Uber CEO advised employees on rules for a company celebration in 2013 memo
recode.net
recode.net
Uber was already past the days where it had the environment in that email, but I experienced an environment like the one in that email at my last startup because I was there at the beginning and lived that early growth. I'm glad Uber was past that by the time I joined because as much as I enjoyed that environment at the time, I was looking for something more mature after riding that bull once. I was also looking to engineer systems at scale instead of MVPs.
I read the comments here and I can only shake my head and think they were written by armchair quarterbacks who don't know what a hypergrowth company looks like. Comraderie and informality in the early days is par for the course. You need that informality to help make the type-A high stress environment not only tolerable but fun and motivating. People burn out without it.
This isn't an immature CEO. This is a CEO whose attitude and demeanor has changed with the company to match the kind of leader the company needed at the time. Zuckerberg was the same way. Leading a company from the early days where it's a few people in a house to 14000 employees across the globe requires a superhuman person that evolves to match what the company needs to succeed in the moment and then go to the next level. Uber turned 7 years old very recently. It is easily the fastest growing company in the world. It still is the fastest growing company in the world (as much as some people, often with conflicts of interest, media included, wish it were not).
I honestly see very little difference between Travis and Zuck and Uber 2017 and Facebook 2009. Both had similar early cultures. Both had cultures that changed as the companies matured. Both had some missteps along the way for which they were rightly criticized. Both were remarkably effective at learning from their mistake and correcting and moving forward.
If you think that Uber 2017 is the Uber of 2014, you're very wrong just like it's absurd to think Facebook of 2009 was like Facebook of 2006. Uber of 2018 is going to be a very different place just like Facebook 2010 was. Not only the organization will be different but the leaders in those years were different. Zuck evolved with the company and so has Travis. Both were the right kind of leader at the right time and they change as leaders as necessary.
In the meantime, I will wait for the peanut gallery to point at an example, any example, of a company that can grow and succeed like a Facebook or Uber in the same time frame without evolving first from the type of culture we're criticizing now, and without the kind of leader we are criticizing right now. 1 to 14000 over 7 years is superhuman leadership. And while the leader might not be perfect at 7 years, they have more than proven themselves capable of evolving over and over again if they can lead orgs with that growth. Honestly, I kind of disgusted by the ageist comments that think that because he's ~40 that he will never change and must still be the person in that email.
I don't recognize the Travis in that email myself as that was a Travis that existed before I joined. That said, I do recognize an email written by the kind of leader that was the right leader at the right time for the type of company Uber was a year before I joined (and less than a quarter of the size of when I joined).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165566/Mark-Zuckerb...
It's also interesting to think that if this sort of stuff had came out when it actually happened, I guarantee that Lyft would have a lot more of an upper hand in that race. Sadly, since it's about 4 years late, I wonder sometimes if they just have too much of a market share to really get a hit from even terrible press like this. Does anyone have any numbers on how this bad press this year has been hitting them?
One could argue that this is one of the reasons they become a billion dollar company: They disregarded laws and norms and just did whatever, getting away with it because of a tech halo.
If the company had started with a conservative legal foundation, it would have been one of dozens of small taxi hailing apps. They said to hell with it and a lot of people got rich.
It isn't terribly surprising that traditional corporate norms weren't strictly followed in their operations or behaviors. This is true whether we believe their actions were ultimately for the public good or to bring regulations forward.
I think this is rewriting history just a bit.
My recollection is that, when Uber first entered the marketplace in various locations, it was largely a gray area as to whether their business was legal.
Since then regulations have changed, been clarified, or been litigated in courts to clarify their legal meaning... and Uber then proceeded to ignore those laws and do whatever the hell they wanted to.
But my view is that that culture, of simply ignoring laws it saw as inconvenient, came a bit later, after they started to become successful and viewed themselves as essentially above the law.
https://techcrunch.com/2011/05/25/uber-airbnb-jail-time/
Uber was an illegal taxi service in every jurisdiction they entered that I am aware of. This wasn't really gray. It was remarkable the restraint jurisdictions showed, I suspect because there was a sense that if they clamped down they didn't "get it".
I'm questioning whether they launched knowing full well they were shirking the law, or if they launched, realized they were in legal trouble, and then proceeded to not give a sh*t. :)
I agree. Disregarding laws, norms and regulations is what gave them the advantage against competition and allowed them to become big fast.
How are these things sexist and laddish? If a heterosexual couple decide to have sex at a work event, then both people are equally culpable. Women are people and capable of making their own decisions.
In cases where authority figures or no-explicit consent are involved, the letter makes clear that won't be tolerated.
- The company expects a higher status of consent than required by law
- Staff should not at all have sex with those they report to and this applies to everyone
Saying it's "laddish" just seems like strange way to claim that any message conveyed in a non-formal tone is 'laddish' as somehow only men can understand or be the audience for such messages.
No one's complaining about the content of the line in question (thank god). People are complaining about the sexist, laddish, immature, and jokey tone.
