>_>

So,

My question would be if that was equal opportunity movement, or if it was limited to girls. As long as the option for members of either group to crossover to the other group exists, I see no problem. If girls could join boys, but boys couldn't join girls, in some ways I might see that as worse.

I don't need a big explanation. I need a small, to the point explanation. All I need to know is the reason and how a plan of action will prevent that reason for reoccurring. And a lot of this is hypothetical, my attempt to use the various scenarios suggested by you.

In most jobs I have been in, five minutes late wasn't even noticeable. Five minutes late to a specific meeting might be, it would depend on what was being covered how disruptive being late would be.

If I was five minutes late to work in my current position, no one would even notice. First class doesn't begin until 0855, and although there is a very brief "good morning everyone" it does not occur until a full ten minutes after the "on time" time of 0820. And this is a Japanese position. In the United States, I would expect this to be even looser (as has been my experience).

In the Navy, this is quite a bit different. Being five minutes late to muster is just as bad as being five hours late to muster if you're enlisted. The only thing you'd be expected to say in public would be "No excuse, sir." In private, you would be asked for the reasons and the plan of action. If you refused or equivocated, you would be counseled. In the case of other mistakes, like perhaps a disruptive disagreement, I would suggest you look at the "silver surfer" incident from Crimson Tide. That is, in my opinion, a good example of officership in regards to apologies and explanations.

For officers, being five minutes late to O-Call isn't nearly as big of deal (it's a lot more corporate), and you probably wouldn't even be asked for an apology the the first time. The more I think about it, if you were late again, you probably still wouldn't be asked for an apology. In fact, you would be asked why you were late and how you were going to fix it, and not an apology at all. I think in that case saying "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" would be seen as the equivocation! And that would not be very healthy, because it would be guaranteed to piss off the executive officer. I can just hear the XO now, "I don't give a good God damn if you're sorry. I only care what the hell you did, why the hell you did it, and how the hell you expect to fix it." Let's just say XOs are generally very colorful individuals, and what is considered "professionally acceptable" speech is very different in the Navy. That behavior wouldn't be acceptable in most civilian corporate structures.

What seems to be the issue is the belief that a request for a reason and a plan of action is suggesting that there is no trust between senior and subordinate. This isn't the case at all. Now if the senior checked up on the subordinate after receiving the reason and the plan of action, that would demonstrate a lack of trust.

From my point of view, I'm sorry shows remorse. But you can show remors for repeated actions you have no intent to cease. You can even show remorse for actions which you are justified in having done. Showing remorse is not the same as an apology. In a very extreme example, I'm sorry that I had to kill that terrorist when I launched a bomb at him, but I didn't make a mistake in doing so. I may say sorry to his family, and I might wrestle with my conscience, and I would be worried if I didn't, but I would do it again.

A reason shows why you understand that the mistake was yours. A plan of action shows your commitment to the promise you made to prevent it from happening again.

Your word "justify" is at the heart of our disconnect. There is no attempt at justification. Justification would eliminate guilt, and apology would not be necessary. "I killed the terrorist, but he was attempting to shoot civilians" is a justification that eliminates guilt, but it doesn't (and I hope to God it never) eliminates remorse. I'm sorry is part of an apology, but it does not stand alone as an entire apology.

If I made a mistake, and I accept that mistake is mine, I have the obligation to show more than just my remorse. I have an obligation to show remorse, account for my actions, and offer evidence of my commitment to change. That is an apology (tack on "in my opinion" of course).

Well, given my outstanding evaluations over the years, I don't presume anyone fails to trust me or lack faith in me. And as stated, just because I expect a full apology, doesn't mean I lack faith in or fail to trust my subordinates. If I did, I wouldn't ask them for a plan of action at all- I would write it for them as I would a child, and any adult I have to provide a plan of action for is an adult I need to fire.

It really does boil down to a cultural thing. If an explanation is an expected part of the dialogue, then you would be remiss in not providing it. If an explanation is an integral part of your sincerity, you will be upset to find your sincerity questioned.

