41–50 of 241 posts
Meta: how can you write an article about Uber's president leaving and leave out the massive lawsuit from Google's parent company?
The "echo chamber" works both ways. When there is excitement and buzz, it drives startups to success like no where else. Apparently it works in reverse too and people love to see the big kid on the block take hits.
Sorry, this is not just or mainly what's happening here. Every time an anti-Uber article comes up, someone pops in and says something to the effect of your comment, but it simply isn't true. Uber is evil. They do evil things. They should not be supported. Yes, people like to see the titans fall, but people also like to see those who behave poorly get what they deserve for that behavior. That's what's happening here.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. There's enough social awareness that people don't want to support a company run by jerks like Travis Kalanick. In an era with socially conscious consumers, integrity of leadership matters. It is easy enough to switch to Lyft (I live in major metropolitan area) without any inconvenience. And the Lyft driver's I've talked with about all the controversy say they make more $$$ and are happier driving for Lyft.
There is still the problem that without the competition that Uber provides, Lyft likely becomes a more typical company and begins increasing their margins in ways that customers and employees dislike.
Also, if you listen to the Lyft founder talk about the company, he sounds like he actually wants to help the world. Not to say that they can't become a shitty corporation, but it seems less likely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. There's enough social awareness that people don't want to support a company run by jerks like Travis Kalanick. In an era with socially conscious consumers, integrity of leadership matters. It is easy enough to switch to Lyft (I live in major metropolitan area) without any inconvenience. And the Lyft driver's I've talked with about all the controversy say they make more $$$ and are happier driving for Lyft.
There is still the problem that without the competition that Uber provides, Lyft likely becomes a more typical company and begins increasing their margins in ways that customers and employees dislike.
It's probably for the best that rates go up a bit.
> He is leaving after apparently deciding the current controversies are too much to handle. Not exactly leadership material. Edit: Apparently an unpopular opinion. Do those here think otherwise given he joined the company less than a year ago (and is thus not part of the original culture), but instead could try to repair the damage done by the uber-bro culture instead of looking for an easier paycheck?
Don't you think he tried?
"the session did not go over all that smoothly. In total, Jones answered only 12 questions on his public Facebook post"
> He is leaving after apparently deciding the current controversies are too much to handle. Not exactly leadership material. Edit: Apparently an unpopular opinion. Do those here think otherwise given he joined the company less than a year ago (and is thus not part of the original culture), but instead could try to repair the damage done by the uber-bro culture instead of looking for an easier paycheck?
You seem to assume that b/c he left after half a year he didn't try and just wants to get easy money somewhere else. I wouldn't be so quick to that assumption and that's probably what makes your opinion unpopular.
If I'd feel that after half a year I hadn't gotten anywhere, I'd get out too. Regardless of the pay check since one way or another I'm not able to have any meaningful impact on the organisation and its mission. I don't know if that's the case, but that's an equally reasonable assumption given what we know about Uber's culture. However, since we don't know one way or another it might be nice to assume good faith over cop-out or incompetence.
I wonder if it's a good idea to apply to Uber. With all the controversy, you could argue for a pretty good salary bump or signing bonus to compensate. Though, if executives are quitting after 6 months even before their stock vests, maybe it's more than just the outrage machine news clamoring for clicks and views.
There's lots of other companies out there that are paying good salaries that don't have these problems. It doesn't make sense to me to seek out a ship that's taking on water to sign up for. I know some Uber employees and none of them are happy with the situation.
> He is leaving after apparently deciding the current controversies are too much to handle. Not exactly leadership material. Edit: Apparently an unpopular opinion. Do those here think otherwise given he joined the company less than a year ago (and is thus not part of the original culture), but instead could try to repair the damage done by the uber-bro culture instead of looking for an easier paycheck?
> Apparently an unpopular opinion. Do those here think otherwise given he joined the company less than a year ago (and is thus not part of the original culture), but instead could try to repair the damage done by the uber-bro culture instead of looking for an easier paycheck? Maybe 'uber-bro culture' is not actually a thing, and he doesn't see a possible solution for the PR problems? It's really hard to stop the hate…
I doubt the entire company is tainted, but it does have issues that need to be led by people who will address in something other a Facebook AMA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 t…
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 ri…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, this is not just or mainly what's happening here. Every time an anti-Uber article comes up, someone pops in and says something to the effect of your comment, but it simply isn't true. Uber is evil. They do evil things. They should not be supported. Yes, people like to see the titans fall, but people also like to see those who behave poorly get what they deserve for that behavior. That's what's happening here.…
Outside of the sexual harassment claims, literally none of this is different than any other huge tech company out there. People want to see Uber failing has a lot more to do with narrative than reality. People have created a caricature out of Uber's failings and applied it to every aspect of the company. It's starting to feel like an agenda more than actual concerns, it's pretty annoying actually. Once Uber is gone,…
But you have cause and effect backwards. I feel this way about Uber because of all the things they do; I didn't feel this way and then decide to find evidence to support my feelings. Lyft isn't great, either, hell, neither are taxi companies, but they aren't saturating the world with crappy behavior like Uber is. Given how universal Uber's misbehavior is - even my list is only partial coverage - I don't see how it doesn't apply to "every aspect of the company."
At what point would you draw a line and say "this behavior pattern is unethical and shouldn't be encouraged/enabled" when we're talking about a big company? That is, if Uber doesn't fit the bill, who does - does anyone?