In this Closer Look, we examine the roles that leadership and culture play in contributing to chronic misbehavior and the manner in which it takes root in an organization. We use the example of Uber Technologies. Between 2012 and 2017, Uber Technologies faced a series of governance challenges including regulatory battles, relations with drivers, intellectual property theft, cybersecurity breaches, allegations of sexual harassment, and boardroom battles. We discuss these in detail and ask:
• Did Uber’s early risk-seeking behavior cause larger problems down the road?
• How important is CEO personality and behavior in influencing the collective behavior of an organization?
• How difficult is it to change culture, once it is established?
• To what extent is culture created top down and to what extent bottom up?
• Does Uber need a substantial turnover of management and key non-management employees to successfully complete a cultural shift?
Analysts expect self-driving cars to mature rapidly in the next decade.
As potential self-driving forces form alliances, investor bets have become simpler.
Analysts expect self-driving cars to mature rapidly in the next decade.
As potential self-driving forces form alliances, investor bets have become simpler.
The Practice of Public Relations, 12 th edition., Fraser P. Seitel.docxoreo10
The Practice of Public Relations, 12 th edition., Fraser P. Seitel, Chapter 5
Case Study Uber Success Brings Uber Public Relations Problems
Behold the phenomenon that is Uber. The 21st century personal taxi cab service, headquartered in San Francisco, is worth approximately $50 billion and isn’t even public. It is a staple in 300 cities in 58 countries, employs 300,000 drivers and generates annual revenues of $10 billion.
Uber Impactful
Uber was founded in 2009 by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp as a transportation network company that uses an app to allow consumer to submit a trip request then routed to Uber’s nexus of drivers. Uber lore suggests that Kalanick and Camp hatched the idea one snowy night in Paris when they couldn’t find a cab. Almost immediately, the concept disrupted taxi companies and governments around the world. Meanwhile, private investors piled on to finance the upstart company, assuring it of one of history’s most monumental public offerings—if and when it decides to go public. Uber’s impactful growth appeared unstoppable. In the summer of 2015, CEO Kalanick announced plans to invest $1 billion in China, increasing to 65 the number of Chinese cities served by Uber. Despite challenges from entrenched taxi companies and the Chinese government, Kalanick predicted that China might turn out to be a more important market for Uber even than the U.S.
Uber Arrogant
Despite Uber’s roaring success, it suffered public relations problems from its start. One primary reason was its not-yet-40-year-old CEO Kalanick. While any Silicon Valley “disruptor” must be a feisty competitor by nature, the Uber founder found himself in more hot water virtually every time he opened his mouth. On the long-standing industry he wished to dethrone, CEO Kalanick immediately enraged taxi drivers and local governments when he declared, “It’s not Pinterest where people are putting up pins. You’re changing the way cities work, and that’s fundamentally a third rail. We’re in a political campaign, and the candidate is Uber and the opponent is an a—hole named Taxi.” On the upstart competitor Lyft raising money to challenge Uber, Kalanick made a veiled threat to investors, “Just so you know, we’re going to be fund-raising after this, so before you decide whether you want to invest in them, just make sure you know that we are going to be fund-raising immediately after.” When asked by an interviewer about his skyrocketing “desirability” as young CEO of a multi-billion company, he responded, “Yeah, we call that ‘Boob-er.’” And if that didn’t reflect enough public relations tone deafness, Kalanick followed the comment up by blaming the media for reporting a claim by a political organizer that she was choked by an Uber driver; dismissing the accusation that Uber was somehow liable “for these incidents that aren’t even real in the first place.” Unfortunately for the CEO and his company, Uber’s public relations “incidents” kept on coming.
Uber Crises
Kalan ...
tho75109_case31_C392-C405.indd C-392 12/18/18 07:52 PM
Chaos at Uber: The New
CEO’s Challenge
Syeda Maseeha Qumer
ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad
Debapratim Purkayastha
ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad
“I have to tell you I am scared,”
1 wrote Dara
Khosrowshahi, newly appointed CEO of ride-
hailing service Uber Technologies Inc., in a
memo to his former team at Expedia, Inc.2 Besides
growing Uber’s business, analysts said Khosrowshahi
had the task of changing the dysfunctional culture
within the company and improving corporate gov-
ernance that had cost co-founder and former CEO
Travis Kalanick his job. On June 21, 2017, Kalanick
stepped down as CEO of Uber in the face of a share-
holder revolt that made it untenable for him to stay
on in that position. His resignation came after a
review of practices at Uber including allegations of
sexual harassment, a corporate theft lawsuit, defi-
ance of government regulations, reports of misbe-
havior, and a toxic corporate culture leading to the
departure of some key executives.
Uber’s corporate structure ensured that its
founders held super-voting shares and had dispro-
portionate control over the company. Kalanick,
because of the special class of shares he owned,
enjoyed sweeping authority on the Uber board and
nearly complete autonomy in running the company.
According to some industry observers, Uber ignored
corporate governance in its pursuit of growth and
valuation, and flouted ethical norms while hiding
behind notions of disruption and innovation. This
was fine with investors until the beginning of 2017
when the company’s public image crumbled amid
allegations of sexual harassment, they said. “The
board chose to ignore the fundamentals of their gover-
nance role and failed to provide guidance in correcting
a trait which would ultimately endanger the company in
many ways.”3 said Prabal Basu Roy, a fund manager.
The chaos inside Uber’s boardroom escalated
in August 2017 when a small group of sharehold-
ers aligned with Kalanick dissented against Uber’s
biggest investor Benchmark Capital,4 after it filed a
lawsuit to oust Kalanick from the board. Benchmark
Capital had accused Kalanick of fraud and of inter-
fering in the search for a new CEO—accusations that
he had denied. Some analysts felt that Uber’s board
needed to grow up as the constant bickering among
the members was hurting the company. According to
them, the board’s aggressive infighting was spreading
confusion and uncertainty among Uber’s investors,
customers, and shareholders, and putting the com-
pany’s nearly $70 billion market valuation at risk.
As Khosrowshahi began his new role at Uber,
he had the daunting task of dealing with a fraught
Uber board and mending the frayed relations among
investors. “Boards are so unpredictable, and this one
seems as if they’re at each other’s throats. It’s hard to
know if he’ll have the force of personality to navigate
that,”5 said Alice Armitage, di ...
Case Study ch 9 Winning at All Costs at UberIn early 2017, Uber.docxzebadiahsummers
Case Study ch 9: Winning at All Costs at Uber
In early 2017, Uber, the world’s leading ride-sharing service, had a very bad month. Within the span of 30 days, the $70 billion company suffered a series of blows:
· Former Uber engineer Susan Fowler blogged about her “slightly horrifying” time at the company.1 She reported that male managers routinely engaged in sexual harassment (one propositioned her on her first official day at work). Human resource staff ignored her complaints, defending repeat harassers who were star performers by continually claiming they were “first time offenders.”
· A New York Times report backed up Fowler’s claims, finding widespread harassment (a manager was fired for groping multiple women) as well as evidence that employees snorted cocaine at a company retreat.
· The senior vice president of engineering was fired after it was revealed that, before coming to Uber, he had been fired from Google for sexual harassment.
· Several high-level executives quit, including company president Jeff Jones, who had been at the firm only six months. In his resignation statement, Jones criticized management, saying, “The beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber.”2
· A video surfaced of company founder and president Travis Kalanick berating an Uber driver.
· Google—a major investor in the company—sued Uber for stealing its self-driving-car technology.
· Uber blamed “human error” when one of its self-driving cars was involved in an accident when, in fact, the car’s system failed to recognize a red light at an intersection.
· The #DeleteUber hashtag movement encouraged users to boycott the company, blaming it for trying to make extra profits off of an anti-immigration ban protest at New York City’s Kennedy airport.
· News stories revealed that for years Uber used a secret software program to evade authorities in Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; Boston; Australia; China; Italy; and other cities and countries where it was banned or closely regulated.
