If you’re in a public-facing role, you are likely to get caught up in some kind of “hot mic” event in which an offhand remark said in private gets aired publicly. (Indeed, this piece was inspired by the recent experience of a former colleague.) These events are embarrassing, and they almost always end with a standard—and unsatisfying—apology in which the speaker regrets the remarks and says that they did not mean them.
There are cases in which a leader really ought to apologize, or even step down, because of private-turned-public comments they make. Racist and sexist remarks undermine a leader’s credibility and can signal that they’re not fit for their role. Leaders who reveal in their private conversations that they do not have the institution’s best interests at heart also have a significant apology ahead of them.
However, in most cases, I believe a leader shouldn’t have to apologize for remarks made in private. Because, it turns out, leaders are human too and deserve privacy, just like the rest of us.
Leadership is stressful
Leaders of large institutions lead stressful lives. They are bombarded by requests and complaints and must deal with many people who want things. They have to face them all with aplomb. Most leaders in these roles are adept at putting on their game face and handling these moments gracefully. Periodically, they may lapse and have a more heated public exchange with someone than they intended. And in private moments, they may complain. When those complaints get recorded, it creates an opportunity for embarrassment.
The fact is that most leaders love their jobs and are dedicated to the institutions they run. The complaints they make in private moments are more expressions of overall frustration than they are complaints about particular individuals. And even when a leader does have a gripe about a particular person, they typically respect that person’s contributions as well.
There is a belief that leaders will maintain a superhuman ability to keep themselves in check at all times. Before everyone routinely carried internet-enabled recording devices with them, people had some expectation that they could have private moments in which they could let their guard down, particularly when talking with people with whom they have a longstanding relationship.
Which is why those apologies bug me. They feed into the narrative that those private statements are a better view into the attitudes of a leader than the leader’s public actions. They also imply that the leader did something wrong by having those private conversations. Both of those assumptions are a problem.
Normalize everyone’s right to private conversation
I think it is time that we start to normalize the importance of private conversations. If a leader says something that betrays a deeply inappropriate prejudice or attitude, that is worthy of an apology. Otherwise, a leader’s accomplishments are what really matters, and if they have a track record of contributing positively to their organization, that should speak more loudly than leaked remarks.
When played in public, those conversations are taken out of the social and emotional context in which they were spoken, and they are read later as if they reflect a more deliberate opinion on the part of the speaker than was likely intended in the moment. Indeed, these private conversations serve two important functions that would dampen leaders’ effectiveness if they had to monitor their speech at all times.
First, moments of petty whining (what the British call whingeing, a word I wish would catch on in the U.S.) serve a social function: to solidify the connections among people who are in similar roles. Often, these petty complaints exaggerate leaders’ true feelings for the sake of affiliating with their conversation partners. Having good relationships with these peers is important, and losing tools to cement these bonds would be a shame.
Second, leaders need to be able to discuss lots of things with each other. There is evidence that people may find some outcomes so distasteful that they would find it unbecoming if leaders even debated the issue and considered it seriously. For example, a university leader might need to consider a variety of options to cut costs. Faculty members might believe it unacceptable to close down a department or program. But leaders should not be penalized for considering all options, even ones that some people may object to on moral grounds. It is impossible to make good decisions in an organization without questioning deeply held assumptions.
If private conversations are routinely leaked, leaders may have concerns about discussing potentially controversial policy decisions, and this may ultimately hamper decision-making at the organization.
For this reason, a leader can express regret that a conversation intended to be private was leaked, but they should stop short of apologizing for having private conversations.
Â
