Travis Kalanick may have resigned as Uber’s CEO but he isn’t going away – Washington Post

With his resignation Tuesday from the chief executive officer job at Uber, Travis Kalanick joins the pantheon of company founders who've made the difficultmove beyond life as their company's CEO, even if temporarily. Some did it by choice: Howard Schultz, Ralph Lauren. Plenty of others didn't: American Apparel's Dov Charney. Men's Wearhouse's George Zimmer. And of course, way back in 1985, the example that must be included in every story aboutfounders leavingtheir companies: Apple's Steve Jobs.

However they may have left, whatmost sharein commonis a hard timeletting go. Many foundershave trouble givingtheir successors absolute authority. Schultz once wrote that it's like being a parent standing back and watching his children make their own choices.

Their DNA does not allow them to step back and be an independent board member, said Peter Crist, chairmanof the executive search firm Crist Kolder Associates. They still involve themselves. They still meddle. They still call someone three levels below and ask what's going on.

Management experts say that transitioncould be morechallengingfor Kalanick, who hasa reputation as an aggressive, win-at-all-costs chief executive who built a Hobbesian culture that's been under fire for unprofessional, frat house conductand allegations of widespread sexual harassment.

He has this competitive streak, said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management who wrote a book about the psychology of CEOs departing their companies. This is not a guy who's going to go softly into the night.

[When company founders fight back]

In addition to his personality, Kalanick's management style has been described as particularly hands-on, amicromanagerwho's gotten involved indetails as minor as a redesign ofthe company's logo.He had such a consolidated level of power that the first recommendation in the report by the law firm Covington and Burling on Uber's cultural reformsurged the company to reallocatesome of Kalanick'sresponsibilities.

Even after he took an unspecified leave of absence last week, Kalanick was reportedto have stayed in frequentcontact with executives,interviewing candidates for the manyvacancies onUber's executive team and dialing in with his thoughts.After director David Bonderman made a disparagingremarkabout women during a company meeting designed to address the company'scultural issues, Kalanick personally worked the phonesto get Bonderman off the board, according to a report in the New York Times.

The next CEO of Uberis going to do things differently, and Kalanickis going to have a hard time with that becauseof his emotional investment, said Kerry Sulcowicz, a psychiatrist and psychologist who advises boards and CEOs, including several running successful start-ups. For many CEOs, there's a high risk of succumbing to the temptation to meddle. Or worse: to actively undermine the new CEO by unconsciously behaving in a way that destroys whats most importantto him, as a way of proving to himself and the world that he was indeed irreplaceable.

It's also possible Kalanick could be emboldened by his equity stake. Because he and his allies retainso much voting power throughthe shares he owns, management experts say it makes sense that he remains on the board. You know the old joke gone, but not forgotten? said Charles Elson, the director of a corporate governance center at the University of Delaware. Hes gone but has too big a stake to be forgotten.

[Why Travis Kalanick didn't survive Uber]

The Uber investors who wrote the letter calling for Kalanick's resignation have called for two of three empty board seats to be held by truly independent directors, according to the New York Times, which woulddilute Kalanick's vote on the board. A company spokeswoman declined to comment further on what else the board might do.

Sometimes, having an involved former founder on the board is a positive, a connection to the company's origins and a font of institutional knowledge and vision. Schultz is widely seen to have revived a fading Starbucks when he took back the reins from asuccessor, hearingcomplaintsfrom employeesand recognizing the company had drifted from its roots. And founders such asBill Gates at Microsoft wereseenas constructive board members to their successors afterthey stepped out of theCEO's seat.

Butthere are plenty of times when a CEO, even by his own choice, leaves the top jobbut clashes with his or her successor.Ralph Lauren handed the CEO title to outsider Stefan Larsson, but the two couldn't agreeon creative direction and Larssonleft the company less than two years after he started. Lululemon founder Chip Wilson, who hadn't been CEO since 2005 but remained on the company's board until 2015, arguedwith a successor over things like putting Ayn Rand quotes on shopping bags and voted against company directors over the direction of the company.

[Yet another crisis for Uber: Six vacant executive jobs, and no active CEO]

When such changescome amid an emotional personal hardship as has happened to Kalanick, whose mother recently died in a boating accident the change can be complicated, Sonnenfeld said, unless the founder gets involved in something new.

I have seen this before where there's a personal tragedy, he said. [Former Nike CEO] Phil Knight stepped out after his son died, but he got a second wind, came back, and pulled the rug from beneath [successor] Bill Perez, who was doing a good job.

Kalanick's board presence could also give some recruits to the CEO job pause. While plenty would probablyjump at the opportunity to overhaul what has become themost disruptive and valuableSilicon Valley start-up of this era, others could look warily athow much Kalanick will stay involved.

Theyll swallow hard, close their eyes and theyll do it, said Crist, the executive recruiter. But it doesnt change the fact that his influence and personality are still going to be quite evident.