
‘I must fundamentally change and grow up’: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s apology - leetrout
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/01/i-must-fundamentally-change-and-grow-up-uber-ceo-travis-kalanicks-big-apology/
======
merricksb
Active discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13760405](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13760405)

------
smdz
I watched the video 3 times, and did not find anything wrong with the CEO's
behavior. And don't understand why the CEO should be issuing any apology at
all for this video. Might be just because of the bad-media coverage.

He was explaining the situation very politely. As a CEO, making business
decisions amidst uncertainty is hard. Its when the driver started placing his
$97K bankruptcy charge on the CEO - the CEO lost his cool, asked him to take
responsibility for his actions and walked out.

~~~
fastball
Yeah, the driver was the one yelling and jabbing his finger at Kalanick. He
obviously did not want to have a constructive dialogue, so Kalanick left.
Seems reasonable enough to me.

I mean, blaming your purchase of an expensive car on Uber? Really? You're
bankrupt because you put all your eggs in one basket buddy, not because
Kalanick is an asshole.

That being said, Kalanick has acted like an asshole in the past, but this is
not one of those times.

~~~
tptacek
Yes, it is. Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a _vendor_ to the
driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which
the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be
wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500
has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not taking
responsibility for their own shit".

What the video shows isn't wrong on the level of the Fowler post. It just
shows Kalanick as petty and deeply unserious about his role, which is an
alarming look for someone whose company is embroiled in scandals about
mismanagement.

~~~
fastball
That's not accurate either. Uber has maintained from the start that their
driver's are independent contractors. You can make all sorts of verbal/casual
agreements, but if "we will ensure you have X amount of work at Y rate for Z
amount of time" is not written into your contract, you have no right to
complain.

Uber or any other company are not responsible for any tools a contractor might
buy in order to complete their work, unless explicitly stated in a written
agreement.

~~~
tomtheelder
I really hate this notion of "you have no right to complain." The only thing
that your contract takes away from you is your right to pursue legal action on
things that fall outside of its scope. If you have a contract and the company
begins doing things that you believe are outside of the spirit of the
agreement, you should absolutely complain. This driver is even maintaining the
terms of his contract by continuing to drive.

The idea that you shouldn't be allowed to express your grievances because you
work at the pleasure of your employer/company is toxic and regressive.

~~~
tptacek
Again, not an employee; in fact, the standing here is almost the opposite;
it's Kalanick who has most of the obligation in this relationship. (I think we
agree about the rest of this).

I keep bringing this up because it's crucial to Uber's business model and
something that has been repeatedly disputed. Uber badly wants its drivers not
to be employees but instead partners. Kalanick can't get huffy when his
business partners have grievances for him.

------
whatever_dude
Someone made an interesting point on a discussion I saw yesterday: _Travis has
never worked at a company that he hasn 't started himself_[0]. He had a short
stint at Akamai when one of his companies was bought but it was shorter than
one year.

The take away is that _he has never worked at a place with a rigid corporate
structure or real HR_. While that might be good for a startup that needs to
move fast, it's not good if you want to learn on how to cultivate a healthy
company culture, or have any empathy for your employees.

In other words, he has been running a college frat house for the past 7 years
and it shows. He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended.

And too many entrepreneurs/co-founders in Silicon Valley are in the same
position.

[0]
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/traviskalanick/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/traviskalanick/)

~~~
hashkb
> He's probably more ignorant than mean-intended. And too many entrepreneurs
> in Silicon Valley are in the same position.

This is a common excuse that holds no water with me. "Good intentions" are
worth absolutely nothing, in fact I'd prefer a CEO who is an asshole on
purpose to one who is just naturally a piece of shit and can't see it until
his company gets bad press.

