Usually in these cases, these kind of company politics trickle down from the top, so it's unlikely the CEO does not know or has any interest in intervening.
All the companies I worked at that had weird or toxic environments showed that kind of environment throughout most of their structure. A single arsehole in an otherwise great company is usually pushed out sooner than later. If however you notice there are mostly arseholes in your management structure, chances are this goes all the way to the top...
The fact that the story got the traction it did means that the response couldn't have possibly been anything other than what it was (disgust and a promise to look into it). Even if the CEO was directly responsible for this culture the response would be the same. I don't think it's possible to extract anything meaningful from it whatsoever at this point.
He did box himself in a bit with "...will be fired". At least boxed into firing somebody. Not at all saying his outrage is genuine, but initial corporate responses don't usually go that far.
I don't know if that really counts as 'boxed in'. The behaviour Susan described as widespread is absolutely unacceptable and in any sane company would be grounds for instant dismissal. If the CEO is acting in good faith then he wouldn't hesitate to act on any cases found - the fact that they have a new head of HR might indicate that a purge has already begun.
You appear to be reading something into my comment that I didn't mean, or say. The behavior described is absolutely appalling. All I'm saying is that the CEO's initial statement about it goes farther than usual...these are usually carefully crafted to convey sympathy but avoid liability or commitment to action. Usually words like "appropriate action" and not words like "fired".
Once a culture exists, it is very, very difficult to change, even (especially) if you get a new CEO or an acquisition, etc.
It is true that if you are going to _attempt_ to change a culture, it must be motivated from top-down. However, placing that responsibility on the CEO alone is misunderstanding of how culture works.
It's a little akin to saying that culture is the President's responsibility. No, it's everyone's responsibility, and if you want to change it, the influential people in your org (country) must lead and reinforce that change.
The best you can say is that the founder(s) laid the groundwork for the culture. As with anything, changing the foundation later is extremely difficult.
That's what the research says, anyhow. I studied this briefly during my undergrad.
Yes. I've found it proportionally harder to change anything the bigger a group gets.
After a certain size the only way to make a change stick is get rid of people that disagree. Or, you can wait for pressure to wear those people down over... A period of years.
If Ubers culture is really this toxic the only way to fix it would be replacement of a fair amount of leadship in the company.
> It's a little akin to saying that culture is the President's responsibility. No, it's everyone's responsibility, and if you want to change it, the influential people in your org (country) must lead and reinforce that change.
To a point, but when HR gets involved and does not help, that IMHO is often due to the upper leadership being a big part of the problem.
I've seen HR blow off inappropriate behavior when the CEO does or is okay with it.
