3 ms·

>He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company. The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one

by Tycho 10y ago

>He is completely, 100% responsible for the culture of his company. The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis. > No one who uses the phrase "SJWs" should be taken seriously. Why? > Because there's no way they actually happened. They hired an actor to defame Kalanick. And no one had ever experienced sexual harassment and hostile workplace environments at Uber before. Not an actor, but possibly someone was trawling for embarrassing footage that otherwise would probably never see the light of day. The blog post was clearly fake and I'm just wondering if it was part of a viral marketing campaign for New Balance sneakers, or a party with a grudge, or possibly just a regular troll.

st3v3r 10y ago
Nothing negative that has come out of Uber has been faked. You have absolutely no evidence to say otherwise. And of course a video of the CEO of Uber berating one of his drivers was always going to see the light of day. "The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis." Again, the buck stops there. EVERYTHING at Uber is Kalanick's responsibility. EVERYTHING. Otherwise he does not deserve the title of founder, and all the money that's come with it.
- Tycho 10y ago
  CEO has 100% responsibility that his/her company fulfils its fiduciary duty to investors. They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the employees. It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR policy. True I don't have evidence that the #UberSurvivor blog was fake but there's also been zero proof that it is real and I would be willing to bet money that none will ever appear.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the employees." Yes, they do. Again, they are entirely responsible for their company. "It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR policy." Like the several other times he's done that, and it failed to change anything?
    - Tycho 10y ago
      I cited the fiduciary duty which is a widely recognized standard for the practice of running a company. What standard are you alluding to, exactly, when you say the CEO is "entirely responsible" for everything that happens within the walls of their company? Are you just making an arbitrary assertion? Who exactly does the CEO need to answer to for these kinds of employee misconduct?

by Tycho 10y ago

st3v3r 10y ago

Nothing negative that has come out of Uber has been faked. You have absolutely no evidence to say otherwise. And of course a video of the CEO of Uber berating one of his drivers was always going to see the light of day. "The term "culture" is not compatible with the idea of assigning 100% responsibility to one person. In fact it's practically the antithesis." Again, the buck stops there. EVERYTHING at Uber is Kalanick's responsibility. EVERYTHING. Otherwise he does not deserve the title of founder, and all the money that's come with it.

Tycho 10y ago
CEO has 100% responsibility that his/her company fulfils its fiduciary duty to investors. They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the employees. It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR policy. True I don't have evidence that the #UberSurvivor blog was fake but there's also been zero proof that it is real and I would be willing to bet money that none will ever appear.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "They do not have this more nebulous "duty to society" responsibility that puts them on the hook for every single instance of bad behaviour by any of the employees." Yes, they do. Again, they are entirely responsible for their company. "It would be more than adequate for Kalinack to simply order a review of HR policy." Like the several other times he's done that, and it failed to change anything?
  - Tycho 10y ago
    I cited the fiduciary duty which is a widely recognized standard for the practice of running a company. What standard are you alluding to, exactly, when you say the CEO is "entirely responsible" for everything that happens within the walls of their company? Are you just making an arbitrary assertion? Who exactly does the CEO need to answer to for these kinds of employee misconduct?