Balsamiq Studios is a software firm based in Sacramento, CA and Bologna, Italy.  Recently, Founder and CEO Giacomo "Peldi" Guilizzoni apologized for releasing buggy software for one of its products.  This is a common problem for software companies.  What is extraordinary here is the quality of Peldi's apology and the responses it generated.  Here's the apology:    

Hi friends.

So I made a big mistake today. No, I made a few. I was so excited about the new pan feature that I decided to release it without testing it properly.

Not only, I also ran out the door right after the build was live to run some errands (I already hated Christmas shopping before, now I REALLY hate it).

Anyways, I ran back as soon as I saw your emails, comments and GetSatisfaction posts on the iPhone, but it took a while because of...you guessed it...Christmas shopping traffic. As soon as I got home, here's what I did to fight the fire I set under my own butt:

·       rolled back the bad build

·       Val helped me tell everyone about the rollback, while I found and fixed the build (it was something really stupid)

·       I'm writing this blog post while eating humble pie (tasty!)

Anyways, the new build with the fix will be live by the time I finish writing this, I'll update the post when it's ready.

In the meantime, I'd like to apologize to all of you who were affected by this bug. You're our early adopters, our best customers, we NEED you, and upsetting you like this hurts me in the stomach. I truly am sorry for this 2-hour mess-up.  I will also apologize to Valerie, Marco and Mariah for putting them in this little mess.

It might be a small consolation, but I'd like to offer any of you who installed 1.6.55 a free license of Mockups for Desktop to give away to someone for Christmas (I hear it makes for a great present for the in-laws).

Just send me an email venting about how I messed up your day today (I deserve it), and I'll send you a Mockups for Desktop key, no questions asked. peldi@balsamiq.com

Ok, let me go check on the new build...

Peldi

Analysis

Normally, I'd subtract a few points from any apology for too much explanation.  Readers of this blog know that explanations in apologies usually devolve into excuses.  But in this case, the explanation is part of the charm of the apology and does nothing to take away from its rigor.  Peldi's self-deprecating humor focuses all the responsibility on himself.  He specifies the offense that he, alone, was responsible for.  It names the parties that he apologizes to.  He makes restitution by giving customers he inconvenienced a free license to another product.  And he ends by focusing on doing his job.  In fact, the apology would be perfect if Peldi had ended it by promising not to repeat the mistake. 

Evaluation

Recognition:  A

Responsibility:  A+

Remorse:  A+

Restitution: A

Repetition:  B

Overall Score:  A

Customer Responses

Don't take my word for it.  Check out some of the comments that the apology generated.  This supports my belief that the world is a lot less punitive than we fear it is.  Everyone makes mistakes.  It's not what we do that counts so much, as what we do about what we do. 

Peldi, I can't do any less than congratulate you for this. As a customer of Balsamiq, but mostly as an entrepreneur in the making, I never cease to be amazed by your openness, your honesty, and your attitude towards your customers. Being so sincere in public can't be easy, and I'm amazed at how easy you always make it look. You really are an example to follow, and are raising the bar for all other entrepreneurs as to how we should behave. Thank you for running an awesome company, and for being an awesome guy.

I heartily agree with Daniel M.'s response and he beat me to the reply I would have have written - well said Daniel. Also as a micro-startup, you guys are helping me thoroughly understand the in's and out's of the (huge) work involved. Just your list of "tools we use" made me put your team on a pedestal, so it would take far more than a bad build to change my opinion! Your openness and honesty is the future of company customer relations. Cheers, and here's to more of the same Excellence in the New Year!  Best Regards,  Ben

Peldi - not only is your apology accepted, we actually THANK YOU for your hard work, dedication and willingness to admit when things don't work out the way you planned. I have learned my lesson the hard way, too, by pushing a production release out the door then getting on an airplane! (before wifi was available...). Needless to say, you only do something like that once and you remember it. You continue to amaze me at how well you do the right thing. Val was right when she and I spoke a few months ago: we are all so lucky to have you leading the way! Don't knock yourself too hard. It happened, you did the right moves to correct it and it is now part of your experiences. In fact, I forgot what you were apologizing for... Paul

Peldi,  Life is not about not making mistakes, it's about repairing them when we make one (and we all do), and you did that in just two hours. Com'on i doubt anyone could nurture negative feelings about a mistake and such a hasty and honest reaction.  All of you have a safe Christmas, and let it not be a mockup of positive feelings for mankind, but the real thing!   Alex

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a 2009 American romantic comedy film whose plot is based on Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Filmed in Boston, the movie stars Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner and Emma Stone.  Ghosts of Girlfriends Past basically takes the plot of Dickens' familiar novel and reframes it into the story of an emotionally shallow ladies' man who is visited by the ghosts of girlfriends past, present, and future. 

