3 ms·

It clearly makes a difference as to who is CEO -- on several occasions a succession of bad news stories has effectively removed a tech CEO (Mozilla, GitHub, Ube

It clearly makes a difference as to who is CEO -- on several occasions a succession of bad news stories has effectively removed a tech CEO (Mozilla, GitHub, Uber, ...) Questions I'd be interested in your thoughts on: - does it actually change corporate behaviour? - is it a good thing that press (which it seems is sometimes influenceable) can effectively hire and fire by continued pressure? (And please note that's not whether this case was wrong, but whether it opens the possibility of intentionally targeted public campaigns to remove someone from a company sponsored by unstated private reasons. And those are genuine, not rhetorical, questions.)

muglug 9y ago
> does it actually change corporate behaviour? That remains to be seen, obviously. But a constant in the reports about Uber was that unscrupulous behaviour (e.g. obtaining the medical records of a rape victim) was enabled by the CEO. One might presume that a change in leadership will mean better behaviour. It will also probably mean that Uber can start hiring for all the C-level positions that are currently vacant, bringing in fresh blood and a different way of doing things. > is it a good thing that press can effectively hire and fire by continued pressure That is an argument that is as old as the oldest printed pamphlet. I'm not going to argue it here, but I'm glad that the press reported on wrongdoing by high-ups at Uber, and I'm glad that users and investors responded to that information.
ebola1717 9y ago
> - is it a good thing that press (which it seems is sometimes influenceable) can effectively hire and fire by continued pressure? If it holds people in power accountable for their actions, then yes, it's a good thing. I agree using the press may be a double edged sword, but if businesses and governments fail to keep their executives and personnel from harassing their employees, then what other recourse is there?
matt4077 9y ago
There was no conspiracy to undermine Kalanick. Nobody is actually questioning the accusations levelled against him. The press simply followed the story, and people were interested in hearing about it. In doing so, they affected positive change at Uber. Everything worked as designed. And yes: even as a private company, you're not immune from scrutiny of your action by the public. Your company is part of society, depends on the institutions, and can't ride roughshod over established norms of behaviour without also accepting the consequences.

muglug 9y ago

> does it actually change corporate behaviour? That remains to be seen, obviously. But a constant in the reports about Uber was that unscrupulous behaviour (e.g. obtaining the medical records of a rape victim) was enabled by the CEO. One might presume that a change in leadership will mean better behaviour. It will also probably mean that Uber can start hiring for all the C-level positions that are currently vacant, bringing in fresh blood and a different way of doing things. > is it a good thing that press can effectively hire and fire by continued pressure That is an argument that is as old as the oldest printed pamphlet. I'm not going to argue it here, but I'm glad that the press reported on wrongdoing by high-ups at Uber, and I'm glad that users and investors responded to that information.

ebola1717 9y ago

> - is it a good thing that press (which it seems is sometimes influenceable) can effectively hire and fire by continued pressure? If it holds people in power accountable for their actions, then yes, it's a good thing. I agree using the press may be a double edged sword, but if businesses and governments fail to keep their executives and personnel from harassing their employees, then what other recourse is there?

matt4077 9y ago

There was no conspiracy to undermine Kalanick. Nobody is actually questioning the accusations levelled against him. The press simply followed the story, and people were interested in hearing about it. In doing so, they affected positive change at Uber. Everything worked as designed. And yes: even as a private company, you're not immune from scrutiny of your action by the public. Your company is part of society, depends on the institutions, and can't ride roughshod over established norms of behaviour without also accepting the consequences.