5 ms·

Speaking of Uber and Susan Fowler - had the current CEO frog marched out everyone that authorized, worked on, did not block, did not fight against what she expe

Speaking of Uber and Susan Fowler - had the current CEO frog marched out everyone that authorized, worked on, did not block, did not fight against what she experienced especially after the publication of her post? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/books/review/susan-fowler-whistleblower-uber.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/books/review/susan-fowler... If not, why has not the board frog marched the current CEO out?

wpietri 7y ago
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. It seems like a good point. Large swathes of Uber, especially people with power, seemed ok with all sorts of ethical failings. I'd really love to know how many of those people kept their jobs. Of course, large companies often treat major failings as PR problems. So instead of cleaning house or making other big changes, they do the minimum necessary until the heat is off. A classic in the genre is Jack Dorsey, who is extremely good at sounding sincere and contrite, promising to listen and improve until attention is elsewhere.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Such destructive cleaning of house creates the wrong incentives. Most of the people involved would have lacked either the full story or the power to do anything about it. If it's a fireable offense to be near a big scandal, the rational response isn't to start fighting against the problems you see - it's to build a massive silo to minimize the number of problems you can see.
- notyourday 7y ago
  There were people who authorized either employees or contractors to harass her, dig the dirt out on her, etc, etc, etc. There were people who read/compiled/presented that information to the higher ups in management/executive levels. Did those people write memos/emails to their bosses saying that based on their view they should not be doing it but since they may not be fully aware of the full context they need their boss to send reply to this memo/email and say "Yes, do it." That's the accountability. Someone makes a decision. That someone gets to be accountable.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Absolutely. Maybe you don't have the full context of the story - the CEO at the time that Fowler got harassed, Travis Kalanick, ended up being that someone who's accountable.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      It is highly unlikely that the CEO did it all himself. It is far more likely that there were dozens if not hundreds of people that actively and willingly participated in it. Were those people terminated? That's the real question. I'm, frankly, shocked that it is presumed that by replacing a CEO rather than replacing everyone who thought going after Susan was "just doing their job, not a big deal, no need to have a boss sign off on it" is considered to be acceptable.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        I don't think I agree - it seems very likely that bosses all the way up the chain were signing off on it. "Let's hire investigators to discredit her" is surely not a decision that some random member of HR staff would make on their own.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Travis got held accountable? I see the poor fellow is only worth $2.5 billion. If that's what that means, I'd like to be held accountable too!

wpietri 7y ago

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. It seems like a good point. Large swathes of Uber, especially people with power, seemed ok with all sorts of ethical failings. I'd really love to know how many of those people kept their jobs. Of course, large companies often treat major failings as PR problems. So instead of cleaning house or making other big changes, they do the minimum necessary until the heat is off. A classic in the genre is Jack Dorsey, who is extremely good at sounding sincere and contrite, promising to listen and improve until attention is elsewhere.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Such destructive cleaning of house creates the wrong incentives. Most of the people involved would have lacked either the full story or the power to do anything about it. If it's a fireable offense to be near a big scandal, the rational response isn't to start fighting against the problems you see - it's to build a massive silo to minimize the number of problems you can see.

notyourday 7y ago
There were people who authorized either employees or contractors to harass her, dig the dirt out on her, etc, etc, etc. There were people who read/compiled/presented that information to the higher ups in management/executive levels. Did those people write memos/emails to their bosses saying that based on their view they should not be doing it but since they may not be fully aware of the full context they need their boss to send reply to this memo/email and say "Yes, do it." That's the accountability. Someone makes a decision. That someone gets to be accountable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Absolutely. Maybe you don't have the full context of the story - the CEO at the time that Fowler got harassed, Travis Kalanick, ended up being that someone who's accountable.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    It is highly unlikely that the CEO did it all himself. It is far more likely that there were dozens if not hundreds of people that actively and willingly participated in it. Were those people terminated? That's the real question. I'm, frankly, shocked that it is presumed that by replacing a CEO rather than replacing everyone who thought going after Susan was "just doing their job, not a big deal, no need to have a boss sign off on it" is considered to be acceptable.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't think I agree - it seems very likely that bosses all the way up the chain were signing off on it. "Let's hire investigators to discredit her" is surely not a decision that some random member of HR staff would make on their own.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Travis got held accountable? I see the poor fellow is only worth $2.5 billion. If that's what that means, I'd like to be held accountable too!