I tried to change the concept of "apologizing" a little
When I was working in America before, I shared an idea with the people I worked with.
In America, even when problems occur, customer support doesn't apologize first, right? But can't we modify the concept of apologizing a little? If we define apologizing as admitting our fault, then of course no one wants to apologize, and I understand that. Because if you don't know where the fault lies, you wouldn't just say 'We are very sorry!' just because they are a customer, would you? But if someone has some dissatisfaction, discomfort, or sadness in their relationship with us, can't we sympathize?
There's a cultural context, so the preamble is long (lol), but I asked this question. Then
"That's right, I can understand how the person in that position feels!" was the reply.
I see. This might work (smirk), I thought, and continued.
"Then, can't we say, 'We are sorry for how you feel'? That might ease their feelings, don't you think?"
"Certainly, maybe so." was the answer.
From here, the attitude towards customer support changed a little or not at all (lol).
Is apology a way to ease tension?
The character "謝" (sha) is a combination of "言" (gen, word) and "射" (sha, to shoot), meaning to release burdens and feelings from the heart into words, to release tension, and to communicate. Therefore, I believe the purpose of an apology exists separately from improvement actions to solve problems.
Well, Japanese companies often hold apology press conferences. They bow deeply, not looking up for several seconds, during which time photographers snap away.
The surroundings are, well, it's like they're about to put them on the pillory in a medieval square. If there are any punishments or penalties, the people around treat the apologizers like criminals.
This is tough. It's a waste if the sole purpose becomes just apologizing.
But I think this. If we go by the concept described above, apologizing as an initial action to relieve tension is fine, but
(What the stakeholders probably want to know is)
– Why did that problem occur? (Do you understand?)
– Have the root causes been analyzed?
– Are there solutions for them?
– Are these recurrence prevention measures or proactive prevention measures?
– Timeline, when will improvements be made?
– What measures and problems are expected until the improvement measures are implemented?
– Is there anything we need to do about it?
I think these are basic answers.
If there are items that cannot be answered at that time among the above items,
Setting a deadline for answers will clarify the progress at that time.
What the listener wants to hear, what they want to know is, Are these people going to be 'trustworthy people' in the future?
I think it's about understanding the root cause of the problem, that a mistake occurred but the problem won't escalate further, or having a timeline for when improvements can be made. (I also think there are parts that the listener should learn, such as that forcing de-escalation of tension away from problem-solving actions, like demanding apologies or prostration, is not effective for themselves.)
In the past, I worked in sales of electronic components in the manufacturing industry between South Korea and Japan, and for defective product countermeasures,
I often did this kind of communication work...
PS. If you're told to apologize! Be accountable! Then, of course, it's a tough job, so let's approach it with appropriate formats and methodologies (with only what's necessary as much as possible!) is what I think.
