The Problem with “Tough Guys” and Apologies

For some leaders, refusing to apologize is a sign of strength. Apologies are often seen as a weakness or as proof that a leader has lost control of the narrative. The louder the criticism, the more they resist saying “I’m sorry.”

Recent events show how flawed this mindset is. After Donald Trump shared – and later deleted – a video showing a blatantly racist clip of Barack and Michelle Obama, criticism came quickly from across the political spectrum.

But what prolonged the controversy wasn’t the post itself; it was the response. When confronted, Trump stated flatly, “I didn’t make a mistake.”

That statement perfectly illustrates why so many public apologies fail before they even start. What’s notable, however, is that this refusal to accept responsibility is no longer just personal; it has become institutionalized. Trump operates a communications apparatus designed to quickly and aggressively deflect blame or dismiss it as media distortion.

Karoline Leavitt gave a clear example when she scolded the news media, saying, “Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.” In such an environment, offering an apology isn’t merely discouraged; it is fundamentally incompatible with the messaging strategy. 

A helpful way to think about apologies comes from an unlikely source: Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In communication, especially with issues and crisis management, we constantly question whether a response is too much, too little, or just right. Apologies are no different. Does the situation call for one? And if so, will it land as too weak, overly apologetic, or just enough?

The problem isn’t that we apologize too often. It’s that we apologize poorly – or avoid it altogether.

As the importance of apologies has grown, so has the demand for them. But not because society has become more sensitive or civil. Increasingly, apologies are used as leverage – a way to put someone on the defensive. Perceive a slight? Demand an apology. In today’s world, it’s easy to see why leaders become defensive and why a blanket “never apologize” stance can seem appealing. Mitt Romney embraced that stance right in the title of his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. There’s an argument that we’re entitled to this because of all the good the country has done in the world. But a history of good deeds, whether personal, corporate, or national, doesn’t shield anyone from responsibility when serious mistakes occur. Banking goodwill may buy some benefit of the doubt, but it doesn’t excuse causing harm. 

After years of studying political, corporate, and personal apologies, I’ve realized it’s partly a discipline rather than a reflex – something that can be learned, refined, and measured. That realization led me to create what I call the 6 A’s of Apology: 

• Acknowledging that something has happened
• Authentic expression of regret
• Appropriate tone and language
• Acceptable location, determining who and how many receive the message
• Acting within the right timeframe
• Announcing next steps

No apology can begin without acknowledgment. When a leader says, “I didn’t make a mistake,” the process ends before it starts. No acknowledgment, no acceptance, no empathy, and no repair. What may feel like defiance to the speaker often registers as indifference to the audience.

Bad apologies generate headlines of their own and can cause real harm. Actions that should help heal can instead deepen wounds. Silence, defensiveness, or half-hearted apologies often do more damage than saying nothing at all. A slow, insensitive response can overshadow good intentions and magnify the fallout.

Good apologies, however, can defuse tense situations and reduce media attention. They tend to shorten controversies rather than prolong them. They reaffirm shared values rather than challenge them.

This is where so-called “tough guys” often go wrong. They confuse apology with submission and assume that admitting fault means losing power. In reality, refusing to apologize often signals insecurity – fear that acknowledging error will shatter a carefully constructed image of dominance. When that fear is reinforced by an institutional communication strategy built around denial, it predictably fuels escalation rather than projecting strength.

Leadership isn’t about never being wrong. It’s about how you respond when you are, since responses determine both the extent of the damage and how long it lasts. How you say “I’m sorry” might matter more than the original mistake. 

A sincere apology doesn’t weaken a leader. It demonstrates confidence, emotional intelligence, and moral clarity. The real weakness isn’t in apologizing; it’s in the inability – or unwillingness – to accept responsibility when it’s necessary.

Aaron Sorkin and I Have an Understanding

My eyes widened when I read the review in The New York Times. I was on the same page as Aaron Sorkin, writer of some of the most celebrated works of television, film, and Broadway. Well, the “same page” when it came to understanding what was really beneath the centuries old story of King Arthur and Camelot. 

A new version of “Camelot” is scheduled to open on Broadway in a few weeks, with its book rewritten by Sorkin. The NYT article said, Sorkin “has made the production one of the most anticipated on Broadway this year...”