It's an issue of maturity and responsibility and ethics with people's
livelihoods at stake. There can't be excuses.

~~~
whatever_dude
I didn't mean it as an excuse, but as a way to explain and understand the
problem. I'm not even considering whether he had "good intentions" or not. I
have no way of judging that.

Understanding is the first step on fixing it and preventing it in the future.
Pointing fingers at someone as if they're the root and the single cause of the
problem might feel good, but it's too easy an explanation.

In your case of an asshole CEO and an ignorant CEO, I wouldn't prefer either.
Both are just as bad. But the ignorant CEO just never learned empathy and
might be able to become a better human; the purposely asshole CEO is
irreparably broken.

~~~
hashkb
You wrote that he was probably more ignorant than ill-intentioned. That
implies good intentions or no intentions.

The intentional asshole makes good decisions for the company, think Bill Gates
in the 90s. These days he's shown that that was business, now with the
Foundation he's choosing to not be that guy. TK does not appear capable of a
change like that.

~~~
neom
I think being an asshole and being demanding can also get really misconstrued,
lots of people who have worked for me think I'm demanding, probably annoying,
and sometimes an ass, however I'd like to believe they would also say they
have grown because they were pushed, and I don't think they would say I'm
unkind, or a jerk, or hurtful. I don't believe that's what is going on with
TK.

------
YPCrumble
This would be grounds for termination for a mere peasant. When you're the boss
at Uber, however, you can just apologize for condoning sexual harassment and
move along your merry way.

This is a good reason for people who think sexual harassment is wrong to
remove Uber from their phones.

~~~
_dark_matter_
I wish to hell there was a good alternative where I live. I'd pay more for it.

~~~
coldpie
Are there not taxis where you live? They may be slightly less convenient (or
they might not be!) but sometimes that's the price for doing the right thing.

~~~
hashmal
depending on where you are, taxis can be much, much worse. "no I won't bring
you there, it's not on my way" is just one tiny example.

~~~
Bartweiss
Similarly, "no, those two addresses aren't the territory of the same company,
there's no way to get there from here by cab."

------
pwthornton
You are 40 years old and run a startup valued well into the billions. You are
probably far beyond the growing up stage. This is who you are Travis.

For context, many people said Steve Jobs needed to grow up during his first
stint at Apple (and no one ever accused him of running a company that has
major issues with sexual harassment). Jobs was 29 when the Mac came out, and
this was after the big success with the Apple II. By the time Steve Jobs came
back to Apple in the 1990s and performed an amazing turnaround of Apple, he
was in his early 40s.

~~~
pm90
Like you mentioned there are fundamental differences b/w a CEO who creates a
culture where sexual harassment is OK to where a CEO will bully employees
occasionally, steal their ideas as their own and park in the handicapped
parking lot. I mean, both sound terrible, but the first one is definitely on a
different level of nastiness.

~~~
smileysteve
FYI "Are you a virgin? You look like a virgin." during an interview may have
been sexual harassment.

~~~
pwthornton
Well, it's only sexual harassment if its true and not just some line from a
Hollywood movie: [http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/04/17/ken-segall-steve-
job...](http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/04/17/ken-segall-steve-jobs-virgin/)

------
matt4077
Kalanick is 40 years old. Demographically, he must have been surrounded by
"grown-ups" for more than half of that time, i. e. people who don't consider
sexual harassment a fun hobby for his brand of overachievers. If he didn't get
it before, I doubt he will now.

But, if he's seen the light, great. It's obviously tainted by being motivated
solely by his effort to safe Uber. If he's sincere, his newfound believes
would be best served by resigning, or switching to a role at Uber where he's
no longer responsible for managing people.

Not that it matters – Uber isn't much more than a bro-themed ponzi scheme
anyway. Their investors are subsidizing each ride on the order of 100% of the
fare, there's no economies of scale to grow to, nor are there barriers to
entry. Maybe consumers will continue to use the service. But investors,
employees, and drivers won't. It's anybody's guess as to how long they can
survive without fresh cash, but I bet this apology stems from Kalanick's
ability to see the end of the runway.

~~~
adamnemecek
Their self driving cars is the end game.

