> his primary strategy is to say "we're sorry we have to do better". It's lots of excuses, that's not good leadership material in my book.

Actually, to me, that is incredibly powerful. I can't really evaluate Zuckerberg's effectiveness, but you can't fix problems if you can't admit fault, and many in leadership positions never admit fault.

It's only powerful if you actually change. Otherwise you're just using one of the classic tricks of manipulators.

"I'm sorry, it won't happen this time" is what abusive relationships are made of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4zd7X98eOs

Do people find this sincere? It seems fake/manipulative and too convenient. Facebook has been doing this for a decade+.

It's still powerful if it impacts people. Manipulation, is still powerful if it works.

Which is where you might be confused, you can be incredibly insincere and abusive (seems common in business) but still a great leader (great in this context not meaning just), as they've shown they can a) get out of sticky situations b) continue making money and c) have a relatively happy team. So in this scenario what would actually back up your argument would be demonstrations of the apologies having zero impact, the team hating the apologies and thus being less productive, and/or a general loss of revenue.

Very well said.

Admitting fault and a need for change is also the only way to actually start a change that does happen. I agree though that you should also hold people to account for the follow through to real changes.

The change is the most important part. Talk is cheap.

It is true that many people do not readily apologize or admit to their mistakes, but California tech culture has managed to flip this around on its head by publishing deep, heartfelt apologies on corporate blogs for everything and anything, making it lose most of its weight. The ultimate goodwill hack.

But if your default reaction is to just say, "Sorry" but not seem to mean it, that's not really powerful at all.

> that's not really powerful at all.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it wasn't working so well for him.

> he's been pretty ineffective and his primary strategy is to say "we're sorry we have to do better". It's lots of excuses, that's not good leadership material in my book.

That is incredible leadership from a capitalistic perspective. Look at other business leaders like Tony Hayward of BP or John Stumpf of Wells Fargo. Getting away with atrocities under the banner of "We're sorry" is not easy. It takes years of practice and a highly orchestrated performance on Capitol Hill and other places.

Maybe so, but could you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We're hoping for better than that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html