Connor Mead (McConaughey), a womanizing bachelor and high-profile photographer with a disdain for marriage, goes to the wedding of his younger brother.  Connor soon encounters his former sweetheart, Jenny (Garner), and eventually manages to offend the majority of the guests with his views on romance.  In the meantime, he destroys the wedding cake and seduces the bride's mother.  All in all, Connor is a nightmare of a wedding guest. 

After being kicked upside the head by the three ghosts, Connor finally wakes up to his shallowness and resolves to redeem himself before it is too late.  He realizes how offensive he's been.  Connor rushes to rescue the wedding that he undermined by intercepting the bride who has fled the wedding.  Unfortunately, to do this Connor's had to knock out the bride's father who tried to protect his daughter.  At this point, Connor delivers his apology:

Connor:  I'm sorry about destroying your wedding cake, going to second base with your mother, knocking  your dad unconscious right there, and basically breaking up your wedding.  I'm sorry. 

It's rare to get a movie apology that is so direct and specific.  Most apologies, in the movies as well as in real life, are either indirect ("I'm sorry for anything I may have said that offended you") or unspecific ("I'm sorry about what happened").  Connor's apology takes direct responsibility for not one but four highly-specific offenses without attempting to explain, rationalize, or talk about how his good intentions went awry.

The apology, so direct, simple, and specific, is the only thing that causes the bride to listen to Connor's subsequent speech about fighting for intimacy, risking getting hurt, and refusing to run away from emotional attachment.  Wonderful things can happen when we tell the impeccable truth about ourselves. 

For once, Tiger Woods is using his head, instead of another body part that has visited so much trouble on him and his family.

As the carefully constructed public image of Tiger Woods continued its disintegration, Woods finally delivered a statement that, for the first time, demonstrated his acknowledgment that while he may be entitled to a measure of privacy, he is not entitled to total secrecy.  His latest statement:

I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children. I want to say again to everyone that I am profoundly sorry and that I ask forgiveness. It may not be possible to repair the damage I've done, but I want to do my best to try.

I would like to ask everyone, including my fans, the good people at my foundation, business partners, the PGA Tour, and my fellow competitors, for their understanding. What's most important now is that my family has the time, privacy, and safe haven we will need for personal healing.

After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.

Again, I ask for privacy for my family and I am especially grateful for all those who have offered compassion and concern during this difficult period.

Most experts (see what the Apology Index has to say) do not think this apology will be the last word, and I agree.  Still, it's useful for Woods to be more specific.  What were "transgressions" are now "infidelities."  The time will come when he will be even more specific, not to satisfy the public's titillation, but because Tiger Woods will understand that it is in his long-term interest to tell the immaculate truth about himself. 

Restitution

I regard Wood's decision to take a break from golf as a form of restitution, something that every effective apology requires. 

Taking a hiatus from golf is an acknowledgment that he is not entitled to the benefits and privileges that were offered to him on the basis that he was, in fact, the faithful husband and father who shared the conventional values and morals that he led his sponsors and fans to expect he shared. 

But Woods can't get by with impersonal statements on his Web site.  Soon he will have to speak more personally. And when he does, he will not only acknowledge that his critics have a right to accuse him of being a self-serving hypocritical cheat and serial adulterer with little regard for the wife and children and morals he professes to value, but that on some level, he agrees with them. 

Skip to next paragraphFaced with an avalanche of women who now claim extra-marital affairs with the world's most famous and wealthiest athlete, Woods has been in seclusion, his life and career entirely unworkable, his ads pulled from the air, the butt of jokes. 

To redeem himself, he will have to face the reality of what he is, all too imperfect, just like the rest of us.  Excruciating?  No doubt.  But ultimately liberating.  No human being can long sustain the expectations of perfection that Woods conspired to impose on himself. 

Controlling Outcomes

Effective apology becomes workable when people finally give up the illusion that they can control outcomes.  The legendary control that Woods maintained on the golf course is totally usefulness to him.  Control has been everything to Woods and his handlers.  They have built a billion-dollar empire around the pristine cultivation of a set of images that are crashing around them. 

