I have a faulty short-term memory, so I often pick fights with my husband over issues I’ve forgotten we resolved, like who should wake up when my three-year-old decides to start her day at 4 a.m.

Suffice it to say I’ve had to become very familiar with the words “I’m sorry,” though they aren’t always easy to eke out.

Humility is an important quality in a leader. This week, Kellogg’s Mohanbir Sawhney offers a primer on how, when, and why to say you’re sorry—and mean it.

Plus, we delve into research on how much boycotts affect a company’s bottom line.

The art of saying “I’m sorry”

“I’m sorry” can be a consequential phrase. Saying it can leave your ego vulnerable, change your leverage in future disagreements, and disrupt your sense of power.

Even so, it’s important to admit fault when you’re in the wrong. This is especially true for leaders hoping to earn back the trust of colleagues, teams, or customers after a misstep.

“‘Sorry’ is not a request for instant forgiveness. The goal is not to erase what happened. It is to create conditions where trust can grow again,” Sawhney writes in a post on the topic.

He offers a few pointers for making effective apologies:

First, before offering any context for your mistake—which can be seen as you trying to shirk responsibility—start by acknowledging the hurt your actions caused.

Next, offer relevant repair, which can come in the form of truth, transparency, or restitution. Follow that by making one visible change that the other person can see. When tempers have cooled, circle back with the person to determine whether your actions have been sufficient or if further adjustments are needed.

“Closure is earned by follow-through,” he writes.

Finally, replace the word “but” with a period. “But” blunts the reality of the harm caused. So, instead of saying “I’m sorry I snapped, but I was stressed,” you’ll get more mileage with “I’m sorry I snapped. Here’s what I’ll do differently.”

Read or watch more on LinkedIn.

How effective are boycotts?

If ever there was a time for consumers to influence corporate behavior, it’s the holidays: a period upon which many companies rely to close out the year in the black.

Boycotts are a commonly used tactic for exerting that influence—and are common when reacting to political or social positions the companies or their leaders hold. But how effective are they, really? After all, for every internet campaign a person or group launches to boycott a company, another camp, supportive of that company’s position, may urge their followers to stage a “buycott.”

Business leaders want to understand how social-media outrage affects their bottom line, says

Anna Tuchman, a professor of marketing at Kellogg.

“While there have been a lot of boycotts in the past, there are more buycotts happening now,” she says.

To find out what really happens to consumer behavior—and sales—when a company finds itself in a political social-media storm, Tuchman and coauthors studied the experience of Latin-food purveyor Goya after CEO Robert Unanue made inflammatory remarks about immigration in July 2020.

The comments drew backlash in the form of a boycott, with the hashtags #Goyaway and #BoycottGoya trending on Twitter. Meanwhile, a #BuyGoya and #BuycottGoya countermovement picked up steam.

Tuchman and her coauthors found the buycott effect swamped the boycott action, and sales actually increased. But the impact evaporated in just a few weeks.

It’s a counterintuitive result, Tuchman says. Calls for a boycott often outnumber those voices who offer the company support on social media or in news articles. “In the absence of sales data, you’d think it’s probably catastrophic for the brand.”

Read more at Kellogg Insight.