Perhaps the people who most need to hear it will hear it better with such a tone?
2) We do not have a budget to bail anyone out of jail. Don't be that guy.
3) Do not throw large kegs off of tall buildings.
6) There will be a $200 puke charge for any public displays on the Shore Club premises
You're sure this isn't just a little bit laddish?
No. If anything, it's responsible.
'He was merely remarking on the young lady's physical pulcritude, there is nothing remotely laddish about that.'
Why do you think that Uber has this kind of reputation AND has to say these things, other companies don't write these memos. These types of things are written by companies whose culture breeds contempt of these societal rules. That is why they need to 'remind' people.
Your perception strikes me as the only thing outright sexist being discussed in this thread. Can only men talk this way and be the intended audience of a message written in this language? Why can't women also write this way or be the intended audience of this kind of language?
Sexism is treating people differently based on their gender, which is exactly what you are doing in your judgement. I know women who use similar language. Are they being "laddish"? Even the word "laddish" strikes me as dated sexist language from across the pond.
It might surprise you, but this isn't how adults communicate, or want to be talked to. This is frat boys communicating to frat boys, making everyone else feel unsafe and unwelcome just by using this aggressively immature and tasteless tone.
Full disclosure: I've just been fired from a similar company partly because I didn't tolerate the CEO and fellow managers communicating to my team in such an offensive way. Which obviously made me a bad cultural fit, as a grown up over the age of 40.
Making sure the company talks honestly and openly about these things, and does more than what is legally necessary to prevent harassment and rape is a good thing.
Hey, speak for yourself please, don't drag me into this. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the personality of this Uber CEO, and I agree that it isn't a serious memo, and that it reflects "frat boys communicating with frat boys". However, it doesn't make me "feel unsafe" or "unwelcome".
I find it genuinely perplexing how people can "feel unsafe" because of some random fools' mutterings. I am sure and confident of my own place in the universe. I would never allow someone like this guy to negatively affect my self-perception. Even though I don't agree with the tone, this language doesn't threaten me in any way.
So please, cut it out with the appeal to a large support base - I am no frat boy, and as per your definition am thus part of the "everyone" you refer to, and that memo would not have made me feel unsafe and unwelcome.
> 4) Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic "YES! I will have sex with you" AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command. Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML
First: This is completely inappropriate to bring up in this way in a work environment.
Second: When it comes to sexual harassment issues in the workplace, women are the main victims, which is probably why the Guardian reporter wrote that sentence as they did. Not only does this text give a green light to very questionable behavior (which will mostly or entirely be perpetrated against women by men), but it also implies that CEO Kalanick -- someone employees might take as a role model -- has and will continue to have sex with underlings, but just not on this trip.
Yeah, it's probably a joke. If so, it's a dumb and inappropriate joke. And Kalanick was 37 when he wrote this. Not 22. Not some newb CEO. 37.
> This is completely inappropriate to bring up in this way in a work environment.
Active consent is a good thing and always good to bring up at social events. Pretending that some staff don't have sex with other - particularly staff who spend long hours in the same environment - is naive and dangerous, since it stops issues like this from being addressed. Pointing out that not having sex with someone who reports you applies to EVERYONE is also important.
> Not only does this text give a green light to very questionable behavior
What questionable behavior does it give a green light to?
The joke that the CEO is making is that they are limiting their own sexual activity too - since they're at the top and therefore anyone in the company would be in their chain of command.
I don't think anyone would argue with that. But having been involved in crafting workplace policies at a company where multiple relationships and marriages developed between employees, I can only say that in my experience when an issue like this is taken seriously, the message is generally crafted and communicated in a serious tone.
If this is the way they have to phrase it in order for the message to stick, they need to find employees who have been socialized to actually respect other humans. Lose.
The more I see these sort of things come up, the happier and happier I am that I was never in a fraternity, and at the risk of tar-and-feathering the good, helpful ones, I can't see frat membership as anything but a warning of potentially damaging childishness and legal fubars.
All of these things are certainly in the employment agreements and HR guidelines at Uber, this memo is NOT the first time any of these employees have gotten this 'advice'. Further, but putting this content in the memo you are doing a couple things: First, setting an expectation that sex will occur at this company endorsed function; and two, second you are essentially saying that your employees have had problems with this historically. How do you think that makes you employees who are not interested in this type of thing feel? What about those that just want to have a good time with their coworkers without being propositioned by every horny drunkard in the room?
Is the company setting an expectation that over-drinking will occur?
Is the company necessarily implying that employees have had problems with drinking historically?
Does this message turn of non-drinking employees?
Or telling employees to "have a great fucking time" but "don't throw kegs off of tall buildings"....I mean, I read that as them pretty explicitly saying, "we expect you to get drunk and rowdy, just make sure to stop before you do anything that has legal repercussions".
That's not laddish?
So if we make jokes about outlandishly wild behavior it's now not OK?