The tsunami of bad news was the product of a corporate culture that has been called “toxic,” “aggressive,” and “unrestrained.” Uber’s culture, in turn, is a reflection of founder Travis Kalanick. Since Kalanick and a partner started their firm in 2009 after failing to land a cab ride in Paris, Uber has been focused on growth at seemingly any cost. Kalanick is combative, willing to take on taxi companies, government officials, and anyone else who might stand in his way. He doesn’t let government edicts slow him down, operating in cities that have outlawed the service. The company seemingly battles everyone, being the subject of more lawsuits than any other comparable startup. Many of these suits involve the classification of drivers as contractors instead of employees. Others address labor laws violations, passenger safety, lax driver background checks, and lack of access for disabled riders.
The company’s winner-take-al.
The Practice of Public Relations, 12 th edition., Fraser P. Seitel.docxoreo10
The Practice of Public Relations, 12 th edition., Fraser P. Seitel, Chapter 5
Case Study Uber Success Brings Uber Public Relations Problems
Behold the phenomenon that is Uber. The 21st century personal taxi cab service, headquartered in San Francisco, is worth approximately $50 billion and isn’t even public. It is a staple in 300 cities in 58 countries, employs 300,000 drivers and generates annual revenues of $10 billion.
Uber Impactful
Uber was founded in 2009 by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp as a transportation network company that uses an app to allow consumer to submit a trip request then routed to Uber’s nexus of drivers. Uber lore suggests that Kalanick and Camp hatched the idea one snowy night in Paris when they couldn’t find a cab. Almost immediately, the concept disrupted taxi companies and governments around the world. Meanwhile, private investors piled on to finance the upstart company, assuring it of one of history’s most monumental public offerings—if and when it decides to go public. Uber’s impactful growth appeared unstoppable. In the summer of 2015, CEO Kalanick announced plans to invest $1 billion in China, increasing to 65 the number of Chinese cities served by Uber. Despite challenges from entrenched taxi companies and the Chinese government, Kalanick predicted that China might turn out to be a more important market for Uber even than the U.S.
Uber Arrogant
Despite Uber’s roaring success, it suffered public relations problems from its start. One primary reason was its not-yet-40-year-old CEO Kalanick. While any Silicon Valley “disruptor” must be a feisty competitor by nature, the Uber founder found himself in more hot water virtually every time he opened his mouth. On the long-standing industry he wished to dethrone, CEO Kalanick immediately enraged taxi drivers and local governments when he declared, “It’s not Pinterest where people are putting up pins. You’re changing the way cities work, and that’s fundamentally a third rail. We’re in a political campaign, and the candidate is Uber and the opponent is an a—hole named Taxi.” On the upstart competitor Lyft raising money to challenge Uber, Kalanick made a veiled threat to investors, “Just so you know, we’re going to be fund-raising after this, so before you decide whether you want to invest in them, just make sure you know that we are going to be fund-raising immediately after.” When asked by an interviewer about his skyrocketing “desirability” as young CEO of a multi-billion company, he responded, “Yeah, we call that ‘Boob-er.’” And if that didn’t reflect enough public relations tone deafness, Kalanick followed the comment up by blaming the media for reporting a claim by a political organizer that she was choked by an Uber driver; dismissing the accusation that Uber was somehow liable “for these incidents that aren’t even real in the first place.” Unfortunately for the CEO and his company, Uber’s public relations “incidents” kept on coming.
Uber Crises
Kalan ...
tho75109_case31_C392-C405.indd C-392 12/18/18 07:52 PM
Chaos at Uber: The New
CEO’s Challenge
Syeda Maseeha Qumer
ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad
Debapratim Purkayastha
ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad
“I have to tell you I am scared,”
1 wrote Dara
Khosrowshahi, newly appointed CEO of ride-
hailing service Uber Technologies Inc., in a
memo to his former team at Expedia, Inc.2 Besides
growing Uber’s business, analysts said Khosrowshahi
had the task of changing the dysfunctional culture
within the company and improving corporate gov-
ernance that had cost co-founder and former CEO
Travis Kalanick his job. On June 21, 2017, Kalanick
stepped down as CEO of Uber in the face of a share-
holder revolt that made it untenable for him to stay
on in that position. His resignation came after a
review of practices at Uber including allegations of
sexual harassment, a corporate theft lawsuit, defi-
ance of government regulations, reports of misbe-
havior, and a toxic corporate culture leading to the
departure of some key executives.
Uber’s corporate structure ensured that its
founders held super-voting shares and had dispro-
portionate control over the company. Kalanick,
because of the special class of shares he owned,
enjoyed sweeping authority on the Uber board and
nearly complete autonomy in running the company.
According to some industry observers, Uber ignored
corporate governance in its pursuit of growth and
valuation, and flouted ethical norms while hiding
behind notions of disruption and innovation. This
was fine with investors until the beginning of 2017
when the company’s public image crumbled amid
allegations of sexual harassment, they said. “The
board chose to ignore the fundamentals of their gover-
nance role and failed to provide guidance in correcting
a trait which would ultimately endanger the company in
many ways.”3 said Prabal Basu Roy, a fund manager.
The chaos inside Uber’s boardroom escalated
in August 2017 when a small group of sharehold-
ers aligned with Kalanick dissented against Uber’s
biggest investor Benchmark Capital,4 after it filed a
lawsuit to oust Kalanick from the board. Benchmark
Capital had accused Kalanick of fraud and of inter-
fering in the search for a new CEO—accusations that
he had denied. Some analysts felt that Uber’s board
needed to grow up as the constant bickering among
the members was hurting the company. According to
them, the board’s aggressive infighting was spreading
confusion and uncertainty among Uber’s investors,
customers, and shareholders, and putting the com-
pany’s nearly $70 billion market valuation at risk.
As Khosrowshahi began his new role at Uber,
he had the daunting task of dealing with a fraught
Uber board and mending the frayed relations among
investors. “Boards are so unpredictable, and this one
seems as if they’re at each other’s throats. It’s hard to
know if he’ll have the force of personality to navigate
that,”5 said Alice Armitage, di ...
Case Study ch 9 Winning at All Costs at UberIn early 2017, Uber.docxzebadiahsummers
Case Study ch 9: Winning at All Costs at Uber
In early 2017, Uber, the world’s leading ride-sharing service, had a very bad month. Within the span of 30 days, the $70 billion company suffered a series of blows:
· Former Uber engineer Susan Fowler blogged about her “slightly horrifying” time at the company.1 She reported that male managers routinely engaged in sexual harassment (one propositioned her on her first official day at work). Human resource staff ignored her complaints, defending repeat harassers who were star performers by continually claiming they were “first time offenders.”
· A New York Times report backed up Fowler’s claims, finding widespread harassment (a manager was fired for groping multiple women) as well as evidence that employees snorted cocaine at a company retreat.
· The senior vice president of engineering was fired after it was revealed that, before coming to Uber, he had been fired from Google for sexual harassment.
· Several high-level executives quit, including company president Jeff Jones, who had been at the firm only six months. In his resignation statement, Jones criticized management, saying, “The beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber.”2
· A video surfaced of company founder and president Travis Kalanick berating an Uber driver.
· Google—a major investor in the company—sued Uber for stealing its self-driving-car technology.
· Uber blamed “human error” when one of its self-driving cars was involved in an accident when, in fact, the car’s system failed to recognize a red light at an intersection.
· The #DeleteUber hashtag movement encouraged users to boycott the company, blaming it for trying to make extra profits off of an anti-immigration ban protest at New York City’s Kennedy airport.
· News stories revealed that for years Uber used a secret software program to evade authorities in Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; Boston; Australia; China; Italy; and other cities and countries where it was banned or closely regulated.
The tsunami of bad news was the product of a corporate culture that has been called “toxic,” “aggressive,” and “unrestrained.” Uber’s culture, in turn, is a reflection of founder Travis Kalanick. Since Kalanick and a partner started their firm in 2009 after failing to land a cab ride in Paris, Uber has been focused on growth at seemingly any cost. Kalanick is combative, willing to take on taxi companies, government officials, and anyone else who might stand in his way. He doesn’t let government edicts slow him down, operating in cities that have outlawed the service. The company seemingly battles everyone, being the subject of more lawsuits than any other comparable startup. Many of these suits involve the classification of drivers as contractors instead of employees. Others address labor laws violations, passenger safety, lax driver background checks, and lack of access for disabled riders.