No doubt the Woods camp is desperate to cling to that empire and is fearful of losing it.  But the world might not be as punitive as Woods or his handlers think it is.  The evidence is clear.  When people are forthright about their shortcomings and limitations, apologizing when necessary, they find their scope increases.  Penelope Trunk, the Brazen Careerist blogger, was at one time a financial columnist for Yahoo.  For years she was fearful that the disarray in her personal finances would become known and she would lose the column.  Then she decided that she was only as vulnerable as her secrets.  She revealed her circumstances.  The result?  The column continued with a somewhat less fearful columnist. 

Consequences

Will there be consequences to Woods?  Absolutely.   But the consequences will flow from the fact of his behavior, not their disclosure.  This is confusing for many people.  They disclose and they get punished.  It's tempting to think that punishment attaches to the disclosure.  But the punishment really responds to the underlying conduct.  It's tempting, then, to try to "get away with it" by lying or covering up.  But we all know what happens then.  The stakes just go up, and the facts come out anyway.   

Apology is not cost-free.  It's just less costly than any of the alternatives.

Woods is slowly coming to terms with this reality.  Stay tuned. 

The Bridges of Madison County is a romantic drama film based on the best-selling novel by Robert James Waller.  

The film is set in the summer of 1965. It tells the story of Francesca (Meryl Streep), a lonely, passionate Italian housewife in Iowa. While her husband and children are away at the Illinois State Fair, she meets and falls in love with a photographer (Clint Eastwood) who has come to Madison County, Iowa to create a photographic essay for National Geographic on the covered bridges in the area. The four days they spend together are a turning point in her life and she writes of her experience in a diary which is discovered by her children after her death. Eastwood directed and Streep was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 1996.  (She lost to Susan Sarandon in "Dead Man Walking.")

In this scene, early in the film, Robert and Francesca are just getting to know each other and the sexual attraction is palpable.  The conversation quickly goes to the limitations of Francesca's marriage and life in Iowa until Robert puts his foot in his mouth and almost destroys the evening.   

Robert:  Do you want to leave your husband?

Francesca:  No.  [bristling] Of course not!

Robert:  [immediately realizing his error]  I'm sorry about that.  I apologize. 

Francesca:  What made you ask such a question?

Robert:  I thought that's what we were doing.  Asking questions.  It was stupid . . . I'm sorry.  I apologize.  [he admits defeat and gets up from the table]  I guess I should be going.

Francesca [not wanting him to go]:  Look, I'm sorry  . . .

Robert:   .  .  . No.  I apologize.  You must forgive me.  It was a very indiscrete question.  It was dumb.

Hoarding the Responsibility

What I love about this apology is that Robert refuses to be let off the hook.  His remark was a mistake and hurtful.  It created immediate tension.  Francesca tries to defuse the tension by also apologizing, but Robert will have none of it. 

Francesca didn't do anything wrong.  He specifies what he is apologizing for and won't back off. 

Following President Obama's Afghanistan speech to cadets at the West Point Military Academy, Chris Matthews said that the president had "traveled to the enemy camp." These words generated much criticism of the MSNBC broadcaster. 

Matthews quickly backed off from that comment and apologized.

Here's a partial transcript of his apology:

I have gotten tough calls from parents of cadets and former cadets at West Point at my saying last night the president going to speak up there to maybe the enemy camp. I was talking about the skepticism I saw on the faces in the crowd as president Obama spoke. How West Point was where President Bush went in 2002 to make his most hawkish speech before the Iraq war.

I have heard too many politicians say that was taken out of context to explain something they wish they hadn't said. Let me say to the cadets, their parents, former cadets and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it. I used the wrong words and worse than that I said something that is just not right. I deeply apologize.

For the full apology, transcript, and video, click here.

I applaud Chris Matthews for a direct, unambiguous apology.  I specifically applaud him for resisting the temptation to suggest that it was never his intention to offend people. 

As readers of this blog know, I pointedly encourage apologies to focus on the consequences of the words or conduct, not the intentions.  Matthews resisted this impulse.  His apology is admirable for reaching out to the various constituencies his words offended. 

Evaluation

Recognition: A

Responsibility: A

Remorse: A

Restitution: N/A

Repetition:  N/A

Overall Score:  A

I have called for Tiger Woods, the public figure, to take full responsibility for his behavior, give up his assertions of privilege, and acknowledge the reality of who he is. 