A bold decision was made to eliminate the story’s supernatural elements. “That means Merlyn, who in the original is a magician who can remember the future... is now a wise tutor.” Yes! The hocus pocus in the Arthur stories is fun but there are much more serious and contemporary lessons to be drawn from Camelot.

“The most common description of Merlin is that of an elderly wizard with a long white beard, wearing a pointed hat and a flowing costume accented by stars and moons. He’s synonymous with magic and sorcery. But Merlin’s significance was not his ability to conjure or foretell the future. Above all else, this archetypal sorcerer was a mentor and adviser.” That was from my 2011 book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.

Merlin’s real mission was to educate Arthur, to expand his horizons, and prepare him for the challenges ahead. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King (from which the play and Disney’s Sword in the Stone were derived), a young Arthur queried, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin replied, “It is what I am for.” 

The magical part of Merlin wasn’t all fantasy writing, though. It helped tell the story of Arthur’s evolution from roughhousing boy to empathic leader. As a wizard, Merlin didn’t need to bring Arthur to other parts of the world to experience the different religions, cultures, and customs of humankind. Merlin turned him into a badger, fish, hawk, goose, and ant – creatures very different, more ancient, and with much wisdom to impart on the youngster.

The transfigurations into fur, fin, and feather (and bug) were a big part of the Merlin’s mentoring technique, which turned the learning process into adventures. Arthur was immersed in some dangerous places where he had to observe, adapt, and think quickly in his new surroundings. His abilities to react swiftly and smartly weren’t only important; they were essential. Later, as king, Arthur would leverage these experiences not only to better understand and connect with others, but also to win over doubters and adversaries.

Of course, much of the Camelot story revolves around the tortured relationships between King Arthur, Guinevere, his Queen, and Sir Lancelot, his best friend and general. “People think the show is about a love triangle, which of course it is,” said Alan Paul, artistic director of Barrington Stage Company. “But I really think it’s about the birth of democracy…”

Close, but not exactly. First, democracy was created in ancient Athens and second, Arthur wasn’t at all about abdicating in favor of elections. Arthur did, however, form a strategy of Might for Right – a way to channel the power of the knights to enforce his doctrine of fairness. But the people did not react well to what was coercion. 

“You will find,” he explained (in The Once and Future King), “that when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too. If I don’t stand for law, I won’t have law among my people. And naturally I want my people to have the new law, because then they are more prosperous, and I am more prosperous in consequence.”

Arthur did something we don’t see often enough in leaders today. He took ownership and had the courage to jump the rails when he saw the strategy failing. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method. He realized the populace needed to embrace change, rather than have change forced upon them without proper communication. He evolved Might for Right into Equal Justice – the creation of a new civil code to change the very nature of civilization, and the relationship between the government and the governed.

Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings – personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. The enduring qualities and complexities of human nature gave us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

10 Leadership and Management Lessons from John, Paul, George, and Ringo

Unexpected "Bonus Features" from Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back Documentary

Attention: This contains spoilers to The Beatles: Get Back documentary appearing on Disney+

Four hundred sixty eight minutes went by quickly but some reviewers said the run time for Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back was excessive. I wanted more.

This massive three-part "documentary about a documentary," as Jackson put it, envelopes you in the lives and interactions of John, Paul, George, and Ringo during the development of a TV show/film/album/concert in January 1969. It's chaotic, dramatic, eye opening, and inspiring. This crescendo of activity during a tight, self-imposed deadline gives me some fresh insights into the business, personal dynamics, and (unintentional) teachings of the one of the greatest rock and roll bands in the 20th century:

1. Vision, Goals, and Objectives. The initial goal of the project was amorphous. No one really knew what they wanted to accomplish and where they wanted to accomplish it. All they had was a deadline. The lack of direction was exacerbated by the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, often referred to as the "fifth Beatle." Paul tried to pick up the mantle of boss and it was clear that his style generated some resentment with the other "lads." But Paul had perceptive and in a brief period was able to evolve from dictatorial boss to engaged leader. It wasn't perfect but it was easy to see less autocracy and more conversation, more give-and-take. Eventually, Paul successfully gained agreement on what would and would not be acceptable project parameters.

