When emails are sent erroneously, should sender come clean?

If you send an email by mistake, should you admit your error?

Many of us have had the experience of sending an email or a text and inadvertently including someone we ought not to have included as a recipient. Perhaps a glib comment was made about a colleague or a boss who ends up receiving the message. Or a job application ends up in your manager’s inbox by mistake.

Few of us have likely sent an email threatening action against a person or an organization before we meant to send it. Nevertheless, such things happen.

When discovered, what should an errant emailer do?

Coming clean on the mistake and owning the error is the most honest response. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be repercussions.

If it’s an email about a colleague or a friend, some serious repair of the relationship might be in order. If it’s a particularly derogatory comment about a boss, the lift might be a bit heavier and, as a friend who is an expert in crisis management tells me, that email sender would be wise to start looking for a new job.

In politics, my crisis friend tells me, the tendency is often not to come clean, but to try to find ways to use a creative vocabulary to lessen the blow. That might include asking the recipient why they didn’t check with you to see if you were serious in the words you used. Or if the email included something that suggested you were so agitated you were likely to embark on a rule-breaking spree, to respond to queries with something as ambiguous as: “I try never to break the law.”

In 1923, humorist Will Rogers is reported to have said: “If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics.”

My crisis friend tells me that few in politics want to admit errors because they don’t want to end up relegated to political Siberia because it’s so cold, although he used more colorful language.

It might be viewed as naïve to believe that owning your mistakes and admitting to errors after you’ve made them is the right thing to do. Some errors get corrected before any harm can be done. There’s no reason to go around alerting people to every mistake you’ve ever made on the way to a successful outcome, particularly if those errors hurt no one and were not done with harmful intent. We all make mistakes.

But when you do discover an error or someone else does, I believe the right thing is to have the integrity to acknowledge the error. Granted, this might result in a blow to a career or a friendship, but lying to cover your actions – while a time-tested maneuver – shows little moral courage. On a practical level, it’s the lies we tell to cover up that often result in the most self-damage.

A year after he made the comment above, Will Rogers said: “They ought to pass a rule in this country in any investigations if a man can’t tell the truth the first time he shouldn’t be allowed to try again.”

That’s a law unlikely to be considered. What we can control, however, are our own actions and whether we choose to do the right thing when things go awry.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

How much should we read into emails we receive?

Is it disrespectful to dismiss someone else’s political views?

A reader we’re calling Edwin has more conservative political views than his older sister. They voted differently in the 2024 presidential election and they view the efforts of the current administration differently as well.

Nevertheless, they maintain a good relationship and are capable of exchanging opposite views without it resulting in an all-out battle. Edwin has long found it possible for each of them to be respectful of one another and their respective views while still holding true to their strong beliefs.

Recently, however, Edwin received an email from his sister that he found “very disappointing.”

In an email to his sister, Edwin had encouraged her to watch a Fox News interview with Elon Musk and members of his Department of Government Efficiency team. He mentioned to her that he found the group to be earnest in their stated objectives and hoped that his sister might give them the benefit of the doubt or at least not assume the worst about them.

His sister responded by telling Edwin she had seen the interview and ended her email with “Sick!” Given Edwin’s and his sister’s ages, it’s unlikely she was using “sick” as a slang some younger readers might use to connote something positive.

Edwin found that response to be dismissive of his efforts to help his sister see that reasonable people can disagree, but that everyone would do well to try to see what “makes the opposition tick.”

Did Edwin’s sister step over the line with her response to his email? Should he take her response as being dismissive of him and his efforts to enlighten her?

Clearly, if Edwin was taken aback by his sister’s response, he has every right to be, particularly if it wasn’t in keeping with the typical way they respond to one another.

But email can be a funny thing and intentions are not always as clear in email messages as they might be in a conversation in-person, by phone or via a video conference. What Edwin took as dismissive of him might have been more of a reaction to Elon Musk and the DOGE team or of the many efforts they have undertaken since being deployed to find ways to cut government spending.

