At this point, it doesn't matter whether he's leaving because of accusations or if he's leaving because of everyone else's accusations – let's assume the latter because that's more charitable.
This is what a PR tailspin looks like. All your good people will leave, all your bad people will have to be fired, and consumer demand and driver supply will be affected. Perception is reality, and that means Uber are in real trouble here and it's gonna cost them a lot – maybe most of the exec suite – to get out of it.
The key question is: who benefits? This is corporate politics by insurgent means, so I wonder who is emptying their opposition research briefing against Uber and why. Could even be an investor who wants to force leadership out, possibly as a prelude to driving Uber to an exit.
Those tactics don't work unless the dirt exists, so this really, really doesn't excuse anything which Uber may (and, on the balance of probabilities, there's more than likely fire to go with this smoke) have done. And I don't think it's likely the individuals alleging harassment in particular are part of this at all, so anyone coming trying to impugn their motivations can go pound sand; but, as a byproduct of their legit and serious grievances, they created the environment where this kind of power-play can be made.
I don't think this requires a grand conspiracy to still make sense.
If you're an Uber employee that's been around for a while, you have significant value tied up in Uber stock. The senior management has long indicated little interest in going public, so in theory you have a lot of employees that are being prevented from becoming millionaires by their employer.
Worse, that stock is now decreasing in value (impossible to assess of course, but...) - might it not be better to leak all the things you've seen in the last few years and hurry the departure of the senior staff at Uber? Then you'll get a new set of executives who will be much more open to going public and making you rich. Maybe not as rich as you might have been before all this started, but it's better than terminal decline.
That's more or less where I am, actually; not that this is a conspiracy, but something simpler, more subtle and less organized.
I'm positing that the very real and very awful problems at Uber (again, to reiterate; those are the main issue here, I'm picking at side-issues...) have incidentally created an environment where some parties have powerful incentives to go in on Uber themselves.
But I don't think I'm advancing a conspiracy theory. There's a genuine crisis at Uber, and that's the important issue here; if a hundredth of what's been alleged is true then that's the main event here and all of this is really Valley inside-baseball navel-gazing. Let's not draw moral false equivalences here.
Still, as a student of Valley dynamics, one has to acknowledge that realpolitik exists whenever things go really wrong. Given that, it's worth wondering whether any parties can take advantage of those conditions, especially given the non-existent state of board oversight in tightly-held SV companies. Chris Sacca and Mitch Kapor have already gone to the press on this (publically), so it's not even that much of a reach.
This is, in some really grim ways, an opportunity which doesn't come around very often.
There doesn't have to be a single actor who benefits for there to be realpolitik. It could be that the the company has pissed off a number of people on the way up (this is a virtual certainty), and now that they smell blood in the water, they're all coming out. Think "information cascade", not "nefarious actor".
Information cascade does not necessarily mean no nefarious actor or actors. While I'm not saying there IS a vast conspiracy to take down Uber, I too have felt that there is a concerted push for negative PR on Uber, with the timing of the releases of bad news a bit too neat. Uber's troubles have been on top of the news cycle for a few weeks now for various things.
That's a great quote that mirrors my thoughts. Even though conspiracies are very real, people that see conspiracies everywhere are really searching for order in a chaotic world.
While it's true that it's easy to imagine conspiratorial conduct is occurring when events are in fact coincidental, conspirators are quick to exploit that "healthy skepticism" and lead people into scoffing at the suggestion of the actual conspiracies that are underway.
Consider that "conspiracy theorist" is basically a pejorative these days. There are indeed some tinfoil hat wearers, but there are also a lot of people whose paranoia has been earned through experience and is more justified than it may appear at first glance.
I think the pendulum has definitely swung to the complacent side of things, and that people are more likely to assume coincidence when conspiracy is the correct explanation. I know the impulsive response here is "Hanlon's Razor!" and all that, but I feel that's better applied to keeping interpersonal relations friendly rather than explaining significant closely-timed organizational or social changes.
