卡蘭尼克下臺有何深遠意義？

媒體正在密切關注Uber走向衰亡的故事，這是有原因的。他們不僅僅是在追求所謂的戲劇性。首席執行官特拉維斯·卡蘭尼克辭職的消息，產生了真切且深遠的影響。

Uber是這個時代最為龐大、最具價值、最全球化、最具顛覆性，以及最典型的硅谷成功故事。這家公司的遭遇將影響整個科技行業——公司、投資者、文化、監管和員工。

以下是我對上周專欄觀點的進一步闡述：

·監管：采用強制手段的借口。許多人將Uber與法律驚心動魄的博弈進程，與其CEO的離職聯系在一起，從而加強了任何監管機構尋求打擊顛覆性硅谷初創公司的理由。其打擊范圍不僅僅是在Uber違反法律的特定領域（即勞動力和交通運輸），還包括任何一家在法律灰色地帶運營的初創公司。隨著初創公司試圖在諸如醫療保健、金融服務、保險和房地產這類受到高度監管的經濟部門開展創新活動，它們幾乎總是從一個必須被界定的法律灰色地帶起步的。這些公司需要一定的監管善意，才能證明自身創意是可行的。

·員工：嚇跑“成年人”。初創公司需要經驗豐富的高管幫助它們從羽翼未豐的顛覆者過渡為合法的企業。這些高管越來越多地來自它們正在顛覆的“舊經濟”產業。就在幾年前，許多高管還認為，加入一家上市前(pre-IPO)熱門初創公司是一種頗有吸引力的職業進展（更不用說這還蘊含著“一夜暴富”的機會）?，F在，他們或許正在密切關注前塔吉特百貨公司首席營銷官杰夫·瓊斯擔任Uber總裁的六個月任期，并且得出結論：跳槽至初創公司無異于職業自殺。

·投資者：對創始人友好時代宣告終結？這個創始人友好型風險投資時代——其主要驅動力包括網絡2.0、馬克·扎克伯格、肖恩·帕克，以及電影《社交網絡》——意味著創始人擁有董事會控制權，當工作要求超出其自身能力時，他們不會被迫離職。相反，他們只需要“聘請一位雪莉·桑德伯格”來處理所有管理事務。

現在，投資者可能會反思這一趨勢。即使沒有控制權，Uber董事會仍然能驅逐卡蘭尼克，但在此前的一個月中，雙方展開了一場動蕩不堪，非常公開化的爭斗。（值得注意的是，在Uber的早期融資輪中，卡蘭尼克并未獲得董事會控制權。他的控制權源自后來的幾輪融資。早期的投資者別無選擇，只能順應現實。）

·企業：沒有哪家公司擁有災難免疫力。為《財富》1月刊撰寫一篇關于硅谷道德的特寫報道時，有幾位受訪者暗自揣測，Uber是否有可能成為下一個爆發足以摧毀公司的丑聞的初創企業。請注意，他們的推想發生在蘇珊·福勒事件、旨在躲避監管的Greyball軟件、Waymo公司訴訟案、強奸受害者的病歷、韓國“性陪同”派對等一系列Uber丑聞爆發之前。

我注意到了這種暗示，但經過多次談話之后，我最終摒棄了這種想法。每個人都說，是的，Uber面臨一些問題，但這是一家過于龐大、財力極其雄厚、估值極高，并且擁有霸主地位的公司，它不會面臨類似Theranos或Zenefits那樣糟糕的懲罰。如今看來，這種想法大錯特錯，它已經促使我（和其他很多人）重新考慮我們的假設，即占據主導地位的科技巨頭是無懈可擊的。

·文化：“不計代價地增長”壽終正寢。當你將最具侵略性的商業實踐帶到其邏輯終點時，你就將獲得這樣的結論。正如我的同事亞當·拉辛斯基今天上午所寫的那樣：對于Uber來說，“蔑視慣例曾經是一種資產，但最終將成為可怕的負債?！蹦切┳裱璘ber劇本的初創公司，可能會重新評估與之相關的嚴重風險。同樣，《財富》的克里斯汀·貝爾斯特羅姆今天上午指出，這些初創公司很可能會更加關注其工作場所的性別歧視。她寫道：卡蘭尼克的離職“傳送了一個令人鼓舞的訊息，讓人們意識到性別歧視對企業多么有害，一些公司開始嚴肅地對待這一事實?！?/p>

關于這則新聞的幾個附加說明：

·投資者終于出手。標桿投資、首輪資本、Lowercase資本、門羅風投和富達投資等風投公司鞏固了他們的權力——其合計投票權占到Uber董事會的40%——并要求卡蘭尼克辭職。

·卡蘭尼克在一封寫給員工的電子郵件中表明，他對這一決定不滿意：“我接收了一批投資者敦促我卸任的要求?！?/p>

·標桿投資的合伙人比爾·古利在Twitter上安慰卡蘭尼克。他說，“很少有企業家對世界施加了如此持久的影響?！?/p>

·卡蘭尼克仍然是Uber董事，并且擁有多數有表決權股份。這聽起來似乎會導致Uber出現功能障礙，更不用說對任何一位潛在CEO產生威懾作用。對于任何一位即將接任他的CEO來說，唯一的慰藉或許是，在美國總檢察長埃里克·霍爾德的詳盡調查之后，Uber恐怕不會再出現什么“驚奇”了。

·一些人已經開始將這一事件與史蒂夫·喬布斯當年被逐出蘋果公司相提并論。實際上，有朝一日，卡蘭尼克或許會上演王者歸來的戲碼。但為什么要局限于如此陳腐的比較呢？這一事件最終也可能演化為類似馬克·平卡斯與社交游戲開發商Zynga、羅布·卡琳與手工藝品交易網站Etsy，或者杰克·多爾西與Twitter那樣的恩怨情仇！

