Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I wonder if this will eventually cause companies to think twice about this type of governance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165566/Mark-Zuckerb...
All the company needs is some pressure to shore up some long overdue culture debt. This is the fastest growing company in history after all. Not every aspect of the company was going to come out of the over perfectly baked when you grow that quickly. Uber isn't the first successful startup with this issue and it won't be the last.
Replacing the leader would be a terrible mistake. I'm not a religious person, but I do wish more people were familiar with the lesson taught in the parables of the Lost Son, Lost Sheep or Lost Coin. Redemption is always possible. Society as a whole would be much better off if we gave more people a chance to redeem themselves. Not considering people capable of redemption and considering people deserving of punishment without mercy is the reason we (the United States) have the disaster that is the largest incarcerated population in the World.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket-...
I generally agree with the sentiment that we should end the cult of the CEO, but that doesn't negate the fact that some CEOs might actually deserve the praise and respect they get.
Until you've actually worked directly for the Elon Musks, Mark Zuckerbergs, Travis Kalanicks and Steve Jobses of the world, you shouldn't dismiss that they might have actually earned cults they've created.
After five months of examining the company's culture,
Uber's new human resources officer, Liane Hornsey
concluded that the firm's treatment of women was no
worse than what occurs at other companies.
Uber's biggest employee problems are pay and pride, not
sexism, says HR boss “Wherever I have worked, I have
seen things that are not great for women,” Hornsey said
in a USA TODAY interview. “I don’t think it’s about tech,
or this city or this company. I think it’s about the
world of work, and I think that it’s something that we
have to take really super seriously.”
source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/06/11/reports-uber...Liane Hornsey was formerly the VP of People Operations at Google for like 5 years I think. I'm far more inclined to believe her account of what things are like than any journalist lazily trolling for any disgruntled former employee to recount a story that will generate ad impressions.
So yes, they could, but the power isn't distributed evenly, so it's not as simple as getting >50% of votes.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/emil-michael-uber-chief-busin...
[2] https://www.axios.com/top-uber-exec-emil-michael-to-resign-2...
- all driver earn more per trip, but may not make more per hour since there would be fewer trips to accept
- drivers who see a drop in the number of trips will be earning less or will have to exit the market if they don't earn enough.
- only when some drivers choose to exit the market would the remaining drivers be able to earn more per trip and and accept the same number of rides per hour.
Any company following Uber's loss leading strategy at the end of the day is fomenting more liquidity in order to gauge how much more demand there is at a lower price point. That gives them a profitability target to work towards by becoming more efficient.
My personal theory is we're actually a crap market for Uber. We'd obviously love ride sharing but realistically the alternatives (transit, walkability, car share) are simply quite good. Even our cabs aren't that expensive compared to other cities where Uber has really caught on. We'd use Uber, just not that much.
What have you done lately which is anything close to what Travis built vs. just commenting on a tech forum at his incompetence?
Also, it is important to understand that his "always hustling" and "being ruthless" or "never say die" attitude are a double edged sword. The same attitude has served him very well when taking on local governments to push his service through - but is creating a number of challenges at running a company which has now become quite big.
I was never a fan of ubers because like Dropbox I thought it was too simplistic and too easily replaceable. I've become more wary of the anti uber propaganda lately. I'm more suspicious of the press than ever. When I read some news all I can think of is which ax are they grinding there. The constant onslaught of anti uber propaganda makes me think something is wrong here.
If Travis loses, it will be a teachable moment for other unicorns. What lessons can we learn about what he did incorrectly in stacking the board? How can a CEO/founder prevent a coup?
Don't give people a reason to dislike you.
I know my story is an anecdote but I can't help but feel that it's not an uncommon experience for drivers to feel taken advantage of or that the anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't be nearly as effective if their most visible public faces didn't feel used by the company.
I know mine is an anecdote and should be taken with a heavy grain of salt but I can't help but imagine that if Uber drivers as a whole were happier and better comped, say with in app tipping, that the overall perception of Uber would be better and drivers would be much more excited to recommend the service to their friends and family.
I'd say the goal is not to maximize driver earning but rather to minimize rider pain. If drivers make more in the process that's great. If not, it is not our concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Elevator Operators: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b235dc58a1cfb3bef06fdd...
Switchboard operators: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/23/bc/a4/23bc...
Maybe not foster a culture of sexual harassment? Maybe not hire private investigators to tail reporters?
Seriously, everything bad that's come on Uber lately is no one's fault but their own. They, and no one else, performed these actions.
"Being ruthless" is not double edged sword - it is simply unethical behavior that gives you advantage. That is all there is to it. More ethical CEOs face challenges too, pretty much the same challenges.
