3 ms·

Uber clearly has massive issue internally so far as culture; while it's not as large of a problem as the obvious economic and labor issues of having a non-autom

Uber clearly has massive issue internally so far as culture; while it's not as large of a problem as the obvious economic and labor issues of having a non-automated fleet, it's giving up a wicked stink that is causing talented employees to flee. That is a very difficult spiral to get out of. I'm not sure what TK leaving does to stem that, but obviously I'm sure the decision is partly, if not mostly due to the tragedy involving his family. On that front, I wish him peace but on everything else, he's been behind the wheel (heh) of what appears to be a pretty toxic company, both in terms of culture and the balance sheet.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> I'm not sure what TK leaving does to stem that Matt Levine at Bloomberg explained the benefit of Uber getting itself in order while TK is on leave: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/mortgages-traders-and-fiduciaries https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/mortgages... "Doesn't it seem like a great idea? Everyone understands that Uber needs some change, needs some adults in the room to rein in Kalanick. But it's hard to find someone who wants to waltz in, shake Kalanick's hand, and say "hi, I'm your adult." Presumably Kalanick would give that person a wedgie and retire to his room to sulk. But what if Kalanick weren't there? What if Kalanick took a few months off, Uber hired some adults, they set to work doing adult things, and then by the time Kalanick got back Uber was a well-oiled non-controversial profit-making (why not?) machine? He'd walk in, refreshed and ready to go, and say "hey guys, let's write a sex-party memo." And the COO would say "no that is not appropriate," and the general counsel would agree, and the head of human resources would give him a stern talking-to, and they'd all have each others' backs and the support of the board. The central problem with rebooting Uber's culture is that the culture comes from Kalanick, and he is the boss; the central problems with getting rid of Kalanick are (1) he has super-voting shares and a pretty good lock on the board and (2) he is the visionary behind Uber and might actually be necessary to its success. But getting rid of Kalanick temporarily and voluntarily might give the company time to fix itself and bring Kalanick back as a regular CEO, ensconced in a regular structure of regular corporate behavior."
- exogeny 9y ago
  I was prefacing it more in terms of the trickle-down effect; literally thousands of people have been hired into a culture that was mandated by Kalanick. (See PatrickAuld's post on this thread.) Just because he goes away doesn't mean that they all do; if anything, they might view what's happening to Travis as unnecessary, or worse, unfair. Ergo, there's a ton of timebombs ticking away all over that place. Very possible the irreversible damage has already been done.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    If leadership is replaced and strengthened, the rest of the corporate structure will fall in line or be terminated. Culture comes from the top.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      In theory, yes. In practice, that takes time and probably more time than they have. If you hire this many people into a culture where 'x' was ok last week and off the table this week you end up with the same kind of situation that an incoming government deals with: the civil servants have not changed.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> I'm not sure what TK leaving does to stem that Matt Levine at Bloomberg explained the benefit of Uber getting itself in order while TK is on leave: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/mortgages-traders-and-fiduciaries https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/mortgages... "Doesn't it seem like a great idea? Everyone understands that Uber needs some change, needs some adults in the room to rein in Kalanick. But it's hard to find someone who wants to waltz in, shake Kalanick's hand, and say "hi, I'm your adult." Presumably Kalanick would give that person a wedgie and retire to his room to sulk. But what if Kalanick weren't there? What if Kalanick took a few months off, Uber hired some adults, they set to work doing adult things, and then by the time Kalanick got back Uber was a well-oiled non-controversial profit-making (why not?) machine? He'd walk in, refreshed and ready to go, and say "hey guys, let's write a sex-party memo." And the COO would say "no that is not appropriate," and the general counsel would agree, and the head of human resources would give him a stern talking-to, and they'd all have each others' backs and the support of the board. The central problem with rebooting Uber's culture is that the culture comes from Kalanick, and he is the boss; the central problems with getting rid of Kalanick are (1) he has super-voting shares and a pretty good lock on the board and (2) he is the visionary behind Uber and might actually be necessary to its success. But getting rid of Kalanick temporarily and voluntarily might give the company time to fix itself and bring Kalanick back as a regular CEO, ensconced in a regular structure of regular corporate behavior."

exogeny 9y ago
I was prefacing it more in terms of the trickle-down effect; literally thousands of people have been hired into a culture that was mandated by Kalanick. (See PatrickAuld's post on this thread.) Just because he goes away doesn't mean that they all do; if anything, they might view what's happening to Travis as unnecessary, or worse, unfair. Ergo, there's a ton of timebombs ticking away all over that place. Very possible the irreversible damage has already been done.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  If leadership is replaced and strengthened, the rest of the corporate structure will fall in line or be terminated. Culture comes from the top.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    In theory, yes. In practice, that takes time and probably more time than they have. If you hire this many people into a culture where 'x' was ok last week and off the table this week you end up with the same kind of situation that an incoming government deals with: the civil servants have not changed.