Is there any evidence that kicking Kalanick helped Uber?
Since it's a privately owned company, we don't have a lot of detail about either stock performance or revenue / profit, and even so, I'm not sure that you'd be able to attribute changes on this timeframe (either for the better or for the worse) to Kalanick leaving.
On the other hand, since it's privately held, arguably what helps Uber is that its investors (owners) are happy with it, and they requested that he leave. So, yes?
The reason I ask is because I've heard that companies that kick their founders generally fail. I'm not sure how true that is, but people on HN said it was common during the bubble.
It could be true that 2017 is different, that times have changed and that to win Uber needs to move forward without Kalanick. But the employees generally felt that he was doing a good job. All in all, it's a confusing situation.
Possibly because that companies that are so screwed up internally that they have to kick their founder out are destined to fail. And kicking the founder out doesn't change their course enough to fix it.
companies that kick their founders generally fail