Prior research has shown that in the aftermath of an organizational product or service failure, accommodative communication approaches, such as apologies, are not just expected by the general public, but are also more beneficial to the organization in many ways, compared to defensive communication approaches. However, much of this research has assumed that communication decisions of this nature are shaped by factors that are purely rational or strategic. In this paper, the role that guilt—a moral emotion—plays in influencing accommodative versus defensive communication responses to organizational failure is examined. The data from two experimental studies show that individuals experiencing guilt are more inclined to apologize to external stakeholders. Contrary to expectations, a second study finds that guilt seems to increase the inclinations to engage in defensive communication following an organizational failure. This defensive tendency emerges only among managers, however, as opposed to non-managers.