~~~
matt4077
"End game" indeed. Self-driving cars shed the only competitive advantage they
have: efficiently organizing thousands of drivers.

Surely self-driving cars will also be available to consumers. It's just a
software update from there to a mode that lets your car earn some money when
you don't need it. The manufacturers will be the first to offer the remaining
booking/billing/insurance service, but there'll be plenty of competitors.

Uber, meanwhile, will start with >100 billion already burned in a 5-year
mission to obsolesce.

~~~
pm90
If they're smart (and for all their dipshit culture they do have a good
product) they will use all the data they have gathered on rideshares to
possibly improve that experience. Or pivot into something else.

------
quickben
It's all PR. The CEO statement, their businesses plan so far, etc.

It's all PR until they IPO and stop subsidizing rides.

Then, we'll see if they'll really survive as a taxi company.

~~~
lukasm
Uber is not a taxi company. They do not compete with Taxis, but with car
ownership.

EDIT: I knew if I won't make my point explicit it will be misread. I was
referring to:

> Then, we'll see if they'll really survive as a taxi company.

They are building self-driving cars to create a logistic company. They have a
limited interest in being a taxi company(in a classical sense), therefore they
don't care much.

~~~
snarf21
Don't taxis as a business compete with car ownership?

~~~
aianus
No, they're too expensive. UberX is cheap enough to compete with car
ownership.

------
jps359
"Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit, they blame
everything in their life on somebody else."

The ungratefulness of this guy... saying this to one of your drivers, one of
the people who is directly responsible for the success of your business.

Without him and the thousands like him, Travis would be nothing.

~~~
codr4life
Travis is nothing, he never was anything. People got momentarily confused by
his alpha ego and the big pile of money, but they're catching up fast.

------
save_ferris
This guy has Gavin Belson written all over him: super-polished and charismatic
when the Valley is watching him, and coldly detached when they're not.

~~~
Spare_account
What you're describing is one of the traits of a psychopath

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-
are-p...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-
psychopaths-australian-study-finds/)

------
alphonsegaston
Only in the world of American business can a 40 year-old billionaire with a
history of threats, intimidation, and blatant disregard for the law, come out
and say "I need to grow up" and have people nod along approvingly.

I used to think the idea that Americans see themselves as "temporarily
embarrassed millionaires" was a grotesque caricature. But then I saw people
watch a video where a wealthy guy, known for his history of exploiting the
poor, scream "personal responsibility" at a bankrupted immigrant. And they
overwhelmingly identify with Kalanick.

It's really pathological at this point.

~~~
gingerbread-man
Put another way, only in the US do businesspeople have to publically apologise
for not-being-nice. Towards the end of the video, Kalanick was brusque and
even demeaning, but I don't think his position as CEO grants me the right to
get high-and-mighty on my keyboard and demand he "grow up." Nor do I expect
much insight into anyone's character can be gleaned from a 30-second argument
in the backseat of an Uber.

I'm not saying Kalanick is a good (or a bad) CEO. But his job is to build the
company, not to serve as its' Mascot-in-Chief.

~~~
wpietri
This was not a mere failure of niceness, as if he didn't say please and thank
you.

He was also unkind, arrogant, self-centered, thoughtless, ungrateful, and
foolish. As well as failing to demonstrate compassion and moral
responsibility.

You're also wrong on what CEOs are supposed to do. Companies are made out of
people. His primary job is as a leader of people. The way you build a company
is mostly through getting a hundred thousand small interactions with people
right. He visibly failed as this guy's boss, just as he's been privately
failing to build a sane company culture.

An important secondary job is being the public face of the company, the human
representation of the brand. Even if you are a terrible human being, it's your
job to get up there and simulate being the kind of person that people would
like to associate with your brand.

------
neom
I'm sorry but any good exec coach can point you to Patrick Lencioni or
whatever... That man does not need leadership help, he needs how to act like a
human help.