I have suggested that he do these things not just for the sake of those who admire him or who otherwise follow his leadership, but for his own sake as well.  He will not be able to create something honorable out of this experience until he publicly confronts the hard truths that have exposed the disconnect between Tiger Woods the brand and Tiger Woods the human being.   Woods must be willing to risk letting go of the brand in order to reclaim himself. 

Not everyone agrees with my insistence that more public accountability is necessary.    

Peter F. Goolpacy, who runs the Perfect Apology blog, writes:

We think your expectations (if not demands) regarding Woods' "public" apology miss the mark. Not sure why any of us (including us apology 'experts') deserve any more.

Goolpacy's take on the subject can be found on his blog.  Basically, Goolpacy is satisfied with Tiger Woods' apology statement.  An excerpt: 

With respect the ingredients of a Perfect Apology, and in light of the explanation the general public (including Tiger's fans) deserve for his "transgression", Tiger's apology is as close to perfect as we could expect without damaging the core principles and values he is trying to defend -- "the right to some simple, human measure of privacy" for him and his family as they work through this crisis  

Tiger Woods is accountable to the public for a certain set of transgressions.  These acts are quite distinct from the acts for which he needs to personally apologize and for which he is entitled to privacy.  Tiger Woods is perhaps the world's wealthiest and most privileged athlete.  From where does that wealth and privilege derive?  From his talent, no doubt, but also from a compact he has made with his sponsors and the public.  It has been a carefully cultivated compact that goes way beyond his performance on the golf course and from which he continues to draw resources. 

The Benefits Transprency

Woods is, in every respect, a leader and has offered himself as such.  It now appears that he regrets transgressions (his word).  Until he is clear with himself, his family, and the public, each according to what he owes, as to the exact nature of these transgressions, no one can know that Tiger Woods has rededicated himself to the values he regrets violating. 

Tiger Woods' situation is instructive for business leaders.  He has cultivated an image of perfection on the links and perfection in his private life.  Perfection is an unsustainable standard for human beings because the reality is that none of us is perfect.  Even the most talented leaders make mistakes.  The only question is what do we do about the mistakes? 

By acknowledging, naming, and ultimately accepting his mistakes, Tiger Woods can embrace his humility, make room for his true self, imperfect, and all too human, just like everyone else.  Only then does he have a chance of becoming whole. 

Making Amends 

The highest-quality human beings earn that distinction not by being perfect, but by recognizing that they've hurt other people, and doing their best to make amends. 

Right now Tiger Woods is doing everything wrong.  He has evaded accountability by refusing to talk to the police.  He is trying to hide his mistakes.  The news conference that Gloria Allred scheduled and then abruptly cancelled can only be explained by Woods making a cash settlement with one of the women in question. 

It's tempting to justify these acts as reasonable in a world that is apparently clawing to take away all that he has worked for.  But Woods may find that the world is a lot less punitive than he thinks it is. 

It is arrogant to suppose that such steps as paying for the silence of victims promotes security.  It's also an illusion. 

In a world in which nothing stays hidden forever, it is a transparent act of leadership to act as if you have nothing to hide. 

Tiger Woods, you are only as vulnerable as your secrets. 

We have three celebrities paying the price for choices they have made.

The interests of all three would be better served if they took responsibility and apologized. All three have decided that the costs of apology are too high. All three will learn that while apology is not free, in the long run it is substiuntially less costly thanthe alterntives.

Tiger Woods

Tiger Woods has carefully fashioned his brand as a squeaky-clean athlete to become the most compensated figure in this history of sports. That brand is being dismantled before our eyes. Woods desires privacy beut he fails to acknowlege that he is accountable to the public, the source of all that wealth and privilege, just as much as his family and friends. His failure to acknowledge this truth will lead to a sream of media revelations that he cannot control and must react to.

The first symptom of hiding: one's world is diminished. TIger Woods has announced he will not participate in a charity golfing event hat bears his name.

Tiger's goal of getting the media attention behind him would be better served if he took charge of the revellations. Say it first, say it straight, say it all.

Adam Lambert

The American idol star went overboard at the American Music Awards with a sexually-charged peformance that simulated oral copulation. The performance was instantly criticized. But instead of being contrite, Lambert tried to jusitfy, explain, and otherwise spin the behavaior. He rejected calls to apologize.

