Negotiation Strategies: Tips for Establishing Connection and Optimizing Results
Series: Part 8
In negotiations – whether in business deals, labor disputes, or diplomatic talks – language is currency. Words can bridge gaps or widen chasms. Among these words, a few stand out for their emotional weight and strategic complexity: “I’m sorry,” “I apologize.” Despite its simplicity, an apology is often avoided in negotiations, delayed, or delivered with caveats. But why is saying sorry so hard? And what happens when one party finally musters the courage – or strategic clarity – to offer an apology?
The Power of An Apology
Fundamentally, an apology acknowledges harm. In everyday life – like where a surgeon errs and harms a patient during surgery – a timely delivered, genuine apology can nullify the patient’s decision to sue for damages later. In one study, entitled Apologies and Medical Error, Jennifer Robbennolt found that: “…patients were less likely to indicate they would seek legal advice when the physician assumed responsibility for the error, apologized, and outlined steps that would be taken to prevent recurrence.”
In negotiations, especially those following a rupture – like a breach of contract, a broken trust, or a controversial decision – apologies can be powerful tools to rebuild relationships and reset the tone. They humanize the process, shifting dialogue from positions and demands to a shared understanding.
One important point before we continue: “TO HAVE THE MAXIMUM EFFECT, APOLOGIES SHOULD BE MADE IN PERSON, ON A ZOOM CALL, OR ON THE PHONE.” Since they must be perceived genuinely, believably, and sincerely, the intensely human nature of apologies calls on the totality of our primal, emotional and intuitive senses to be delivered and “heard.”
Research in behavioral economics and psychology confirms what we know intuitively: a sincere apology can reduce anger, increase empathy, and pave the way for compromise. In many cases, it doesn’t even need to be tied to tangible compensation to have a meaningful effect. The act of acknowledging harm and “seeing” the other party’s pain is often what matters most.
And yet, despite this power, apologies are often conspicuously absent at the bargaining table.
Why Apologies Are So Rare
Negotiators, especially in high-stakes or adversarial settings, are trained to avoid signs of weakness. An apology, they fear, could be interpreted as an admission of liability or guilt – paving the way for legal exposure or demands for restitution. In business and legal contexts, this fear isn’t unfounded. There are real risks associated with apologizing, especially when litigation is ongoing or threatened.
And then there’s ego. To some negotiators, the process is a fight for power, and saying sorry can feel like conceding ground. When parties are entrenched in their positions, an apology might seem like unilateral disarmament. Moreover, many people – especially in cultures where honor and face-saving are paramount – find it personally difficult to say sorry, even when they recognize fault.
Finally, there’s timing. A premature apology can be seen as insincere or manipulative; a late one viewed as too little, too late. Knowing when and how to apologize is an art, not a science.
Strategic Apology: Sincerity and Savvy
At its core, an apology doesn’t have to be a sign of weakness. When used strategically – and sincerely – it can be a form of strength. The key lies in how it’s framed.
Consider the difference between:
- “We regret any inconvenience caused.”
- “We’re sorry for the impact our decision had on your team, and we take responsibility for the oversight.”
The former is a classic, insincere non-apology: vague, generic, and designed to avoid liability. The latter acknowledges harm, specifies the nature of the wrongdoing, and expresses a willingness to take responsibility – without necessarily conceding the entire negotiation.
Strategic apologies are most effective when they follow certain guidelines:
- Acknowledge the specific harm. Don’t generalize or equivocate.
- Take responsibility. Avoid shifting blame or using passive voice.
- Express genuine remorse. Tone and delivery matter as much as content.
- Outline corrective steps. Show a path forward that restores trust.
Occasionally, apologies wind up being reciprocal. If the parties have no real animus towards each other but just got caught up in an aggressive moment, one side’s sincere apology is often followed by the other’s – an acknowledgement that both sides contributed to the breakdown. These mutual apologies – when sincere – can wipe the slate clean and help both parties move past entrenchment.
