4 ms·

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 exper

by 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?
smallgovt 10y ago
Though I agree there is a line in the sand, I think there's more to this than just "how bad is this sort of behavior" In addition to severity, we need to consider: - the "impact" made by joining the conversation publicly - other available means to exert the same level of influence Given the size of the organization and the fact that it was already in crisis mode, I'd argue this won't really change much. And, if that's the case, then the breach of trust isn't really warranted. As outsiders, it's impossible for us to truly determine how impactful this letter will be, or whether there were alternative means to achieve the same change. Given imperfect information, where does that leave us? Well, making business decisions always involves incomplete information. If there's uncertainty around whether said investor's actions were justified, and I have a choice to take money from another investor on equal terms, I'll take the alternative (all else equal). This is a practical decision driven by caution - not a judgement of character on said investor (I have a lot more respect for Mitch as a person because he certainly considered the consequences of this letter).
- lacker 10y ago
  I appreciate this not because I think it will change Uber. I appreciate this because it will make Mitch Kapor's other investments realize that, if their internal culture is as bad as Uber's, they now have one more reason to improve it.

by lacker 10y ago

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?

smallgovt 10y ago

Though I agree there is a line in the sand, I think there's more to this than just "how bad is this sort of behavior" In addition to severity, we need to consider: - the "impact" made by joining the conversation publicly - other available means to exert the same level of influence Given the size of the organization and the fact that it was already in crisis mode, I'd argue this won't really change much. And, if that's the case, then the breach of trust isn't really warranted. As outsiders, it's impossible for us to truly determine how impactful this letter will be, or whether there were alternative means to achieve the same change. Given imperfect information, where does that leave us? Well, making business decisions always involves incomplete information. If there's uncertainty around whether said investor's actions were justified, and I have a choice to take money from another investor on equal terms, I'll take the alternative (all else equal). This is a practical decision driven by caution - not a judgement of character on said investor (I have a lot more respect for Mitch as a person because he certainly considered the consequences of this letter).

lacker 10y ago
I appreciate this not because I think it will change Uber. I appreciate this because it will make Mitch Kapor's other investments realize that, if their internal culture is as bad as Uber's, they now have one more reason to improve it.