10 ms·

I would be exceedingly reluctant to work with an investor who writes an "open letter" to a company in a situation like this, and particularly when that letter c

by rdl 10y ago

I would be exceedingly reluctant to work with an investor who writes an "open letter" to a company in a situation like this, and particularly when that letter calls out the CEO in a pretty gratuitous way ("and we have both been contacted by senior leaders at Uber (though notably not by Travis, the CEO)"). You're supposed to be able to be open with investors and other advisors, so this is a deep breech of trust in a non-public company. I can't see taking advice from and sharing confidential or sensitive information with someone who has done that to you in the past. (The sad part is I agree Uber has a problem and needs to change; Susan Fowler's blog post was remarkable.)

jackmott 10y ago
And I would be reluctant to work with someone who wouldn't write that letter.
- rdl 10y ago
  I think they should do a lot more than the letter, but not publicly. (And to be fair, it sounds like they did, until recently.) The ultimate goal here should be "make Uber a better company -- for employees, customers, and society", not "burnish the Kapor's SJW credentials". The public letter accomplishes the latter, not the former.
  - tumblen 10y ago
    From reading the letter it sounds like they've been trying to do more for years in private, without success.
  - mejari 10y ago
    What is your reasoning to state so unequivocally that the goal of this is not to make Uber a better company? Do you agree at least in theory that there is some amount of time of attempting to influence a company in private without success after which it is appropriate to go public? If not why not, and if so why are you so certain that that time requirement has not been met yet in this case?
  - et-al 10y ago
    The Kapors are invested in Uber. If anything, they would care more about the success of Uber than all the other commentators here--aside from any employees. Right now, they're probably walking a fine line between doing the right thing and maintaining some sort of ROI. I didn't know about the Kapors until today, but considering Mitch's background as an EFF cofounder, the companies Kapor Capital has invested in, and their two other articles on Medium posted a year ago, their actions show they care about more than just profits. If all the Kapors' effort happens to be for "burnishing SJW credentials" then so be it, at least they're making a difference in the real world.
  - mrkgnao 10y ago
    What are their "SJW credentials"?
- dgellow 10y ago
  Could you explain why? Honest question.
  - hyperbovine 10y ago
    Because they prefer morally scrupulous co-workers. Just a guess.
  - mcherm 10y ago
    I'm not the grandparent poster, but I can say why I would want that. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. If I were a founder and I made a mistake running my company, I would want my investors to tell me. I would want them to tell me privately, so I could do something about it without creating a huge public scandal. And I would listen to what they said -- I might, after careful consideration, disagree, but I would absolutely listen and take it to heart. Now, suppose I were not the founder, but some other member of management in a company, and the company was making a mistake. I would want the investors and board members to talk to the CEO (and other people, perhaps even me, depending on my role). I would want the CEO to listen (just as I would). But if the CEO were NOT listening, if the CEO were part of the problem... well, then I would want the investors and board members to use other channels (even public letters if that's what it took) to rescue the company before it was destroyed.
    - dgellow 10y ago
      Interesting, thank you for sharing.
    - raleighm 10y ago
      They wrote that they already tried those channels. Justified at that point to grab the megaphone.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      " But if the CEO were NOT listening, if the CEO were part of the problem... well, then I would want the investors and board members to use other channels (even public letters if that's what it took) to rescue the company before it was destroyed." Errr, they literally describe this as the case? (IE they tried all of the channels you suggest first)
- cal5k 10y ago
  I'm not asking this disrespectfully, but how do you intend to identify such people? Track down a list of all Uber investors who have not written such a letter?
  - munchbunny 10y ago
    Depends, are you asking about the parent poster's statement literally, or are you asking about the more general point of finding investors who have principles and integrity and are willing to hold you to them?
fullshark 10y ago
I think they know this. And they still wrote it. What does this tell us?
- remarkEon 10y ago
  Ding ding ding ding ding. Two things can be true: This can be a breach of trust, and the situation within Uber is so dire, with so many people being just terrible human beings, that this breach was necessary.
- tonystubblebine 10y ago
  Hah. Yes, they are not looking to be all things to all founders. This is good signaling on their part. I started a company while sharing office space with them--great people. I'm sure they've been working behind the scenes on this for a long time. Being in the Kapor office I got a much more visceral experience of "diversity and inclusion" as a raise the bar strategy. Tons of smart people who were also happy and kind and productive.
hackuser 10y ago
How else should the investor respond? In many situations (I don't know enough about this one) I don't think it's acceptable to say nothing; it's effectively tacit support.
- rdl 10y ago