2. Process and Time Management. I mentioned the deadline. Real deadlines are supposed to be hard and fast. As disagreements and confusion to what the end product(s) would be, however, timing slipped. Paul made numerous attempts to corral the attention, creativity, and energy of the band. He tried to emphasize the importance of discipline and the need to string all the individual gems they were creating into a coherent story. But with a combination of mixed messaging and confidence, he noted that "The best bit of us, always has been and always will be, is when we're backs-against-the-wall."

3. Humor. I didn't appreciate how much of a goofball John was until I saw this mini-series. To be fair, they all had their bouts of silliness. Their deep knowledge of rock history and musical versatility really came through during those playful scenes. I found it distracting at times but, thinking deeper, it was absolutely essential to their maintaining a bond and creative process. We all need relief valves; we all need some fun; we need moments to break things up in order to remain fresh.

4. Repetition and Drilling. For all the goofing around (see Humor above), these guys were pros. The Beatles knew they had a product to produce, fans to please, money to make, and increasing musical competition. One way to keep their edge was to perform flawlessly and to exteriorize the musical visions swirling around in their heads. While they discussed developing a set of 14 songs, they pursued quality over quantity - partly because they were diverted by some serious disagreements and blew past their deadlines - and ended up performing less than half of the songs they planned. (The good news is that - many of you know - the other material did get more fully developed later on.)

5. Risk Taking. The group hadn't performed for an audience for a few years by the time 1969 rolled around. Their compositions became more complicated, more physically isolating, and more reliant on technology gimmicks. The new project forced them back into close contact and to develop a playlist where it was all on them, live - no fancy effects, no back-up band. They felt exposed; it felt risky. But they agreed to take it on, which meant the need to iterate and test everything multiple times in order to gain assurance it would all work in a real-world scenario.

6. Compassion. One of the most dramatic moments occurred when George, feeling ignored and bullied, decided to call it quits. John and Paul acknowledged they hadn't adequately addressed "the festering wound" inflicted on George and, together with Ringo - I love that they call him Rich - set up two interventions to patch things up. They knew things went too far and had to acknowledge their part in what could be referred to as the Beatles break-up, Take One. Through the ups and downs, the creative differences, the sometimes heavy-handedness, and now the break up, we feel the camaraderie, the compassion. After all, their lives were entwined for years and one senses genuine affection they shared.

7. Giving and Receiving Feedback. Paul changed after that episode. He was much more careful about the way he delivered feedback. And he at least gave lip service to receiving it, too. But everyone joined in; they all gave each other notes and suggestions. Ringo, being the most placid, the most eager to stay out of the fray, was the most receptive. I'm speculating but the rediscovered collegiately, enhanced communication, and mutual respect might have been helped by a decrease or pause in drug use  --  a diversion caused by their newfound purpose and increasingly rigid schedule.

8. Seeking and Accepting Help. While they wanted to maintain a fresh, live performance, the group realized they needed some help - a fifth hand to round out some of their new creations. In came fresh-faced Billy Preston, whom The Beatles met during their days performing in Hamburg. (Preston was backing up Little Richard at that time.) Starting with some friendly jamming, John pushed to give him a seat at the table for the rest of the project. Paul worried initially that working with four was hard enough. Now, you can't imagine the song Get Back (or others) without his keyboard riffs.

9. Outside Life. Some of the most touching and humanizing moments came when family members and loved ones spent time in the studio. Yoko was a constant presence, practically joined at John's hip. (When a complaint surfaced about her, Paul voiced an immediate defense saying, essentially, that they were in love and it wasn't their place to judge.) But the biggest surprise was seven year-old Heather, Linda Eastman's daughter. One could see the stabilizing influence they both had on Paul. He was joyous, attentive and, as you probably know, ended up adopting Heather when he married Linda. It can't be work all the time. We need outside interests and outside support to make us whole.

10. Teamwork. While there is a clear need for individual thought, creativity is no one's personal domain. Yes, The Beatles had different strengths and this docuseries put that into plain relief. You need reality checks, pressure tests, and a group capable of refining and sharpening concepts. Baseball Hall of Famer Casey Stengel had it right when he said, "Getting good players is one thing. The harder part is getting them to play together." The Beatles saw the consequence of that - the risk of wasting efforts, raising conflicts, and alienating and demoralizing your most precious resources.

