Should leaders automatically apologise when a crisis hits?

The recent BBC issue with President Trump's January 6, 2021 rally speech and Optus Triple-0 outage has reignited this debate.

Public, media and political pressure for a quick “sorry” is always immediate — but the decision to apologise is far from simple.

Media commentators, political figures and the public often view an apology as the most basic gesture of accountability – along with giving them a headline, or a ‘quotable quote’.

However, there is a cautionary tale to this call. For Executives and Public Relations practitioners, the decision to say “sorry” should not be taken for granted. It is far more complex than it appears.

The expectation that leaders should apologise in times of crisis has been shaped heavily by corporate case studies since the 1980s.

All research shows that a sincere expression of regret can humanise an organisation, demonstrate care for those affected, and form the foundation for rebuilding trust.

The word “sorry” carries this emotional and reputational power. But contrary to what many say, it does carry legal consequence. Understanding this duality is essential!

In Australia, apology laws offer some protection in civil proceedings. In many states, an apology that expresses sorrow — such as “I am deeply sorry for what has occurred” — cannot automatically be used in court as proof of liability. The intention behind these laws is clear: they encourage organisations and individuals to show empathy without fear that doing so will be used against them.

But the situation is not straight forward.

If a leader goes beyond acknowledging harm and implies fault - for example, suggesting that negligence caused the harm - these protections may weaken.

Further, apologies made in public forums, including press conferences and Senate hearings, do not shield organisations from regulatory or criminal investigation.

Agencies like ACMA, coroners, or safety regulators can still examine the facts, request documentation, and take enforcement action regardless of how sincerely a CEO has apologised.

This is where good crisis leadership requires nuance.

Empathy and respect must be conveyed clearly — without unintentionally conceding wrongdoing before the facts are established. An effective apology acknowledges harm, validates the experiences of those affected, and commits to remedy, without rushing to legal admissions.

For instance:

• Empathy shows understanding of the impact: “We are deeply sorry for the distress and harm caused.”
• Respect recognises those affected and their dignity.
• Accountability focuses on what will be done next to help prevent recurrence.

None of the points raised in this article are suggesting that in moments of public pressure, “sorry” should not be avoided — but the points do highlight that it must be used with intention. Leaders who express empathy and respect thoughtfully can help maintain trust, while still protecting their organisation’s legal and reputational position.

The lesson is not to withhold apology, but to make it wisely!

Don’t cave in to the pressure calls for the ‘sorry’ statement, but plan as to when and how it should be used.

For more insights on tailoring issues and crisis management processes, talk with the team at Robert Masters & Associates