Uber harassment case: Not just the VP, others are answerable too

What Uber case demonstrates clearly is a neglected culture, reports Tech in Asia

Swati Jena | Tech in Asia 

Uber harassment case: Not just VP, others are answerable too

Susan Fowler has opened the much needed can of worms. While her story raises questions about the imminent future of Uber, it also raises other fundamental issues.

One of them is culture.

There’s been a lot of rhetoric around it, but anyone who has ever been in an organisation will know that the real test of commitment to culture is when the pressure for numbers are high. 

What the case demonstrates clearly is that a neglected culture has its own way of coming around and hitting the business hard, where it hurts the most (and in the case of Uber, when it hurts the most).

Now here’s the question I want to reflect upon: Who is accountable for culture? The of or the CEO?

This includes:

of operations

of sales

of product

of finance

of supply chain

of marketing

of HR

of whatever else the organisation has appointed

So, every time a complaint was brought to Uber’s department and it was swept under the rug or when the complainant was actively discouraged, the of is accountable.

If things were so bad for so long, how come the CEO had no idea of it? (Is that even possible?)

Uber harassment case: Not just VP, others are answerable too
If he didn’t have any idea about it, was the CEO uninterested in knowing about people matters? Was he not in touch with his people? Did he not review any other number apart from revenue? 

If he did have an idea of what was going on, why didn’t he do anything about it? And again, what does that say about the nature of leadership at


This is an excerpt from Tech in Asia. You can read the full article here

Uber harassment case: Not just the VP, others are answerable too

What Uber case demonstrates clearly is a neglected culture, reports Tech in Asia

What Uber case demonstrates clearly is a neglected culture, reports Tech in Asia
Susan Fowler has opened the much needed can of worms. While her story raises questions about the imminent future of Uber, it also raises other fundamental issues.

One of them is culture.

There’s been a lot of rhetoric around it, but anyone who has ever been in an organisation will know that the real test of commitment to culture is when the pressure for numbers are high. 

What the case demonstrates clearly is that a neglected culture has its own way of coming around and hitting the business hard, where it hurts the most (and in the case of Uber, when it hurts the most).

Now here’s the question I want to reflect upon: Who is accountable for culture? The of or the CEO?

This includes:

of operations

of sales

of product

of finance

of supply chain

of marketing

of HR

of whatever else the organisation has appointed

So, every time a complaint was brought to Uber’s department and it was swept under the rug or when the complainant was actively discouraged, the of is accountable.

If things were so bad for so long, how come the CEO had no idea of it? (Is that even possible?)

Uber harassment case: Not just VP, others are answerable too
If he didn’t have any idea about it, was the CEO uninterested in knowing about people matters? Was he not in touch with his people? Did he not review any other number apart from revenue? 

If he did have an idea of what was going on, why didn’t he do anything about it? And again, what does that say about the nature of leadership at


This is an excerpt from Tech in Asia. You can read the full article here

image
Business Standard
177 22