational setting.
Study 2
Method
Overview
To overcome these three potential limitations, we
conducted a vignette study. First, construct validity
was enhanced because four components of an
apology were included in the scenario to ensure that
all participants in the apology condition faced the
same social account. Second, all respondents reacted
to the same situation, involving an identical mistake
scenario made by a supervisor. Third, ecological
validity to leadership in organizational contexts was
enhanced because the scenario involved a supervisor
who either apologized or did not apologize to an
undergraduate student who did not receive their
wages due to an error maybe by the supervisor.
Participants
Fifty male students at a mid-sized Canadian business
school were recruited to participate in this vignette
study. The average age of the participants was
23 years (SD = 4.38). All participants received a
lottery ticket as compensation for their participation.
There was no relationship between age and trans-
formational leadership thus we collapsed analyses
across the demographic variable.
Instrument
The study used a between-subjects factorial design.
Participants were randomly assigned to either the
apology or no apology condition. In the apology
condition, a supervisor was depicted as taking
responsibility for a management mistake, expressing
empathy and regret, and a promise to change his
behavior following the transgression. Twenty-four
participants faced the apology condition, with 26
participants in the non-apology condition. Both
groups read a short scenario in which the trans-
gression was described as follows:
It is 2 months into your summer job at a large
firm in Toronto. You have been working hard
and getting along well with your manager, An-
drew. Next week is your week off, and you and
your friends have planned your first ever trip to
Las Vegas. Your parents disapprove of Vegas, so
you’re paying for it all on your own. You ha-
ven’t saved enough, but with this week’s pay,
you will be able to afford the trip. When you
check your bank account, it turns out you have
not been paid. You approach Andrew and ask
him where your pay check is. He says, ‘‘You
skipped work last week. So I told the payroll
department to dock your pay.’’ You did not skip
work that week; you were in fact working on a
special project in another department, to which
Andrew had assigned you several weeks ago, but
he had apparently forgotten. You explain this to
Andrew, then tell him you will have to cancel
your trip if he can’t pay you by the next day.
He responds:
For those in the non-apology condition, the vignette
closed with Andrew saying:
‘‘Oh – so then you didn’t skip work. Huh.
Unfortunately, I can’t do anything for you right
now – you won’t get the pay fixed for a month.’’
In contrast, Andrew responded as follows in the
apology condition:
‘‘Oh no! This is completely my fault – I shouldn’t
have been so hasty. Unfortunately, I can’t do any-
thing for you – you won’t get the pay fixed for a
month. I appreciate that this will make things dif-
ficult for you, I promise you, it won’t happen
again. Please accept my sincerest apologies.’’
After reading the vignette, participants completed a
questionnaire designed to establish the validity of the
manipulations and transformational leadership per-
ceptions. The first three items on the questionnaire
were manipulation checks. The first measured
whether participants believed that a mistake was
200 Sean Tucker et al.

made: ‘‘Putting yourself in the shoes of the student,
to what degree do you think that the manager made
a mistake?’’ The second item measured whether
participants believed that an apology had been of-
fered: ‘‘Putting yourself in the shoes of the student,
to what degree do you think the manager provide a
sincere apology?’’ The third item assessed the per-
ceived plausibility of the vignette: ‘‘This situation is
plausible.’’ Responses to all of these questions were
given on a 1 (not at all)to7(most certainly) scale.
Participants then completed the Carless et al.
(2000) transformational leadership scale as described
in Study 1. We again scored each item on the 5-
point Likert-type scale, and removed the item with
the team referent, leaving six items with a coefficient
alpha of 0.86.
Results
Manipulation checks
The manipulation checks confirmed the validity of
mistake, apology, and plausibility manipulations.
First, there was no difference between scenarios on
the perceptions that the supervisor had made a
mistake, t(47) = 1.06, ns. Across both the apology
conditions, participants believed that the manager
had made a mistake (M = 6.31, SD = 1.18). Sec-
ond, participants were more likely to believe that a
sincere apology had been offered in the apology
condition (M = 5.29, SD = 1.52) than the no
apology (M = 2.44, SD = 1.39) condition, t(47) =
6.87, p < 0.001. Third, the perceived plausibility of
the two vignettes was high (M = 5.69, SD = 1.23),
with no differences between the two apology con-
ditions, t(47) = 0.81, ns.