The company’s winner-take-al.
After getting into an argument over the fare with a local cab driver in Mexico, Travis Kalanick jumped out of the moving cab. The incident would leave him with a dislike for conventional cabs. A few years later, he founded Uber. Under him, Uber – went from 3 drivers to 3.9 million drivers, became the highest valued private company in the world and made him a famous billionaire, all within seven years. Then, he was fired. The Uber Story offers inspiration, but also warns about the consequences of pushing the limits too far.
After getting into an argument over the fare with a local cab driver in Mexico, Travis Kalanick jumped out of the moving cab. The incident would leave him with a dislike for conventional cabs. A few years later, he founded Uber. Under him, Uber – went from 3 drivers to 3.9 million drivers, became the highest valued private company in the world and made him a famous billionaire, all within seven years. Then, he was fired. The Uber Story offers inspiration, but also warns about the consequences of pushing the limits too far.
Similar to Governance Gone Wild: Epic Misbehavior at Uber Technologies (20)
Authored by: David F. Larcker, Bradford Lynch, Brian Tayan, and Daniel J. Taylor, June 29, 2020
Investors rely on corporate disclosure to make informed decisions about the value of companies they invest in. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine disclosure practices of companies relative to peers in real time about a somewhat unprecedented shock that impacted practically every publicly listed company in the U.S. We examine how companies respond to such a situation, the choices they make, and how disclosure varies across industries and companies.
We ask:
• What motivates some companies to be forthcoming about what they are experiencing, while others remain silent?
• Do differences in disclosure reflect different degrees of certitude about how the virus would impact businesses, or differences in management perception of its obligations to shareholders?
• What insights will companies learn to prepare for future outlier events?
Authored by: avid F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Research Spotlight Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative (CGRI), April 2020
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on board composition, quality, and turnover. It reviews the evidence of:
The appointment of outside CEOs as directors
The importance of industry expertise to performance
The relation between director skills and performance
The stock market reaction to director resignations
Whether directors are penalized for poor oversight
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide Board of Directors: Selection, Compensation, and Removal.
David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, April 21, 2020, Stanford Closer Look Series
Little is known about the process by which pre-IPO companies select independent, outside board members—directors unaffiliated with the company or its investors. Private companies are not required to disclose their selection criteria or process, and are not required to satisfy the regulatory requirements for board members set out by public listing exchanges. In this Closer Look, we look at when, why, and how private companies add their first independent, outside director to the board.
We ask:
• Why do pre-IPO companies rely on very different criteria and processes to recruit outside directors than public companies do?
• What does this teach us about governance quality?
• How important are industry knowledge and managerial experience to board oversight?
• How important are independence and monitoring?
• Does a tradeoff exist between engagement and fit on the one hand and independence on the other?
Authored by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, April 1, 2020, Stanford Closer Look Series
We examine the size, structure, and demographic makeup of the C-suite (the CEO and the direct reports to the CEO) in each of the Fortune 100 companies as of February 2020. We find that women (and, to a lesser extent, racially diverse executives) are underrepresented in C-suite positions that directly feed into future CEO and board roles. What accounts for this distribution?
By John D. Kepler, David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, and Daniel J. Taylor, January 28, 2020
Corporate executives receive a considerable portion of their compensation in the form of equity and, from time to time, sell a portion of their holdings in the open market. Executives nearly always have access to nonpublic information about the company, and routinely have an information advantage over public shareholders. Federal securities laws prohibit executives from trading on material nonpublic information about their company, and companies develop an Insider Trading Policy (ITP) to ensure executives comply with applicable rules. In this Closer Look we examine the potential shortcomings of existing governance practices as illustrated by four examples that suggest significant room for improvement.
We ask:
• Should an ITP go beyond legal requirements to minimize the risk of negative public perception from trades that might otherwise appear suspicious?
• Why don’t all companies make the terms of their ITP public?
• Why don’t more companies require the strictest standards, such as pre-approval by the general counsel and mandatory use of 10b5-1 plans?
• Does the board review trades by insiders on a regular basis? What conversation, if any, takes place between executives and the board around large, single-event sales?
Short summary
We identify potential shortcomings in existing governance practices around the approval of executive equity sales. Why don’t more companies require stricter standards to lessen suspicion around insider equity sales activity? Do boards review trades by insiders on a regular basis?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan
Core Concepts Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative,
A roadmap to understanding the fundamental concepts of corporate governance based on theory, empirical research, and data. This guide takes an in-depth look at the Principles of Corporate Governance.
Authors: David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, November 25, 2019
Among the controversies in corporate governance, perhaps none is more heated or widely debated across society than that of CEO pay. The views that American citizens have on CEO pay is centrally important because public opinion influences political decisions that shape tax, economic, and regulatory policy, and ultimately determine the standard of living of average Americans. This Closer Look reviews survey data of the American public to understand their views on compensation. We ask:
• How can society’s understanding of pay and value creation be improved and the controversy over CEO pay resolved?
• How should the level of CEO pay rise with complexity and profitability, particularly among America’s largest corporations?
• Should pay be reformed in the boardroom, or should high pay be addressed solely through the tax code?
• Are negative views of CEO pay driven by broad skepticism and lack of esteem for CEOs? Or do high pay levels themselves contribute to low regard for CEOs?
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, November 2019.
In fall 2019, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University conducted a nationwide survey of In October 2019, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University conducted a nationwide survey of 3,062 individuals—representative by age, race, political affiliation, household income, and state residence—to understand the American population’s views on current and proposed tax policies.
Key findings include:
--Tax rates for high-income earners are about right
--Majority favor a wealth tax … but not if it harms the economy
--Americans do not want to set limits on personal wealth
--Americans do not believe in a right to universal basic income
--Trust in the ability of the U.S. government to spend tax dollars effectively is low
--Americans believe in higher taxes for corporations who pay their CEO large dollar amounts
--Little appetite exists to break up “big tech”
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, Dottie Schindlinger and Anne Kors, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance and the Diligent Institute, November 2019
New research from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University and the Diligent Institute finds that corporate directors are not as shareholder-centric as commonly believed and that companies do not put the needs of shareholders significantly above the needs of their employees or society at large. Instead, directors pay considerable attention to important stakeholders—particularly their workforce—and take the interests of these groups into account as part of their long-term business planning.
• While directors are largely satisfied with their ESG-related efforts, they do not believe the outside world understands or appreciates the work they do.
• Directors recognize that tensions exist between shareholder and stakeholder interests. That said,
most believe their companies successfully balance this tension.
• In general, directors reject the view that their companies have a short-term investment horizon in
running their businesses.
In the summer of 2019, the Diligent Institute and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University surveyed nearly 200 directors of public and private corporations globally to better understand how they balance shareholder and stakeholder needs.
by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, October 7, 2019
A reliable system of corporate governance is considered to be an important requirement for the long-term success of a company. Unfortunately, after decades of research, we still do not have a clear understanding of the factors that make a governance system effective. Our understanding of governance suffers from 1) a tendency to overgeneralize across companies and 2) a tendency to refer to central concepts without first defining them. In this Closer Look, we examine four central concepts that are widely discussed but poorly understood.
We ask:
• Would the caliber of discussion improve, and consensus on solutions be realized, if the debate on corporate governance were less loosey-goosey?
• Why can we still not answer the question of what makes good governance?
• How can our understanding of board quality improve without betraying the confidential information that a board discusses?
• Why is it difficult to answer the question of how much a CEO should be paid?
• Are U.S. executives really short-term oriented in managing their companies?
David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, Vinay Trivedi, and Owen Wurzbacher, Stanford Closer Look Series, July 2, 2019
Currently, there is much debate about the role that non-investor stakeholder interests play in the governance of public companies. Critics argue that greater attention should be paid to the interest of stakeholders and that by investing in initiatives and programs to promote their interests, companies will create long-term value that is greater, more sustainable, and more equitably shared among investors and society. However, advocacy for a more stakeholder-centric governance model is based on assumptions about managerial behavior that are relatively untested. In this Closer Look, we examine survey data of the CEOs and CFOs of companies in the S&P 1500 Index to understand the extent to which they incorporate stakeholder needs into the business planning and long-term strategy, and their view of the costs and benefits of ESG-related programs.