For all Edwin knows, his sister may have found his attempt to portray Musk and team as earnest in their efforts as disrespectful of what he knew to be her views.

Again, Edwin has every right to be taken aback by his sister’s response. But particularly if Edwin wants to continue their relationship, which he indicates he does, the right thing would be for him to tell her he was taken aback by it and why. Doing so would give both the chance to flesh out how each of them responded to the interview they saw.

Very likely, they would not agree on the earnestness of the DOGE team or the value of its efforts, but they would have a chance to understand more of how one another ticks when it comes to such things. And that, after all, is something Edwin embraces as something we should all try to do.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Calling out kindness doesn’t erase bad behavior, but it can help

When bad behavior seems to run amok and all appears bleak, do rare moments of grace make a difference?

Hannah Selinger is an accomplished food and travel writer. Her work has appeared in Travel & Leisure, The New York Times Magazine, Eater, The Wall Street Journal, Bon Appétit and a number of other well-respected publications. She’s been nominated for a James Beard award for her writing and her work has appeared in “The Best American Food Writing 2022” collection.

Prior to writing, Hannah worked as a certified sommelier for several well-known restaurants in New York. Now, Hannah has written a memoir about her life in the restaurant business. It’s called “Cellar Rat: My Life in the Restaurant Underbelly.” In her review in the San Francisco Chronicle, Hannah Bae calls the book a “passionate, insightful and deservedly critical book on the culture of restaurant work.”

Hannah’s book is indeed critical and specific about the indignities and abuse she experienced while working in the restaurant industry. She provides examples of several restaurant people (high-profile and not-so-much) guilty of bad behavior.

It can make for a harrowing read to be brought along on Hannah’s journey. But then I am a biased observer. Hannah was a graduate student I taught at Emerson College 20 years ago. We’ve stayed in touch over the years, particularly as she made the shift from wine to writing.

Most of the reviews of Hannah’s book focus on those who seemed to go out of their way to demean others, including her. But there are moments in her book that suggest not everyone was a creep. Friends and supporters abound but are rarely mentioned. And then there is one episode Hannah recalls in which a high-profile celebrity chef seems to go out of his way to show some kindness.

Shortly after starting to work at Bobby Flay’s Bar Americain, he made a visit to the restaurant. He noticed Hannah standing by the oyster bar staring at her notepad. After asking her her name and a few questions he quickly surmised that she didn’t know much about oysters. He then tapped the metal bar and was served various oysters, which he proceeded to taste with Hannah and walk her through the differences and how to describe them to customers. “Now you know the difference,” she recalls him saying and with that he walked on and she went back to her station.

Certainly, it was in Flay’s best interest to have a staff well-versed on what they were serving customers. But he didn’t scold her or dismiss her for not knowing as much as he did about mollusks.

The incident is only a brief moment among pages where such patience is nowhere in sight. But that moment taken by a celebrity restaurateur who did not need to take it stood out to me. When someone takes the time to show grace, it’s good to call it out. Especially in an industry that is notorious for treating employees poorly, taking a moment to point out examples of those who don’t and who still have managed to achieve great success seems the right thing to do.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

How critical is it to keep a confidence?

How obligated are we if we agree to keeping a confidence?

A reader we’re calling Willa recently traveled out of town to spend a few days minding her teenaged grandchildren while their parents were away. While there, Willa’s teenage granddaughter whom we’re calling Addie told her that she had recently solved a trigonometry program in her high school math class that her teacher had never seen before.

The teacher told Addie that he would try to help her publish her solution in an academic journal but gave Addie just a few days to decide if she wanted to do it. Addie told her teacher that she’d think about it, but feared that if her parents knew, there would be even more pressure on her to succeed in school, including possibly summer school. Willa writes that Addie is already an excellent and conscientious student, but she believes that “enough is enough” when it comes to doing extra work in school.

Addie asked her grandmother not to tell Addie’s parents or anybody else about her dilemma. Willa agreed, but when she returned home she told her husband and asked his opinion of how she might advise Addie. Willa writes that her husband thought Addie deserved their support and suggested language for her to use in a text to her that urged her to consider trying to publish her solution.