Transformational leadership perceptions
We then tested the hypothesis that perceptions of
transformational leadership would differ across con-
ditions. In the apology condition, the mean score on
transformational leadership (M =3.41, SD = 1.04)
was higher than in the no apology condition
(M = 2.79, SD = 0.97), t(47) = 2.17, p < 0.05.
Discussion
The results of Study 2 replicate and extend those of
Study 1: leaders were seen to be higher in transfor-
mational leadership after apologizing for a mistake
even after being careful to exclude possible threats to
construct and ecological validity. Together, there-
fore, the results from Studies 1 and 2 suggested that
male leaders who apologize for mistakes are per-
ceived as more transformational than male leaders
who do not apologize for mistakes.
Nonetheless, all the participants in these studies
were male, as were the referees and the manager
portrayed in the vignette, thus limiting the ability to
generalize beyond male dyads because of findings
showing consistent gender differences in transfor-
mational leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). As a result,
we conducted a third study that included an explicit
focus on whether leader gender moderates the effects
of an apology on perceptions of transformational
leadership.
Study 3
Overview
Study 3 had two aims. The first was to replicate the
findings of Study 2 in a vignette context in which
we provided participants with a common mistake
and a complete apology definition. The second
investigated whether the gender of the leader in the
vignette would moderate any effects of an apology
on perceptions of transformational leadership by
using both male (Andrew) and female (Anne)
supervisors in the vignette.
Method
Participants
Two hundred 24 students at a mid-sized Canadian
business school were recruited for this electronic
survey. The average age of the participants was
20.62 years (SD = 3.38). Of the participants, 48.2%
were male and 51.8% were female. All participants
received either bonus course credit or a lottery
ticket as compensation for participation. Transfor-
mational leadership perceptions did not differ sig-
nificantly by age or respondent gender, as a result of
which we did not include either variable as cova-
riates in the analyses.
Apologies and Transformational Leadership 201

Design
This study used a 2 (apology condition: apology
versus no apology) 2 (leader gender: male versus
female) between-subjects factorial design in which
participants were randomly assigned to one of four
conditions. There were between 49 and 65 respon-
dents in each condition.
Instrument
Participants were randomly assigned to either of the
two scenarios (apology and no apology condition)
described in Study 2 and completed the same ques-
tionnaire. As already noted, the scenario described a
mistake that was made over a summer student’s pay,
who as a result could not afford a much anticipated
vacation. Participants in the apology condition read a
scenario that described the supervisor apologizing for
the mistake (i.e., admission of mistake, accepting
responsibility, expressions of remorse, and an action
plan for the future). As in Study 2, the no apology
condition excluded these elements.
Results
Manipulation checks
Consistent with Study 2, the manipulation checks
confirmed the validity of the manipulations. There
was no difference among scenarios on the percep-
tions that the supervisor had made a mistake,
F(3,220) = 0.94, ns. Participants believed that the
manager had made a mistake irrespective of the
condition to which they had been assigned
(M = 6.42, SD = 1.15). With respect to apology
making, participants were more likely to believe that
an apology had been offered in the two conditions
containing an apology (M = 4.69, SD = 1.86) than
the two conditions containing no apology (M =
2.02, SD=1.29) condition, t(220) = 12.37, p <
0.001. Participants saw all scenarios as equally rea-
listic (M = 5.23, SD = 1.39), F(3, 220) = 0.53, ns.
Transformational leadership perceptions
A22 analysis of variance was conducted on partic-
ipants’ perceptions of transformational leadership,
yielding a significant effect of apologizing, F(1, 220) =
17.29, p < 0.001, and leader gender F(1, 220) = 3.66,
p < 0.05. As in Studies 1 and 2, leaders who apol-
ogized for the mistake (M = 3.16, SD = 1.07) were
rated more transformational than leaders who did not
apologize for the mistake (M = 2.57, SD = 1.06).
Male leaders (M = 2.99. SD = 1.10) received
higher transformational leadership scores than
female leaders (M = 2.71, SD = 1.09), regardless
of whether the leader apologized for the mistake
or not. There was no effect for the interaction
between apology and leader gender,
F(3,220) = 0.68, ns, providing no support for
hypotheses 2a and 2b.