Apologies in Reinsurance Disputes
One arena where apologies are woefully absent but are particularly delicate, yet potentially impactful, is in disputes between insurers and reinsurers. At bottom, these relationships depend on a foundation of trust, clarity, and utmost good faith. And when large losses arise – especially in complex claims such as catastrophe events, asbestos exposure, or long-tail liabilities – disputes over coverage, notice, or claims-handling practices can become contentious.
Especially (but not exclusively) if one side surprises the other, ceding companies may feel abandoned or blindsided by reinsurers questioning claims or raising a “laundry list” of issues. Reinsurers, on the other hand, may view late notice or the provision of incomplete or inconsistent documentation as a breach of contract or good faith. If tensions escalate and parties retreat into defensive postures, even longstanding business relationships can wear thin or break down.
In this context, a well-considered apology can serve as a pressure valve, provided it correctly acknowledges the specific reason for the other side’s concern and accepts responsibility for the confusion. For example, a reinsurer could say, “We regret that our reservation of rights letter came across as overly expansive or aggressive. That was not our intent, and we value the trust we’ve built with your team. Please let us better explain our position and forge a mutually acceptable path forward.”
This apology hits all the marks noted above: it acknowledges the specific harm (‘our reservation of rights letter came across as overly expansive or aggressive’), takes responsibility (‘We regret that …[and it] was not our intent’), expresses genuine remorse (‘…we value the trust we’ve built with your team’), and outlines corrective steps (‘please let us better explain our position and forge a mutually acceptable path forward’).
Similarly, an insurer who acknowledges, “We understand that the timing of our notice did not meet your expectations, and we are sorry for the resulting complications. Can we discuss what happened and move this matter forward?” may take the sting out of a procedural misstep and keep the reinsurer at the table.
These apologies do not concede the merits of the dispute. Rather, they acknowledge the emotional and relational elements that fuel conflict. In an industry where ongoing partnerships are critical – and where players may find themselves on opposite sides of a dispute today, but aligned again tomorrow – preserving relationships is a strategic imperative.
Although not the topic of this article, in arbitration or mediation settings where confidentiality is preserved, the fear of legal exposure from a genuine apology is reduced. This creates a space where parties can express regret, even responsibility, without the same level of risk.
Be Careful, Apologies Can Backfire
Not every apology works. If it seems forced, overly rehearsed, or designed to grab a tactical advantage, the apology can appear to be manipulative. As a result, a party may feel their pain was co-opted for leverage, rather than genuinely acknowledged.
Sometime the recipient rejects the apology, seeing it as insufficient or insincere. In high-stakes negotiations, especially where past betrayals loom large, forgiveness is not automatic, and it will take more than a few words to right the relationship.
Moreover, some negotiators misuse apologies to deflect responsibility. “I’m sorry you feel that way,” for example, is not an apology – it’s a subtle form of blame-shifting. In this sense, a bad apology can do more harm than no apology at all.
The Cultural Dimension
Different cultures treat apologies in radically different ways. In some East Asian contexts, an apology is a vital part of conflict resolution and not necessarily an admission of guilt. In contrast, in many Western contexts – especially in the U.S. – an apology is closely tied to liability.
Successful negotiators need cultural fluency. What might be a necessary gesture in one setting could be misunderstood in another. The key is to understand the underlying values and expectations of the parties at the table.
Apology as a Bridge
Ultimately, an apology is a bridge – between past harm and future possibility. It doesn’t resolve all issues, nor does it replace material concessions or structural change. But it can lay the groundwork for trust, humanize the interaction, and remind both parties that behind the numbers, contracts, and talking points are real people.
In an era where negotiation is increasingly about managing relationships, not just dividing spoils, the ability to apologize – and to accept an apology – may be one of the most underrated tools in the negotiator’s toolkit.
1 “Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word” is the title of a 1976 ballad by Elton John, written by Elton John and Bernie Taupin.
2 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2628492/#:~:text=They%20found%20patients%20were%20less,recurrence%20%5B38%2C%2039%5D
