7 ms·

Someone made an interesting point on a discussion I saw yesterday: Travis has never worked at a company that he hasn't started himself[0]. He had a short stint

Someone made an interesting point on a discussion I saw yesterday: Travis has never worked at a company that he hasn't started himself[0]. He had a short stint at Akamai when one of his companies was bought but it was shorter than one year. The take away is that he has never worked at a place with a rigid corporate structure or real HR. While that might be good for a startup that needs to move fast, it's not good if you want to learn on how to cultivate a healthy company culture, or have any empathy for your employees. In other words, he has been running a college frat house for the past 7 years and it shows. He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended. And too many entrepreneurs/co-founders in Silicon Valley are in the same position. [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/traviskalanick/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/traviskalanick/

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
That's a very generous interpretation of his actions.
k__ 10y ago
Can't blame him. I worked at companies with such a structure and found it to be a drag. On the other hand I'm a white, able, CIS male academic, so I never experience the problems that can arise from the lack of such structures.
hashkb 10y ago
> He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended. And too many entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are in the same position. This is a common excuse that holds no water with me. "Good intentions" are worth absolutely nothing, in fact I'd prefer a CEO who is an asshole on purpose to one who is just naturally a piece of shit and can't see it until his company gets bad press. It's an issue of maturity and responsibility and ethics with people's livelihoods at stake. There can't be excuses.
- whatever_dude 10y ago
  I didn't mean it as an excuse, but as a way to explain and understand the problem. I'm not even considering whether he had "good intentions" or not. I have no way of judging that. Understanding is the first step on fixing it and preventing it in the future. Pointing fingers at someone as if they're the root and the single cause of the problem might feel good, but it's too easy an explanation. In your case of an asshole CEO and an ignorant CEO, I wouldn't prefer either. Both are just as bad. But the ignorant CEO just never learned empathy and might be able to become a better human; the purposely asshole CEO is irreparably broken.
  - hashkb 10y ago
    You wrote that he was probably more ignorant than ill-intentioned. That implies good intentions or no intentions. The intentional asshole makes good decisions for the company, think Bill Gates in the 90s. These days he's shown that that was business, now with the Foundation he's choosing to not be that guy. TK does not appear capable of a change like that.
    - neom 10y ago
      I think being an asshole and being demanding can also get really misconstrued, lots of people who have worked for me think I'm demanding, probably annoying, and sometimes an ass, however I'd like to believe they would also say they have grown because they were pushed, and I don't think they would say I'm unkind, or a jerk, or hurtful. I don't believe that's what is going on with TK.
    - whatever_dude 10y ago
      Someone can still be massively ignorant while still having bad intentions.
kapkapkap 10y ago
I'd say that a significant amount of founders of unicorn companies have not worked at a company that they didn't start themselves, so I don't see how that makes this situation unique/excusable.
- baq 10y ago
  maybe we just don't get to hear about those problems.
matt4077 10y ago
A "college frathouse" isn't the default attitude of human beings. You don't create a toxic bro-themed caricature of a company from a lack of skill. In fact I'd say it takes more effort, and deep-seated character flaws, to create such a culture, considering most of his employees are probably well-adjusted people with prior experiences that had to be unlearned.
redm 10y ago
That is very possibly accurate. Redswoosh lost the support VC's in ~2001, and it was just him, in a shared office with a single engineer. He stuck with it though where most would have abandoned it, and was able to sell it years later to Akamai, and RedSwoosh was a dog of a product. [1] [2] To say he pushed hard is an understatement. That's his mindset, he's cocky but he believes in what he's doing, and he keeps pushing no matter what. The difference is, Uber is a success by all measures, [3] and it may need a different mentality to move it forward. [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-travis-kalanick-bio-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-travis-kalanick-bio-2014... [2]: https://gigaom.com/2008/05/03/whatever-happened-to-red-swoosh/ https://gigaom.com/2008/05/03/whatever-happened-to-red-swoos... [3]: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-uber-and-its-rise-to-become-the-most-valuable-startup-in-the-world-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-uber-and-its-rise-...

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

That's a very generous interpretation of his actions.

k__ 10y ago

Can't blame him. I worked at companies with such a structure and found it to be a drag. On the other hand I'm a white, able, CIS male academic, so I never experience the problems that can arise from the lack of such structures.

hashkb 10y ago

> He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended. And too many entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are in the same position. This is a common excuse that holds no water with me. "Good intentions" are worth absolutely nothing, in fact I'd prefer a CEO who is an asshole on purpose to one who is just naturally a piece of shit and can't see it until his company gets bad press. It's an issue of maturity and responsibility and ethics with people's livelihoods at stake. There can't be excuses.

whatever_dude 10y ago
I didn't mean it as an excuse, but as a way to explain and understand the problem. I'm not even considering whether he had "good intentions" or not. I have no way of judging that. Understanding is the first step on fixing it and preventing it in the future. Pointing fingers at someone as if they're the root and the single cause of the problem might feel good, but it's too easy an explanation. In your case of an asshole CEO and an ignorant CEO, I wouldn't prefer either. Both are just as bad. But the ignorant CEO just never learned empathy and might be able to become a better human; the purposely asshole CEO is irreparably broken.
- hashkb 10y ago
  You wrote that he was probably more ignorant than ill-intentioned. That implies good intentions or no intentions. The intentional asshole makes good decisions for the company, think Bill Gates in the 90s. These days he's shown that that was business, now with the Foundation he's choosing to not be that guy. TK does not appear capable of a change like that.
  - neom 10y ago
    I think being an asshole and being demanding can also get really misconstrued, lots of people who have worked for me think I'm demanding, probably annoying, and sometimes an ass, however I'd like to believe they would also say they have grown because they were pushed, and I don't think they would say I'm unkind, or a jerk, or hurtful. I don't believe that's what is going on with TK.
  - whatever_dude 10y ago
    Someone can still be massively ignorant while still having bad intentions.

kapkapkap 10y ago

I'd say that a significant amount of founders of unicorn companies have not worked at a company that they didn't start themselves, so I don't see how that makes this situation unique/excusable.

baq 10y ago
maybe we just don't get to hear about those problems.

matt4077 10y ago

A "college frathouse" isn't the default attitude of human beings. You don't create a toxic bro-themed caricature of a company from a lack of skill. In fact I'd say it takes more effort, and deep-seated character flaws, to create such a culture, considering most of his employees are probably well-adjusted people with prior experiences that had to be unlearned.

redm 10y ago

That is very possibly accurate. Redswoosh lost the support VC's in ~2001, and it was just him, in a shared office with a single engineer. He stuck with it though where most would have abandoned it, and was able to sell it years later to Akamai, and RedSwoosh was a dog of a product. [1] [2] To say he pushed hard is an understatement. That's his mindset, he's cocky but he believes in what he's doing, and he keeps pushing no matter what. The difference is, Uber is a success by all measures, [3] and it may need a different mentality to move it forward. [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-travis-kalanick-bio-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-travis-kalanick-bio-2014... [2]: https://gigaom.com/2008/05/03/whatever-happened-to-red-swoosh/ https://gigaom.com/2008/05/03/whatever-happened-to-red-swoos... [3]: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-uber-and-its-rise-to-become-the-most-valuable-startup-in-the-world-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-uber-and-its-rise-...