General discussion
These studies represent a first attempt to examine
follower assessments of leaders after they apologize
for a mistake. In Study 1, we found that male ice
hockey referees who apologized to male coaches for
mistakes they made during games were rated higher
in transformational leadership than referees who did
not apologize for an error. Study 2 replicated and
extended the findings of Study 1. As the vignette
was situated in an organizational context dealing
with a supervisor-employee issue, and because a
specific definition of an apology was provided, both
internal and ecological validity were enhanced.
Again, the positive effect of apologizing on trans-
formational leadership perceptions was found.
Finally, in Study 3, we replicated and extended these
findings by manipulating leader gender using the
vignette used in Study 2. Collectively, these results
offer strong support that apologizing after wrong-
doing is related to higher perceptions of transfor-
mational leadership.
Transformational leadership has received consid-
erable research attention in the last decade more than
all leadership approaches combined (Judge and
Bono, 2001). However, studies have focused pre-
dominantly on demonstrating the effects of trans-
formational leadership. Our research considered
behavioral incidents that inform follower percep-
tions of transformational leadership. These findings
contribute to our understanding of the development
of leadership perceptions in organizational settings
via interpersonal accounts in response to critical
moments. Within this perspective, followers evalu-
ate their leadership qualities based on leader behavior
to such unique moments. These situations are salient
202 Sean Tucker et al.

to subordinates, and result in close evaluation of the
leader’s words and actions.
Any effects of an apology on leadership may be
especially important for transformational leadership
theory, as apology is particularly consistent with
two of the four components of transformational
leadership. First, apologies demonstrate idealized
influence, by emphasizing the importance of
behaving in an ethical manner and taking respon-
sibility for one’s actions. As Mills (2001) suggests,
leaders are ‘‘humanized by apologizing in a way
that a wrongdoer who remains silent and appears
indifferent to public opinion is not’’ (p. 115).
Second, apologies also show caring for the em-
ployee and the leader-employee relationship,
exhibiting individualized consideration.
The results of Study 3 did not support hypotheses
that leader gender interacted with apologizing to
explain additional variance in perceptions of trans-
formational leadership. We found that respondents
rated male supervisors in a vignette more transfor-
mational in both the apology and no apology con-
ditions. These findings are somewhat surprising
given findings from other studies which suggest that
females are generally rated higher in transformational
leadership (Eagly et al., 2003) and tend to offer more
and richer concessionary accounts for perceived
interpersonal breaches than males (Gonzales et al.,
1990, 1992). We offer three possible explanations for
these unexpected findings. First, we believe that the
relative infrequency of apology as an artifact of
everyday organizational life may partially explain this
finding. On one hand, there seems to be reluctance
among many organizational leaders to offer apologies
to subordinates because leaders are averse to volun-
tarily admitting personal mistakes. On the other
hand, while followers may desire that a leader make
amends for offences, they may also not expect an
apology based on their past experiences with leaders
and cynicism about leaders in general who appear to
put self-interest ahead of moral action. Thus, when
leaders voluntarily apologize for their misdeeds, it
can make a powerful impression on followers who
were not anticipating the apology. In Study 2, there
may have been an additive effect for male leader
apologies because participants expected them to
apologize less frequently for transgressions compared
to females. The relationship between the frequency
of apology and victim perceptions is an important
area that warrants future research.
A second possible explanation parallels Tata’s
(1998) findings regarding the harsher evaluations of
females’ social accounts in aggravated situations. The
vignette used in Studies 2 and 3 concerned a mistake
made by the supervisor, with all respondents
regardless of condition in these studies rating the
presence of a mistake by the supervisor as significant.
Under these conditions, the expectation of stereo-
typical female managers’ behaviors might be differ-
ent than stereotypical male managers’ behaviors.
More specifically, female managers might not be
expected to make such an error compared to male
managers, and are thus rated more harshly on lead-
ership behaviors. The more general evidence that
female managers are rated as more transformational
than male managers (Eagly et al., 2003) reflects a
range of circumstances, rather than a specific con-
text like in Studies 2 and 3 in which a mistake has
been made.
