HP has major ethical problem, day 16

Why doesn't the board members just leave with a huge bonus? (sarcasm intended).

You, Mr. Scoble, do not understand the HP Way if this is what you think should happen.

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115819922966062661
(need subscription.. I'm pretty sure you rarely read the WSJ, just based on your business acumen)

The opinion piece, written by a Hewlett Packard biographer, basically said:

"Is this what Bill and Dave would have done?

Hewlett and Packard are no longer in a position to answer for themselves. But we do know that the two men always operated on trust and openness, but also with a strong hand. They would never have allowed the board to sink into civil war. We can also assume that they would have skipped the skullduggery and presented the leak problem to the assembled board at the beginning, and requested a full buy-in on any investigation. That alone would likely have plugged the leak. Given that HP under their leadership was never allowed to speak ill of a competitor to the media, we can also guess that Bill and Dave never, ever would have approved any investigation against reporters. And as men who had grown a company from a garage to a billion-dollar multinational corporation, they were wise enough to know that you can't buy the cloak without getting the dagger.

Finally, Hewlett and Packard firmly believed that you don't fire loyal employees for being beyond their competence; rather, you move them to where they can make the best contribution. In demoting Ms. Dunn, but still keeping her on the board, Mr. Hurd did the right thing. He did what Bill and Dave would have done.

Look next for deep and sincere apologies to everyone involved. That's the HP Way. Mark Hurd is learning fast."

Robert,

I can't agree with you more. HP's reputation is slowly being torn to shreds -- and it's only going to get worse. Judging by the stock price, though, investors don't understand the impact of reputation on business performance very well.

The whole HP Way thing, their supposed commitment to privacy and doing the right thing is being shown to be a sham. It's PR, old style. I laugh now everytime I see a reference to HP and it's commitment to privacy.

Like this from a March 7, 2006 news release (caution: PDF document)when HP won a TRUSTe and Ponemon Institute Most Trusted Companies For Privacy Award 2006:

“HP believes the protection of privacy is a fundamental measure of HP’s integrity, both as a business and a global citizen. We support that belief with a global, company-wide privacy organization to ensure our policies are enforced,” said David Lear, vice president, Corporate, Social and Environmental Responsibility, HP. “Keeping up world-class privacy standards is a matter of constant diligence. We hope to lead by example and help create a safer Internet. TRUSTe is helping to raise these issues in a positive way through these recognition programs.”

LOL. What nonsense. I keep looking at my HP printer and thinking, I wonder what kind of spyware the buggers put in there? Is it reading everything I print and beaming it back to HP HQ? Kidding, but you know how these things just snowball...

BTW, I think it was the New York Times that got the newsroom infiltrators angle, not the Post.

"What is this Board still in place?"

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Patricia Dunn is scheduled to be  to be inducted into the Bay Area Business Hall of Fame tonight at the Westin St. Francis in San Fransico.

This is NOT a joke :-(
 

Perhaps Mr Hurd is learning fast...if only Dunn had the same type of mindset. Whether Hewlett or Packard would have dealt with this matter a different way is besides the point, they are no longer around. The company may have been "operated on trust and openness, but also with a strong hand", that is definitely not the direction the company is heading towards today....

Basically HP is saying "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". They are trying to get back at the culprit when it would seem more logical and also better for the company's reputation if they had instead re-evaluated their internal security and plug up the security holes so that it won't happen again. Instead they are saying "get into our privacy and we'll get into yours

I guess the board decided if it's good enough for the White House....

Veronica, you totally missed the point of the WSJ article. Hurd is practicing the "HP Way" which is what Scoble is wanting. So, for those like Scoble that are wanting the HP Way, how Hewlett and Packard would have dealt with the issue is EXACTLY the point.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HPQ&t=3m&am...

the HP stock price doesn't reflect the current controversy. So while I am blissfully ignorant of the whole market thing I'm guessing that while the stocks keep going strong > the shareholders will be happy > the board stays on.

Michiel: yeah, that's probably the outcome. Welcome to capitalism where all that matters is the bottom line. Sigh.

LayZ: as you say, Hewlett and Packard would never have allowed this situation to happen in the first place. That's the old HP way. Instead we have boards who are lying to get access to phone records, and worse.

Did you see what HP's ethics executive said today? http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?ent...

Amazing. What's the purpose of having an ethics officer if all he'll say is "I shouldn't have asked..."?

@12 You, too, miss the point. Hurd is doing what Hewlett and Packard would have done. You want the HP Way? You are getting it with Hurd. So, if you are truly sincere about wanting the HP of old, you should have no objection to Dunn still being around.