What is wrong with Uber (on): How is growth?


The Translation Bureau is a compilation team of 36氪, focusing on science and technology, business, workplace, life and other fields, focusing on foreign new technologies, new ideas and new trends.Editor’s Note: On May 10 this year, Uber, the world’s largest unicorn, was listed on the NYSE.However, Uber’s share price has been very bad since its launch.As of now, its share price has fallen by more than 20% compared to the issue price, and the market value and its pre-market valuation are close to the waist.What is wrong with Uber in this step?The original title of this article is What Went Wrong at Uber, and author Sarah Kessler interviewed Mike Isaac, a reporter for the New York Times who reported on Uber news.This article is the first part of the interview draft, mainly for the company’s management and fundraising growth.Related reading: What is wrong with Uber (below): Professional ethics?privacy protection?Subsidy war?The last keyword: fundraising growth mode sustainable growth financial statement board innovation leadership style corporate culture competition mode Source: Spencer Platt / Getty Images If the investor’s previous Uber’s highest valuation of $ 76 billion, Uber can be described asSilicon Valley history is the most successful startup.But in the process of Uber’s preparation for the market, its success began to show signs of “a short-lived”.In early 2017, Uber’s former employee Susan Fowler broke the news that she was sexually harassed by company executives, but after she turned to the Human Resources Department for help, she was directly ignored.Her article has caused an uproar, and Uber’s reputation has plummeted from that moment.At the same time, Uber quickly fell to the altar after the media broke the news that Uber had entered the competitors’ network and even monitored politicians.The constant damage to Uber’s reputation has also had consequences.On Twitter, there was a campaign to “boycott Uber (#deleteuber)”, with a participation of up to 500,000 people, directly posing a “fatal” threat to Uber’s growth.In addition, with the investigation of Uber’s corporate culture of “win-at-all-costs”, investors also forced Uber’s founder, the timely CEO, Travis Karanic (Travis Kalanick).Compared to venture capitalists, Uber’s new open market investors seem to be less able to accept the company’s huge losses, with a loss of more than $5 billion in the previous quarter alone.Since Uber’s successful listing in May this year, its stock value has shrunk by at least 20%.The New York Times tech journalist Mike Isaac has reported a lot of news about Uber.His new book, Super Pumped, introduces Uber’s development story and introduces the entire technology industry’s perception of elite rule and the choices of personal privacy data.At the same time, the book also came to the conclusion that “the blind worship of the founders of startups” may lead to an uncontrollable situation.Mike Isaac, author of “Blood Boiling”, recently interviewed Mike Isaac in the Medium OneZero column.In an interview, Isaac introduced Karanic’s ups and downs and the experience and lessons of the Uber incident on the entire Silicon Valley.Due to limited space, the following interviews have been deleted.OneZero: In the opening chapter of “Blood”, you mentioned that, to some extent, Uber’s story can also be seen as “a common but erroneous case about the way startups raise and grow.”.In your opinion, what is the biggest misunderstanding of startups in fundraising?Mike Isaac: Either grow or be eliminated.As a founder of a startup, you must have this awareness.The higher the company’s valuation, the next round of valuation will only become higher, so there will be a practice of using growth hackers to win within the company.Sometimes growth is not necessarily a good thing.Since the early days of Facebook, it has begun to grow exponentially through growth thinking, and now we can see the consequences of this approach.After entering the new era of technology companies 15 to 20 years later, there have been results of privacy scandals and giants falling into the altar. People are particularly disappointed.But these problems can actually be traced back to the early days of the venture, but the outside world is generally little known.In addition, there is a myth about “self-achievement talent” in Silicon Valley. A smartphone, a bedroom or a garage, always eat ramen, and then I can become a millionaire tomorrow.Although these are indeed things that happen, I think there is still a certain legend.Venture capitalists can indeed achieve “winners”, but these are based on interpersonal network resources.Or can you knock on the door of Sequoia Capital, or whether there is an endorsement by Benchmark Capital partner Bill Gurley, or whether it can be integrated into a culture dominated by white males?.Another striking thing is that investors are very concerned about growth, but there is no incentive to create sustainable growth.They are just financially hoping to hand over a “satisfactory answer.”very true!This involves a question of how much value an early investor can create for a company.I believe that many people may not agree with this approach.But to be honest, investors will also conduct research, and they also have support teams that are responsible for these matters.But their primary motivation is to double the valuation of ten or one hundred times, and then you can choose to retreat.However, these various consequences from the early stage of the startup that have not been noticed or unplanned, after waiting for the company to mature, or using Uber’s example, after Uber’s successful listing, it is not really a problem..In the book, you quoted Karanic’s words, “The board is irrelevant.” In your opinion, why did he say this?This is not a best practice.The main role of the board is to provide decision-making advice to the CEO.At the same time, the CEO should also act in accordance with