Third and finally, the design of Studies 2 and 3
implicitly assumed that no gender differences would
exist in terms of the manager’s behavior when the
mistake became known. All vignettes conditions
were held constant, and we changed only the man-
ager’s names (i.e., Andrew or Anne). In an organi-
zational context, female leaders may apologize in a
qualitatively different way than male leaders; indeed,
apology research suggests this to be the case (e.g.,
Hodgins and Liebeskind, 2003). This finding is also
consistent with research that suggests that women’s
perceptions are more strongly affected by expressions
of responsibility and regret than are men’s (Tata,
2000). Thus, leader gender may be more salient in a
less controlled, more ecologically rich research
design. In this vignette, we attempted to change only
gender, and not leader behavior, preferring to mea-
sure effects prompted only by gender categories,
rather than by stereotypical behavior. We believe this
austerity is another possible reason why an apology
by leader gender effect was not isolated.
Limitations
Previous apology research has identified a range of
correlates of apology effectiveness. Across the
Apologies and Transformational Leadership 203

current studies, we focused only on leadership and
gender. In Study 1, for example, the seriousness of
the referee’s mistake and the number of past mistakes
were not controlled. It is possible that the severity of
the mistake during a game (e.g., failure to assess a
penalty against an opponent early in a game versus
failure to call a penalty in the last minute of a close
championship game) influences transformational
leadership perceptions. Similarly, in Studies 2 and 3,
we did not manipulate the severity of the supervi-
sor’s breach. Gonzales et al. (1990) examined dif-
ferences between low- and high-status apologizers
and found that high-status actors may feel less pres-
sure to offer concessionary accounts for less severe
offences. For more severe offences, they found no
differences between low- and high-status actors. In
line with these findings, we would propose (all else
being equal) that leaders who apologize for less
serious offences would be rated as more transfor-
mational compared to leaders who do apologize in
these situations. This is an important issue which
future research might address.
In Studies 2 and 3, it is possible that the favorable
results are due in part to an unfair comparison
between the apology and no apology conditions
(Cooper and Richardson, 1986). Study participants
responding to the no apology condition were pro-
vided with a hurried and insensitive sounding
response by the supervisor who withheld part of
their pay. Some may see this response as unrealistic
and provoking negative feelings in the participant,
thus setting up a situation in which the apology
condition produced markedly better leadership
perceptions. Notwithstanding these concerns, we do
not think that the vignettes make an unfair com-
parison for two reasons. First, the manipulation
check of the apology and no apology conditions
showed no significant differences in realism. Second,
we argue that it is not unusual for some supervisors
to demonstrate a high level of insensitivity and
indifference in situations where they have made a
mistake (Jackall, 1988). This may occur when the
aggrieved subordinate is perceived as non-threaten-
ing (e.g., a summer student) or in times of organi-
zational performance problems (Folger and Skarlicki,
2001).
As with all vignette studies, there are questions
about whether participants would respond in the
same way to the hypothetical situation as they would
in real life. In the case of Studies 2 and 3, participants
may have felt it socially desirable to respond favor-
ably to the supervisor who apologized. It is possible
that study participants who were confronted by a
breach that negatively affected them may respond
less favorably to an apology. Moving research on
apologies in organizational contexts into the field, as
opposed to simulations such as vignettes, will
provide opportunities to externally validate the effect
of apologies on leadership perceptions.
Finally, while the apology condition in Studies 2
and 3 included many key elements of apology, the
respondent was not offered penance, which in this
case could have been a monetary amount in lieu of
the full amount of their pay check. Our intention
was to make the apology as salient as possible. To
do this, we intentionally left out an offer of resti-
tution to the aggrieved because we believed it
would dominate the four other elements of apology
in essence undoing the mistake from the perspective
of the respondent. Two recent studies found that
this specific element of apology has a particularly
strong effect (Bottom et al., 2002; Schmitt et al.,
2004).
Directions for future research
There is a need for more research on leadership and
apology, and in general, on the role of apologies in
organizations both as a conflict management and
relationship repair device. First, while there is ample
evidence that leaders are averse to apologizing, we
know very little about what leaders think of apolo-
gizing to subordinates. Qualitative research on
responses to critical moments would provide insight
into areas such as consequences on leader well-being
and self-perceptions before and after social accounts
are offered to followers.
