Apologies for "The Incident"

I’d like to apologise for what happened at the staff morning tea on Friday.

At the time, I thought I was helping. I can now see that I overstepped, and that what began as a small effort to improve the table arrangement became, in several ways, the reason the morning tea is now being referred to in meeting minutes as "the incident."

For that, I’m sorry.

To begin with, I should not have moved the banana bread.

I understand that banana bread is not usually the emotional centre of a workplace event. It was on a paper plate, beside the coffee pot, where it had presumably been placed by someone with a reasonable understanding of morning tea logistics. By moving it to the middle of the table and placing a small handwritten sign beside it that said Main Attraction, I created expectations that the banana bread could not meet.

This was unfair to the banana bread.

It was also unfair to Janine, who made it.

I would also like to apologise for rearranging the savoury items. My intention was only to separate the sausage rolls from the vegetarian quiches so people could make informed choices. However, I accept that grouping the food into categories such as Safe, Possibly Safe, and Emotionally Risky was not as clear as I believed it to be.

The spinach triangles did not deserve that.

Nor did the mini pies.

In my defence, the labelling started practically. Alex asked which items had onion, and Peter asked which items were gluten-free. I asked whether we had a pen. From there, the situation developed.

I should have stopped at "contains onion."

I should not have written "contains onion, regret, and structural instability" on the sausage roll sign.

I see that now.

I would also like to clarify the situation with the coffee. I indeed suggested moving the coffee pot away from the biscuits, due to crowding and one minor spill involving Denise’s sleeve. It is also true that, after moving the pot, I told several people we had established "a beverage zone."

I can see now how that sounded more official than it was.

There was no beverage zone; it was just the corner near the printer.

I sincerely apologise to everyone who lined up there, especially those who had been given two teaspoons of instant coffee by Greg from payroll, who was only trying to be polite.

Greg should not have been put in that position.

The issue with the mugs was also my fault. I noticed the clean mugs were running low and attempted to introduce a system. The system involved people placing used mugs on the left side of the sink and clean mugs on the right. Unfortunately, I did not announce this system. I simply began moving mugs around with confidence, which made people assume I knew something they did not.

I want to be clear that I never meant for a mug queue to form or to assign mugs by seniority.

When I said, "We should let management go first," I meant that because they were blocking the cupboard. I did not mean to imply that ceramic mugs were a leadership privilege. I especially did not mean for casual staff to start using paper cups in silence.

That was very uncomfortable, and I regret my role in it.

I also regret saying the phrase "mug equity." That was not helpful.

At this point, I should have stepped away from the table. Instead, I noticed the fruit platter.

I accept that the fruit platter was fine as it was. The melon was already sliced, and the grapes were already in bunches. There was no need for intervention.

Still, I thought the strawberries looked buried, so I moved them forward.

This created a gap.

To fill the gap, I shifted the pineapple, but this affected the grapes.

By the time the CEO arrived, I was standing over the fruit platter with a butter knife, explaining to two interns that "visual balance matters even when no one thanks you for it."

I apologise to the interns. I was not mentoring.

I acknowledge that the first email I sent was also unnecessary.

When I sent the all-staff message saying, Please note the morning tea layout has been adjusted for flow, I believed I was preventing confusion. In reality, I created confusion among people who had not been confused. Several staff members came downstairs specifically to see what had been adjusted. Some assumed there had been an allergy issue and others thought the morning tea had become compulsory.

I should not have used the words "flow" or "adjusted", and I definitely should not have signed off with Thank you for your flexibility during this transition.

There was no transition.

I also acknowledge that the second email was worse.

In my mind, I was correcting misinformation. Someone had replied asking whether the caramel slice had been moved "for a reason," and I panicked. I responded with more detail than the situation required. I should have simply said, "No, please help yourself."

Instead, I wrote four paragraphs about dessert accessibility.

I now understand that dessert accessibility is not a thing. The caramel slice was already accessible.

I would also like to apologise for what happened with the dietary requirements spreadsheet.

I did not create the spreadsheet from scratch. I opened an existing one from last year’s Christmas lunch. However, I admit I made changes. I added columns for gluten, dairy, nuts, onion, coriander, "suspicious fillings," and "vibe." I realise now that "vibe" is not a dietary requirement.

Nor is "seems homemade."

Several people have asked why the spreadsheet was projected onto the conference room screen. The honest answer is that I clicked the wrong button while trying to print it.

I did not realise the boardroom projector was still connected from the finance presentation. I especially did not realise the CEO was in the boardroom with visitors at the time.

I understand that seeing a spreadsheet titled Morning Tea Risk Register may have raised concerns about our internal culture.

I apologise for that.

I would also like to clarify that I did not tell the visitors our workplace had "a pastry governance issue." One of them asked what the spreadsheet was, and I answered too quickly.

By late morning, I was aware that the situation had become larger than it needed to be. I attempted to fix this by returning the food to its original positions. Unfortunately, I could no longer remember the original positions. This is why the banana bread ended up beside the savoury quiches, the Tim Tams were placed near the fruit, and the hummus was temporarily stored behind the kettle.

I agree that hummus should not be warm. I take responsibility for that.

The final misunderstanding, involving the fire warden vest, was genuinely accidental.

I put it on because it was hanging on the back of a chair, and I was cold. I did not realise people would interpret the vest as an official signal. When I began asking staff to "move through the area calmly," I meant because the kitchenette was crowded. I did not intend for anyone to evacuate.

I especially did not intend for the finance team to leave the building.

To be fair, they were already looking for an excuse.

But still, that was on me.

I’m also sorry for clapping.

At the time, when everyone returned and morning tea was mostly over, I felt some acknowledgement was needed. A small clap seemed appropriate. I now understand that clapping at the end of a situation you caused is not the same as resolving it.

In the future, I will not rearrange shared food without being asked. I will not introduce systems where systems are not required. I will not send staff emails about baked goods, and I will not use the phrase "risk register" in relation to pastries.

Most importantly, I will remember that sometimes banana bread is just banana bread and not the main attraction.

Once again, I’m sorry.