  Unclear. It's a tough situation. I wouldn't consider one of the (100?) investors Uber has to be responsible for Uber's actions, particularly since they're famous for ignoring their investors. Investors are most responsible for the investment decision itself; if they knowingly invested in Uber today, that's a different statement IMO than investing in Uber 4 years ago. I would still prioritize fiduciary duty and privileged information/position as an advisor over anything else, unless there were criminal activity, in which case I'd bring it to the attention of the board and correct authorities. I think you can criticize Travis and management a lot in private, and ultimately push for changes in management (although I don't think anyone would benefit from removing Travis!). Doing things in public is not helpful, though. The other really helpful thing is probably a good reporting pipeline for employees if they think something criminal or illegal or unethical is happening. Less of an issue in a company the size of Uber (there SHOULD have been a way to report to someone...HR was weak, but legal/CFO?). In a smaller company, I'd consider an investor a good proxy for that.
  - Anechoic 10y ago
    I think you can criticize Travis and management a lot in private, It sounds like that's what they've been doing ("We are speaking up now because we are disappointed and frustrated; we feel we have hit a dead end in trying to influence the company quietly from the inside."). If the private approach doesn't work, what should one do?
    - rdl 10y ago
      Accept that they possibly can't fix Uber, and focus on making/helping other investments.
      - 10y ago
ascendantlogic 10y ago
I think every situation is different, and Uber's legendarily toxic culture has remained unaddressed for long enough now that I am starting to think less of investors that silently allow this sort of thing to continue on in the name of returns. If you're known to be a silent investor in Uber, how long until your deal flow starts getting interrupted because companies refuse to work with you? Maybe never, but I personally applaud these investors for finally speaking up.
Clanan 10y ago
Isn't that the point, though? By writing this open letter they're effectively holding the company accountable in an extreme, public way. I would hope a company would treasure such investors since they're willing to offer such "tough love".
- raleighm 10y ago
  Exactly.
differentView 10y ago
> this is a deep breech of trust in a non-public company How so? Senior leaders at Uber seeking "advice on a variety of issues, mostly pertaining to diversity and inclusion" isn't a bad thing. Clarifying that Travis Kalanick, the CEO, wasn't one of those senior leaders, doesn't breach anyone's trust.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
otheraccount53 10y ago
You know what? I am disgusted and ashamed that a message board that I read and participate in daily is reacting this way. I'm sick of how Silicon Valley always puts money and internal graft ahead of inconvenient things like morals and acting like decent human beings. Beyond that, I'm tired of how everyone then tries to pretend that these actions that are taken out of greed and ambition to "rule the world" are somehow in the public's best interest. I see no reason why you are reprimanding a pair of human beings who realized that the company that they have aided, abetted, and implicitly condoned through their investment, and then decided to do what little they could to try to influence that company to fix the situation.
- layer8burrito 10y ago
  What makes you think people aren't objecting to this because of their morals? I find it extremely ammoral to post unsubstantiated accusations on a blog then rally a witch hunt. Then for high powered people like Kapor to jump on board with zero evidence of wrongdoing on Uber's part... it's quite frankly terrifying. Innocent until proven guilty is a moral code some of us abide by.
- shirleman 10y ago
  If someone misbehaves, you talk to them quietly first. If that doesn't work, you need to look at taking more drastic measures. Uber investors have been MUCH too quiet. I'd push LPs in VC funds who sit on their board to put pressure on the VCs to fix it. If 5-10 major pensions/endowments threatened to pull out of future funds for a VC, they would stand up and take notice.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Well said. Either SV is different than business is usual... or it's not. And if it's not (and not willing to self police to a higher ethical standard), then we should really start asking whether we're comfortable with these companies having the amount of access to our lives they do. Would you trust Walmart with an Echo type device in your house?
  - tyingq 10y ago
jforman 10y ago
Mitch has invested in a company I founded before, and I would have him as an investor again in a heartbeat. Your relationship with your investors and your board is both public and private (or at least, it's supposed to be). Yes, you are owed a private space to discuss difficult internal matters. But your investors are also responsible for getting you ready to be a public company, and that means holding you accountable when you've fallen below the threshold of what would be acceptable to public shareholders. As the letter notes, "accountable" by definition means in the open and out of your total control. Mitch and Freada are doing Uber's shareholders a service (and therefore also doing Travis a service) by helping the company clean house before they're exposed to the harsher sunlight of being a public company. If you wouldn't have them as investors as a result, then you're not ready to be held accountable by others and aren't public CEO material.
- nikcub 10y ago
  fron the perspective of some founders, its easier to take the dumb money from overseas investment and sovereign wealth funds as you get the benefit of the funds but without the baggage of a minority investor with a blog who wants to change the world.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    You may be confusing, "thinks they're changing the world," with something more like, "Trying not to do any more harm than necessary."
  - jforman 10y ago
    Mitch and Freada have already well accomplished "changing the world." Travis has many years to go yet before he can even be considered to be in the same league. As they say, GIGO. Feel free to take on garbage investors, but don't be surprised if your probability of success goes down as a result.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Skimming their portfolio, it seems like their biggest accomplishment is actually funding Uber. http://www.kaporcapital.com/portfolio/ http://www.kaporcapital.com/portfolio/ Can you name something they've done that has had a more positive effect on the world than Uber has?
