4 ms·

Removing a CEO based simply on allegations sounds to me as a pretty extreme response. Would you feel the same if the company in question would not be Uber (who

by ptero 10y ago

Removing a CEO based simply on allegations sounds to me as a pretty extreme response. Would you feel the same if the company in question would not be Uber (whose CEO may be a liability for Uber ATM anyway) but, say, IBM? This is an honest question.

st3v3r 10y ago
To be honest, given the history of Uber's CEO, I think he's no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. The onus would be on him to prove to the board that these accusations are not true.
- sauronlord 10y ago
  What crimes or violations was he convicted of? Enough accusations and then you are guilty until proven innocent? Wtf
  - bigiain 10y ago
    Having not been convicted of a crime (with the assistance of one of the world's largest legal budgets) is not the usual measure of being the sort of respected and trusted person you'd want at the helm of your corporation. The man is unquestionably toxic - it's entirely possible the entire company is toxic.
    - sauronlord 10y ago
      Innocent until proven guilty as a legal prescription has nothing to do with respect and trust and some peoples (filtered) opinions.
      - bigiain 10y ago
        Exactly. Board members and shareholders aren't responsible or particularly concerned with innocence or guilt, but are very concerned with trust and respect that customers (or potential-investors/business-partners/governments) have in their company's leadership. They're not deciding whether to put him in jail or not, but board members are legally obligated to determine whether or not he's adding or detracting from shareholder value. Even if every single accusation against him and the culture he's built is false - the public perception needs addressing. Perhaps "remove" is the wrong wording, but if you're an insider/board member who thinks every single accusation and report is false - you'd at least have to seriously consider asking Travis to publicly "recuse" himself while the investigations are under way - without that anything coming out of the investigation is going to be about as believable as the Police Union guy announcing "We've investigated the matter and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing!".
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Yes, exactly. Enough accusations, and you become a distraction to the company. Were I on the board, he would be trying to justify why he should remain as head of this company.
thrill 10y ago
Maybe. CEOs are indeed a lightening rod for criticism, good or bad. One hopes the BOD has the intel needed to evaluate the situation, but I can tell you from experience, if someone makes a minimal effort to hide their actions, especially if they are a CEO who's been permitted to do whatever he wanted to that point, then it's more of a burden for that BOD to perform proper diligence. As a BOD member, I don't want burdens - I want clarity and confirmability - if I can't get that without significant effort, then that's not an organization that I want to advise.
bigiain 10y ago
"Relieve" and "remove" are not the same thing. I'm inclined to agree that there's significant circumstantial evidence here that at the very least extremely pointed question should be currently being asked of the CEO, and in the absence of immediately and publicly verifiable evidence countering these claims - the CEO should quite reasonably be "relieved" (as in - temporarily taken out of decision making and business information collecting capacity) while the investigation continues. But Uber has continuously demonstrated if not the sort of company who's ethical constraints would bind it to that sort of behavior. (To the extent that I'm now cynically wondering whether the current "Uber is an awful place for women to work" controversy has been intentionally orchestrated and played up in the press to help suppress this information...)

by ptero 10y ago

st3v3r 10y ago

To be honest, given the history of Uber's CEO, I think he's no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. The onus would be on him to prove to the board that these accusations are not true.

sauronlord 10y ago
What crimes or violations was he convicted of? Enough accusations and then you are guilty until proven innocent? Wtf
- bigiain 10y ago
  Having not been convicted of a crime (with the assistance of one of the world's largest legal budgets) is not the usual measure of being the sort of respected and trusted person you'd want at the helm of your corporation. The man is unquestionably toxic - it's entirely possible the entire company is toxic.
  - sauronlord 10y ago
    Innocent until proven guilty as a legal prescription has nothing to do with respect and trust and some peoples (filtered) opinions.
    - bigiain 10y ago
      Exactly. Board members and shareholders aren't responsible or particularly concerned with innocence or guilt, but are very concerned with trust and respect that customers (or potential-investors/business-partners/governments) have in their company's leadership. They're not deciding whether to put him in jail or not, but board members are legally obligated to determine whether or not he's adding or detracting from shareholder value. Even if every single accusation against him and the culture he's built is false - the public perception needs addressing. Perhaps "remove" is the wrong wording, but if you're an insider/board member who thinks every single accusation and report is false - you'd at least have to seriously consider asking Travis to publicly "recuse" himself while the investigations are under way - without that anything coming out of the investigation is going to be about as believable as the Police Union guy announcing "We've investigated the matter and cleared ourselves of any wrongdoing!".
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. Enough accusations, and you become a distraction to the company. Were I on the board, he would be trying to justify why he should remain as head of this company.

thrill 10y ago

Maybe. CEOs are indeed a lightening rod for criticism, good or bad. One hopes the BOD has the intel needed to evaluate the situation, but I can tell you from experience, if someone makes a minimal effort to hide their actions, especially if they are a CEO who's been permitted to do whatever he wanted to that point, then it's more of a burden for that BOD to perform proper diligence. As a BOD member, I don't want burdens - I want clarity and confirmability - if I can't get that without significant effort, then that's not an organization that I want to advise.

bigiain 10y ago

"Relieve" and "remove" are not the same thing. I'm inclined to agree that there's significant circumstantial evidence here that at the very least extremely pointed question should be currently being asked of the CEO, and in the absence of immediately and publicly verifiable evidence countering these claims - the CEO should quite reasonably be "relieved" (as in - temporarily taken out of decision making and business information collecting capacity) while the investigation continues. But Uber has continuously demonstrated if not the sort of company who's ethical constraints would bind it to that sort of behavior. (To the extent that I'm now cynically wondering whether the current "Uber is an awful place for women to work" controversy has been intentionally orchestrated and played up in the press to help suppress this information...)