This reminds me of an old story about two captains of scouting parties from different nation states meeting for the first time. They approach each other differently. One with a weapon out, pointed towards the other, one with a weapon sheathed. Both consider each other hostile and charge. This event causes a war between the nation states. Years later, the survivors make peace and attempt to find out what went wrong:

In one culture, showing your weapon is a sign of respect, a way of saying "You are my equal." In the other, showing your weapon is seen as, "I'm hostile, I plan to attack you." A sheathed weapon would be disrespectful to the first culture (taunting, really, "You are not my equal, I don't even need to bother to pull my weapon, you are so inferior"), and respectful/peaceful to the second.

This is precisely what we have here. Actions (through words) that have entirely different meanings depending on the culture. Hopefully no one is going to die over it, but it does show the difference between intent and perception, and how they can breed ill feelings.

We need to be aware of these differences before we accuse someone of insincerity or equivocation.

I think that is OK if you are dealing with children, but with adults this sounds strange to me. Beyond "why" to require an action plan on how it will not happen again, again might be OK for children, but if you were my supervisor I would seriously consider filing a complaint or looking for a new job. That is incredibly condescending.

I have worked for a handful of Japanese bosses, and 1 minute late has been enough to merit a comment.

One time I was supposed to pick up a client at 8:00 AM. At 8:03 I received a call from my boss asking me where I was. The client had called him at 8:01 to complain I hadn't arrived to pick him up. Now when I deal with Japanese men I show up 15 minutes early, and find that often times, they are already there.

I think we are seeing Navy thinking versus civilian thinking.

I think it shows a lack of respect, which is fine for a teacher to student or a sergeant to private, but doesn't work in the workplace or between equals.

I'm sorry doesn't excuse the behavior, it shows an admission of error, or in other words, remorse.

If it were to happen again and again "I'm sorry" is going to clearly mean less and less and will soon become unacceptable as the speaker clearly isn't feeling remorse, as the behavior hasn't changed.

"My mom forgot to wake me up," does not show remorse or understanding the mistake was yours.

Even "My mom forgot to wake me up, so I am not going to trust her to wake me up anymore," is still lame, as you are blaming your mom, but then are taking responsibility for her inaction.

Again, this sounds like military protocol, but not how civilians act.

If any of my friends "offered evidence of his commitment to change" after showing up late, I would just scratch my head. If a date did that to me, I doubt I would be asking for a next date.

Okay, we need to back up. I'm going to presume "you" is proverbial here, and not addressed to me specifically. I'm not sure you read everything between my response you posted above and now, because the unsuitability of that "apology" was already addressed.

You are absolutely right that the "but" negates the apology. I even said so in the previous post. But implies justification, which implies lack of guilt, and that negates any acceptance of guilt.

I did say I was trying to reformulate the apology MissMisa wrote, and I clearly failed. I have said earlier it was a bad example. I have also previously admitted that such an apology as the one above is unrealistic.

Please go back and consider my "schedule" apology which is far more realistic.

It was directed at the wordy apology you made a page or two ago, but if you have decided it is not a realistic apology, that is good enough for me.

This is your perception, not my intent. All this does is provide more evidence for what I have already stated. You may disagree with my managerial style, but it is unfair to attribute condescension to me. My respect for you as a valued member of the team is why I would ask in the first place! If I didn't respect you, I would not care, I would not ask, I would assign you a plan of action, and I would fire you if you did not carry it out. I certainly wouldn't do that to you unless I believed you to have thoroughly earned such treatment.

I've heard this. I've dealt with this on rare occasions. I always try to show up ten minutes early every where I go period. In any culture. My point was that even different jobs have different views. Even in Japan.

In the case of the XO, certainly, but I have spent far more time as a civilian. I don't speak for the Navy, I am trying to describe my own experiences with in it as both subordinate and as senior. This is to give a wider range of experiences, not to suggest it is my only experience.

I disagree. It's the child or trainee I wouldn't even expect the ability to formulate a plan from. My belief in your abilities to do so shows how much I respect you as a person capable of doing so. That I wish to work with you on your plan of action shows that you matter, you can certainly refuse my help, and I won't hold it against you, but I'm making myself available in case you need me.

I do not concur that remorse is an admission of error. I can be remorseful about an action that I felt was not a mistake. I'm sorry alone does not an apology make. In the example I offered above, I'm sorry I killed the bad guy. I didn't make a mistake.

