To understand how we can repair relationships, it helps to start by understanding the nature of violations. And I'll start with a story about Kaileen Sosa, she was a one and a half year old. She was horsed around at home. She climbed up a couch, was playing with her brother, she fell off from the couch and hit her head. Her mom was so worried, she rushed her to Baptist Hospital, the nearby hospital. An x-ray was inconclusive, they decided to do an MRI. So they sedated her, so that she would sit still, one and a half year olds aren't great at sitting still. And they put a breathing tube in her, to make sure she'd get enough oxygen. Turns out the breathing tube became dislodged, she suffered permanent brain damage. What's interesting about this story is that the Sosa's never sued the hospital. They ended up becoming advocates for the hospital, and Ozzie Sosa, the father, said that he completely forgave the hospital. This is a remarkable transformation. That is, when they could have easily sued for a substantial sum of money, they could have become fierce adversaries. They actually became collaborative friends. And they did this because of the nature of the violation and the way Baptist Hospital apologized. So, we first think about some other violations, and I want to characterize these violations as being very substantial, we'll call them core violations. They strike at the very core, or essence of that relationship, and non-core violations, less critical violations. So first we'll go to Eliot Spitzer. Eliot Spitzer was the Governor of New York. And he rose spectacularly, he first was a District Attorney, and he built an incredible record of prosecution. A lot of prosecution with white collar crime, and that included prosecuting prostitution rings. He became the Governor in 2007. And he was known as Mr. Clean, and he promised this bringing ethics and integrity to the Governor's House. Now, he ran a very clean campaign. He was known to have these incredibly high ethical standards, until it all came crushing down. It turns out that Eliot Spitzer had been partaking in the very kind of crime he had been prosecuting. He had paid a substantial sum of money to Emperors Club VIP, this prostitution ring, this upscale prostitution ring. He ended up over a period of seven years, had actually very carefully figured out how to give them small amounts of payments that en-massed sort of almost $80,000 total. So here, he ends up falling from grace, because he had been soliciting, been participating in some of the very activity he'd also been prosecuting. So, he ends up resigning from the Governor's position, and he tries to rehabilitate his reputation, and just how damaging this was. That is, this is a core violation. It strucks to the very heart of relationship. He is known as Mr. Clean, and yet, this violation really represents the essence of who he is, and his relationship to the voters in New York. Five years later, he's running to be a city controller, a relatively minor office. He says, I'm hoping there will be forgiveness, I am asking for it. He doesn't even make it through the primary. So here, this core violation not only costs him his high perch as the governor, but it means years later, he's still unable to get traction, even for a relatively minor office. Next, we can think about David Letterman. David Letterman on the Late Show, a late night talk show host and comedian. And here he seems to make everything funny, now, he faced some sexual misconduct of his own. It turns out that he was accused of sexual harassment, having sexual relationships with interns and staff, but he's able to transform this into a joke. He talks about how I got in my car this morning, and not even the navigation lady would speak to me. So he's making light of this, and actually, this inappropriate behavior turns out to be a bump in the road for David Letterman, but it was terminal for Elliot Spitzer. That is, the relationship we have with David Letterman is as an entertainer, as a comic, and he maintains that form. And this violation doesn't derail us from the relationship that we have with him. Now, similarly, Martha Stewart, accused of insider trading, she ends up going to prison. Now, insider trading, however, is serious financial wrongdoing. And she lied to investigators, that's what really tripped her up. While she was in prison, she ends up doing just fine. Her K Mart products are selling well, ad sales in her magazine, Living, turned out to be fine. Her interior paint line is doing well. And Omnimedia stock, it took an initial hit, but it rebounds while she's in prison. And when she gets out of prison, she comes roaring back. So, she gets a show on the Apprentice. She goes back on daytime television, she ends up doing very well. This transgression is not a core violation for her. We turn to Martha Stewart for advice about what colors to use, how to decorate our homes, how to cook meals. That style advice she still got, and this is a non-core violation. Now, in contrast, when Arthur Andersen Accounting ran into trouble, that turned out to be terminal, that was a core violation. They built a brand for integrity, not just a last name, a lasting name. So, Andersen was their brand. They were signing off on accounting statements, and companies turned to them for that verification. But they signed off on misleading documents, and worse, they ended up shredding bunch of these documents in 2002 for Enron. Now, it turned out be, people made light of this too, I see from your resume, you spent time working at Andersen. And here, this resume's half shredded. Now, that's a little bit funny, but it wasn't funny for Arthur Andersen Accounting, Andersen Accounting was finished. That violation meant that companies could no longer go to Andersen for trusted verification of their accounting statements. That's a core violation. So, I want to think about when trust can be repaired, and I want to argue that even serious violations, like with the Sosa family can be repaired, but that requires serious work, and a very carefully crafted apology that requires both words and actions. But when we think about this violations, they are core violations struck at the very core of who you are, and what your relationship is, and non-core violations. So, for Arthur Andersen Accounting, that's a core violation. For Martha Stewart, that's a non-core violation. For Spitzer, it's a core violation. That is, we care about that integrity. That was his brand, that was his campaign, it's a core violation, he can't recover. But for David Letterman it's a non-core violation. Now, more broadly, we think about competence and benevolence or integrity violations. When it's a competence violation, we fell short. That is, we just didn't have the capability to do it. Those violations people are more easy, are more easily forgiven. That is, we forgive people for falling short if they were trying. But we feel as if it's an integrity violation is if they had bad intentions. And remember, with Arthur Andersen Accounting, that shredding, that shredding demonstrates some intentionality, thus they were trying to cover things up. That cover up suggests that they actually had bad intentions, and it's much harder to recover from bad intentions. So, the idea is that we have core violations, non-core violations, and we want to think about the competence and the integrity parts.
