Apologies are legion in political, civic and dispute resolution spheres. Labor arbitrators attest that an apology from the grievant does not matter in determining his or her decision in a case-only the facts matter. The results from this experimental design of U.S. arbitrators indicate that apologies do matter.  Sincere apologies, offered either early or late, significantly increase the probability of reinstatement or reduction of discipline in 1) insubordination cases to do with profanity, 2) insubordination cases involving failure to follow an order and 3) sexual harassment cases.  The only factor which is more important in predicting a positive outcome for the grievant is his or her seniority.  The characteristics of the arbitrator do not have an effect on outcome. This presentation will include what the theory indicates about the elements of a sincere apology and how insincere apologies can be worse than no apology.  

Michele Hoyman is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA and currently a Visiting Fellow at the School of Politics and International Relations at ANU. Her current areas of research have focused on the determinants of social capital, the role of social capital in promoting economic development, and how apologies impact labor arbitration outcomes. Recent publications in these areas have included “The Role of Social Capital for Economic Development Outcomes in the United States” at Economic Development Quarterly (in press), “Testing the Relationship Between Nonprofit Organizations and Economic Development” at Nonprofit Policy Forum (2014), and “The Role of Apologies in Labor Arbitration Outcomes” at Southern Illinois Law Review (in press). In addition to these publications, her article “Does Place Matter? Exploring Variation in Social Capital Across United States Counties” is under review at State Politics and Policy Quarterly.