3 ms·

While this is big for the company, I am curious what it means for recruitment of future executives at the company. My understanding is at this level it's about

While this is big for the company, I am curious what it means for recruitment of future executives at the company. My understanding is at this level it's about personal connections and grooming an image. With that in mind, does it become harder to attract great executives on a go-forward basis for Uber?

mc32 10y ago
I don't think so. Within some circles that may be true, but if they cast a wide net, I don't think it should be an issue. Just as sinking ship companies are able to attract people who think they can rescue them, or prove themselves capable, I think Uber can find the same kinds of executives if they reach outside "tech".
jimmywanger 10y ago
> With that in mind, does it become harder to attract great executives A good analogy would be attracting candidates for coaching positions in sports. If you're a team in a bad situation, you'll have to settle for candidates that don't have the experience usually required for the position, or people who've done it before who haven't had huge success. Also most great execs are already in a great position - why would they step into a bad situation unless you gave them a higher title or more power? Basically you get either a placeholder or an unknown quantity. The unknown quantity is just that. They might be awesome (everybody has to have had a first head coaching job) or completely overwhelmed.
- dharmon 10y ago
  There's an important difference: compensation. If a losing team wants a winning coach, they will either have to settle for someone inexperienced, or pay up to get someone experienced in turnaround situations. Same with companies, except with turnarounds the most substantial part of compensation is the company's stock. If the turnaround is successful, the executive will get wildly rich as the stock appreciates (and rightly so). With Uber, the stock is greatly overvalued, which means anybody coming in is trying to turnaround the company, but only to maintain the current imaginary valuation. Where's the upside?
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > pay up to get someone experienced in turnaround situations. To your point, in the business world, if you've already gone through the turnaround experience, you're probably already very well compensated. The one big thing that you can dangle in front of good candidates is a more powerful position or more responsibility. Hire a COO into a CEO position, or give a proven head coach power over personnel decisions. Other than that, there really isn't much of a carrot you can dangle. A move from a CEO of a successful company to a CEO of a failing company is a strictly negative move. EDIT: all other things being equal, of course. You could get a CEO of a small successful company to run a large failing company, but that'd be similar to getting a successful high school coach to run a college team.
    - dharmon 10y ago
      Good point. Lou Gerstner wasn't going to jump from IBM right when he was starting to reap the rewards of his work. The only case I can think of where execs jump around fairly quickly in "turnaround" situations are those who specialize in getting a company ready for a sale.
    - user5994461 10y ago
      > To your point, in the business world, if you've already gone through the turnaround experience, you're probably already very well compensated. And you have a name and a position and a network and influence at your company. Money is worth peanuts compared to that! What's the risk of taking an hypothetical 50M from Uber, it's gonna be trying to fuck you over with ISOs and sexually harass you, whereas you can take 5M a year at your current company safely and with great success for the next decade. Keeping a successful ship successful is hard work. There is nothing a distressed ship has to offer you.
      - runamok 10y ago
        The challenge? Anecdata but my mom explained it thusly: some are good at starting companies, some at keeping things humming along and others at fixing companies...
  - 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

I don't think so. Within some circles that may be true, but if they cast a wide net, I don't think it should be an issue. Just as sinking ship companies are able to attract people who think they can rescue them, or prove themselves capable, I think Uber can find the same kinds of executives if they reach outside "tech".

jimmywanger 10y ago

> With that in mind, does it become harder to attract great executives A good analogy would be attracting candidates for coaching positions in sports. If you're a team in a bad situation, you'll have to settle for candidates that don't have the experience usually required for the position, or people who've done it before who haven't had huge success. Also most great execs are already in a great position - why would they step into a bad situation unless you gave them a higher title or more power? Basically you get either a placeholder or an unknown quantity. The unknown quantity is just that. They might be awesome (everybody has to have had a first head coaching job) or completely overwhelmed.

dharmon 10y ago
There's an important difference: compensation. If a losing team wants a winning coach, they will either have to settle for someone inexperienced, or pay up to get someone experienced in turnaround situations. Same with companies, except with turnarounds the most substantial part of compensation is the company's stock. If the turnaround is successful, the executive will get wildly rich as the stock appreciates (and rightly so). With Uber, the stock is greatly overvalued, which means anybody coming in is trying to turnaround the company, but only to maintain the current imaginary valuation. Where's the upside?
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > pay up to get someone experienced in turnaround situations. To your point, in the business world, if you've already gone through the turnaround experience, you're probably already very well compensated. The one big thing that you can dangle in front of good candidates is a more powerful position or more responsibility. Hire a COO into a CEO position, or give a proven head coach power over personnel decisions. Other than that, there really isn't much of a carrot you can dangle. A move from a CEO of a successful company to a CEO of a failing company is a strictly negative move. EDIT: all other things being equal, of course. You could get a CEO of a small successful company to run a large failing company, but that'd be similar to getting a successful high school coach to run a college team.
  - dharmon 10y ago
    Good point. Lou Gerstner wasn't going to jump from IBM right when he was starting to reap the rewards of his work. The only case I can think of where execs jump around fairly quickly in "turnaround" situations are those who specialize in getting a company ready for a sale.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    > To your point, in the business world, if you've already gone through the turnaround experience, you're probably already very well compensated. And you have a name and a position and a network and influence at your company. Money is worth peanuts compared to that! What's the risk of taking an hypothetical 50M from Uber, it's gonna be trying to fuck you over with ISOs and sexually harass you, whereas you can take 5M a year at your current company safely and with great success for the next decade. Keeping a successful ship successful is hard work. There is nothing a distressed ship has to offer you.
    - runamok 10y ago
      The challenge? Anecdata but my mom explained it thusly: some are good at starting companies, some at keeping things humming along and others at fixing companies...
- 10y ago