the decision of the board of directors.In the opening of “Blood Boiling”, I introduced the story of Karanic’s early injury by venture capitalists.Before the establishment of Uber, he was already a serial entrepreneur.He used to have two major entrepreneurial experiences.One of the experiences ended in painful defeat, while the other end made him taste the sweetness first, and made him the first millionaire in his life, but only an extremely ordinary millionaire.But in the entrepreneurial process of his first venture, Scour, he was hurt by investors who had supported him.I feel that these experiences have caused him to have an idea of ​​suspiciousness and distrust of people around him.From those experiences, he also summed up some lessons and had an important impact on how to develop company rules and regulations and how much decision should be given in further development.By the time Uber received a $3.5 billion investment from Saudi Arabian investors, he had absolute control.At the end of 2017, he even appointed two new directors without further consultation with other members of the board to further strengthen his control of the company.In my opinion, behind these actions by Karanic, I actually want to tell others that I will let all of you achieve a wealth of family wealth, but I must let my own decisions.For a long time, many people agreed with Karanic’s point of view, so they also signed up to give up the corresponding rights, or they had to reverse to accept and so on.You may feel that his practice should be blamed, or that there may be unforeseen consequences in the future.However, Karanic was able to go to that step, not one day.At that time, only Kalanick himself could make himself “out of the game.”Therefore, many people think that the founders of startups should have their own innovations, and they are still unique.So all the founders began to worry about whether they can be unique.Entrepreneurship is difficult and most people fail.Therefore, in the face of unfavorable unfavorable situations, we must maintain this optimistic attitude of not accepting defeat.And some people do it, they are worthy of admiration.However, I think that every entrepreneur may have a knot and hope to be the next person like Jobs.However, it is impossible to have the same Jobs in this world.The book “Hot Blood” also covers the various issues of Uber management and its corporate culture of “winning at all costs.”To what extent do you think this is Uber’s own problem?Or is it a common problem or feature in Silicon Valley companies?In fact, this is the answer I have always wanted to explore.This book is based on Uber. I also hope that through a very representative case, I will share with you what startups should not do.Under the leadership of founder Karanic, Uber did go a long way.However, with the company’s development and maturity, Kalanick did not keep up with the company’s growth, and in some respects there is still no particularly mature performance.As a result, it directly caused serious damage to the company’s development.These practices are also the reason why many startups ultimately fail.These immature things may also lead to a series of subsequent troubles.For example, when a company’s female employees are insulted or harassed, the company’s HR is ignored, other colleagues turn a blind eye, or do not know how to report similar harassment.Or, in order to inspire everyone’s creativity, Karanic will also ask insiders to fight.This practice not only did not allow him to achieve the so-called elite rule, but also caused internal personnel to have two sides and three knives, rumors, and even waste of resources and manpower.I think Uber’s case can be regarded as an extreme case in which the company’s development has gone astray.At the same time, I also think that to some extent, it can also reflect the problems that may exist in Silicon Valley companies.The book also mentioned that Uber’s executives are full of nonsense, opportunistic, and even black into the competitors’ network.In order to achieve growth, they can be described as unscrupulous.This sounds very bad.However, they have created the most successful startup in Silicon Valley.If Uber doesn’t do anything to make people criticize, to what extent do you think it can still achieve such a victory?This is also the question many people have asked me about.These include Uber’s former employees and current employees, as well as venture capital investors with Uber’s investment relationship.This problem has also caused many people to be confused and even caused more and more guilt.For those who have worked closely with Karanic or who get along well with each other, they may see more of the advantages of Karanic.They would think that Karanic has a personal charm and is very generous to the veteran staff who started his business together. What is more worth mentioning is that he has built such a huge technology giant in a relatively short period of time..In short, they will see the many advantages of Kalanick.But at the same time, I think that they are confused, maybe they are also thinking, is there no clear boundary in Karanic’s mind?If he needs to change, can he change?Under what circumstances can the advantage become a burden?I think that if Karanic has a higher self-awareness, or is guided by the right, and he is willing to accept such guidance, the final result may be very different.Maybe he can lead Uber to change, solve problems, and achieve further growth.But what I don’t know is where the other way can go, or what happens if someone else leads Uber.The point I conveyed in the book is that the scale that can be developed to Uber is not caused by a single factor, but by the simultaneous effects of multiple factors.So, you can also say that if there is no Karanic, there is another person who can achieve these achievements.Extended reading: What is wrong with Uber (below): Professional ethics?privacy protection?Subsidy war?Translator: Jingdao Junyi.