See above.

Addressed.

I think you're getting hung up on that. It constitutes a minority of my experience, although I admit it does constitute my first experiences (an admitted bias).

We were speaking professionally. I would indeed just say sorry to a friend and leave it at that. There's a good chance he or she already knows about the reason. In detail. In minute detail. Or is about to find out shortly.

If a date did that to you on the first date, I would find it odd as well. You have no continuous relationship. A girlfriend is something else entirely. If you've never offered evidence of a commitment to change in a committed relationship, I would be very surprised.

I was attempting to reformulate MissMisa's apology into one that had what I considered the requisite parts of an apology. There is absolutely no way I would have such a situation occur to me, so I can't say how exactly I would apologise for it.

I think you are mixing up the uses of "I'm sorry".

"I'm sorry about your father's death" is not an apology for any action the speaker did (assuming, of course, he didn't cause the father's death).

That is very different from "I apologize for your father's death" which is an admission of guilt.

So saying "I'm sorry" is showing remorse, but is not necessarily an admission of guilt.

However, an admission of guilt without any remorse is not an apology.

"I was late. So what?" is an admission of guilt without showing remorse.

I think you can show admission of guilt and show remorse in a mistake you made by apologizing and saying "I'm sorry."

As for the military comparison, I don't think I am hung up on it, I am just saying it appears they do things differently than the civilian world, which might help explain your perspective that the non-military members here do not share.

As an adult, I would not take your action plan to help ensure I am not tardy again as condescending. Supervisor or not, I would not take it as showing me care or respect. I would call it demeaning. They may do this in the military, and maybe it is because they can, but I don't think this would work in the working world unless it was something I thought I needed your help with.

This is a valid disagreement on the nature "sorry."

This is not remorse. This is empathy. The two are not the same. I do not mean this use of "sorry."

I concur on your conclusions, but I do not concur on the above premise that being sorry for someone's condition is the same as being remorseful.

I concur with this, and have already stated it. A apology is made up of parts. Those parts together create an apology. And admission of guilt without remorse is definitely not an apology.

I agree. We disagree on what constitutes an apology beyond "I'm sorry."

There some fairly large differences, yes. However, there are others who have expressed knowledge of the "Trust, but verify" approach to apologies. Not all of them have been in the military. I am not alone. I was putting forward a theory as to why non-Americans think Americans equivocate or deflect blame. If I give an apology in sincerity, with all the parts I consider necessary for an apology, than I am not equivocating or shifting blame. I am doing the opposite.

I think we have a misunderstanding. I have no interest in providing a plan of action for you. Helping you, yes, if you need it. That's part of my job. You're an adult, if you understand your mistake, you should be able to come up with one on your own.

Only if you prove yourself incapable of doing so would I do it for you. And that is way beyond the scope of an initial apology.

Our disagreement stems from whether it is reasonable or not to expect and/or ask for that plan of action to be briefly outlined. I think it is. You think it is not.

So in the end, the reason we disagree is because what you think the word 'sorry' means is different to what I think it means.

With my example, 'I didn't wake up because my alarm batteries ran out and my mum didn't wake me up' would you accept it would have just been better to say, 'I'm sorry I'm late.'? Or what would you actually say instead?

I'd never do this either, but if someone ended up doing it, they'd have to figure out how to say sorry somehow.

Yeah, I went to a public school as well! It had a pretty decent reputation, but I think it was still near the middle of the league tables! Only thing I can say with certainty was that, it wasn't the best, and it wasn't the worst, lol.

In my area, all the private schools were single sex schools, so our topic doesn't come into it.

I think there were good and bad things about the mixing for PE. For one, that's where I changed my mind about girls' abilities. Before playing basketball with girls, I always thought that girls were "weaker" at sports than boys. But I found that some girls were bad-ass and were running circles around us boys lol. But on the negative side, the boys were less serious and didn't play properly when there were girls. They always wanted to flirt or something!

To be honest, I think the best thing to do, is mix PE class but have levels. So, the best play together, the worst together. Just like they did in all the other subjects! I spent 1 week in the worst math group there was, and I wanted to kill myself! When they moved me up to a better group with everyone having the same level, I felt like I was learning!