Go ahead and name a great leader or a great teacher and you'll always find flaws. The Beatles, one of the greatest, most creative musical groups in modern history are no different. "There's no goodies in it, there's no baddies," Jackson said. "There's no villains, there's no heroes. It's just a human story." Not just, Mr. Jackson. The resonance with the listening public, the impact of the lads from Liverpool will live on for a long time.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Predicting Change in the Age of Trump - We Need a T.H.E.M.E.

How long is too long to wait for change? If you’re at a red traffic light for more than a few minutes, you’re probably wondering if it’s broken and contemplating an isolated break with a societal norm.  

But what drives us to wait or to move on? I wrote about the change many predicted Donald Trump would make following his victory in the Republican primaries nearly five years ago. Surely, conventional wisdom dictated, he would pivot quickly from fiery agitator to energetic statesman. After waiting the duration of a campaign, a presidential term and then another campaign, I think it’s safe to say the wait is over. Change is not coming and it never will.

In 2016, a New York Times editorial (The Donald Trump Pygmalion Project) focused on Donald Trump’s behavior and how “Mr. [Paul] Manafort’s ambition is to turn this Eliza Doolittle into a candidate more acceptable to decent society, in time for the general election.” 

But too few were paying attention when Mr. Trump said, “I sort of don’t like toning it down.” That rare, honest admission should have been a clue. More questions needed to be asked; intentions should have been probed.

I love checklists and acronyms, and this looks like the perfect place for both. In politics, as in personal and business relationships, we need think about and evaluate others in terms of a THEME:

Transparent. Do we have a clear view into this person and his or her intent? Is what we see what we get?

Honest. Are rules, and the rule of law respected? Are we getting the facts, the truth or some belief, some wishful thinking? 

Empathic. Does this person really care about me, about others and the common good? What is this person’s motivation – is he concerned about helping others, greedy, or a narcissist?

Moral. What does this person value? Is there an understanding how his or her actions might affect others?

Ethical. What is the character of this person? Is this a principled person with a consciousness of his or her actions? 

This is the lens through which we need to view our leaders, colleagues, even friends and family members when it comes to gauging the probability of change. Of course, we need to remember that no one is perfect and giving the benefit of the doubt is generally better than immediately cutting off relationships. 

But when it comes to the current President, we already had years of answers to the questions in my THEME. We should have been able to avoid the mistake of the fabled frog. I’m referring to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog where the scorpion, unable to swim, asked a frog to ferry it across a river. The frog responded that it was afraid of being stung by the scorpion. The scorpion answered in logical terms: If I sting you, he said, then we’d both drown. Thinking the scorpion wouldn’t risk its own life, the frog allowed the creature on its back. Well, you guessed it. In mid-crossing, the predatory arachnid stung the frog. As they began sinking toward their deaths, the frog asked, “Why?” The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it. It's who I am." The echo of 2016 Donald Trump is loud and clear.

The frog did ask, though. He questioned. Sadly, he believed the lie. He hoped and trusted when he should have been skeptical and suspicious.

Too few challenged Donald Trump and still don’t, even after all the facts were in plain view: the self-dealing, the hush money, the loyalty tests, the muzzling of scientists, and the targeting of the news media as “enemies of state.” The passivity of some and the enabling by others empowered an unabashed, unaccountable, downright lawless Administration. After hundreds of years of steady though non-linear progress, our country has actually devolved. Americans are worse off now than in decades past. Our people are sicker, more polarized, less trusted. The planet is unhealthier, more fragile, less stable.

It’s not too late to reverse course. The whole country won’t respond right away and some people never will. But what differentiates us as human beings is that we’re able to learn, adapt, and progress. Let’s do that.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me @pauoestreicher.

Don’t Tell Me Your Troubles (in a Crisis)

Crises place unique pressures on leadership and management because, by definition, their courses are unpredictable. Yet, many crises have been well studied and a list of core communication principles has been established.

Of course, we should expect mistakes to be made. Too few scenarios are contemplated and too little rehearsal is conducted. And we will continue to see examples of absent, late or tone-deaf responses because of miscalculation, flawed judgment or bad advice.

