Fireworks, barbecue, and a festive day off from work spent with loved ones. What more can we hope for as we welcome the Fourth of July?

How about an apology?

Though problems and conflicts aren’t typically what we look forward to for the holidays, they tend to happen anyway when family and friends get together. The good news is, there’s a way to get through it, and it often begins with two simple words: I’m sorry.

This week, Kellogg’s Harry Kraemer, a former chairman and CEO of Baxter International, discusses the power of apology, especially when it comes from the mouth of a leader. Plus, research reveals what it costs to make a mid-career pivot.

Apology accepted

All too often, an apology isn’t in the cards when the more-senior figure makes a mistake in many top-down relationships—like one between a boss and employee, or a mother and daughter.

This “never-apologize mindset” can be a weak point that bleeds through the culture of a team or an organization, writes Kraemer, a clinical professor of management and organizations.

“When someone refuses to apologize, they often want to appear strong and in charge,” he continues. “However, as I have observed in more than four decades in business, the root cause of their behavior is usually a lack of true self-confidence.”

In contrast, Kraemer has found that our willingness to recognize both our strengths and our weaknesses—which includes admitting when we make a mistake—reflects quality leadership. And this practice can, in turn, help others feel appreciated and inspire respect and trust moving forward.

“By accepting responsibility for what we did (or failed to do), offering an apology, and making amends by changing our behavior or rectifying a situation, we show strength—not weakness,” he writes.

Read more in Forbes.

The cost of pivoting

In life and work, it’s sometimes tempting to make a big change. But pivoting to new territory can actually be more taxing than we realize, says Benjamin Jones, a professor of strategy at the Kellogg School.

In a recent study, Jones collaborated with Kellogg’s Ryan Hill and Dashun Wang to better understand the consequences of tackling a new area at work.

Specifically, they developed a method to determine what happens when scientists shift gears and research topics beyond their typical area of focus, or when inventors and organizations create products outside of their wheelhouse.

After applying their method to 26 million research papers and 1.8 million technology patents over a roughly five-decade period, the team found that shifting directions significantly diminished the impact of the resulting papers and patents.

This outcome, which the team termed the “pivot penalty,” not only affected nearly all fields of research and classes of patents but also became more severe over time. “The further the pivot, the worse it seems to go,” Jones says.

“Exploration has always been an important part of scientific work,” adds Wang, “but our data show that when researchers move too far from their core expertise, they face steep penalties.”

Read more in Kellogg Insight.