Addie thanked her grandmother, but now Willa thinks Addie is upset with her because she violated her confidence. Willa’s husband isn’t convinced a teenager should be allowed to let her short-term concerns, however legitimate, determine an action that could potentially impact her life positively in the long run. But what Willa really wants to know is if she was wrong to tell her husband about the situation.

While Willa’s husband may be correct that publishing a solution to a math problem might be a boon to Addie’s high school record, so too might trying out for a sport or activity at which an adviser believes she would excel. Not seizing every opportunity, even the rare ones, might seem myopic, but ultimately, if they trust that Addie knows it would be too much pressure, it seems wise to trust her as she considers her choice.

When asked to keep a confidence, before agreeing to do so, the right thing is to get clear with the requester what they are asking and if you agree to be as clear as possible what you’re agreeing to.

It would have been wrong for Willa to agree not to tell her husband and then to do so. Willa could have told Addie she wouldn’t say anything to Addie’s parents but that she doesn’t keep any secrets from Addie’s grandfather. That way, Addie would have been prepared for the text from her grandmother when it arrived. All bets would have been off if Addie has confided something that was likely to put her in a dangerous situation, but that’s not the case here.

Willa clearly cares about Addie and wanted to give her the best advice possible while still providing her room to make her own decision. Addie might be upset with her grandmother for violating a confidence, but she also might be upset because her grandmother is giving her advice to consider doing something she might not want to do. That Willa offered that advice should send Addie the message of just how much she cares about her.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Not every disagreement rises to unethical levels

When someone disagrees with us, are they unethical?

Over the past 27 years, I’ve addressed all sorts of ethical issues in The Right Thing column. Mostly, I try to look at how people make ethical choices when faced with multiple options.

It’s important to remember that there is no one right thing to do when faced with a day-to-day decision or a particularly thorny conundrum. In his book “Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right," Joseph L. Badaracco, the John Shad Professor of Business Ethics at Harvard Business School, points out that when we are faced with multiple right choices, our goal is to make the best right choice that most aligns with our values. I’ve long found Badaracco, who teaches a course on ethics where he uses examples from literature to guide students through making ethical choices, to be a wise man.

Making a choice can be simple. But making a thoughtful choice where we take the time to examine the implication of our decisions and what affect they might have on others can be hard.

When we make such decisions between right choices, we also would be wise to do so recognizing that someone else when faced with the same choices might end up making a different decision. That doesn’t make us or our choice superior to someone else. We should be able to disagree with someone without unleashing our wrath on someone else simply because they think differently.

It is timely to bring this up again now. Threatening judges because they don’t rule the way we’d like them to is wrong. Defacing or burning automobiles because we disagree with the company owner’s political views is wrong. Harassing someone online because they don’t agree that dating us would the best decision of their life is wrong. Bullying someone to get them to think like we do is never good.

Don’t get me wrong. Disagreeing vociferously and strongly with those whose views we find morally questionable is not only acceptable, it is essential if we want to find a way to live in the world together. It’s good to let others know that their decisions are not made in a vacuum devoid of consequences. When someone makes choices that conflict with our own values or that are likely to have a dire outcome on others, the right thing is to challenge these choices.

Not everything, however, rises to the level of catastrophe. What someone wears to a Cabinet meeting may annoy us, but that alone doesn’t make the person reprehensible. A mayor telling congresspeople to do their job rather than try to run a city may irk a congressperson, but it doesn’t indicate the mayor isn’t following federal, state and local laws.

In her essay, “The Insidious Ethic of Conscience,” the writer Joan Didion wrote that “when we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something” but that it is a “moral imperative that we have it,” that is when “we join the fashionable madmen,” and that “is when we are in bad trouble.”

She wrote that in 1965. Sixty years later, the right thing remains to avoid joining the fashionable madmen and to work hard to identify decisions others make that are worth fighting over vs. those that simply differ from our own.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2025 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.