We ask:
• What are the real costs and benefits of ESG?
• How do companies signal to constituents that they take ESG activities seriously?
• How accurate are the ratings of third-party providers that rate companies on ESG factors?
• Do boards understand the short- and long-term impact of ESG activities?
• Do boards believe this investment is beneficial for the company?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, Vinay Trivedi and Owen Wurzbacher, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, July 2019
In spring 2019, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University surveyed 209 CEOs and CFOs of companies included in the S&P 1500 Index to understand the role that stakeholder interests play in long-term corporate planning.
Key Findings
• CEOs Are Divided On Whether Stakeholder Initiatives Are A Cost or Benefit to the Company
• Companies Tout Their Efforts But Believe the Public Doesn’t Understand Them
• Blackrock Advocates … But Has Little Impact
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan
Core Concepts Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, June 2019
A roadmap to understanding the fundamental concepts of corporate governance based on theory, empirical research, and data. This guide will take an in-depth look at Shareholders and Activism.
By Brandon Boze, Margarita Krivitski, David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, and Eva Zlotnicka
Stanford Closer Look Series
May 23, 2019
Recently, there has been debate among corporate managers, board of directors, and institutional investors around how best to incorporate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors into strategic and investment decision-making processes. In this Closer Look, we examine a framework informed by the experience of ValueAct Capital and include case examples.
We ask:
• What is the investment horizon prevalent among most companies today?
• Do companies miss long-term opportunities because of a focus on short-term costs?
• How many companies have an opportunity to profitably invest in ESG solutions?
• What factors determine whether a company can profitably invest in ESG solutions?
• Can investors earn competitive risk-adjusted returns through ESG investments?
• If so, how widespread is this opportunity?
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) activities including:
• The relation between ESG activities and firm value
• The impact of environmental and social engagements on firm performance
• The market reaction to ESG events
• The relation between ESG and agency problems
• The performance of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “Investors and Activism”.
This Research Spotlight provides a summary of the academic literature on how dual-class share structures influence firm value and corporate governance quality. It reviews the evidence of:
• The relation between dual-class shares and governance quality
• The relation between dual-class shares and tax avoidance
• The relation between dual-class shares and firm value and performance
This Research Spotlight expands upon issues introduced in the Quick Guide “The Market for Corporate Control.”
By Courtney Hamilton, David F. Larcker, Stephen A. Miles, and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, February 15, 2019
Two decades ago, McKinsey advanced the idea that large U.S. companies are engaged in a “war for talent” and that to remain competitive they need to make a strategic effort to attract, retain, and develop the highest-performing executives. To understand the contribution of the human resources department to company strategy, we surveyed 85 CEOs and chief human resources officers at Fortune 1000 companies. In this Closer Look, we examine what these senior executives say about the contribution of HR to the strategic efforts and financial performance of their companies.
We ask:
• What role does HR play in the development of corporate strategy?
• Does HR have an equal voice or is it junior to other members of the senior management team?
• Do boards see HR and human capital as critical to corporate performance?
• How do boards ascertain whether management has the right HR strategy?
• How adept are companies at using data from HR systems to learn what programs work and why?
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Stanford Closer Look Series, December 3, 2018
Companies are required to have a reliable system of corporate governance in place at the time of IPO in order to protect the interests of public company investors and stakeholders. Yet, relatively little is known about the process by which they implement one. This Closer Look, based on detailed data from a sample of pre-IPO companies, examines the process by which companies go from essentially having no governance in place at the time of their founding to the fully established systems of governance required of public companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission. We examine the vastly different choices that companies make in deciding when and how to implement these standards.
We ask:
• What factors do CEOs and founders take into account in determining how to implement governance systems?
• Should regulators allow companies greater flexibility to tailor their governance systems to their specific needs?
• Which elements of governance add to business performance and which are done only for regulatory purposes?
• How much value does good governance add to a company’s overall valuation?
• When should small or medium sized companies that intend to remain private implement a governance system?
By David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan, CGRI Survey Series. Corporate Governance Research Initiative, Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, November 2018
In summer and fall 2018, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University surveyed 53 founders and CEOs of 47 companies that completed an Initial Public Offering in the U.S. between 2010 and 2018 to understand how corporate governance practices evolve from startup through IPO.
David F. Larcker, Stephen A. Miles, Brian Tayan, and Kim Wright-Violich
Stanford Closer Look Series, November 8, 2018
CEO activism—the practice of CEOs taking public positions on environmental, social, and political issues not directly related to their business—has become a hotly debated topic in corporate governance. To better understand the implications of CEO activism, we examine its prevalence, the range of advocacy positions taken by CEOs, and the public’s reaction to activism.
We ask:
• How widespread is CEO activism?
• How well do boards understand the advocacy positions of their CEOs?
• Are boards involved in decisions to take public stances on controversial issues, or do they leave these to the discretion of the CEO?
• How should boards measure the costs and benefits of CEO activism?
• How accurately can internal and external constituents distinguish between positions taken proactively and reactively by a CEO?
More from Stanford GSB Corporate Governance Research Initiative (20)
Improving profitability for small businessBen Wann
In this comprehensive presentation, we will explore strategies and practical tips for enhancing profitability in small businesses. Tailored to meet the unique challenges faced by small enterprises, this session covers various aspects that directly impact the bottom line. Attendees will learn how to optimize operational efficiency, manage expenses, and increase revenue through innovative marketing and customer engagement techniques.
Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit and TemplatesAurelien Domont, MBA
This Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit was created by ex-McKinsey, Deloitte and BCG Management Consultants, after more than 5,000 hours of work. It is considered the world's best & most comprehensive Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit. It includes all the Frameworks, Best Practices & Templates required to successfully undertake the Digital Transformation of your organization and define a robust IT Strategy.
Editable Toolkit to help you reuse our content: 700 Powerpoint slides | 35 Excel sheets | 84 minutes of Video training
This PowerPoint presentation is only a small preview of our Toolkits. For more details, visit www.domontconsulting.com
Buy Verified PayPal Account | Buy Google 5 Star Reviewsusawebmarket
Buy Verified PayPal Account
Looking to buy verified PayPal accounts? Discover 7 expert tips for safely purchasing a verified PayPal account in 2024. Ensure security and reliability for your transactions.
PayPal Services Features-
🟢 Email Access
🟢 Bank Added
🟢 Card Verified
🟢 Full SSN Provided
🟢 Phone Number Access
🟢 Driving License Copy
🟢 Fasted Delivery
Client Satisfaction is Our First priority. Our services is very appropriate to buy. We assume that the first-rate way to purchase our offerings is to order on the website. If you have any worry in our cooperation usually You can order us on Skype or Telegram.
24/7 Hours Reply/Please Contact
usawebmarketEmail: support@usawebmarket.com
Skype: usawebmarket
Telegram: @usawebmarket
WhatsApp: +1(218) 203-5951
USA WEB MARKET is the Best Verified PayPal, Payoneer, Cash App, Skrill, Neteller, Stripe Account and SEO, SMM Service provider.100%Satisfection granted.100% replacement Granted.
Personal Brand Statement:
As an Army veteran dedicated to lifelong learning, I bring a disciplined, strategic mindset to my pursuits. I am constantly expanding my knowledge to innovate and lead effectively. My journey is driven by a commitment to excellence, and to make a meaningful impact in the world.
Cracking the Workplace Discipline Code Main.pptxWorkforce Group
Cultivating and maintaining discipline within teams is a critical differentiator for successful organisations.
Forward-thinking leaders and business managers understand the impact that discipline has on organisational success. A disciplined workforce operates with clarity, focus, and a shared understanding of expectations, ultimately driving better results, optimising productivity, and facilitating seamless collaboration.
Although discipline is not a one-size-fits-all approach, it can help create a work environment that encourages personal growth and accountability rather than solely relying on punitive measures.