shirleman 10y ago
I wouldn't want to work with an investor who doesn't stand up for what they believe in. If you aren't fighting for building successful companies that also do it the right way, why would I take your money? I want to take money from someone I trust, not someone who will toe the company line. This attitude is what caused Zenefits to explode: no one questioned their tactics or culture because they were growing. Same with Theranos. I want to work with good people and good people stand up for things when they feel they have a need to. If it was for a first (maybe 3rd or 4th) offense, I would agree, but for a 40th? Call those MFs out.
fredophile 10y ago
I take the opposite view. Ethics are important. If I was to found and run a company I'd hope that I'd never let things get to the point that investors felt that this was a reasonable step. It sounds like up until this point they've been active and trying to help the company with these sorts of issues in a more discreet manner.
XJOKOLAT 10y ago
I think you're misplacing where the deep breech of trust has occurred ... if an investor stays silent in this situation, I would regard that investor as suspect ethically. And in this case, if the investor is pissed at Travis for not getting in touch (a different breech of the relationship), this is pretty good way of getting their attention (well, possibly). Edit: disclaimer, I should declare my bias: #deleteuber
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
2arrs2ells 10y ago
I have a very different take - I'm a co-founder of a Kapor portfolio company & sent Mitch & Freada a note today thanking them for speaking up. I want investors who are patient and supportive (and my experience with the Kapors has been excellent in this regard), but also investors that hold portfolio companies accountable when necessary.
u-ber-mensch 10y ago
Kapor Capital focuses on funding companies that strive to make positive social change. Uber's behavior pretty much forced Kapor into make a statement; staying silent while touting their message of diversity would look extremely bad.
raleighm 10y ago
That seems inconsistent, curious how you reconcile. Some companies now might hesitate to work Kapors. Some companies now might hesitate to hire Susan. If you are okay with employee speaking up publicly when private action failed, why not an investor? Seems entirely within their rights and the moral thing to do.
oxryly1 10y ago
There's a bit of a theme in these comments that make it appear that the founder-investor relationship should become a suicide pact in the face of problems.
rorykoehler 10y ago
Really? This has the opposite effect on me. Uber and Travis were given plenty of opportunity to change and they didn't take it so the Kapors are taking action. We need more investors like Kapors and less amoral profit first and only investors.
lacker 10y ago
Mitch Kapor must know that a number of founders will react this way. That makes it a stronger statement, because it's costing him something. As a thought experiment, what if Travis Kalanick personally committed a serious violent crime, and Uber the company was covering it up? I think you would agree that it would be ethical and commendable in that hypothetical case for Mitch Kapor to go public like this with his criticism. So if you accept that, then really it's just a measure of what offense is bad enough that it's ethical for an investor to criticize an investment like this. Maybe to you this sort of offense is not so bad, it's on the "okay" side of the line, and to Mitch Kapor this offense is pretty bad, it's on the "not okay" side of the line. I don't think either you or Mitch Kapor is a bad person here. But, maybe all this public outcry indicates it is worth you thinking for a bit if perhaps you are underestimating how bad it is to allow this sort of environment at your company. Maybe you have been thinking "hmm this sort of problem is X amount badness" and the reality is it's 3X units of badness. Personally, this makes me more likely to want a Mitch Kapor investment. If I am founding a company then I really do not want the culture to be Uber-like in its treatment of women. In fact I'd like everyone working at the company to know that up front. After he called out Uber publicly, anyone taking money from Mitch Kapor in the future is making a statement that they care about their culture not ending up like Uber culture. Anyway I can't see inside your head so I don't know if your real nuanced stance on this is right or wrong but I wrote this comment in the hope that you would reflect a bit and consider retuning your instincts on "how bad is this sort of behavior" to be more critical of it.
- rdl 10y ago
  I don't think I'd want investors to publicly criticize a founder or CEO in their portfolio even if the founder was arrested for shooting someone (particularly outside the workplace). Plenty of other people can do this; there's no reason for investors to weigh in. If it were a situation which were work related, then the issue is "pending" vs. "resolved" status. (If it were a serious crime credibly alleged, then I'd expect the CEO to resign pending resolution, but there isn't a whole lot of cause for anyone to comment on it during that process.) Totally agree with you about not wanting Uber-like culture. People should take affirmative steps to not develop that kind of culture. Investors should contribute to that. But, I don't see investors going public with their concerns about portfolio companies as contributing to solving that. I would possibly feel differently if it were a situation where the investor had special knowledge of the incident, but otherwise, why should this one of ~1-100 people comment, when there are ~7b other people who could?
erikb 10y ago
On one hand you are right, but on the other I've seen this argument used soooo many times in my life by people who didn't leave you another chance. And if one can believe the content of the open letter, it also says that they already tried multiple times to discuss this in private. Communication always has two sides. And if one side is not willing you can't just blame the other side.