Second, more research is needed on the contex-
tual boundary conditions that may influence the
effectiveness of leaders’ apologies. For example, Sigal
et al. (1988) found that political candidates were
rated higher by voters when they denied rather than
apologized for alleged misconduct. This suggests that
followers may be cynical of leader apologies in some
settings. Other evidence suggests that if an apology is
perceived to have a manipulative intent it may
aggravate a situation by decreasing follower percep-
204 Sean Tucker et al.

tions of fairness (Skarlicki et al., 2004). Finally, as
Giacalone and Payne (1995) found, apologies in
organizations were less effective when there is a
history of multiple offences. Taken together, these
findings suggest that leaders who apologize must be
sincere, learn from their mistakes, and avoid repeat-
ing untoward behavior. It may be that leaders
who set out to manipulate followers with insincere
apologies are taking a considerable risk to their
long-term social standing. These questions could
be addressed in longitudinal research on leaders’
apologies and follower assessments.
Third, Kim et al. (2004) emphasize the impor-
tance of distinguishing between competency- and
integrity-based errors in the context of apologies.
They found that participants trusting intentions
were higher when alleged offenders made apologies
(versus denials) for matters of competence and
denials (versus apologies) for matters of integrity. In
the current studies, apologies for mistakes based on
competence, rather than integrity, would be
expected to be more effective in rebuilding trust
and creating positive leadership impressions among
followers. Post–hoc analyses of open-ended survey
data collected in Study 1 revealed that coaches were
more likely to recall referees who had made mis-
takes based on perceived issues of competency (e.g.,
being out of position to see a goal scored) rather
than integrity (e.g., making biased judgments in
favor of an opponent). In Studies 2 and 3, the
supervisor’s breach related to mistakenly withhold-
ing compensation, which is also a competency-
based error.
Implications for practice
These findings have practical implications for leaders.
First, the consistent apology effect suggests that leaders
should re-consider current strategies of ignoring,
denying their mistakes, or blaming others for their
actions, and adopt instead a more proactive practice of
taking responsibility for their actions and, when
necessary, provide followers with sincere apologies.
From a critical moments perspective, leaders are clo-
sely evaluated by followers in non-mundane situa-
tions. This suggests that leaders should do what is
right, and not what is necessarily expedient or assume
that they can rely on accumulated social capital from
past interactions with followers to rise above errors.
Relatedly, we are careful to emphasize that in
presenting these findings, we do not advocate using
apologies as a way of deliberately enhancing leader
impressions, as Schlenker (1980) would suggest is a
significant motivation of social accounts. Instead, we
suggest that a genuine apology is the right thing to
do in the case of a mistake.
Conclusion
Our research underscores the powerful role that
apologizing can play in positively influencing fol-
lower perceptions of leaders, and, further, runs
counter to the popular belief that apologizing reflects
a sorry act of leadership. We found evidence that
apologizing is consistent with higher ratings of
transformational leadership. These findings address a
theoretical gap of when and how followers develop
perceptions of leaders, further establishing an
understanding of the critical moments that can build
and destroy leadership capability.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the assistance of local representa-
tives of two minor league hockey associations for
Study 1, Laurence Ashworth for help with the elec-
tronic survey for Study 3, and Kurt Dirks for stimu-
lating discussion. An earlier version of this paper was
presented at the 20th annual Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology conference, Los
Angeles, CA. Financial support from the Social Sci-
ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
helped to make this collaboration possible.
Appendix
Carless et al.’s (2000) Global
Transformational Leadership scale
1. My supervisor communicates a clear and
positive vision of the future.
2. My supervisor treats staff as individuals,
supports and encourages their development.
Apologies and Transformational Leadership 205

3. My supervisor gives encouragement and
recognition to staff.
4. My supervisor fosters trust, involvement
and cooperation among team members.
5. My supervisor encourages thinking about
problems in new ways and questions
assumptions.
6. My supervisor is clear about his/her values
and practices what he/she preaches.
7. My supervisor instills pride and respect in
others and inspires me by being highly
competent.
References
Avolio, B.: 1999, Full Leadership Development: Building
the Vital Forces in Organizations (Sage Publications,
London).
Barling, J., C. Loughlin and E. K. Kelloway: 2002,
ÔDevelopment and Test of a Model Linking Safety-
specific Transformational Leadership and Occupa-
tional SafetyÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3),
488–496.
Barling, J., T. Weber and E. K. Kelloway: 1996, ÔEffects
of transformational leadership training on attitudinal
and financial outcomes: A field experimentÕ, Journal of
Applied Psychology 81, 827–832.