My experience with such changes at the organizational level has been that there are some key people who are very interested in ensuring that the people in the org believe an organic, coincidental, or otherwise autonomous change occurred, but they've actually spent months coordinating efforts to ensure that the desired changes occur. Politics is an inevitability any time you get more than 5 people in the same room.
We'd do well to hesitate and think before we laugh at the people who put forth "unofficial" narratives.
That literally everyone is incompetent is the grandest of anti-conspiracy conspiracies.
Of course there are competent people. I know I am, and so are most of the people I know.
The folk who conspired to cheat the emissions tests at VW are competent and organised; the folk at Uber who built the system to track cops are competent and organised; the folk at the NSA etc etc are competent and organised.
Do you mind explaining that? I'm not sure I follow. It's obvious that a lot of dirt is coming out, but it seems to all be sourced internally. Or are you referring to people with media connections pushing the stories for more exposure (which I don't know if is happening or not)? I don't think there needs to be an explanation for why there's a lot of stories beyond it hitting the tipping point for many employees, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
> Do you mind explaining that? I'm not sure I follow.
This is obviously highly speculative, but Uber is a really leaky ship right now. This could be solely coincidence, but I am positing that – potentially – someone who wants increased influence at, or to increase pressure on, Uber may see opportunity here. To that end, they might be spinning parts of the narrative through their press relationships.
I think it's just as likely that the people with grievances to air are far more likely to be listened to once an initial scandal breaks. As soon as the first tale hit the mainstream news, every editor and reporter suddenly had a reason to publish an otherwise ignorable story.
Top execs leaving is more easily explained. This is the time if you have skeletons in your closet, assuming the internal investigation is real, before your dirty laundry is aired in the national news. And if you see this as Uber's death knell better to bail before it tarnishes your own rep to have worked there.
> And if you see this as Uber's death knell better to bail before it tarnishes your own rep to have worked there.
Even if it's not Uber's death knell, as top exec it's probably better to bail now.
You can take your "I ran X at Uber" managerial propaganda and cash in on that for a better position. An Uber IPO probably isn't going to be life-changing amounts of money anymore for these levels of people even with the sweet deals that the hoi polloi would never get, so time to move on.
Ah, okay. That's what I thought you might have been referring to, but the term "insurgent means" is unique enough and vague enough that it piqued my interest enough to make sure. :)
Dirt exists, this is obvious and well documented, and Uber does not even denies it. Now the tactics you are talking about are purely hypothetical. There is no need for a Machiavellian plan to exist for all downfalls and catastrophies (although sometime there is one.)
So what exactly is "corporate politics by insurgent means"?
This is corporate politics by insurgent means, so I wonder who is emptying their opposition research briefing against Uber and why.
[citation needed]
The fact that it could be doesn't mean it is. Firms can collapse under the weight of their own bad decisions without any outside engineering, and Uber has pissed off lots of people over a long time.
The women engineers who won't get harassed at companies that crack down on bad behavior to avoid sharing Uber's fate. It's a massive conspiracy by the Society of Women Engineers to bring down the worst parts of tech culture.
Which might even matter if this were a profitable business. But it's not. I expect that these "ride share" services will stay around but I also suspect that a lot of people who have developed expectations around them at their current subsidized pricing are in for a surprise when they become 2x or 4x more expensive.
10000% leaving bc of accusations AGAINST him. I know first hand. This guy doesn't deserve an ounce of benefit of the doubt. Lucky he was able to "resign" but I think people are smart enough to put two and two together.
I actually don't believe all these stores are going to affect Ubers customer potential that much. Just like McDonalds aren't being affected despite one of their biggest hurdless is dealing with bad PR.
Most consumers don't care or know about these things.
Where it's really going to affect Uber is with regards to attracting talent.
The market's invisible-hand benefits. If this corporation is toxic, then it fails and in it's place will come a better, more ethical, more resilient corporation.
