Uber and the curse of the CelebriCEO
Last week, Travis Kalanick announced his resignation from Uber, the firm he started and one of Silicon Valley's magical unicorns. Having disrupted the taxi and car service industry in cities around the world, Kalanick somehow managed to disrupt his own company, angering investors, customers, drivers and municipalities to the point that #deleteuber had a real impact on the company's business.
The news that Kalanick will be stepping down is surprising not because it's unexpected or unwarranted. It’s clearly something that needed to happen in the minds of consumers, employees and investors, alike. However, the issues Uber and Kalanick face highlight the risks involved with attaching a company’s brand so tightly to an individual.
BRANDS GIVE COMPANIES THE ABILITY TO TRANSCEND THE LIVES AND TENURE OF THEIR LEADERS, AND TO RESHAPE THEMSELVES AS THE WORLD CHANGES.
Over the years, as companies have become more complex, farther reaching and more recognized than before, the distance between founder/owner/ leader and consumers increased. While in the past, people bought into the proprietor and what he or she represented, today, brands play that role, setting our expectations and shaping our preferences. It gives companies the ability to transcend the lives and tenure of their leaders, and to reshape themselves as the world changes. For decades the most successful and enduring brands worked that way. Jack Welch was renowned as the CEO of GE, but Jack wasn't GE. Nor was his successor, Jeff Immelt. Or his predecessor, Reginald Jones. Each man led the global, now 125+ year old company, each shepherded the brand, but they were not to be confused with the brand. The same is true of Howard Schultz and Starbucks, Larry Page and Google, Jeff Bezos and Amazon, and -- bringing it back to Uber -- Logan Green and Lyft. These are successful business, led by gifted visionaries, with powerful brands. But the leaders have not fallen into the trap of using the business or its brand to build themselves, to serve their own egos. They have focused on using brand to build the business.
In far too many cases today, we see a different dynamic taking place. Perhaps it's because of the way Silicon Valley rewards self-promotion as part of the fundraising process, perhaps it's due to the rise of celebrity worship whether they be chefs, musicians or politicians, or maybe it's something else. Whatever the case, too many executives get revered...with even more wanting to be. The successful ones are splashed all over business, news and gossip websites. Industry conferences are promoted like music festivals where CEOs, CMOs and founders put up like rockstars. When that happens, not only is it bad for investors, employees and consumers, it’s bad for the brand. While it's pretty straightforward to reposition, redefine and refocus a brand, as human beings we don't make it so easy for a person to reposition themselves. Once a first impression is made, we have a habit of locking that person to it for good. And, if that person leaves, a significant portion of the brand – what we’ve come to expect from that company – leaves, too.
All employees – CEOs included – need to work in service of the business