by rdl 10y ago

jackmott 10y ago

And I would be reluctant to work with someone who wouldn't write that letter.

rdl 10y ago
I think they should do a lot more than the letter, but not publicly. (And to be fair, it sounds like they did, until recently.) The ultimate goal here should be "make Uber a better company -- for employees, customers, and society", not "burnish the Kapor's SJW credentials". The public letter accomplishes the latter, not the former.
- tumblen 10y ago
  From reading the letter it sounds like they've been trying to do more for years in private, without success.
- mejari 10y ago
  What is your reasoning to state so unequivocally that the goal of this is not to make Uber a better company? Do you agree at least in theory that there is some amount of time of attempting to influence a company in private without success after which it is appropriate to go public? If not why not, and if so why are you so certain that that time requirement has not been met yet in this case?
- et-al 10y ago
  The Kapors are invested in Uber. If anything, they would care more about the success of Uber than all the other commentators here--aside from any employees. Right now, they're probably walking a fine line between doing the right thing and maintaining some sort of ROI. I didn't know about the Kapors until today, but considering Mitch's background as an EFF cofounder, the companies Kapor Capital has invested in, and their two other articles on Medium posted a year ago, their actions show they care about more than just profits. If all the Kapors' effort happens to be for "burnishing SJW credentials" then so be it, at least they're making a difference in the real world.
- mrkgnao 10y ago
  What are their "SJW credentials"?
dgellow 10y ago
Could you explain why? Honest question.
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  Because they prefer morally scrupulous co-workers. Just a guess.
- mcherm 10y ago
  I'm not the grandparent poster, but I can say why I would want that. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. If I were a founder and I made a mistake running my company, I would want my investors to tell me. I would want them to tell me privately, so I could do something about it without creating a huge public scandal. And I would listen to what they said -- I might, after careful consideration, disagree, but I would absolutely listen and take it to heart. Now, suppose I were not the founder, but some other member of management in a company, and the company was making a mistake. I would want the investors and board members to talk to the CEO (and other people, perhaps even me, depending on my role). I would want the CEO to listen (just as I would). But if the CEO were NOT listening, if the CEO were part of the problem... well, then I would want the investors and board members to use other channels (even public letters if that's what it took) to rescue the company before it was destroyed.
  - dgellow 10y ago
    Interesting, thank you for sharing.
  - raleighm 10y ago
    They wrote that they already tried those channels. Justified at that point to grab the megaphone.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    " But if the CEO were NOT listening, if the CEO were part of the problem... well, then I would want the investors and board members to use other channels (even public letters if that's what it took) to rescue the company before it was destroyed." Errr, they literally describe this as the case? (IE they tried all of the channels you suggest first)
cal5k 10y ago
I'm not asking this disrespectfully, but how do you intend to identify such people? Track down a list of all Uber investors who have not written such a letter?
- munchbunny 10y ago
  Depends, are you asking about the parent poster's statement literally, or are you asking about the more general point of finding investors who have principles and integrity and are willing to hold you to them?

