Plenty of startups have been lead to success by founders with zero business accumen. Why not look internally for someone who knows the product inside and out, and actually still cares about the company rather than showing up for a payday?
At this point, Uber is a big machine not all that different than that of other large companies in day to day operations. There probably is a value in having level headed professional brought in at this point given the turmoil the company has been going through.
Whether Immelt is the right CEO is the question.
I think it's Tyler Cowen or someone from his blog who has the answer to this. It's the star system. It's relevant for sports, entertainment, CEOs, and anything else where the premium for an established player is significant.
Hire a new guy to do a star job, and you take a risk. Hire a guy someone else already hired, and you're just doing what's normal. New guy may be cheaper, but once he's elevated to stardom, his pricetag will as well. So no great win there. New guy may fail though, and they you will look stupid. Why'd you hire an untested guy? Maybe you should be replaced, too!
Established guy may fail, but many things can cause failure. You just got unlucky. OTOH if he does well, he's worth every penny.
New guy may do well, in which case you're fortunate for seeing what anyone would have seen.
If you've ever thought it was somewhat hard to explain why some people seem to be elevated while others with seemingly similar skill are left on the shelf, this is one mechanism. Add in actual skill difference and it starts to get interesting.
Wrt to Uber, there probably are a bunch of execs who've been there a while and know the place. They could probably do an ok job of it, but because the board are in a position where Uber really needs to be turned around properly, the people who could that best won't get the chance.
https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen-sho...
With 50 employees, you might succeed just by having a phenomenal head for details, and managing to know everything the organisation is doing, and remembering everyones names. When small, that skill is useless (anyone can remember the names of every employee when you only have a dozen); when larger that skill can't be applied (you can't know everything happening in a company with offices on multiple continents). Occasionally you find someone who, by sheer chance, is good at every stage of growth, but they're very rare.
Hence why growing organisations almost invariably change CEOs to match their changing management styles as they grow. At 12k employees, Uber is starting to get to the stage where they need someone in charge that's really good at managing the people who are in charge of managing to teams of people who manage the people who actually do stuff; if they're going to keep growing they certainly need that.
> Plenty of startups have been lead to success by founders with zero business accumen.
Very few of them have been led by the same founder with clear success for their entire growth path from 1 to hundreds of thousands of employees. It's not about business accumen; it's about scale. If it helps, consider a software project: A very small project could be done by one person over a few days; a very large project might have many teams of programmers over a few years. Think about how different they are--they'll need need totally different approaches, technologies, etc., and many skilled programmers who might excel at one might struggle or be unhappy in the other.
Imagine it's your job to hire a new CEO for a gigantic corporation. Do you take the safest option and hire a CEO with CEO experience? If not, and if the inexperienced CEO failed, how do you expect to justify your keeping your job?
Money makes the world go round. Anything else is CYA.
Apparently they have a partnership with HPE, which is of course what Meg runs. Transitive laugh/cry.