Every person who I know has left Uber this year is at some company HN would probably agree as "better" (FANGs as backup, startups if more adventurous). So unless you're in the handful caught in the crossfire of these issues, Uber is an extremely strong brand name on a resume.
Wasn't the case in the beginning of the year and isn't the case at the end (I know people who have left this week for FANG). And that period arguably coincides with the most intense PR snafu for Uber. Most companies are smart enough to distinguish between a rotten top-mandated culture against individual actions, and not generalize 14k+ employees. Also worth noting that a large contingent were already former FANG employees so some are just returning back home.
With regards to why not move sooner, isn't the company going through an entirely top-down overhaul starting with the CEO? If someone wants to be part of that change, and if they still believe in the ride-sharing space and if they were never in the crossfires of any of this anyways, then all of these are valid reasons to stick around.
Maybe. I've interviewed people eager to leave Uber and the name was mixed for us. I see it as an indicator of technical talent, but a culture risk for sure. Clearly a lot of people at Uber at least acquiesced in the face of unethical, abusive, or outright criminal behavior. That's not a character trait I'm excited about having on my teams.
You have to understand human nature though. Most people are more or less followers. They will do whatever a strong leader tells them to do--unless it's something clearly, blatantly wrong or illegal--and they will rationalize it.
If Uber had ethical leadership, there would be no worry about any of the technical talent, and they would be the very same people.
People have been trained to be followers. Our industrial-age education system and our industrial-age-derived corporate structures do that training.
That worked adequately for industrial work. But for creative work, following isn't enough. Our whole field is about making computers do the dumb stuff so that humans can focus on the smart stuff. The SV startup model gets much of its economic power from the way that a small group of people can out-think, out-innovate large companies that operate along industrial lines.
But that only keeps working as long as individuals have a fair bit of autonomy. Which in turn only works as long as workers are able to think for themselves. As David Marquet wrote, modern effective organizations don't move information to authority; they move authority to information.
I want to build teams that can spot a ball, pick it up, and run with it. That doesn't work well if they have to run every detail up to the CEO for signoff.