------
ziszis
There is an interesting theory [1] that Uber's value prop to consumers is
dependent on subsidizing 59% of the cost of each ride. Over time they have to
remove this subsidy to stem the Billion $ annual losses. The relationship with
drivers will undoubtedly be more strained over the coming years, whether it
happens as a financial necessity or due to Uber's push into self-driving.
Managing the nuance of this transition will be one of the greatest challenges
for Uber and require strong skills in empathy, communication and strategic
thinking.

[1] [http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-
deliver...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-
one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html)

------
ziszis
I wonder why he is even apologizing. I assume he can't be fired because of
dual class voting structure. I don't think he actually cares about the driver.

~~~
neom
You can be "fired" by virtue of your top people walking out on you, though.
Better for him to placate the ones who might have a spine.

~~~
ziszis
I have talked to numerous Uber people over the past month and there are many
that are locked in because they can't trade the stock and can't afford to
exercise the options because of the valuation. Very unhappy .

------
Pigo
I don't know whether I'm more embarrassed or sad for the company as a whole.
There's a lot of people with their entire lives wrapped up in a company run by
a guy who's probably going to headline /r/cringe today.

------
ptrptr
It's just too easy to jump on Uber hate bandwagon but I seriously hope their
bubble will just burst in 2017, then the whole "economy of sharing" will take
a hit and similiar services will start show some maturity. Contract of
employment would be a good start.

------
abhv
I am a user of Lyft and (very rarely) Uber. As a passenger in these services,
I had an expectation of privacy---I would not expect that the driver could
record me. I've certainly had conversations on the phone that I would expect
to be private.

Travis may have had the same expectation.

On the other hand, a CEO of a billion dollar company should have been coached
about how to politely react to criticism.

~~~
smileysteve
> I had an expectation of privacy

You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one.

In this case, the recording device was in clear view.

More broadly, the vehicle is owned by a party that has a vested interest in
protecting its value. The driver also has prerogative to be able to record
incidents / interactions with users so that he can report damage / throwing
up. The driver also has prerogative to protect himself from legal liabilities
in instances of rape, kidnap, theft, or violence.

~~~
ahartman00
"You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one"

This varies by jurisdiction.

"968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications
prohibited." ... "whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section
is guilty of a Class H felony"

[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31)

~~~
smileysteve
See "Intentionally"

A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above.

The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued
no expectation of privacy and no intentionality in the recording.

~~~
ahartman00
"See "Intentionally""

Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I
guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I
see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what
interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right
statute, lol.

"The court case would be interesting"

Yes indeed.

Edit: Here is some more relevant info, if you are in Wisconsin and want to
know more;
[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50)

[http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-
on-...](http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-
recording-is-allowed/)

~~~
smileysteve
> in a place that a reasonable person would consider private or in a manner
> which is actionable for trespass.

It would be hard to prove that a reasonable person would consider a ride share
private.

\- You know the driver can hear you

\- Not your vehicle

\- Others have recently ridden in it

\- In some cases, you're sharing with another unknown party (Pool/Line)

------
lai
Uber CEO aside, is it me or is it weird to ask how on earth that Uber driver
lost 97k?

~~~
caseyf
I figured he was referring to the cost of buying an Escalade for Uber Black
driving

~~~
lukasm
Yeah, but how you can lose 97k? Did he crash it on the first day? If the black
is not doing great I trade it for a Prius and lose 25k?

~~~
smileysteve
How does one afford 25k (+ interest)?

------
XaspR8d
Seeing this apology (that I didn't think was necessary) just made me more
angry about their failure to acknowledge anything is wrong with their culture
of harassment.

Obviously they can't actually acknowledge the harassment issues because it
would put them in a terrible place legally, but it's funny how that omission
makes this such a negative PR move in my mind. Better to say nothing at all
and just keep pretending they can unicorn-horn themselves through the rough
patches?