Bass, B. and P. Steidlmeier: 1999, ÔEthics, Character and
Authentic Transformational Leadership BehaviourÕ,
Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 181–217.
Bass, B. M.: 1998, Transformational Leadership: Industrial,
Military, and Educational Impact (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).
Bass, B. M., B. J. Avolio and L. Atwater: 1996, ÔThe
Transformational and Transactional Leadership of Men
and WomenÕ, International Review of Applied Psychology
45(1), 5–34.
Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio: 1995, The Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, CA).
Berger, P. and T. Luckman: 1966, The Social Construction
of Reality (Anchor Books, New York).
Blanchard, K. and M. McBride: 2003, The One Minute
Apology (HarperCollins, New York).
Bottom, W. P., K. Gibson, S. E. Daniels and J. K.
Murnighan: 2002, ÔWhen Talk is not Cheap: Sub-
stantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in
Rebuilding CooperationÕ, Organization Science 13(5),
497–513.
Brand, R. and W. Ness: 2004, ÔRule Administration and
Game Management: Qualifying Characteristics of
Referees in Sport GamesÕ, Zeitschrift fu
¨
r Sportpsychologie
11(4), 127–136.
Carless, S. A., A. J. Wearing and L. Mann: 2000, ÔA Short
Measure of Transformational LeadershipÕ , Journal of
Business and Psychology 14(3), 389–405.
Charbonneau, D., J. Barling and K. E. Kelloway: 2001,
ÔTransformational Leadership and Sports Performance:
The Mediating Role of Intrinsic MotivationÕ, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 31(7), 1521–1534.
Chen, C. C. and J. R. Meindl: 1991, ÔThe Construction
of Leadership Images in the Popular Press: The Case of
Donald Burr and People ExpressÕ, Administrative Science
Quarterly 36(4), 521–551.
Cooper, W. H. and A. J. Richardson: 1986, ÔUnfair
ComparisonsÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 71(2), 179–
184.
Eagly, A. H., M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt and M. van
Engen: 2003, ÔTransformational, Transactional, and
Laissez-faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-analysis Com-
paring Women and MenÕ, Psychological Bulletin 129(4),
569–591.
Exline, J. J., R. F. Baumeister, B. J. Bushman, W. K.
Campbell and E. J. Finkel: 2004, ÔToo Proud to Let
Go: Narcissistic Entitlement as a Barrier to Forgive-
nessÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(6),
894–912.
Folger, R. and D. P. Skarlicki: 2001, ÔFairness as a
Dependent Variable: Why Tough Times Can Lead to
Bad ManagementÕ, in R. Cropanzano (ed.), Justice in
the Workplace: From Theory to Practice 2 (Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NH), pp. 97–118.
Folkes, V. S. and Yun-Oh Whang: 2003, ÔAccount-giv-
ing for a Corporate Transgression Influences Moral
Judgment: When those Who ‘‘Spin’’ Condone Harm-
doingÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1), 79–86.
Giacalone, R. A. and S. L. Payne: 1995, ÔEvaluation of
Employee Rule Violations: The Impact of Impression
Management Effects in Historical ContextÕ, Journal of
Business Ethics 14, 477–487.
Goffman, E.: 1971, Relations in Public: Microstudies of the
Public Order (Basic Books Inc, New York).
Gonzales, M. H., J. H. Pederson, D. J. Manning and D.
W. Wetter: 1990, ÔPardon my Gaffe: Effects of Sex,
Status, and Consequence Severity on AccountsÕ, Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(4), 610–621.
Gonzales, M. H., J. M. Debra and A. H. Julie: 1992,
ÔExplaining Our Sins: Factors Influencing Offender
Accounts and Anticipated Victim ResponsesÕ, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 62
(6), 958–971.
Hodgins, H. S. and E. Liebeskind: 2003, ÔApology Versus
Defense: Antecedents and ConsequencesÕ, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 39(4), 297–316.
206 Sean Tucker et al.

Hodgins, H. S., E. Liebeskind and W. Schwartz: 1996,
ÔGetting Out of Hot Water: Facework in Social Pre-
dicamentsÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
71(2), 300–314.
Ittenbach, R. F. and B. F. Eller: 1988, ÔA Personality
Profile of Southeastern Conference Football OfficialsÕ,
Journal of Sports Behavior 11(3), 115–125.
