You're quoting out of context. The first line of the email explicitly says he's taking time off to grieve, reflect and work on himself, in that order (he also enumerates "focus on building a leadership team" as a reason, though I'm not really sure how that is supposed to be done when one's taking time off)

The second paragraph (the one you quoted) is a tie-in to the third paragraph, where he says what's going to happen in terms of leadership during this interim period.

If this were a book or movie, a significant life event like either of those (or both) would be the natural opening of a new arc.

I suspect this forum is mostly teens and twenty somethings. We all lose a parent(s). It happened to me and it'll happen to you. It happens all the time with your coworkers, you just don't notice it. People don't take a year off to 'find themselves' after losing a parent. They suddenly have a funeral to plan (and pay for) and then get back to their jobs. That's life.

Also, if you want to get into boating, don't let an animal onto your boat. This accident happened because the family dog stepped in between mom and dad switching passenger/driver positions.

Having unexpectedly lost a parent myself, and worked with others who have been through similar circumstances, it is absolutely accepted and expected to take at least a week off, probably longer, if you work for a reasonable company with a reasonable manager. It's one of the most difficult things most people will experience in life. That amount of time is barely enough to get over the initial shock before you half heartedly return to work while beginning to deal with probate, attorneys, settling the estate, and trying to work through your emotions.

Except when it doesn't. That saying is just confirmation bias.

I'm reminded of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect - how we are constantly surprised when the media gets crucial details (which we are personally familiar with) so very wrong in their reporting.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-ge...

So Greyball was fake? How about their Hell program? Or the fact that one of their executives illegally acquired a rape victims medical reports and circulated them around the office?

Uber has continuously demonstrated a total disregard for both the law and common decency. They lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

Most media reporting is disgusting and written primarily to get page views. Facts are selected to support the narrative they are pushing.

That doesn't excuse Kalanik and the way he ran the company.

You think this leave is his choice? I haven't seen anything indicating this was initiated by him or that he was setting the terms of the leave. Further, the board explicitly put in place reduced responsibility after he comes back. This seems very much imposed on him.

On a side note, I would love to see sources that show this is really voluntary. I am very curious about this. I actually think the real reason for his ouster is Uber's in ability to become profitable. A voluntary departure would undercut my thesis and I think it is always important to correct analysis.

My corporate overlord is the good one!

Right near the end of the article it says:

> Kalanick decided to take a leave while also coping with the death of his mother, whose funeral he attended Friday.

The newscaster did mention that he hasn't been at work since the incident, spending time instead with his dad. It's a challenging time for anyone going through this, even if he's overseen some questionable things at his company.

It's simple. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the defamatory narrative they were just itching to write for the rest of the article.

Either that, or they simply didn't know. But I find the latter hard to believe. Even if that detail was missed, it's very poor journalism to not find the full story.