fullshark 10y ago

I think they know this. And they still wrote it. What does this tell us?

remarkEon 10y ago
Ding ding ding ding ding. Two things can be true: This can be a breach of trust, and the situation within Uber is so dire, with so many people being just terrible human beings, that this breach was necessary.
tonystubblebine 10y ago
Hah. Yes, they are not looking to be all things to all founders. This is good signaling on their part. I started a company while sharing office space with them--great people. I'm sure they've been working behind the scenes on this for a long time. Being in the Kapor office I got a much more visceral experience of "diversity and inclusion" as a raise the bar strategy. Tons of smart people who were also happy and kind and productive.

hackuser 10y ago

How else should the investor respond? In many situations (I don't know enough about this one) I don't think it's acceptable to say nothing; it's effectively tacit support.

rdl 10y ago
Unclear. It's a tough situation. I wouldn't consider one of the (100?) investors Uber has to be responsible for Uber's actions, particularly since they're famous for ignoring their investors. Investors are most responsible for the investment decision itself; if they knowingly invested in Uber today, that's a different statement IMO than investing in Uber 4 years ago. I would still prioritize fiduciary duty and privileged information/position as an advisor over anything else, unless there were criminal activity, in which case I'd bring it to the attention of the board and correct authorities. I think you can criticize Travis and management a lot in private, and ultimately push for changes in management (although I don't think anyone would benefit from removing Travis!). Doing things in public is not helpful, though. The other really helpful thing is probably a good reporting pipeline for employees if they think something criminal or illegal or unethical is happening. Less of an issue in a company the size of Uber (there SHOULD have been a way to report to someone...HR was weak, but legal/CFO?). In a smaller company, I'd consider an investor a good proxy for that.
- Anechoic 10y ago
  I think you can criticize Travis and management a lot in private, It sounds like that's what they've been doing ("We are speaking up now because we are disappointed and frustrated; we feel we have hit a dead end in trying to influence the company quietly from the inside."). If the private approach doesn't work, what should one do?
  - rdl 10y ago
    Accept that they possibly can't fix Uber, and focus on making/helping other investments.
    - 10y ago

ascendantlogic 10y ago

I think every situation is different, and Uber's legendarily toxic culture has remained unaddressed for long enough now that I am starting to think less of investors that silently allow this sort of thing to continue on in the name of returns. If you're known to be a silent investor in Uber, how long until your deal flow starts getting interrupted because companies refuse to work with you? Maybe never, but I personally applaud these investors for finally speaking up.