In this deck, you will learn the significance of workplace discipline for organisational success. You’ll also learn
• Four (4) workplace discipline methods you should consider
• The best and most practical approach to implementing workplace discipline.
• Three (3) key tips to maintain a disciplined workplace.
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
3.0 Project 2_ Developing My Brand Identity Kit.pptxtanyjahb
A personal brand exploration presentation summarizes an individual's unique qualities and goals, covering strengths, values, passions, and target audience. It helps individuals understand what makes them stand out, their desired image, and how they aim to achieve it.
Business Valuation Principles for EntrepreneursBen Wann
This insightful presentation is designed to equip entrepreneurs with the essential knowledge and tools needed to accurately value their businesses. Understanding business valuation is crucial for making informed decisions, whether you're seeking investment, planning to sell, or simply want to gauge your company's worth.
An introduction to the cryptocurrency investment platform Binance Savings.Any kyc Account
Learn how to use Binance Savings to expand your bitcoin holdings. Discover how to maximize your earnings on one of the most reliable cryptocurrency exchange platforms, as well as how to earn interest on your cryptocurrency holdings and the various savings choices available.
Governance Gone Wild: Epic Misbehavior at Uber Technologies
1. Stanford Closer LOOK series
Stanford Closer LOOK series 1
By David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
december 11, 2017
governance gone wild
epic misbehavior at uber technologies
introduction
Despiteitsimportance,thereissurprisinglylittleconsensusamong
researchers about the organizational attributes that are critical
for “good” corporate governance. Research generally shows that
the structural features of a governance system—the size and
structure of the board and the implementation of so-called best
practices for audit, risk, compensation, and succession—do not
have a reliable (positive or negative) impact on firm performance
and outcomes.1
Some research finds that the human elements of
governance—such as leadership, culture, and tone from the top—
do influence outcomes, but these are difficult to measure and
assess with accuracy.
Research also finds that companies that engage in misbehavior
tend to exhibit repeated problems over time (known as
recidivism).2
This suggests that bad governance might be systemic.
However, it is not clear what roles leadership and culture play in
contributing to chronic misbehavior and the manner in which
it spreads throughout an organization. Nor is it clear, once the
culture is formed, how difficult chronic misbehavior is to correct.3
To illustrate these issues, consider the case of Uber Technologies.
The Culture and Growth of Uber
UberTechnologieswasfoundedin2009byTravisKalanick,Garrett
Camp, and Ryan Graves. Kalanick was a serial entrepreneur with
a computer science background, having founded two companies
prior to Uber, the latter of which he sold to Akamai in 2007 for
$15 million. In 2009, Kalanick and Camp conceived of the idea of
a smartphone app that could be used to order rides from private
drivers on demand after the two experienced difficulty catching
cab rides in San Francisco. Graves was briefly brought on as CEO
before Kalanick took over.
The company offered two levels of service: UberBlack, which
connected passengers with professionally licensed vehicle drivers
(such as limousines and towncars), and later a lower cost UberX
(and UberPop in some international markets) that connected
passengers to drivers who did not have a professional license
and used their personal vehicle on a flexible basis to transport
passengers. Other companies soon copied Uber’s services, most
notably Lyft which became Uber’s largest competitor in the
United States.
From the beginning, Kalanick embarked on an aggressive
campaign to dominate the ride-sharing industry, expanding first
across the U.S. and then internationally. By 2014—less than four
years after launching its app—Uber was operating in more than
250 cities in 53 countries (see Exhibit 1). “It’s probably the fastest
international expansion that I’ve ever seen from a venture-backed
company,” observed an early investor.4
Revenue, which was $125
million in 2013, rose to $6.5 billion three years later (see Exhibit 2).
In the words of an early employee, Kalanick’s focus was “growth
above all else.”5
This mindset was reflected in the company’s 14
cultural values, which encouraged behaviors such as “always be
hustling,’” “make magic,” and “toe-stepping” (see Exhibit 3).
Astronomic growth attracted high-profile investors. The
company’s earliest venture-capital investor was Benchmark
Capital, which took at 20 percent stake at the time, investing $12
million in Uber in 2011 and giving it a $60 million valuation. As the
company grew, Benchmark retained its position as the company’s
largest venture investor. Later rounds included big-name funds
such as Summit Partners, Kleiner Perkins, Menlo Ventures, and
Texas Pacific Group; mutual fund giants Fidelity, BlackRock, and
Vanguard; technology companies Google, Alibaba, and Microsoft;
sovereign wealth funds of Qatar and Saudi Arabia; and prominent
individuals such as Jeff Bezos of Amazon. Uber’s 2016 fundraising
round gave the company a valuation of $68 billion, making it
the largest pre-IPO company in the U.S. (see Exhibits 4). All the
while, Kalanick and his co-founders retained control through a
dual-class share structure that gave them outsized voting power
and the ability to name a majority of members of the board of
directors.
Regulatory Challenges
Uber’s growth did not come without friction. Almost from the
2. Governance Gone Wild
2Stanford Closer LOOK series
beginning,Uberencounteredresistanceinpracticallyeverymarket
it entered from regulators, transit authorities, and established taxi,
limousine, and private-car operators. For example, four months
after launching its service in San Francisco, the company received
a “cease and desist” order from city and state authorities. Because
the existing framework was designed to regulate private car
operators and not third-party service providers that connected
passengers with licensed vehicles, it was Uber’s position that it
was not in violation of the rules. An early interview with the Wall
Street Journal encapsulated the company’s viewpoint:
WSJ: Did you ever cease?
Kalanick: No.
WSJ: Did you ever desist?
Kalanick: No.
WSJ: So you basically ignored them? […]
Kalanick: The thing is, a cease and desist is something that says,
‘Hey, I think you should stop,’ and we’re saying, ‘We don’t think
we should.’6
The company repeated this formula in cities around the world:
Build a critical mass of drivers and passengers. If local authorities
challenge Uber’s legality, continue to grow while arguing that your
services should not be restricted by ambiguities and omissions in
the regulatory framework. Eventually, the user base of passengers
and drivers will achieve sufficient size that regulators will not be
able to curtail operations.
Nevertheless, Uber’s aggressive approach created local
resistance in numerous markets. Taxi drivers in London, Paris,
Berlin, and other European cities staged protests by refusing to
provide services, converging in major traffic centers, and driving
at very low speeds on thoroughfares to disrupt traffic. “These car
services are doing the same work as taxis, but without the same
constraints,” said one driver. “It’s unfair competition.”7
According
to another, “In the 24 years I’ve been a cab driver, my future has
never been in so much danger.”8
Protests had the unintended
consequence of increasing public awareness of Uber’s low-cost
services, and in many cases usage soared.
In New York City, local officials sought to impose a cap on
the number of Uber drivers, arguing that Uber vehicles were
responsible for worsening traffic. Officials proposed a cap of 200
new Uber licenses per year. At the time, over 20,000 Uber vehicles
were operating in the city, already larger than the 13,600 yellow
taxis.9
Uber instigated a grassroots campaign of passengers to
complain that wait times would soar, and the city backed down.
Meanwhile, the price of medallions required to operate a taxi fell
from a peak of over $1 million to $500,000 in just a few years (see
Exhibit 5).
In Paris, officials sought to contain Uber by enacting a rule that
required car services (other than licensed taxis) to wait at least 15
minutes before picking up a passenger. Exceptions were made for
pickups at four-and five-star hotels.10
Uber flouted the rule and
offered to pay fines and provide legal support to drivers who were
caught. A government representative said, “Uber simply doesn’t
respect regulation.”11
According to a competitor, “They don’t even
make any effort to comply with what they think are bad laws.”12
An
Uber lobbyist responded: “If every time somebody wants to ban
us, we just go along with that, we wouldn’t be in business.”13
Fed
up, the French government declared that operating a ride-sharing
vehicle without a professional license was illegal, punishable by
two years in prison and a €300,000 fine. Prosecutors indicted
Uber’s two top executives in Paris, convicting them of violating
transportation laws and fining the company €800,000. A French
lawmaker told Uber, “We’re not going to let you come in here like
cowboys.”14
Uber capitulated and suspended its UberPop services.