> Baker was seen "making out" at an internal Uber event held in Miami three years ago, which was seen by some employees. There was no suggestion of any sexual harassment on his part and the encounter was apparently consensual.
Is that it? I was expecting something a little more scandalous.
Maybe he just found it convenient cover to jump off a sinking ship.
Maybe there are way larger skeletons in his closet. It's unlikely we'll ever know for sure in this instance but I think the general trajectory of Uber has fundamentally shifted in the last month.
Not illegal, but almost always a major violation of company protocol and a very good reason to get fired with prejudice. But Uber seems like the kind of corporate culture where that kind of thing is tolerated, if not basically encouraged.
On so many levels. I don't think making out with someone at a company event is OK, period. Even less if they also work at the company. Even less if they're your report. Even less if you're powerful within the company (i.e. a tone-setter).
To be clear, the reason it's not OK is that a professional context should not also be a sexual context. It's not about protecting the person you're making out with. It's about everyone else. This is the same reason that excessive PDA in the workplace can be sexual harassment of other employees, even if both parties to the PDA are consenting.
In the US, if it's consensual, it's not illegal regardless of the org chart except for very particular scenarios like (I believe) military service members. It may be against company policy and a generally bad idea, but consensual sexual contact is not illegal even between the CEO and an intern.
If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in seeing the relevant laws or cases.
> In the US, if it's consensual, it's not illegal regardless of the org chart.
It's not illegal to sleep with your boss.
Unfortunately (For your boss), if you decide to break the relationship off, and are feeling particularly vengeful, you will have a slam-dunk sexual harassment case against them.
Good luck to your boss proving that the bad performance review they gave you was not retaliation for you breaking off the relationship.
Or, likewise, good luck to them proving that the good performance they gave you (But did not give Billy) is not based on you sleeping with them. Billy will also have a pretty good workplace discrimination suit for to bring, there.
> Unfortunately (For your boss), if you decide to break the relationship off, and are feeling particularly vengeful, you will have a slam-dunk sexual harassment case against them.
That's not entirely true. If the relationship is long-term or it's public knowledge, the risk of this is much lower. Secret affairs? Very risky. Open serious relationships? Not as risky (which is why companies that allow relationships generally require that they are disclosed). But still too risky.
The discrimination suit is more risky in each case, because you'll pretty much end up trying to prove your innocence because you'll look guilty by default.
These are certainly mitigating factors. However, as a manager, you are gambling with your job, your company's money, and your own money (As you can be found personally liable for sexual harassment.)
It's a big risk to take! Especially when the alternative is one of you moving to a different department.
No that's absolutely not it. This guy is a scumbag and was allowed to "resign" to come out of this relatively unscathed. The article about him doesn't even scratch the surface.
This is not going to be a popular oppipion here, but when does this start being a witch hunt? Disgruntled employees sending anonymous tips to Arianna Huffington over seeing employees make out at a party. There was no evidence of misconduct, yet they printed the story and included the "incident".
So kissing at a party which was most likely consensual is now evidence? Give me a break.
You do realize that inter-company relationships and hookups happen all the time right? How is two consenting adults sexual harassment? This is still innocent until proven guilty right? Maybe not.
On what basis do you establish "most likely consensual"? If the makeout partner was a subordinate, they may very well have been coerced, EVEN in a setting such as that. Risk takers thrive on risk taking behavior.
There are huge amounts of misconduct on his part. Just bc an article doesn't specify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are large amounts of information that media or external parties will never know about. This is a pretty obvious point. Read between the lines. And no, I'm not speculating. I know first hand, unfortunately.
It's rather unfortunate (or maybe deliberate) for him that one can't tell if he's leaving because of the bad press or because he was one of those "high performers" mentioned in the medium posts.
> For example, one person anonymously tipped off board member Arianna Huffington — who is one of the people conducting a wider-ranging investigation into sexism and sexual harassment at the company — via an email that Baker had engaged in a sexual encounter with another employee.
It's very common for relationships between superiors-subordinates to be banned or to have very specific steps which must be taken. Of course, for a superior to be 'making out' with someone at an event is potentially a whole different thing.