Irvin, D.: 1997, Tough Calls: NHL Referees and Linesmen
Tell Their Story (McClelland & Stewart Inc, Toronto).
Jackall, R.: 1988, Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate
Managers (Oxford University Press, New York).
Judge, T. and J. Bono: 2001, ÔFive-factor Model of
Personality and Transformational LeadershipÕ, Journal of
Applied Psychology 85(5), 751–765.
Kim, P. H., D. L. Ferrin, C. D. Cooper and K. T. Dirks:
2004, ÔRemoving the Shadow of Suspicion: The
Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing
Competence-versus Integrity-based Trust ViolationsÕ,
Journal of Applied Psychology 89(1), 104–118.
Lazare, A.: 2004, On Apology (Oxford University Press,
Oxford).
Liu, J. and D. Wilson: 2001, Ô The Unchanging Percep-
tion of Women as ManagersÕ, Women in Management
Review 16(4), 163–174.
Mills, N.: (2001). ‘The New Culture of Apology’, Dissent
(Fall), 48(4), 113–116.
Neckers, B. W.: 2002, ÔThe Art of the ApologyÕ, Michigan
Bar Journal 81(6), 10–11.
Ohbuchi, K., M. Kameda and N. Agarie: 1989, ÔApology
as Aggression Control: Its Role in Mediating Appraisal
of Response to HarmÕ, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 56(2), 219–227.
Schaubroeck, J., D. R. May and F. W. Brown: 1994,
ÔProcedural Justice Explanations and Employee Reac-
tions to Economics Hardship: A Field ExperimentÕ,
Journal of Applied Psychology 79(3), 455–460.
Schlenker, B. R.: 1980, Impression Management: The Self-
concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations
(Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA).
Scott, M. and S. Lyman: 1968, ÔAccountsÕ,
American
Sociological Review 33, 46–62.
Schmitt, M., M. Gollwitzer, N. Fo
¨
rster and L. Montada:
2004, ÔEffects of Objective and Subjective Account
Components on ForgivingÕ, Journal of Social Psychology
144(5), 465–485.
Sigal, J., L. Hsu, S. Foodim and J. Betman: 1988, ÔFactors
Affecting Perceptions of Political Candidates Accused
of Sexual and Financial MisconductÕ, Political Psychol-
ogy 9(2), 273–280.
Skarlicki, D. P., R. Folger and J. O. Gee: 2004, ‘When
Social Accounts Backfire: Effects of a Polite Message
or an Apology on Reactions to an Unfair Outcome’,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34(2), 322–341.
Tata, J.: 1998, ÔThe Influence of Gender on the Use and
Effectiveness of Managerial AccountsÕ, Group and
Organization Management 23(3), 267–288.
Tata, J.: 2000, ÔShe Said, He Said. The Influence of
Remedial Accounts on Third-party Judgments of
Coworker Sexual HarassmentÕ, Journal of Management
26(6), 1133–1156.
Timson, J.: 2003, ‘The Sorry State of Apology’, The Globe
and Mail, March 19: C1 and C6.
Tomlinson, E. C., B. R. Dineen and R. J. Lewicki: 2004,
ÔThe Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim
Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Prom-
iseÕ, Journal of Management 30(2), 165–187.
Turner, N., J. Barling, O. Epitropaki, V. Butcher and C.
Milner: 2002, ÔTransformational Leadership and Moral
ReasoningÕ, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(2), 304–
311.
Wann, D. L., L. A. Metcalf, K. R. Brewer and H. D.
Whiteside: 2000, ÔDevelopment of the Power in Sport
QuestionnaireÕ, Journal of Sport Behavior 23(4), 423–
443.
Weeks, H.: 2003, The art of the Apology, Harvard
Management Update (on-line edition), http://hbswk.hbs.
edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=3481&t=career_effectiveness.
Witvliet, C. V. O., E. L. Worthington, Jr. and N. G.
Wade: 2002, ÔVictims’ Heart Rate and Facial EMG
Responses to Receiving an Apology and RestitutionÕ,
Psychophysiology 39, S88.
Queen’s School of Business
Queen’s University
Kingston,
Ontario, K7L 3N6,
Canada
E-mail: stucker@business.queensu.ca
Apologies and Transformational Leadership 207