Still, the company’s challenges compounded. Germany
imposed a nation-wide ban on UberPop. South Korean officials
indicted Kalanick and other Uber executives for violating public
transportation laws. Johannesburg impounded the vehicles of 33
Uber drivers. London officials declared Uber unfit to operate,
citing a “general lack of corporate responsibility.”15
Uber pulled out
of Austin, Texas after residents voted to keep in place restrictive
regulatory measures. The company suspended operations in
China and swapped its business for a 20 percent stake in its largest
competitor.
Reputational and Other Challenges
Uber’s challenges, however, were not limited to endless
battles with regulators. Over time, competitive, operating, and
governance problems popped up like a game of whack-a-mole
that the company struggled to keep down, including the following:
Relation with Drivers. Uber’s relation with drivers
deteriorated following a decision to alter the company’s revenue-
sharing formula—with Uber taking as much as 30 percent of gross
fare revenue (depending on driver volume), up from 20 percent
previously. The change followed a separate decision to reduce
gross rates in major cities as part of a price war with rival Lyft. The
dual moves translated into a significant reduction in the effective
hourly rate that drivers could earn. Thousands of drivers sued
the company in a class-action lawsuit alleging that they should
be classified as employees, rather than contractors, and as such
were entitled to benefits. The company’s proposed $100 million
3. Governance Gone Wild
3Stanford Closer LOOK series
settlement was thrown out by the courts, but drivers continued to
pursue claims individually through arbitration.
Self-Driving Technology.In2014,Uberpoached40researchers
from Carnegie Mellon’s robotics department to bolster its self-
driving vehicle program. A few years later, it purchased a company
founded by the former head of Google’s self-driving vehicle
division, Waymo. Waymo sued Uber, alleging that the company
knowingly colluded with the executive to steal 14,000 confidential
documents from Waymo before leaving to start his own venture.16
The judge overseeing the case took the highly unusual step of
recommending that federal prosecutors open a criminal probe, a
decision that opened the door to potentially severe individual and
corporate punishment.17
Regulatory Evasion. In 2017, the New York Times reported that
Uber secretly used information from its app and other data to
identify and thwart officials attempting to cite drivers in cities that
did not authorize UberX or UberPop. The tool—called Greyball—
allowed Uber to show that no cars were available for pickups in
specified locations. In a statement, Uber said that Greyball “denies
ride requests to fraudulent users who are violating our terms of
service—whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers,
competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who
collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers.”18
Uber curtailed the program.
Cybersecurity. Uber’s driver registration system was hacked in
2014, exposing the names and driver’s license numbers of 50,000
Uber drivers. In 2016, the company’s systems were hacked again,
compromising the names, emails and phone numbers of 57 million
riders and 600,000 drivers. The data breach was hidden from the
pubic for a year; furthermore, Uber paid the hackers $100,000 to
conceal the data breach. The company settled with the Federal
Trade Commission and agreed to undergo a third-party audit
every 2 years for 20 years to certify that it was in compliance with
data-privacy protection requirements.
Passenger Safety. The company battled a string of headlines
involving crimes committed by Uber drivers, including the sexual
assault of a passenger in Washington, D.C. and a shooting spree in
Michigan in which an Uber driver killed six people and injured
two others. The most high-profile incident involved the rape of
a female passenger in New Delhi, India, which sent shockwaves
through the country and led state authorities to ban Uber and
other ride-sharing apps in the country. Worse, it was discovered
that a local executive illegally obtained the woman’s medical
records and shared them with Kalanick and other Uber executives
under suspicion that her depiction of the crime was not accurate
and the story was being exaggerated by a local rival to tarnish
Uber’s reputation. The executive was fired and the woman sued
Uber for breach of privacy.
Following these and other public mishaps, a grassroots public
campaign spread through social media to #DeleteUber. During
this period, Uber rival Lyft gained significant market share (see
Exhibit 6) and received a $500 million strategic investment from
General Motors.
Challenges at the Top
2017 was the year that Uber’s governance challenges spread to
the boardroom. It began in February, when a former employee
accused Uber of failing to act against a manager who made
unwanted sexual advances: “It was clear that he was trying to get
me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I
immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported
him to HR,” she wrote. “Upper management told me that he ‘was
a high performer’ (i.e., had stellar performance reviews from his
superiors) and they wouldn’t feel comfortable punishing him for
what was probably just an innocent mistake on his part.”19
Kalanick responded by saying, “We seek to make Uber a just
workplace and there can be absolutely no place for this kind of
behavior at Uber, and anyone who behaves this way or thinks
this is OK will be fired.”20
He called the allegations “abhorrent and
against everything Uber stands for and believes in.”21
Uber hired
law firm Perkins Coie to investigate claims of harassment and
separately hired former Attorney General Eric Holder and law
firm Covington & Burling to run a parallel investigation into the
company’s culture and practices.
Ten days later, Kalanick landed in hot water when Bloomberg
published a video of him arguing with an Uber driver about the
company’s rate reductions. The driver told Kalanick that, “People
are not trusting you anymore,” to which Kalanick replied, “Some
people don’t like to take responsibility for their own s***. They
blame everything in their life on somebody else.”22
Subsequently,
Kalanick issued an apology: “I must fundamentally change as
a leader and grow up. This is the first time I’ve been willing to
admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.”23
Uber
announced plans to hire a chief operating officer to help Kalanick
run the company.
Shortly thereafter, the two law firms announced the results of
their investigations. Perkins Coie reviewed 215 staff complaints
relating to discrimination, sexual harassment, unprofessional
behavior, and bullying since 2012. It recommended Uber take
disciplinary action in 58 of those cases (27 percent); more than 20
employees were terminated.24
Separately, Covington completed
its report on Uber’s workplace environment and culture—
which was based on more than 200 interviews with current
and former employees and a database review of over 3 million
4. Governance Gone Wild
4Stanford Closer LOOK series
internal documents—and made public its recommendations
for leadership, governance, and workplace changes, including
recommendations to reallocate some of Kalanick’s responsibilities
to other senior executives, increase the number of independent
directors, increase the authority of the chief diversity officer,
offer leadership coaching to senior executives, and implement
mandatory sensitivity training to employees (see Exhibit 7). It also
recommended that Uber “reformulate” its 14 cultural values (see
Exhibit 8).25
Uber’s board of directors voted unanimously to adopt
Covington’s recommendations. It also announced that
Kalanick would take a leave of absence, during which time his
responsibilities would be shared among a committee of 14 direct
reports: “If we are going to work on Uber 2.0, I also need to work
on Travis 2.0 to become the leader that this company needs and
that you deserve.”26
Kalanick reserved the right to intervene on
major strategic decisions.
It did not end there. Concurrent with Kalanick’s leave, board
member David Bonderman was forced to resign after making a
sexist comment during a company-wide meeting to discuss the
findings of the Covington report.27
Soon after, board member Bill
Gurley—partner at Benchmark Capital and long-time confidant
of Kalanick—also resigned.28
He was replaced on the board by
another Benchmark representative. Two weeks later, Benchmark,
despite continued board representation, took the unprecedented
step of suing Kalanick, accusing him of breach of fiduciary duty
and seeking his removal from the board. The lawsuit sought to
undo an agreement made between Kalanick and Uber investors in
2016 that expanded the board from 8 to 11 as part of a fundraising
round and gave Kalanick control over those seats. Benchmark
cited “gross mismanagement and other misconduct at Uber,”
including Uber’s intellectual property violations against Waymo,
the India rape incident, and sexual harassment allegations.29
The
lawsuit took on particular importance because Kalanick had not
yet filled those three seats, which were still empty. The board
issued a statement that it was “disappointed that a disagreement
between shareholders has resulted in litigation” and it “urged both
parties to resolve the matter cooperatively and quickly.”30
Kalanick
called the lawsuit “riddled with lies and false allegations.”31
With the lawsuit ongoing, Uber announced that Dara
Khosrowshahi, CEO of Expedia, would replace Kalanick as chief
executive officer and assume one of the vacant board seats. Rumors
circulated that Khosrowshahi was a compromise candidate,
with Kalanick and supporters favoring former General Electric
CEO Jeffrey Immelt, and Benchmark Capital and its supporters
favoring HP Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman. Khosrowshahi
had a long track record of success. During his 10-year tenure at
Expedia, the company’s stock price increased more than six-fold;
Khosrowshahi was one of the most highly compensated chief
executives of an S&P 500 company, with a 2015 compensation
package valued at $95 million (comprised largely of long-term
stock awards).32
Perhaps more important, he was known for a
diplomatic temperament. Upon accepting the job, he said, “This
company has to change. What got us here is not what’s going to
get us to the next level. […] If culture is pushed top down, then
people don’t believe in it. Culture is written bottoms up.”33
Change, however, came with one last curve ball. Kalanick
made the unexpected announcement that he was appointing two
directors to fill the remaining vacant board seats that he controlled:
Ursula Burns, former CEO of Xerox, and John Thain, former
CEO of CIT Group. “I am appointing these seats now in light
of a recent board proposal to dramatically restructure the board
and significantly alter the company’s voting rights. It is therefore
essential that the full board be in place for proper deliberation to
occur, especially with such experienced board members as Ursula
and John.”34
Khosrowshahi responded that Kalanick’s actions
were “disappointing.” … “Anyone would tell you that this is highly
unusual.”35
The proposal Kalanick was referring to included the
following provisions, which were to be made in conjunction with
a pending strategic investment from Softbank:
• The Class B shares that Kalanick and other investors held
would lose their supervoting rights (10 votes per share) and
would instead receive one vote per share.
