> the only way to move forward is to get rid of Travis Kalanick ... do they really even need him?
My opinions aside on whether Travis is a healthy CEO for Uber, there are real costs to employee turnover. And that is true at the CEO level just as anywhere else.
And there are actually some benefits to a post-crisis employee. Sure, a new person they hire probably won't have Travis's specific flaws. But the same can be said of a post-crisis Kalanick. He's actually pretty likely to not make a similar mistake again.
Unless, of course, it becomes a pattern. Certainly Kalanick has demonstrated a pattern of ethical lapses, so if that's the thing you're trying to optimize against he should go. Is there a more specific pattern of ignoring sexual misconduct? Well, probably also yes in Kalanick's case.
But my point is he needs to go because he's demonstrating a pattern of poor performance, not because there needs to be a head on a spike for people to trust Uber again.
My opinions aside on whether Travis is a healthy CEO for Uber, there are real costs to employee turnover. And that is true at the CEO level just as anywhere else.
And there are actually some benefits to a post-crisis employee. Sure, a new person they hire probably won't have Travis's specific flaws. But the same can be said of a post-crisis Kalanick. He's actually pretty likely to not make a similar mistake again.
Unless, of course, it becomes a pattern. Certainly Kalanick has demonstrated a pattern of ethical lapses, so if that's the thing you're trying to optimize against he should go. Is there a more specific pattern of ignoring sexual misconduct? Well, probably also yes in Kalanick's case.
But my point is he needs to go because he's demonstrating a pattern of poor performance, not because there needs to be a head on a spike for people to trust Uber again.