Travis Kalanick - the pugnacious (and world famous of course) CEO of Uber was forced to resign as CEO, by his investors. Uber was infamous for a male-dominated work culture that looked down upon women (the 'bro-culture') and was sort of the ring-leader among gender insensitive companies. A detailed investigation resulted in several people being fired; Travis was under pressure to stop being the CEO. And he finally relented! Interesting this is that he continues to be on the board (he is the largest share holder), so, I am wondering how much will the culture really change if the person with the most influence is still around to question the new CEO.
This is a case of the influential shareholders doing the right thing for the right reasons - but so many times, influential shareholder do the right things for the wrong reasons or the wrong this for the wrong reasons (typically - share buybacks to boost up share prices, when the excess money can either be invested or paid back as dividend). Am not sure if this will make all existing unicorn CEOs better behaved, or will they get more combative and ensure that they can never be forced out?
Coming to the bit on forcing out the CEO - it is interesting how Uber now is truly in 'self-drive' mode! No CEO, no COO, no CMO , several key roles not filled (or were asked to leave) and yet the company is functioning! It is like Uber is in self-drive mode and doesn't need any leaders!
Uber of course had been looking far and wide, high and low for a COO - preferably someone like Sheryl Sandberg. She is now being spoken about as a possible CEO for Uber. Uber ideally needs a woman to counter the 'bro-culture' tag. But hey - what is Sheryl Sandberg simply doesn't want to quit FB. Who does the Uber board turn to? Why not Marissa Mayer? She is now 'jobless' (if there is such a thing for her), she is a woman (of course) , she lead a billion dollar company (though well, it went downward) and more importantly, if Uber is truly able to function without key personnel, even Marissa Mayer might not be able to mess things up :D
This is a case of the influential shareholders doing the right thing for the right reasons - but so many times, influential shareholder do the right things for the wrong reasons or the wrong this for the wrong reasons (typically - share buybacks to boost up share prices, when the excess money can either be invested or paid back as dividend). Am not sure if this will make all existing unicorn CEOs better behaved, or will they get more combative and ensure that they can never be forced out?
Coming to the bit on forcing out the CEO - it is interesting how Uber now is truly in 'self-drive' mode! No CEO, no COO, no CMO , several key roles not filled (or were asked to leave) and yet the company is functioning! It is like Uber is in self-drive mode and doesn't need any leaders!
Uber of course had been looking far and wide, high and low for a COO - preferably someone like Sheryl Sandberg. She is now being spoken about as a possible CEO for Uber. Uber ideally needs a woman to counter the 'bro-culture' tag. But hey - what is Sheryl Sandberg simply doesn't want to quit FB. Who does the Uber board turn to? Why not Marissa Mayer? She is now 'jobless' (if there is such a thing for her), she is a woman (of course) , she lead a billion dollar company (though well, it went downward) and more importantly, if Uber is truly able to function without key personnel, even Marissa Mayer might not be able to mess things up :D
No comments:
Post a Comment