You are called into your senior leader‘s office and asked to sit down. You noticed he seemed preoccupied and a bit sorry. Considering all the history of workplace chaos, your immediate thought was that you were going to be fired.
But instead of delivering the sad news, he said something you did not expect to hear—a sincere, honest apology. “Last week I cut you off during the meeting and excluded you from participating in the discussion and decision-making, which is your proper role for your project; I have realized that I acted wrongly. I must have made you feel terrible. I am very sorry.”
He immediately validated your feelings, and you gladly accepted the apology, leaving the conversation feeling relieved and validated. For the first time, you felt like “finally they see my professional role for what it is.”
But that conversation is exactly where the psychological trap may begin. Many, without realizing it, mistake emotional relief for change.
Apologies Don’t Mean They Will Not Do It Again
Consider a high-achieving professional, let’s call her Mary, who spends months dealing with a dysfunctional workplace system. For example, she was hired for one thing—to lead a project—then excluded and told what to do instead by an unclear authority figure. Eventually, her boss acknowledged the chaos of what happened, which produced genuine psychological relief, and maybe even forgiveness.
Fourie, Hortensius, and Decety (2020), writing in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, describe forgiveness as involving three interacting psychological processes: cognitive control, perspective-taking, and social valuation. Together, these processes can help a person to be receptive to the other person’s perspective and reassess the relationship. You may accept an apology but decide not to continue the engagement, or you may accept the apology and forgive, giving the relationship a second chance. Ricciardi and colleagues (2013), in their fMRI study, asked participants to imagine or recall hurtful interpersonal situations and instructed them to either forgive or hold a grudge. The fMRI data showed that forgiveness enabled the brain to use logic to calm anger. Holding grudges activated pathways of pain and anger. This tells us that forgiveness is partly an internal process; that is, if you see structural change without an apology, if a person reflects and adjusts their behavior, there may be reconciliation—resolving anger and resentment even when no formal apology was spoken.
When Relief Reduces the Pressure to Change
When our head hurts, and we take Tylenol, the symptoms may go away. When Mary was delivered an apology, it seemed similarly to relieve the symptoms of workplace dysfunction. An apology is a symptomatic solution that provides faster relief than the more difficult fundamental solution, like addressing your headache with a doctor who examines your body and psychological system to fix the root cause. Because an apology brings immediate symptom relief, attention and pressure can shift away from addressing the underlying cause.
An apology can sometimes play the role of a tension reliever. The employee may feel recognized, and the leader may feel that professional relationship issues have been addressed; this makes work-surrounded conflict feel less urgent. The problem arises when the clear air from an apology is mistaken for evidence that the issues have been solved, which can be a trap for conflict avoiders—as the same apology may be redelivered, undermining the moral value of apology and its force.
For example, if you were excluded, and then apologized to for it without moving forward with inclusion, that is not a repair. Repair may need to be matched to the problem’s structure. This creates a particularly confusing condition: high recognition, low agency. This distinction may be especially important for high-achieving professionals. They can be highly valued, praised, and relied upon, yet have little influence over the processes that shape the work.
Accept the Apology but Ask What Will Change Moving Forward
When someone delivers a sincere apology, you may choose to accept it as your professional courtesy. It is morally valuable when others recognize what was wrong, but that does not mean you must forgive. For true forgiveness, you need to see what will change moving forward and see them follow through. The goal is not to reject the apology or minimize its value; it is to ensure an apology isn’t treated as a substitute for fixing mistreatment.
When accepting an apology, look for a commitment to structural change rather than simply moving on. You may choose to ask, “Now that we agree on what went wrong, what structural changes can we make to avoid repeating the same mistakes?”
© 2026 Ekaterina Ricci. All rights reserved.