Lambert failed to realize one of the main attributes of apology. When someone apologizes, it reinforces confidence that they really do honor the shared values of the community, despite having violated them. For the ABC network, such a step was key to the network's sense that Lambert can be trusted to appear on live TV. Lambert refused to give them that confidence. As a result, Lambert has been disinvited from appeaing on Good Morning, America as well as at leats two other shows.

Roman Polanski

In 1977, the director Roman Polanski was accused of having sex with a 13 year-old girl. It was likely he would face a very light sentence. But instead of accepting the consequences for his behavior, Polanski fled the country and lived in Europe for more than 30 years.

He may have thought he "got away with it." But I think his life has been miserable. He couldn't travel or work int he U.S. He was always looking over his shoulder. And in the end, he was arrested by Swiss authorities on September 27 2009 and has been in prison ever since. It's possible his Swiss prison time will be longer than the time he sould have served in the U.S. and his ordeal is not over.

If he is extradited ot the U.S., which appears likely, he will face the same charges, but this time in an environment which treats statutory rape much, much hrasher than the judicial system did in 1977.

It's easy to argue against apologizing because of the imemdiate costs. It's harder to consider the eventual costs that come with not apologizing. But the eventual costs are almost always more.

Polanski, 76, must stay in the house and wear an electronic bracelet as officials decide whether to extradite him to the U.S. for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

Polanski has been in Swiss custody since his arrest Sept. 26 on a U.S. warrant as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award. Authorities in Los Angeles want him returned to be sentenced after 31 years as a fugitive.

Is an apology meaningful when it is coerced? 

I get this question all the time, usually from parents of young children who wonder if they are doing the right thing when they make Johnny apologize to his brother. 

The issue gets even more complicated when adults try to use force to extract an apology from another adult.

Court Deputy at the Defense Table

We are seeing a classic example of this kind of dynamic in Phoenix, Arizona.  On October 19^, 2009, Maricopa County Detention Officer Adam Stoddard was caught by surveillance cameras helping himself to a document from a defense attorney's files.  The video is astounding. 

As defense attorney Joanne Cuccia is talking to the judge during a sentencing hearing, the video shows officer Stoddard walking behind her, inspecting some documents at the defense table, slowly sliding one document out, reading it, and taking it away.  The video makes compelling viewing.  Watch the uncut surveillance video. 

When attorney Cuccia sees what's going on, she's at first confused and then angry.  Responding to a formal complaint, Judge Gary Donahoe ordered the Stoddard to apologize orally and in writing or face jail time for contempt of court. 

Apology or Jail

So the choice is simple.   

But it's never that simple when force is involved.  The issue of power overwhelms the issue of apology.  That's one reason I don't think parents extracting an apology from a child by force is justified.  The parents want the lesson to be about apology, but the child always sees it as an issue of power or the parent taking sides.  So it is with this case. 

These were the judge's conditions: 

1) On or before November 30th, 2009, at a time convenient for Ms. Cuccia, a news conference to take place in the plaza on the north side of the central court building where he is to give Ms. Cuccia a sincere verbal and written apology for invading her defense file and for the damage that his conduct may have caused to her professional reputation.

2) If at the news conference, Ms. Cuccia does not state that the apology is sufficient, Stoddard will report to the jail on December 1, 2009 and be detained until further order upon a finding that he has complied with the purge clause.

Defending the  Deputy

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio immediately complicated the situation.  "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff's Office," Arpaio said. "My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation."

In fact, Stoddard made a defiant statement.

I am Maricopa County Detention Officer Adam Stoddard. I work in the Court Security Division of the Sheriff's Office and have been with the Sheriff's Office for five years.

It was a split second decision and I do not regret my actions.
Judge Donahoe has ordered me to feel something I do not and say something I cannot. I cannot apologize for putting court safety first.
The judge therefore puts me in a position where I must lie or go to jail. And I will not lie.

In short, we have a classic power struggle.   I think the judge was unwise making the contempt of court charge conditioned on the officer's apology.  The way the conditions are written, it is apparently Cuccia's call whether the officer goes to jail.  That's just not sound judicial process and possibly unconstitutional.

I'm not even going to entertain the possibility that the officer had a legitimate reason for his actions.  His statement that his concern was with court security simply is laughable.  The video demonstrates that  for over a minute the deputy's attention was fixed not on the inmate being sentenced, where any source of risk centered, but on some document that was none of his business.

Stay tuned to see how this situation plays out.  Whichever way it goes, the judge squandered a genuine chance to give the officer an opportunity to take responsibility, apologize, and resolve the conflict.