This is the man who has taken the company from zero to $60bn.
There's no reason to assume someone capable of taking a company from zero to $60bn is necessarily capable of taking it from $60bn to $120bn, or even just maintaining a $60bn valuation. Quite often the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something.
That isn't to say Travis can't do it. He's clearly incredibly capable of doing some amazing things. I'm just questioning the idea that he's automatically the right person to run Uber using a basis of the fact he started Uber. While he has done some astounding things he's also been CEO while Uber has done some very bad things too.
This is not a calm and reasoned debate about who is the right CEO for Uber. This is the press being angry that their reporting of several scandals at Uber hasn't resulted in a scalp.
First paragraph of the article: As the calamities amass at Uber, many people — including me — have called for new leadership. Usually, the job of hiring and firing a CEO falls to a company’s board of directors. Yet in a March 21 phone call with the press, board member Arianna Huffington said that Uber’s board had not even discussed the matter.
An honest reporter would have stopped there. Uber's CEO has not been fired because Uber's board does not seem to want to fire him. The rest of the article is conjecture. Surely the only reason the board hasn't fired him (as "many people — including me — have called for") must be that they can't because he has conned them into accepting his own supermajority. Their inability is so total that they can't even discuss the matter -- which, despite the writer's failure to secure even a single quote to support it, simply must be their foremost concern. After all, how could they possibly disagree with "many people — including me"? Inconceivable.
Snark aside, the board has plenty of leverage against Kalanick - they could definitely debate the issues, most likely take a vote of censure. If they have deep differences of opinion with him, and he resorts to overriding them with this supermajority, they can resign their seats, and mark down the value of their holdings in the company. His supermajority would not prevent Kalanick from finding himself CEO of a $20B company with no board.
>Surely the only reason the board hasn't fired him (as "many people — including me — have called for") must be that they can't because he has conned them into accepting his own supermajority.
Sort of like when there's any semblance of a financial scandal and HackerNews erupts, calling for not only a scalp but jail time (and worse, I've read here). SV execs get a pass?
> There's no reason to assume someone capable of taking a company from zero to $60bn is necessarily capable of taking it from $60bn to $120bn, or even just maintaining a $60bn valuation.
Sure. Now quick propose a concrete CEO candidate who investors will be convinced is a better fit for the job AND is likely available.
Well, the former CEO of target recently quit his job as president of uber saying "the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber"... So, uh, oops?
There's no reason to assume someone capable of taking a company from zero to $60bn is necessarily capable of taking it from $60bn to $120bn, or even just maintaining a $60bn valuation. Quite often the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something.
I don't think the Theranos comparison is appropriate. We can quibble about $12 or 25 or 68 billion. But Uber is selling over $5 billion a year [1]. There's something there. Theranos has nothing. It is, in my opinion, a fraud. That's different from a real business with--glaring as they may be--serious blemishes.
Theranos had that Walgreen's partnership, close ties to the DoD (a potentially huge client), and high hopes.
Uber may be selling over $5bn a year, but they are doing so at a tremendous loss. Regardless, judging from its current valuation, investors also seem to have high hopes for the future.
The initial success of both companies can be attributed to their respective CEOS; however, grandparent suggested that the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something and I believe that that suggestion is just as applicable to Uber. Just as Holmes failed to realize Therano's potential, Kalanick may fail at realizing Uber's potential. Many even expect this (seeing as we are discussing an article title Why Uber Won't Fire Its CEO).
Side note: I share your opinion that Theranos was a fraud in general, but Uber has been accused of that, and far worse, in recent times. Case in point, this other article currently on the front page: "Uber said to use “sophisticated” software to defraud drivers, passengers", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14053011
I'm no completely certain, but I'm pretty sure I could sell 7-8 billion worth of services for 5 billion as well. Just because they are taking in such a high number as their revenue doesn't mean anything if it's because they are heavily subsiding their service
>But Uber is selling over $5 billion a year [1]. There's something there.
Anyone can do $5BB in revenue by selling dollar bills for fifty cents.
Uber is a cool idea, but it's pretty hard to judge demand when you're subsidizing the price. I'm skeptical that they'll be able to simply "turn up prices" once they've captured the market.
How much of Uber's value comes from it's self-driving fleet potential, which might be starting from scratch?
Which partly makes the CEO so key. Dispassionately, what Uber needs right now is someone who can convince investors to keep the money taps open. If you lose $X BILLION a year, you need $X Billion + y% to maintain that burn rate. So the question is:
Is there a CEO that can continue to raise money, OR that can turn a $X Billion loss into a mild loss, whilst still raising the money required to keep the enterprise alive?
100 people throw a 20-sided die; anyone who throws a 20 makes it to the next round, having "proven to have the skills making them capable of rolling a 20"...
There's no reason to assume someone capable of taking a company from zero to $60bn is necessarily capable of taking it from $60bn to $120bn, or even just maintaining a $60bn valuation. Quite often the skills needed to start something are different from the skills needed to grow or to maintain something.
That isn't to say Travis can't do it. He's clearly incredibly capable of doing some amazing things. I'm just questioning the idea that he's automatically the right person to run Uber using a basis of the fact he started Uber. While he has done some astounding things he's also been CEO while Uber has done some very bad things too.