So, it’s a little difficult to understand what motivated Binghamton University president Harvey G. Stenger to say the tragic murders of two students were “definitely the hardest thing that I’ve been through since I’ve been here.” Could The New York Times have taken him out of context? Was he misquoted? I like to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible but this does not seem like one of those cases.

This self-centered comment was reminiscent of former BP chief Tony Hayward infamous “I want my life back” statement during the throws of the Deep Water Horizon oil well disaster. The public was astounded and appalled by the lack of empathy.

There were other “Crisis 101” failures at Binghamton, including delays in sending out information and updates. And after one of the murder suspects was arrested, President Stenger was quoted in the Times saying, “You kind of learn on the fly on these things.” This might have been another true statement but not a wise one. He should have stuck with the second half of the statement when he added, “We want to make sure that if anything could have been done better, especially in the communication with our community, that we learn from that.”

In all the crisis manuals and case studies I’ve seen, this gets the least – if any – attention: Know the difference between openness and honesty. You should be honest always but the degree of openness is variable (based on confidentiality, security interests, etc.). Sure, crises are hard on leaders and there is a certain “seat of the pants” aspect to managing them. But keep those thoughts to yourself. Leaders must find a ways to show their concern, their compassion and their control of the response effort without seeking sympathy.

Crisis leaders create problems when they place themselves at the center of the response instead of those affected. They might honestly express their feelings but there are times when such openness is counterproductive.

I invite you to follow me here and on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Camelot Wisdom: 10 Leadership Lessons from King Arthur’s Court

I am sharing 10 bits of “Camelot Wisdom” to commemorate the publication anniversary of Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table. Not all of the actions and words from Camelot were examples we should follow, of course; there were many instances of what not to say or do. But this collection of 10 quotes from the legends (of the 150 in the book) holds strong relevance for us today. As Winston Churchill said, “The further backward you look, the further forward you can see.”

“He favours the young knights, and tries to help them win the spurs.”¹ Help others realize their potential. Coaching, teaching and mentoring must not be an optional activity for leaders.

“Learn why the world wags and what wags it.”² Having empathy - understanding and feeling what others feel - delivers competitive advantage. People want to advocate, work or vote for those who take an interest in them, and feel their pains and successes.

“But when men be hot in the deeds of arms oft they will hurt their friends as well as their foes.”³ Without maintaining calm and perspective in times of crisis, a lack of clear, considered thinking leads to poor decision-making and unintended consequences.

“I didn’t want to be conscious of it. I hoped that if only I was not quite conscious of everything, it would come straight in the end.”⁴ We must confront the hard, awkward issues. Denying reality may sometimes be required to maintain sanity but move past the anticipation and anxiety to address problems and opportunities.

“The destiny of Man is to unite, not to divide. If you keep dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees.”⁵ It can’t always be all-or-nothing; we should celebrate incremental advances. Communicate and engage with others to find common ground and compromise.

“I don’t think things ought to be done because you are able to do them. I think they should be done because you ought to do them.”⁶ There is importance in declaring your Mission, Vision, and Values; define and articulate objectives, direction, and principles. We can do well AND do good.

“Merlin made the Round Table in tokening of the world…”⁷ Round was more than a shape; the Table became a brand. It was a symbol of excellence. It enhanced communication and collaboration, and hosted a diversity of old and new – those with institutional knowledge and fresh ideas. Value was placed on the "roundedness" of people and teams.

“…many speak behind a man more than they will say to his face.”⁸ Behavior matters. Gossip leads to rumors, which lead to a breakdown in trust and organizational culture. Ensure the flow of good, timely information. Set an example and have the character and ethics to correct others.

“…you couldn’t get unless you gave. And you had to give without wanting to get.”⁹ One must not think of helping, contributing or doing good as a zero-sum game. We need a mindset, a culture of helping others to succeed – it strengthens everyone.

“Only fools want to be great.”¹⁰ Greatness is not an objective; it’s an outcome of planning, doing, giving and achieving. Leaders know the audiences/stakeholders they serve are the judges. They further those agendas above their own, and must have the vision to unify purpose and people.

There’s much more in the book, of course, but it’s clear that the trials and tribulations of Arthur and his court have much to teach the people, corporations, institutions and governments of today.