Clanan 10y ago

Isn't that the point, though? By writing this open letter they're effectively holding the company accountable in an extreme, public way. I would hope a company would treasure such investors since they're willing to offer such "tough love".

raleighm 10y ago
Exactly.

differentView 10y ago

> this is a deep breech of trust in a non-public company How so? Senior leaders at Uber seeking "advice on a variety of issues, mostly pertaining to diversity and inclusion" isn't a bad thing. Clarifying that Travis Kalanick, the CEO, wasn't one of those senior leaders, doesn't breach anyone's trust.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

otheraccount53 10y ago

You know what? I am disgusted and ashamed that a message board that I read and participate in daily is reacting this way. I'm sick of how Silicon Valley always puts money and internal graft ahead of inconvenient things like morals and acting like decent human beings. Beyond that, I'm tired of how everyone then tries to pretend that these actions that are taken out of greed and ambition to "rule the world" are somehow in the public's best interest. I see no reason why you are reprimanding a pair of human beings who realized that the company that they have aided, abetted, and implicitly condoned through their investment, and then decided to do what little they could to try to influence that company to fix the situation.

layer8burrito 10y ago
What makes you think people aren't objecting to this because of their morals? I find it extremely ammoral to post unsubstantiated accusations on a blog then rally a witch hunt. Then for high powered people like Kapor to jump on board with zero evidence of wrongdoing on Uber's part... it's quite frankly terrifying. Innocent until proven guilty is a moral code some of us abide by.
shirleman 10y ago
If someone misbehaves, you talk to them quietly first. If that doesn't work, you need to look at taking more drastic measures. Uber investors have been MUCH too quiet. I'd push LPs in VC funds who sit on their board to put pressure on the VCs to fix it. If 5-10 major pensions/endowments threatened to pull out of future funds for a VC, they would stand up and take notice.
ethbro 10y ago
Well said. Either SV is different than business is usual... or it's not. And if it's not (and not willing to self police to a higher ethical standard), then we should really start asking whether we're comfortable with these companies having the amount of access to our lives they do. Would you trust Walmart with an Echo type device in your house?
- tyingq 10y ago

jforman 10y ago

Mitch has invested in a company I founded before, and I would have him as an investor again in a heartbeat. Your relationship with your investors and your board is both public and private (or at least, it's supposed to be). Yes, you are owed a private space to discuss difficult internal matters. But your investors are also responsible for getting you ready to be a public company, and that means holding you accountable when you've fallen below the threshold of what would be acceptable to public shareholders. As the letter notes, "accountable" by definition means in the open and out of your total control. Mitch and Freada are doing Uber's shareholders a service (and therefore also doing Travis a service) by helping the company clean house before they're exposed to the harsher sunlight of being a public company. If you wouldn't have them as investors as a result, then you're not ready to be held accountable by others and aren't public CEO material.

nikcub 10y ago
fron the perspective of some founders, its easier to take the dumb money from overseas investment and sovereign wealth funds as you get the benefit of the funds but without the baggage of a minority investor with a blog who wants to change the world.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  You may be confusing, "thinks they're changing the world," with something more like, "Trying not to do any more harm than necessary."
- jforman 10y ago
  Mitch and Freada have already well accomplished "changing the world." Travis has many years to go yet before he can even be considered to be in the same league. As they say, GIGO. Feel free to take on garbage investors, but don't be surprised if your probability of success goes down as a result.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Skimming their portfolio, it seems like their biggest accomplishment is actually funding Uber. http://www.kaporcapital.com/portfolio/ http://www.kaporcapital.com/portfolio/ Can you name something they've done that has had a more positive effect on the world than Uber has?

shirleman 10y ago

I wouldn't want to work with an investor who doesn't stand up for what they believe in. If you aren't fighting for building successful companies that also do it the right way, why would I take your money? I want to take money from someone I trust, not someone who will toe the company line. This attitude is what caused Zenefits to explode: no one questioned their tactics or culture because they were growing. Same with Theranos. I want to work with good people and good people stand up for things when they feel they have a need to. If it was for a first (maybe 3rd or 4th) offense, I would agree, but for a 40th? Call those MFs out.

fredophile 10y ago

I take the opposite view. Ethics are important. If I was to found and run a company I'd hope that I'd never let things get to the point that investors felt that this was a reasonable step. It sounds like up until this point they've been active and trying to help the company with these sorts of issues in a more discreet manner.

