[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Is that so? Every other school around here does all that. Maybe that's just this area then or something. Sounds pretty lucky you didn't have an annoying seating plan D: But I wouldn't wanna be with all the guys, ew. LOL.

>_>

I went to a state school (aka, one you DON'T pay for, public, private, blah blah blah are terms that are confusing) It's the most average school you'll get, slap bang in the middle of the league tables, in the middle for the area, in the middle for money spent on it

So,

Actually, come to think of it, you could choose whether or not to be 'segregated'. If you picked GCSE PE, then boys and girls were mixed. Everyone else was just in girl and boy groups because they didn't really care about PE. It wasn't strict though to be honest, if the guys were playing football and we were doing something else, you could just go and join them if you wanted to. To be honest, it seems like it was done for practical reasons rather than anything else. It's easier for them to just say - girls over there, boys over there, instead of fiddling around with alphabetical orders and all that. (PE teachers are lazy Lol I so hated PE.)

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.

To adress the whole apology thing, I do feel our opinions are different. I still kind of don't get why you need a big 'explanation.' I would consider myself a good manager for NOT asking for a big explanation because it would show I have faith that they will not do it again, and an apology is enough to show their sincerity. Asking for anything more than that just seems like I'm suggesting they are untrustworthy, and making a big deal out of being 5 minutes late.

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.

'I'm sorry I'm late, I slept in.' Would be enough for me. 'I'm sorry,' is a term that means to me that you understand your mistake and you won't do it again. 'I slept in,' is the reason, the admission of guilt, taking the blame yourself. If you need to justify your apology, then I would feel you are being unsincere about saying sorry, since you need to elaborate on it.

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).

Maybe you are always asked 'why,' but I never am. Maybe it's not that 'nobody cares,' it's just that people have enough faith in you to know that you aren't going to do it again. And if you say you aren't going to do it again, then don't. If it's something ongoing and unavoidable, which means in the future you could be late again, that's where an explanation is needed.

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.