In regard to self-driving, Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business if Uber didn't start getting on the same train. In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.
Ah yes, the favorite excuse of scoundrels. It was "necessary".
Of course it was also "necessary" for Uber drivers to feed their kids. But hey, can't worry about that, we gotta disrupt!
That's not how morality works.
> Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business
That is exactly what I am talking. "I wanted to win against them" might be an explanation, but not a freaking excuse. Having choice between getting advantage and not doing something unethical, Uber consistently chosen unethical. Feeling bad about those things once you get caught is probably nicer then not feeling bad, but does not make all that much difference in real world. How you feel does not changes impact of your actions on other people nor their morality.
> After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers.
But somehow when taxi companies are as greedy as him and as unjust as him, then it is bad. Or rather, this was just populism/propaganda to turn people against competitors and regulators - to gain advantage for himself.
> In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.
Yeah and Paris taxi driver who cut tires of Uber car did what was necessary to fight Uber. Sure he essentially did what he had to do and sure since he certainly feels bad about it after being caught then it is fine.
I mean, if I claim my collegue achievments my own or badmouth him behind back to make him look less capable and put myself up, then I am just essentially doing what I have to do, right?
However, law-breaking in order to get ahead of business competition is far away from the above categories.
While Travis is not scamming anyone, the methods are similar. Get rich by exploiting barely legal methods, unethical ways and ride to the fame using someone else money.
Sounds like some guys during the prohibition if they could have filed for an IPO.
I also agree strongly with another poster that the current vein of media focus on Uber is suspicious. It makes me worry about lazy reporting --any story about Uber gets noticed, no matter how irrelevant-- and also about who is actively funding an anti-Uber PR campaign - big established taxi companies, possibly? As time goes on, the media's approach makes me more and more sympathetic towards Travis and Uber, not less.
However... everyone should have some standards. It should be possible to run a high-achieving company without requiring or tolerating behaviour ranging from sexism to overt harassment. And the recent example of a rape victim's medical records being acquired and shared is particularly egregious - irrespective of their suspicions, that was well beyond a line, and the perpetrator should have been immediately fired.
I'm always a fan of the newspaper test - don't do anything you'd be ashamed of appearing on the front page of a major newspaper. Many of the things that Uber are criticised for, they'd probably be (rightly) proud of being publicised. But not all.
It's true, I haven't condoned obtaining the confidential medical records of a rape victim by my direct report, ignored dozens of sexual harassment complaints by my employees, or attempted to suppress an HR complaint about me taking my managers to an escort bar in Korea.
I am being deliberately facetious, but your argument "what have you done lately?" is a double edged sword. Yeah, nobody here has done what Travis did running Uber - including all the shit (both proven and allegedly).
Lose rhymes with news. Loose rhymes with Bruce. If you can say "Bruce is in the news," you're halfway there.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bruce+news&kp=-2&ia=news
You can lose a fight, lose money, lose your wallet. You can fight a losing battle, you can be a loser baby. Rikki shouldn't lose that number.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zqf35Rm1Fg&t=00m23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA
You can be born to lose like Ray Price or Ray Charles. Or you can be born to lose like Lemmy. Or like Johnny Thunders you can be born to lose, but then everybody always wonders if it's really "Born Too Loose." Don't pay attention to that shit yet, that's far too advanced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4fMEJUDhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOmizjm0Xw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWB5JZRGl0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLowvi4bP18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQoDCEKZyQw
Loose is mainly an adjective as in loose booty, loose women, loose screws. You can hold on loosely, you can bust loose; you have the choice of givin it up or turnin it loose, you can be on the loose, or you can be let loose from the noose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIIErMKNnY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwHi10qX8u8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=921kqkHOHDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7XbV82JfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA&t=00m31s
You can't really loose too many things (as a verb), unless you want to sound somewhat archaic... but if you did, it would essentially mean "turn loose" or "make loose." Like "Loose the hounds" or "Loose the shackles," or "Loose the fury of Hell itself upon those who mix up 'loose' and 'lose.'"
I sometimes wonder if Steve Jobs had still been alive, would he have been revered as much as he was in the 2010s? His management style would have sooner or later caused permanent damage to someone you and I personally know. And that's where we'd have drawn the line.
The flip side to your point that no one articulates today is that some people with thicker skin like very challenging environments - like a Jobs-ian company that makes them feel like they are part of a a group of with real intensity that is changing the world, and Apple surely did.
Where we mess up today is in thinking that there is one right type of work experience for everyone.: the mythical "we" that you write about in "And that's where we'd have drawn the line."
Maybe it's better to have many diverse workplace cultures and let people chose among them based upon their individual wants and temperaments.
