Ethics Check, Page 296
Apology or Hedging?
Consider why Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ apology ignited a firestorm of criticism: “It is
clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked
respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and
the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology. [. . .] I
want to . . . apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated
them thoughtlessly.”
Instead of accepting responsibility, Hastings sounds insincere because he essentially says that the
public’s many displays of annoyance (not the facts) suggest that Netflix lacked respect and that
members felt the changes were insensitive. He does not come out and say, “Yes, we were
Reed Hastings’ e-mail and blog entry, “An Explanation and Some Reflections,” is a classic
example of a lame excuse and an attempt at rebranding Netflix rather than providing a genuine,
contrite apology. Even as Hastings again says he’s sorry at the end of his message, he apologizes
Ethics Check, page 312
Canned by Phone and Letting Everyone Know
When Yahoo’s CEO Carol A. Bartz was dismissed by phone, she bluntly e-mailed Yahoo’s
13,400 employees “I’ve just been fired,” setting off a heated public debate: Was she a
trailblazer dedicated to the truth, or was her parting shot unprofessional? Top executives
rarely admit to being sacked. Could Bartz’s bluntness have negative consequences, and is it
fair to be fired by phone?
The debate that ensued after Carol A. Bartz’s involuntary departure from the struggling search
portal split the experts into at least two camps. Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer argued that
Bartz’s acknowledgment of her dismissal was a step toward more transparency and authenticity
and hence an opportunity for improvement and learning at the company. He also praised Bartz
for taking control of the story and serving her cause by acting as if the dismissal were not her