This article also appears in Medium. I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

1.     T.H. White, The Once and Future King, (1939-1958); Ace Edition (1987), p. 554.

2.     Ibid., p. 183.

3.     Ibid., p. 416

4.     Ibid., 579.

5.     Ibid., p. 231.

6.     Ibid., p. 246.

7.     T. Malory, Le Morte D’Arthur, (1469); Modern Library Edition (1999), p. 691.

8.     White, The Once and Future King, p. 347

9.     Ibid., p. 464.

10. Ibid., p. 180.

Harvey Weinstein Shows Us When Apologizing Makes Things Worse

The worlds of entertainment, politics and news media are still buzzing four days after The New York Times wrote about allegations that Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed a number of women over nearly three decades. People are talking about appalling behavior, attempts to keep things quiet through settlements, the courage of those who came forward to confront a powerful figure, and the silence of those who remain on the sidelines.

Do not expect this storm to pass soon. More voices will likely keep the whirlwind spinning. But this will also continue to get air and ink for some time because his botched apology became its own news story.

Of course, he thought he was doing the right thing. “I mean every word of that apology,” Mr. Weinstein told TheWrap. But he is also elevating the story by taking his case from the court of public opinion to a court of law. “The reason I am suing the New York Times is they didn’t give me enough time to respond,” he said. One of his lawyers added, the Times story was “saturated with false and defamatory statements,” which relied on “mostly hearsay and a faulty report.” 

So, immediately, his own apology is undermined. He says he’s sorry but is taking legal action because he claims the reporting was false and defamatory. And, remember, this has been going on for years. Blaming a time crunch for a hastily written apology seems ludicrous.

USA TODAY called it the worst apology ever. While quite awful – and we’ll dig deeper – it is not. I’ve written about some other real doozies: Paula Deen (the N-word), Mel Gibson (misogyny, anti-Semitism), Gruenenthal CEO Harald Stock (thalidomide) and Rush Limbaugh (Sandra Fluke) are but a few examples.

The Daily Beast took the Weinstein apology apart line by line and gave it a failing grade. I use an apology model – the 6 As – to provide some additional perspectives and an actual score:

Acknowledging something has happened. It’s notable that he does not describe the transgressions. The references are to “behavior” and “interactions.” It takes six lines to get to something resembling an acknowledgement. There’s an evasive feel to what should be a direct statement. Score: 6/10

Authentic expression of regret. “I cannot be more remorseful about the people I hurt…,” he said. And, he asks his victims to “trust me” when there is no reason to do so right now. He goes on to talk about his own “journey” to conquer his “demons.” While next steps are important (see below), this needs to be about those he hurt. There’s little evidence of understanding or compassion. Score: 5/10

Appropriate tone and language. The letter opens with a dreadful, illegitimate attempt to explain abuse as a learned behavior from the 1960s and 70s. “I so respect all women…” couldn’t ring any more hollow. Add in references to Jay-Z, the NRA, and organizing scholarships at USC and we’re left scratching our heads. Score: 5/10

Acceptable venue. The apology letter was sent to the Times in response to the about-to-be-published story. It was forced and it shows. An open letter is fine but it should be backed up by personal, private outreach. Score: 7/10

Acting in the right timeframe. Again, the timing was out of his hands because of the impending Times story. “I’ve been trying to do this for 10 years and this is a wake-up call,” he said. The apology is, in fact, decades late. Score: 6/10

Announcing next steps. He “brought on therapists” and asked one of his attorneys to “tutor” him. This is vague boilerplate. Mr. Weinstein concludes that he’s going to “channel” his “anger” in ways that “won’t disappoint” his mother. Thus, the letter ends about as off-topic as it began. Score: 5/10

The 6 As rubric weights the elements differently. So, my overall score –  and you may certainly have a different evaluation – works out to 55/100. An “F.”

Apologies have real consequences. Mr. Weinstein’s alleged actions have harmed women, broken trust and friendships, triggered termination from his company, and provided a healthy dose of schadenfreude to his adversaries.

Apologies can hurt you and others when they’re poorly conceived and executed. Sadly, in this case, what should be a step in healing has only made the wound deeper.

This article also appears in Medium. And, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.