• Any person previously serving as an officer of the company
(such as Kalanick) could only be appointed CEO if approved by
two-thirds of the board and shareholders.
• The company would adopt a staggered board structure.
• Khosrowshahi gained the right to name successors to three
existing seats on the board of directors, subject to board and
shareholder approval.
• Kalanick would retain his board seat. Of the other two board
seats that Kalanick controlled, one would be transferred to
Softbank; the second would be filled with the CEO of a Fortune
100 company, subject to Khosrowshahi, board, and shareholder
approval.
• The company would commit to an initial public offering (IPO)
by 2019. To force an IPO should one not occur, directors
representing one-third of the board would be given the right
to appoint additional directors until they attained majority
control of the board and could initiate the IPO process.36
In the end, the proposals were unanimously approved by the
board and Kalanick’s nominees Burns and Thain were seated to
the board. Softbank announced that it would invest between $1
billionand$1.25billioninUberatthecompany’scurrentvaluation
5. Governance Gone Wild
5Stanford Closer LOOK series
of $68 billion. In addition, it would purchase approximately $9
billion in shares through a tender offer to existing shareholders
and employees at a discounted valuation of $48 billion. If fully
accepted, the tender would give Softbank an ownership stake of
at least 14 percent. The board also agreed to add as many as 6
new directors—three independent, one new chairman, and two
designated to Softbank—increasing the board size from 11 to
17. Softbank had the right to terminate the agreement if did not
receive sufficient shares through the tender offer at the discounted
price.
Why This Matters
1. Uber Technologies had a long history of aggressively entering
markets and challenging regulators in order to achieve its
operating goals. Did this risk-seeking behavior cause larger
problems down the road? Did a willingness to skirt regulations
create a precedent that guided future behavior and led to
further governance violations? Would Uber have been less
successful operationally had it not been as aggressive in new
markets?
2. Kalanick set the tone for the company with an emphasis on
growth. How important is CEO personality and behavior in
influencing the collective behavior of an organization? Can it
lead to cultural and widespread organizational problems? If so,
is this more true for founder-led companies than companies
managed by professional CEOs? How difficult is it to change
culture, once it is established? Can the business model of Uber
succeed with a distinctly new management and firm culture?
3. The Covington report recommended that Uber implement a
series of leadership, board-related, and operational changes
to fix its culture. Separately the board agreed to a series of
governance changes in conjunction with the investment
from Softbank. What impact will these changes have on the
culture and operations of the company? Will they improve the
governance of Uber? What would prevent the Uber culture
from returning to its original culture?
4. Upon joining Uber, Khosrowshahi made the statement
that “culture is written bottoms up.” Is this accurate? To
what extent is culture created top down, and to what
extent bottom up? What implications does this have on
governance and leadership? Does Uber need a substantial
turnover of management and key non-management
employees to successfully complete a cultural shift?
1
See David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, Corporate Governance Matters: A
Closer Look at Organizational Choices and Their Consequences, 2nd Edition
(Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson Education, 2014).
2
Seminal studies include Edwin H. Sutherland, White Collar Crime (New
York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1949); Edwin H. Sutherland, White
Collar Crime: The Uncut Version (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983);
and Marshall B. Clinard and Peter C. Yeager, Corporate Crime (New
York: The Free Press, 1980). Among organizational researchers, Frank,
Lynch, and Rego (2009) find that companies that engage in aggressive
financial reporting practices continue to do so over time. They also
find that aggressive financial reporting is associated with aggressive
investment, financing, and operating policies. Biggerstaff, Cicero,
and Puckett (2015) find that companies whose CEOs engage in stock
option backdating are more likely to manipulate earnings and engage in
financial reporting fraud. See Mary Margaret Frank, Luann J. Lynch, and
Sonja Olhoft Rego, “Are Corporate Risk-Taking Practices Indicative of
Aggressive Reporting Practices?” Journal of American Taxation Association
(forthcoming); and Lee Biggerstaff, David C. Cicero, and Andy Puckett,
“Suspect CEOs, Unethical Culture, and Corporate Misbehavior,” Journal
of Financial Economics (2015).
3
See David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, “Governance Aches and Pains:
Is Bad Governance Chronic?” Stanford Closer Look Series (April 14,
2016).
4
Evelyn M. Rusli and Douglas MacMillan, “Uber Fetches $18.2 Billion
Valuation—Car Service App Worth More Than Hertz,” The Wall Street
Journal (June 7, 2014).
5
Mike Isaac, “Uber Tallies the Costs of Its Leader’s Drive to Win at Any
Price,” The New York Times (April 24, 2017).
6
Kalanick further used the analogy of airline travel to defend the
company’s position: “Are we American Airlines or are we Expedia?
It became clear, we are Expedia.” See Andy Kessler, “The Weekend
Interview with Travis Kalanick: The Transportation Trustbuster,” The
Wall Street Journal (January 26, 2013).
7
Sam Schechner, “Uber in French Street Fight: Online Car-Service Firms
to Oppose New Rule as Apps Shake up Taxi Business,” The Wall Street
Journal (December 31, 2013).
8
Matthias Verbergt and Sam Schechner, “Fight Between Uber and Taxis
Spills into Streets as New French Law Draws a Battle Line,” The Wall
Street Journal (June 26, 2015).
9
Mara Gay, “Stringer Joins the Uber Fight: City Comptroller Goes Against
Mayor Urging Council to Delay a Vote on Curbing Car Services,” The
Wall Street Journal (July 22, 2015).
10
Sam Schechner, “Uber in French Street Fight: Online Car-Service Firms
to Oppose New Rule as Apps Shake up Taxi Business,” loc. cit.
11
Sam Schechner, “Uber Tries to Thwart Ban in French Court,” The Wall
Street Journal (November 29, 2014).
12
Douglas MacMillan, Sam Schechner and Lisa Fleisher, “Investors Push
Uber’s Valuation Past $40 Billion,” The Wall Street Journal (December 5,
2014).
13
Ibid.
14
Sam Schechner, “Uber Collides With France—Company’s Growth
Snarled by Entrenched Business Culture; ‘A Mockery of the French
Republic,’” The Wall Street Journal (September 19, 2015).
15
Sam Schechner, “Uber Seeks to Appease London—Ride-Hailing Service
Was Blindsided by Decision That It Was Unfit to Serve City,” The Wall
Street Journal (September 25, 2017).
16
Daisuke and Wakabayashi and Mike Isaac, “Suit Accuses Uber of Using
Stolen Tech,” The Wall Street Journal (February 24, 2017).