If you don't like how a company is run, you have two options: 1) build the company culture of your dreams from scratch from first principles 2) let someone else do all the hard work of creating value and then show up later and colonize that company and try to change its culture to match your ideal. Hopefully, if you're enlightened you've given some though to how to maintain the positive aspects of that company's culture before you attempt to foist upon its employees your ideal of how it should function.
At the end of the day, employment is at will. If someone doesn't like the way a company is run, they should try to change it from the inside as an employee or move on to another company if they fail to change it. Outsiders, on the other hand, should stay out of it. If you don't like how a company is run, and you don't work there, fuck off. If you really want a company to be run differently, get hired there so your financial success is at least aligned with all the other employees before you try to influence the culture.
Because if they did, we'd still have slavery, 8-year-olds in coal mines, and women in the kitchen.
So I'll continue to make my opinion known, as a consumer no longer using Uber, as a citizen supporting laws mandating sane employment law, as a software engineer discouraging everyone from taking a job at Uber, and as an investor making sure none of his money ever ends up at Uber.
And luckily, CEOs are much further, generally, than these Randian fantasies of masculinity. They have, for example, mostly recognised that it costs them money to rely exclusively on white bros in their 30s with identical experiences.
Which of these are examples of at-will employment? Your argument is a strawman.
Here is the wikipedia article on at-will employment for your edification:
According to Uber's diversity report, the racial composition of its workforce approximately matches the racial composition of San Francisco, Santa Clara and Alemeda counties, and its gender composition is roughly in line with the industry average in the Bay Area and is really no different than the gender composition at companies like Google or Facebook.
Yeap, it sure did:
We were reluctant to show it to Steve, knowing that he would want to commandeer it, but he heard about it from someone and demanded to see it. We showed it to him, and, unfortunately, he loved it. But he also insisted that Apple owned all the rights to it, even though we had developed it in our spare time.
Steve couldn't insist that Apple owned all of it, because Bill Budge wasn't an Apple employee at the time. But Steve could claim complete ownership of the interface card, which he said was developed with Apple resources. Burrell and I were pretty upset, because we did it on our own time and thought that we should be compensated, but it's really hard to argue with Steve, especially about money.
Can't you just feel the unity of the group? /s
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Apple_II_Mouse_Ca...
Collectively, we don't openly criticize or nor attempt to fairly characterize cultures. We talk in euphemisms, like "alpha" when we mean "overbearing narcissistic jerk" or "laddish" when we mean "lazy jerk". We talk about "meritocracy" when number one advice for job seekers is "networking", whether you appear confident matters more then whether project you are responsible for is mess and who you are friend with matters more then anything in that company.
If people have to have fair chance to choose companies, then it needs to be fine for people who work or worked in those companies criticize without being punished for it. That is not exactly the case now - now you need to have good friends in that company to figure that out.
Jobs was (sometimes) hard on people when he felt it would lead to a better product. Kalanick allowed a toxic work environment to spread because he though it was funny.
Reminds me of Apple marginalizing Steve Jobs. Fuck that. I want to see Travis face up to his immoral bullshit as much as anyone, but by Lyft pummeling Uber into the ground, not some cowardly vote from the board.
I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those board members were rich before Uber and will be rich after Uber dissipates.
thats how they want to become profitable.
innocent until proven guilty, btw. some journalist writing something in a newspaper is not proof.
And the relevant legal standard here would be "preponderance of evidence", not "innocent until proven guilty" (which is a right for individual citizens in criminal trials). Corporations aren't fully people yet.
Your argument about "coattails," and your Steve Jobs example, make it seem like you believe that a company exists for the benefit of its founders. That's true if the entire company is the founders in a garage making things, but it all changes once the company takes outside investment -- after that, the company exists for the benefit of its shareholders.
The board has a right to make sure the company is run well -- they company gave the board that right in exchange for the board's money. If the CEO is hurting the company, its investors, and its employees, it is good for the board to step in and prevent him from doing so, even if he was the founder.
Why? What immoral bullshit?
Lyft is basically free-riding off Uber. Uber does the heavy lifting taking on the entrenched taxi companies who have insulated themselves from competition via local politics and regulation and Lyft swoops in once the hard work is done, trying to convince customers who have bought into the media narrative that they are the ethical alternative to Uber. I don't buy this narrative. These journalists have a vendetta against Travis that is not in my view reasonable. I will continue to use Uber if only to spite the press.
FTFY.
You can't be serious. Hiring private investigators to stalk journalists? Promoting sexual harassment in his company? Obtaining the private medical records of someone raped by one of their drivers?
"These journalists have a vendetta against Travis that is not in my view reasonable. I will continue to use Uber if only to spite the press."
So nothing wrong with sexual harassment, then?