------
brickmort
It looks like I'm in the minority here, but I honestly don't see what's so bad
with how Kalanick reacted. The guy was giving him a hard time and he reacted
accordingly, I even think he held back alot more than he could have.
Kalanick's right, 'Some people don’t like to take responsibility for their own
s‑‑‑.' There's alot of truth there. If a company changes their policy, and it
affects your income, it's not the company's responsibility to fix that for
you. either you find a competing company that can make you more money, or you
have to find another way to get your income. In either case, it's your problem
to handle. It reminds me of Amazon's recent changes to their affiliate
program. There will be people that will maneuver around the policy changes and
pull through, then there will be people that will remain stagnant, lose money
and blame everyone but themselves.

Kalanick should have doubled down. "Yeah, I was mean, but the guy was a d*ck."
Then again, I'm just an armchair analyst. I don't have a multi-billion dollar
company to handle.

~~~
rdiddly
It would work if it wasn't "pot calling kettle." Some people don't like to
take responsibility for their own shit? You don't say, Travis, you don't say.

~~~
brickmort
It's not Travis' responsibility to give that guy a steady income.

~~~
rdiddly
Duly noted, but that's not the doo-doo I'm talking about!

------
StClaire
Maybe he should do a Larry Page thing and hand off a lot of day-to-day stuff
for a couple years.

------
a3n
> I must fundamentally change and grow up ...

... if I am to keep my lucrative boob magnet.

------
pdovy
I'll be very interested to see what happens if Uber does decide to go public.

Prior to recent events I'd have thought if they did go public they'd almost
certainly follow the recent trend of setting up a class structure that gives
little to no voting control to most common shareholders. Will they be able to
get away with that if it means Travis retains control?

------
throwaway_374
Sorry but the words "I must fundamentally change and grow up" are unbecoming
and not befitting of a CEO. As genuine and sincere as it may have been
intended - if at all - it just comes across pathetic, weak and a failure. No
one wants apologies. You're the fucking CEO, we want ACTIONS.

------
lordnacho
The problem is now that Uber has this reputation for being cynical, people
might well discount the apology.

------
chillydawg
I suspect that was the last Uber he'll ever take. Too scared to face criticism
from the drivers.

~~~
criddell
I like that the driver rated him one star. How funny would it be if he was
unable to get a ride because of his low rating?

------
andrewclunn
I think everyone gets one of these. You clearly screw up, you admit to it, and
you say you'll fix it (as long as it's not a clearly vicious screw up with
irreversible effects).

~~~
frabbit
Gimme a break. It's a fauxpology designed to wedge people into a "well, at
least he admitted he was wrong" mindset so that it all quiets down and people
stop talking about the fundamental problem with Uber: it replaces solid jobs
providing public transportation financed from public taxation with a private
systems in which the individual peons are powerless, poorly paid and racing to
the bottom.

------
dsschnau
He can apologize by resigning and going back to the frat that he came from.

------
dandare
Maybe those hashtags are cutting deeper than I expected? :D

------
Exuma
I didn't see he did anything wrong, he was just a cutting through the crap the
driver was spewing. The driver was soliciting the CEO when he should be doing
his job and driving, and just shut up. As if a Uber driver knows the business
so well that he has the right to tell the damn CEO how the innerworkings of
Uber pricing work. The driver just (inappropriately) used the opportunity to
lambaste the CEO about his problems.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
It seems to me the Uber driver should find a different job if he's not able to
make a go of it. What possible benefit to arguing about pricing with the
passenger, regardless whether he's the CEO? I admit, I'd be intrigued if I
knew my passenger was the Uber CEO -- I might ask some polite questions about
the direction of the company and so forth but probably not directly argue with
the man regardless of the CEO's people skills or lack thereof :)

~~~
matt4077
> What possible benefit to arguing about pricing with the passenger,
> regardless whether he's the CEO?

How about "getting that CEO so far into a corner, you can rate him one star,
shame him publicly, and still get an apology"?

That driver, even though he didn't make the best possible argument for his
position, has been tremendously influential.

And the position of "don't complain, you're free to leave" didn't even make
sense in the 19th century when it was used against people complaining about
child labor or fire safety.