17
According to one law professor, “This is a big deal. There are lots of
trade-secret cases filed and litigated every day. It’s the most common
7. Governance Gone Wild
7Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 1 — Uber U.S. and International Expansion (Selected Cities)
Source: Adapted from Chris Sacca on Twitter, “Despite having been involved with @Uber since its early days, this international growth chart
blows my mind” (March 7, 2014).
San Francisco NYC
Seattle
Chicago
Boston
DC
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
San Diego
Atlanta
Denver
Dallas
Twin Cities
Phoenix
Baltimore
Sacramento
Detroit
Oakland
Indianapolis
Honolulu
Providence
Charlotte
Oklahoma City
New Jersey
Rockies
Nashville
Columbus
Jacksonville
Pittsburg
Milwaukee
Paris
London
Sydney
Melbourne
Singapore
Milan
Lyon
Taipei
Seoul
Mexico City
Johanesburg
Dubai
Bangalore
Cape Town
Bogota
Montreal
Abu Dhabi
New Delhi
Kuala Lumpur
Hyderabad
Cali
Santiago
Dohn
Durban
Manila
Shanghai
Moscow
Shenzhen
Dublin
Guangzhou
Chennai
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2010 2011 2012 2012 2014 2015
U.S. International
9. Governance Gone Wild
9Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 3 — Uber’s 14 cultural values
Note: Compiled from public sources. Precise definitions of these values are not available.
Source: Alex Terry, “What are Uber’s 14 core/cultural values?” Quora.
14 Core Cultural Values
1. Uber Mission
2. Celebrate Cities
3. Meritocracy and Toe-Stepping
4. Principled Confrontation
5. Winning: Champion’s Mindset
6. Let Builders Build
7. Always Be Hustlin’
8. Customer Obsession
9. Make Big, Bold Bets
10. Make Magic
11. Be an Owner, not a Renter
12. Be Yourself
13. Optimistic Leadership
14. Just Change or Inside Out or Avoid Politics or The Best Idea Wins
8 Qualities All Uber Employees Are Expected to Possess
1. Vision
2. Quality Obsession
3. Innovation
4. Fierceness
5. Execution
6. Scale
7. Communication
8. Super Pumpedness
10. Governance Gone Wild
10Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 4 — uber valuation
Source: Pitchbook.
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Valuation($inbillions)
Uber Lyft
$4.35
$4.5
$4.75
$5
$9.2
$10
$11.0
$12
$12.3
$20.5
$21
$21
$31
$68
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80
SoFi
Magic Leap
Moderna Therapeutics
Outcome Health
Stripe
Dropbox
Lyft
Samumed
Pinterest
Palantir
SpaceX
WeWork
Airbnb
Uber
Valuation ($ in billions)
Notes: As of October 2017. Valuations based on most recent funding round. Does not include Theranos ($9 billion) and Zenefits ($4.5 billion)
which are considered unlikely to retain their previous valuations.
Source: Pitchbook.
11. Governance Gone Wild
11Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 5 — Price of Individual New York City Taxi Medallions
Source: Adapted from AEI; New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.
.
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NYCMediallionPrices($inthousands)
12. Governance Gone Wild
12Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 6 — U.S. Market Share, Uber and Lyft
Note: Based on credit card transactions.
Source: Adapted from Cat Zakrzewski and Patience Haggin, “Lyft’s Goal: Gain from Uber’s Stumbles without Gloating,” The Wall Street Journal
(June 22, 2017).
79%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017
U.S.MarketShare
Uber Lyft
13. Governance Gone Wild
13Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 7 — Recommendations of Covington & Burling
recommendations
We recommend that Uber focus on four prevailing themes with regard to taking the following remedial measures: tone at the
top, trust, transformation, and accountability.
I. Changes to Senior Leadership
A. Review and Reallocate the Responsibilities of Travis Kalanick.
B. Use the Chief Operating Officer Search to Identify Candidates Who Can Help Address These Recommendations.
C. Use Performance Reviews to Hold Senior Leaders Accountable.
D. Increase the Profile of Uber’s Head of Diversity and the Efforts of His Organization.
E. Employment Actions.
II. Enhance Board Oversight
A. Enhance the Independence of the Board.
B. Install an Independent Chairperson of the Board.
C. Create an Oversight Committee.
D. Use Compensation to Hold Senior Leaders Accountable.
E. Nominate a Senior Executive Team Member to Oversee Implementation of any Recommendations.
III. Internal Controls
A. Implement Enhancements to the Audit Committee.
B. Implement Enhancements to Uber’s Internal Controls.
C. Human Resources Record-Keeping.
D. Track Agreements with Employees.
IV. Reformulate Uber’s 14 Cultural Values.
V. Training
A. Mandatory Leadership Training For Key Senior Management/Senior Executive Team Members.
B. Mandatory Human Resources Training.
C. Mandatory Manager Training.
D. Interview Training.
VI. Improvements to Human Resources and the Complaint Process
A. An “Owner” of Resources-Related Policies Should be Identified or Hired.
B. Increase Management Support for Human Resources.
C. Provide a Robust and Effective Complaint Process.
D. Establish Protocols with Respect to Escalating Complaints.
E. Devote Adequate Staff and Resources to Human Resources.
14. Governance Gone Wild
14Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 7 — continued
Note: The Rooney Rule is a National Football League rule requiring each pool of candidates interviewed for a position to include at least one member of an
underrepresented minority group; the modified version recommended here would include at least one member of a minority group and at least one woman.
The recommendation for “catered dinner” is explained as follows: “Uber should consider moving the catered dinner it offers to a time when this benefit can
be utilized by a broader group of employees, including employees who have spouses or families waiting for them at home, and that signals an earlier end to
the work day.”
Source: Uber press release, “Statement on Covington & Burling Recommendations,” (June 14, 2017).
VII. Diversity and Inclusion Enhancements
A. Establish an Employee Diversity Advisory Board.
B. Regularly Publish Diversity Statistics.
C. Target Diverse Sources of Talent.
D. Utilize Blind Resume Review.
E. Adopt a Version of the “Rooney Rule.”
F. Adopt and Promote a Sponsorship Program.
G. Recognize and Support Employee Diversity Efforts.
H. Recognize Managers for their Diversity Efforts.
I. Review Benefits Offerings.
J. Unconscious Bias Review.
K. Coordinate Efforts.
L. Solicit Feedback from Employees.
VIII. Changes in Employee Policies and Practices
A. EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] Policies.
B. Prohibit Romantic or Intimate Relationships Between Individuals in a Reporting Relationship.
C. Institute and Enforce Clear Guidelines on Alcohol Consumption and the Use of Controlled Substances.
D. Remove [Internal] Transfer Barriers.
E. Modify Uber’s Performance Review Process.
F. Make Promotion Requirements Clearer.
G. Flexible Work.
H. Catered Dinner.
I. Even Application of Policies and Practices.
IX. Address Employee Retention.
X. Review and Assess Uber’s Pay Practices.
15. Governance Gone Wild
15Stanford Closer LOOK series
Exhibit 8 — Recommendations of Covington & Burling: Improve Culture
Source: Uber press release, “Statement on Covington & Burling Recommendations,” (June 14, 2017).
IV. Reformulate Uber’s 14 Cultural Values
Uber should reformulate its written cultural values because it is vital that they reflect more inclusive and positive behaviors. To
achieve this reformulation of the values, there are several steps Uber should undertake: work with an established and respected
organization that is experienced in organizational change to restate the values with significant input from employees; consider
further defining the values in a manner more accessible to and more easily understood by employees; adopt values that are
more inclusive and contribute to a collaborative environment, including emphasizing teamwork and mutual respect, and
incorporating diversity and inclusiveness as a key cultural value, not just as an end in itself, but as a fundamental aspect of doing
good business; reduce the overall number of values, and eliminate those values which have been identified as redundant or as
having been used to justify poor behavior, including Let Builders Build, Always Be Hustlin’, Meritocracy and Toe-Stepping, and
Principled Confrontation; and encourage senior leaders to exhibit the values on a daily basis and to model a more collaborative
and inclusive Uber culture. Leaders who embody these values should be part of the process of redefining Uber’s values and
should be role models for other leaders within the company. All of Uber’s senior leaders should be responsible for embracing
and communicating the reformulated values to employees.