A subordinate in the context of a business org structure means someone who reports up into him, whether directly or indirectly. If the person reports up into someone who is his peer, say, the VP of Finance or VP of Marketing, then you would not refer to the person as his subordinate. And, in most (US) companies, a relationship between him and such a person in a different section of the company would not be considered problematic or against policy.
I see, so most employees in Product would be his subordinate but not someone in a different organization, and this is typically the line at which American coorporations consider a relationship problematic? Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, only a small number of co's would prohibit relationships altogether. It's pretty common to prohibit it in ones where there is a (direct or indirect) reporting relationship.
> Wow you don't even have the balls to stick by you're snarky comment you coward
I'm not sure what you mean. Which part of my comment did I back down from? "Chances are" means the same thing as "the odds are good"...
> Subordinate != someone lower in org chart that does not report to you, so no, its not statistically likely.
You'll have to forgive me if there is some specific business definition of subordinate I'm missing... my understanding of subordinate is more in line with this one (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subordinate)
> placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position
Just because someone doesn't directly report to you, doesn't mean that the woman's boss can't report to him. A company can have a problem with relationships that aren't between direct reports.
the other poster got a little too heated but I think he has a point. two adults should be able have a consensual relationship (assuming one isn't the supervisor of the other).
My first thought when I read that wasn't that he sexually harassed someone, but that the toxic workplace spelled out in that NY times article now involves jockeying to get internal competition fired.
'''Specifically, said sources, Baker was seen “making out” at an internal Uber event held in Miami three years ago which was seen by some employees. There was no suggestion of any sexual harassment on his part and the encounter was apparently consensual'''
How is consentual making out at a party in Miami can in any way be considered a bad thing? That what those events are made for. I can't believe this is the real motive.
He sexually harassed employees, which is not consensual. The make out was seen by many people which is why it's in print. It doesn't mean he didn't do other inappropriate things. This article doesn't even scratch the surface of what this guy did. Lucky for him he was able to exist at the company for as long as he did.
>How is consentual making out at a party in Miami can in any way be considered a bad thing?
I agree with this in principle, but if it's an official Uber event, HR rules of "appropriateness" would still apply. It probably wouldn't be as big a deal if Uber's HR department wasn't on fire.
It does seem like it's adding up that way. Heck, it may be the best move for him financially. He has roughly 10% of Uber shares , and if his resignation make the route to an IPO easier and removes some downward pressure on the resulting price...
Put your prediction on PredictionBook? It's a great way to keep track of your predictions, and learn to be calibrated (e.g. to have about 80% of your predictions-of-80%-likelihood be correct, which doesn't come naturally to people).
Maybe. I'm just thinking the board cannot support a CEO of a $70B firm whose personal assessment of himself is he needs to grow up. It also provides the perfect excuse to remove him, the major obstacle to Uber's IPO.
If you're referring to his blog post entitled "profound apology" where he makes no mention of this very public sexual harrassment thing and on the whole apologizes for a video where he did nothing wrong: yeah, don't do that.
This is what a PR tailspin looks like. All your good people will leave, all your bad people will have to be fired, and consumer demand and driver supply will be affected. Perception is reality, and that means Uber are in real trouble here and it's gonna cost them a lot – maybe most of the exec suite – to get out of it.
The key question is: who benefits? This is corporate politics by insurgent means, so I wonder who is emptying their opposition research briefing against Uber and why. Could even be an investor who wants to force leadership out, possibly as a prelude to driving Uber to an exit.
Those tactics don't work unless the dirt exists, so this really, really doesn't excuse anything which Uber may (and, on the balance of probabilities, there's more than likely fire to go with this smoke) have done. And I don't think it's likely the individuals alleging harassment in particular are part of this at all, so anyone coming trying to impugn their motivations can go pound sand; but, as a byproduct of their legit and serious grievances, they created the environment where this kind of power-play can be made.
So who benefits?