.png)
3 hours ago
1
If you stay in a company long enough and keep pushing yourself to do bigger things, something will eventually go wrong. You’ll spot the mistake too late and your stomach will sink.
Most people react in two ways: they either over-apologize and look unreliable, or they deflect and look defensive. Both reactions destroy trust in different ways.
When someone is upset about something you did wrong, they’re not just processing the mistake itself. They’re deciding whether they can still trust you.
The ideas below come from “Never Split the Difference” by Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator.
I had it on my reading list for a while, and in an attempt to remember more from the books that I read, I am trying to distill one or two concepts per book that I can actually apply in my day-to-day life.
One important aspect: The goal isn’t to manipulate or to ‘win’ because you were right.
“The person in front of you is not the problem. The unresolved issue is.”
- one of the quotes that resonated with me from the book
Here’s what works for me. I hope you take whatever works for yourself and discard the rest.
Spend five minutes writing down what happened. Focus on how it affected them.
What exactly went wrong?
Who was affected, and how?
What might they be thinking or feeling right now?
What outcome do they hope for?
Examples:
I missed the deadline, which delayed their project and made them look unprepared in their meeting.
I made a decision without input, which probably made the team feel sidelined.
This work matters because it lets you enter the meeting one step ahead. Not just ready to explain yourself, but already thinking about what they’ll need to feel the issue is resolved.
After you’ve joined the meeting and thanked them for their time, you can start naming their concerns.
I usually open with one of the two:
“I wanted to talk about what happened earlier and understand how it affected things.”
“I realise this didn’t go as expected, and I’d like to make sure we deal with it properly.”
Chris Voss calls these two concepts accusation audit and emotion labelling.
Accusation audit disarms the tension (“I know this looks bad”).
Labelling validates the emotion underneath (“It sounds like this caused a lot of frustration”).
Instead of waiting for them to think “This person doesn’t understand the impact” or “They’re trying to minimize this” you name those concerns first.
Say you missed a deadline that blocked someone else’s work. You might start with:
“It seems like this put you in a tough spot because you were counting on it to move forward.”
This is the accusation audit. You’re naming the likely thought: “I can’t rely on you.”
Then you follow with the labelling, which acknowledges the emotion behind that thought:
“It sounds like that’s been frustrating to deal with.”
Or maybe you made a decision without consulting the team. You could say:
“It seems like you’re concerned this sets a precedent where decisions get made without input.”
Then add:
“It sounds like that felt discouraging, especially since you were expecting to be involved.”
When you name their concerns before they have to voice them, you show you understand the real impact, not just your own perspective.
This gives them control to confirm or correct what you’ve said, which makes them feel heard rather than defensive.
I know I’ve labelled the right emotions when the other person nods while I speak.
If you’re wrong, they’ll correct you. They would say “Yea, not only that, but also…”
You’re not trying to make them feel better about you. You’re trying to make them feel understood about the problem.
That shift is what maintains your credibility. People trust those who can see the situation clearly, even when it reflects poorly on them.
(side-note) When I heard about an accusation audit, I instantly thought about the final rap scene in 8 Mile where Eminem lists out all the things his opponent might say about him next. You’re taking the sting out by naming it first.
(back to our topic)
If the previous steps worked, they should feel more understood. This will open them up to a discussion.
This is where you can shift the conversation from blame to problem solving. If they’re still defensive, go back and name more concerns or label more emotions. Don’t move forward until they feel heard.
Examples:
“In terms of where we are right now, I wanted to align on the biggest challenge this creates for you?”
“How does this impact what you need to deliver?”
These questions do three things:
They show you care about the actual impact, not just your own explanation.
They give the other person control over the conversation.
They move the conversation toward working together on a solution and surface information you need to fix the problem, not just apologize for it.
I tend to start with:
“Here’s what I propose we can do to get back on track and how we might stop this from happening in the future.”
After they felt understood and you aligned on next steps, I find it important that the other person doesn’t feel like I just sweet-talked them.
At this point, I want the other person to come out of the meeting emotionally relieved but with a clear plan for next steps. If they need to report upwards, you don’t want them saying, ‘We don’t have a solution, but I feel much better now.’
Here’s how I’d phrase it:
“Let me play this back to you to make sure we’re aligned. To confirm, the next steps are that I’ll do X and Y. I’ll follow-up on X and Y by [add specific date]. How does that sound?”
The goal isn’t to erase the mistake. It’s to show that you understand the real impact, can handle conflict without flinching, and care more about fixing the problem than defending yourself.
What ideally the other person would come out of the meeting understanding is that:
You understand the real impact, not just your own perspective.
You can navigate difficult conversations without getting defensive.
You focus on solving problems, not protecting yourself.
It might take time for the relationship to fully reset, but doing the audit and labelling opens the path for that to happen. If you skip this part and just fix the problem, you risk planting quiet doubts about whether you’ll take responsibility next time, especially if the stakes are higher.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t apologise. I’m saying that if you rely on an apology and time to solve the problem, you’re not doing yourself any favours.