·對卡蘭尼克繼任者的猜測已經開始。一些局外人的名字開始浮現，其中包括剛剛獲得自由身的前雅虎CEO瑪麗莎·梅耶爾、前福特公司CEO馬克·菲爾茲，或者前通用電氣CEO杰夫·伊梅爾特，以及仍然在崗的Facebook首席運營官雪莉·桑德伯格。根據坊間傳聞，Uber首席運營官的人選包括前華特迪士尼公司首席運營官托馬斯·斯塔格斯、前沃爾瑪公司首席信息官克倫恩·特雷爾、藥品零售商CVS公司執行副總裁赫蓮娜·?？怂?、特納廣播系統公司CEO約翰·馬丁、美國在線CEO蒂姆·阿姆斯壯，以及還沒有被接觸的首席運營官候選人尼科什·阿羅拉。（財富中文網）

譯者：Kevin

There is a reason the media is closely following the story of Uber's demise, and it’s not just for the drama. This news of CEO Travis Kalanick's resignation has real ramifications.

Uber is the largest, most valuable, most global, most disruptive, most quintessential Silicon Valley success story of this era. What happens to this company affects the entire tech industry – the companies, the investors, the culture, the regulations, the employees.

To elaborate on what I wrote last week:

· Regulations: An excuse to be aggressive. The ability to connect Uber’s swashbuckling approach to the law and the ouster of its CEO bolsters the case of any regulator looking to crack down on disruptive Silicon Valley startups. And not just in the specific areas Uber ran afoul of the law – labor, transportation – but in any startup that operates in a legal gray area. As startups attempt to innovate in highly regulated sectors of the economy like healthcare, financial services, insurance, and real estate, they almost always start out in a legal gray area that must be defined. These companies need a bit of regulatory goodwill just to prove their idea is viable.

· Employees: Scaring away the “adults.” Startups need experienced executives, increasingly from the old-economy industries they’re disrupting, to help them transition from fledgling disrupters into legit businesses. A few years ago, many of those executives saw joining a hot pre-IPO tech startup as an attractive career move (not to mention, a way to get very rich, very fast). Now they are probably looking at former Target CMO Jeff Jones’ six month stint as Uber President and viewing the jump to startup-land as career suicide.

· Investors: The end of founder-friendly? This era of founder-friendly venture investing – driven by Web 2.0, Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, and The Social Network -- means founders get board control and can’t be forced to step aside when the job outgrows them. (Instead they “hire a Sheryl Sandberg” to deal with all the management stuff.)

Now investors are likely rethinking that trend. Even without control, the board was able to oust Kalanick, but only after a month of very messy, very public fighting. (Notably, Kalanick did not secure his board control in Uber’s early rounds of funding – that came in later rounds. Early investors had no choice but to live with it.)

· Businesses: Nobody is immune. In reporting my story on Silicon Valley ethics from January, a number of people quietly wondered whether Uber might be the next startup to have a major, company-ruining scandal. This was before we learned about Susan Fowler, Greyball, the Waymo lawsuit, the rape victim’s medical records, the escort party in Korea.

I noted the suggestion but, after a number of conversations about it, ultimately dismissed it. Yes, Uber had some issues, everyone said, but it was too big, too well-funded, too valuable, too dominant to face a comeuppance as bad as that of Theranos or Zenefits. How wrong that was, and it’s led me (and plenty of others) to rethink our assumptions that tech’s dominant power players are invulnerable.

· Culture: Death to “growth at any costs.” This is what happens when you take Silicon Valley’s most aggressive business practices to their logical end. As my colleague Adam Lashinsky wrote this morning: For Uber, “flying in the face of convention was an asset, but ultimately a horrible liability.” Startups that followed Uber’s playbook are likely reevaluating the serious risks associated with it. Likewise, Fortune's Kristen Bellstrom noted this morning that they're likely paying much closer to attention to the sexism in their workplaces. Kalanick's departure "sends an encouraging message about just how bad sexism is for business—and how seriously some companies are beginning to take that fact," she wrote.

A few additional notes on the news:

· Investors did this. Benchmark, First Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Menlo Ventures, and Fidelity Investments consolidated their power -- voting rights worth a combined 40% -- and demanded Kalanick resign.

· Kalanick’s email to employees made it clear that he isn’t happy about the decision: “I have accepted a group of investors’ request to step aside.”

· Benchmark’s Bill Gurley’s consolation to Kalanick was a tweet stating that “very few entrepreneurs have had such a lasting impact on the world.”

· Kalanick is still on the board. He owns a majority of the voting shares. That sounds like a recipe for dysfunction, let alone a deterrent to any potential CEO. The only solace to any incoming exec might be that there are no remaining “surprises” after the Holder investigation.

· Some are already comparing this situation to Steve Jobs’ ouster from Apple. And indeed, Kalanick could someday return in a blaze of glory. But why limit ourselves to such a clichéd comparison? This situation could also mirror Mark Pincus and Zynga. Or Rob Kalin and Etsy. Or Jack Dorsey and Twitter!

· The speculation begins for replacements. Outside names that have already come up include newly available ex-Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, ex-Ford CEO Mark Fields or ex-GE CEO Jeff Immelt, and the not-available Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. There are also the ones that were rumored for Uber's COO job – former Walt Disney COO Thomas Staggs, former Walmart CIO Karenann Terrell, CVS EVP Helena Foulkes, Turner head John Martin, AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, as well as Nikesh Arora (who was not approached about the COO role).