AOL CEO Tim Armstrong Apologizes For Firing Employee
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The issue is that seconds before the firing, he had explicitly given the opposite direction to everyone listening - that leaks were fine by him. Now he's attempting to play the other side. He claims that he learned a lesson, but from the memo, it's clear that he hasn't. Or maybe he's learned the wrong lesson: that's it's ok to be mercurial and to act on whims, just make sure that you backstop your actions better so that it doesn't make you seem so crazy. "I acted too quickly" . . .if I had told him to stop, waited a week, and then fired him for some made-up reason, no one would be the wiser to my crazy behavior.
They are just as 100% sure about one position as they are its opposite.
You'll find a lot of these folks in politics, as well as in C-level positions inside companies.
Tim Armstrong: "On Friday I acted too quickly and I learned a tremendous lesson and I wanted you to hear that directly from me."
First Armstrong doesn't detail exactly what the lesson he learned was (so you know others that he is sending the memo to can learn from it).
Second if you know that the memo is going to be "leaked" why not just provide the memo as a press release so it doesn't appear that the "tipster" has done anything wrong? (If in fact it was a tipster).
Then you can just send the employees the press release by email. And then they have a more definitive idea that leaking info is wrong because you are drawing a distinction between public and private info.
This more or less adds questions to whether it is possible to hold a private meeting and not have things go public (after all someone recorded the meeting which is what added so much color to the situation (hearing it directly is worth a thousand words, not as good as a video but the next best thing).
Add:
And that in a large meeting the assumption is that anything and everything that you say will get out there.
Which it will because it's a trivial to have a hidden camera record everything. And if the meeting is large enough the chance of someone doing that would be great.
Instead, the narrative is, whoa, Tim Armstrong really is going to be personally invested in Patch, so much so that he's firing people in a blink of an eye. Which doesn't mean that Patch will suddenly be successful, but at least Tim Armstrong's personal investment is tied to the Patch-part of AOL in a way that was before, just lip service.
And the guy isn't getting offered his job back, which makes this whole apology completely devoid of merit.