As a professional?
No, it damn well isn't.
Why is that difficult to understand?
Hell, I would expect better of basically any grown adult over the age of 25.
Oh wait, that explains everything...
I suppose you'd enjoy 1960s-era IBM, going to work in a suit, and other dull things, some other people don't.
Personally, I simply prefer to surround myself with people who've grown out of the phase where they value weekend benders and banging co-workers.
>>Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic “YES! I will have sex with you” AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command.
Is pretty sensible advice.
> We ... have organized a local grassroots movement to help bring Uber to Miami. #MiamiNeedsUber
It's not often you see a company directly admit to "organizing a grassroots movement" designed to boost their product. It's such a bizarrely sincere line that you'd almost think Kalanick believed a corporate-organized movement counts as 'grassroots'.
> "giving information about everything from vomiting (a $200 “puke charge”) to drug use"
The supposed information on drug use was a clear statement of zero tolerance on drug use, something no doubt intentially left out of that sentence to paint a picture.
> Fourth on the list of don’ts was: “Do not have sex with another employee UNLESS a) you have asked that person for that privilege and they have responded with an emphatic “YES! I will have sex with you” AND b) the two (or more) of you do not work in the same chain of command.
> “Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip. #CEOLife #FML [Fuck My Life].”
> Kalanick also advised that there would be a “$200 puke charge” and that Uber did “not have a budget to bail anyone out of jail”. Uber employees were also advised not to “throw large kegs off of tall buildings”.
> However, employees were told to “have a great fucking time” and that it was a celebration for launching in Uber’s 50th city and for reaching a $1bn run rate.
> The leaked memo paints an ugly picture of American frat-house culture peppered with sexism and laddish behaviour that permeates from the top down. At the time Uber had 400 employees, a similar letter was sent out by Kalanick to employees when the company had 1,800 employees. By the time it had hit 4,000 employees Rachel Whetstone, the now departed head of communications, had taken over with a more subtle and respectful tone.
I'm a bit confused here, at least with the excerpt that's being discussed/referenced. What Kalanick wrote is informal and with a tone that is arguable less mature than what would be expected from a company the size of uber when the letter was written. At the same time, from what I can see it seems to just something HR would send out to employees. "Yes means yes, nothing means no and don't sleep with your boss/direct suboordinate." I'm a bit confused at how this memo paints, "paints an ugly picture of American frat-house culture peppered with sexism..."
Yes, uber's culture seems to encourage sexism to run rampant. Yes, Travis Kalanick is not a ceo with great pr skills. That said, I think it's a bit far to call this informal hr letter written by a startup ceo as, "painting a culture of sexism."
I can see how the, "frat boy" culture that this letter came from could be something that encourages sexism and discriminatory behavior. This article isn't about that though. It's arguing that this letter and it's "guidelines" paint a picture of sexism. The subtitle:
>Guidelines about having sex with employees paints picture of sexism at under-fire company that comes directly from CEO Travis Kalanick
This article seems to just want to reiterate what's been said in a dozen previous articles, but since they didn't have any new information they decided to go for low hanging fruit in the uber trainwreck.Bashing uber just for the sake of bashing uber.
While this memo is hardly professional in tone, it's also an internal communication about a celebration weekend. It reads a lot like party announcement emails I'd get from college organizations, and I don't think it's sexist-- it's just lighthearted. It sounds like employees were a bit confused about how to behave at this Miami event, and Travis sent this out to clarify expectations- don't talk about confidential stuff to press, a quick/informal (and, imo, very reasonable) mention of intimate dos/don'ts within the company, and even an internal joke about dropping kegs off of roofs.
Would I want to work at this company as a 50-year-old? Probably not. But as a 20-something female, the Uber of 2013 sounds like a pretty fun place to work. It may be informal, but at least it's not layers and layers of unbearable PR-speak.
1. Not say anything at all. Not exactly ideal.
2. Say it in a completely mature, serious way which most of the young hip employees would ignore after the first few words, because "Yeah yeah, don't rape, I already know all this."
3. Say it in a lighthearted way that has a better chance of maintaining the reader's interest, and actually be something they remember during the event.
To me, 3 sounds like the most effective option.
I don't mean to belittle Susan's experience at all: from her description, it sounds like there are a lot of bad eggs at Uber. But this memo is not indicative of that at all, and I don't like the fact that news articles are trying to spin it as "frat" level language.
pmarca would be one example. Of all the Silicon Valley VCs, he's invested more money in tech journalists than anyone I can think of, both personally (e.g. Sara Lacy) and professionally through A16Z (e.g. Buzzfeed).
It just so happens that A16Z is probably the single biggest shareholder in Lyft.
So long as Uber has competitors that still think they have a chance and that investors are will to invest in, we'll continue seeing hit piece after hit piece. If anything, all these hit pieces just confirm that Uber is still wildly successful and its competitors are playing dirty to try and get any advantage.
Can a moderator change the url?