Though I agree there is a line in the sand, I think there's more to this than just "how bad is this sort of behavior"
In addition to severity, we need to consider:
- the "impact" made by joining the conversation publicly
- other available means to exert the same level of influence
Given the size of the organization and the fact that it was already in crisis mode, I'd argue this won't really change much. And, if that's the case, then the breach of trust isn't really warranted.
As outsiders, it's impossible for us to truly determine how impactful this letter will be, or whether there were alternative means to achieve the same change.
Given imperfect information, where does that leave us?
Well, making business decisions always involves incomplete information. If there's uncertainty around whether said investor's actions were justified, and I have a choice to take money from another investor on equal terms, I'll take the alternative (all else equal).
This is a practical decision driven by caution - not a judgement of character on said investor (I have a lot more respect for Mitch as a person because he certainly considered the consequences of this letter).
I appreciate this not because I think it will change Uber. I appreciate this because it will make Mitch Kapor's other investments realize that, if their internal culture is as bad as Uber's, they now have one more reason to improve it.
In addition to severity, we need to consider: - the "impact" made by joining the conversation publicly - other available means to exert the same level of influence
Given the size of the organization and the fact that it was already in crisis mode, I'd argue this won't really change much. And, if that's the case, then the breach of trust isn't really warranted.
As outsiders, it's impossible for us to truly determine how impactful this letter will be, or whether there were alternative means to achieve the same change.
Given imperfect information, where does that leave us?
Well, making business decisions always involves incomplete information. If there's uncertainty around whether said investor's actions were justified, and I have a choice to take money from another investor on equal terms, I'll take the alternative (all else equal).
This is a practical decision driven by caution - not a judgement of character on said investor (I have a lot more respect for Mitch as a person because he certainly considered the consequences of this letter).