XJOKOLAT 10y ago

I think you're misplacing where the deep breech of trust has occurred ... if an investor stays silent in this situation, I would regard that investor as suspect ethically. And in this case, if the investor is pissed at Travis for not getting in touch (a different breech of the relationship), this is pretty good way of getting their attention (well, possibly). Edit: disclaimer, I should declare my bias: #deleteuber

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

2arrs2ells 10y ago

I have a very different take - I'm a co-founder of a Kapor portfolio company & sent Mitch & Freada a note today thanking them for speaking up. I want investors who are patient and supportive (and my experience with the Kapors has been excellent in this regard), but also investors that hold portfolio companies accountable when necessary.

u-ber-mensch 10y ago

Kapor Capital focuses on funding companies that strive to make positive social change. Uber's behavior pretty much forced Kapor into make a statement; staying silent while touting their message of diversity would look extremely bad.

raleighm 10y ago

That seems inconsistent, curious how you reconcile. Some companies now might hesitate to work Kapors. Some companies now might hesitate to hire Susan. If you are okay with employee speaking up publicly when private action failed, why not an investor? Seems entirely within their rights and the moral thing to do.

oxryly1 10y ago

There's a bit of a theme in these comments that make it appear that the founder-investor relationship should become a suicide pact in the face of problems.

rorykoehler 10y ago

Really? This has the opposite effect on me. Uber and Travis were given plenty of opportunity to change and they didn't take it so the Kapors are taking action. We need more investors like Kapors and less amoral profit first and only investors.

lacker 10y ago

Mitch Kapor must know that a number of founders will react this way. That makes it a stronger statement, because it's costing him something. As a thought experiment, what if Travis Kalanick personally committed a serious violent crime, and Uber the company was covering it up? I think you would agree that it would be ethical and commendable in that hypothetical case for Mitch Kapor to go public like this with his criticism. So if you accept that, then really it's just a measure of what offense is bad enough that it's ethical for an investor to criticize an investment like this. Maybe to you this sort of offense is not so bad, it's on the "okay" side of the line, and to Mitch Kapor this offense is pretty bad, it's on the "not okay" side of the line. I don't think either you or Mitch Kapor is a bad person here. But, maybe all this public outcry indicates it is worth you thinking for a bit if perhaps you are underestimating how bad it is to allow this sort of environment at your company. Maybe you have been thinking "hmm this sort of problem is X amount badness" and the reality is it's 3X units of badness. Personally, this makes me more likely to want a Mitch Kapor investment. If I am founding a company then I really do not want the culture to be Uber-like in its treatment of women. In fact I'd like everyone working at the company to know that up front. After he called out Uber publicly, anyone taking money from Mitch Kapor in the future is making a statement that they care about their culture not ending up like Uber culture. Anyway I can't see inside your head so I don't know if your real nuanced stance on this is right or wrong but I wrote this comment in the hope that you would reflect a bit and consider retuning your instincts on "how bad is this sort of behavior" to be more critical of it.

rdl 10y ago
I don't think I'd want investors to publicly criticize a founder or CEO in their portfolio even if the founder was arrested for shooting someone (particularly outside the workplace). Plenty of other people can do this; there's no reason for investors to weigh in. If it were a situation which were work related, then the issue is "pending" vs. "resolved" status. (If it were a serious crime credibly alleged, then I'd expect the CEO to resign pending resolution, but there isn't a whole lot of cause for anyone to comment on it during that process.) Totally agree with you about not wanting Uber-like culture. People should take affirmative steps to not develop that kind of culture. Investors should contribute to that. But, I don't see investors going public with their concerns about portfolio companies as contributing to solving that. I would possibly feel differently if it were a situation where the investor had special knowledge of the incident, but otherwise, why should this one of ~1-100 people comment, when there are ~7b other people who could?

erikb 10y ago

On one hand you are right, but on the other I've seen this argument used soooo many times in my life by people who didn't leave you another chance. And if one can believe the content of the open letter, it also says that they already tried multiple times to discuss this in private. Communication always has two sides. And if one side is not willing you can't just blame the other side.