10
Feb
05

ROAR

Good point…..we should always use Kenneth Lay as the measuring stick.

From reports I have read — and they are cropping up everywhere — the mid-evil history major created a tenuous environment on her watch. Reorgs were the norm and the corporate mission was a moving target. Some exerts from News.com’s Michael Kanellos:

HP ran on a rigid hierarchy. Competitive battles were won through financial heft and strength, and a lot of energy was dedicated toward internal company battles.

Months before the merger was announced, HP executives said buying a PC maker wasn’t a good idea. When the Compaq deal was unveiled, HP said Compaq really wasn’t a PC maker, though half of the company’s revenue came from PC servers and desktops.

When HP passed Dell in PCs because of the merger, HP trumpeted that it had brought competitiveness back to the marketplace. When Dell surpassed HP and the gap grew, HP claimed that it wasn’t really interested in being No. 1 in PCs, anyway. The margins were too low.

HP would have a terrible quarter, missing earnings because of a shortfall in one division or another. Fiorina would then vow that heads would roll. Some executives–voluntarily and involuntarily

And here is my favorite:

I (Kanellos) obtained an insight into Fiorina’s management style on the November 2002 day former Compaq CEO Michael Capellas resigned. We all sat at a small, circular table. We asked Capellas why he resigned. “I can answer that,” she said, speaking for him.

And here is another article that discusses HP discussed splitting up four times on her watch — that is amazing…..

This is the kind of leader I would follow. R-O-A-R…….

Advertisements

2 Responses to “ROAR”


  1. 1 jpb
    February 10, 2005 at 9:12 am

    Oh, but you misunderstand me, my love. I never stated that I respected HOW she got things done, but rather, merely reminded folks of her significant contributions to the foundation of the company’s reinvention. This does not excuse her from shrinking margins and plummeting shareholder value. Nor did I say that she was my chief executive balefire. Underperformance, regardless of gender, should not be rewarded with outrageous severance packages. My point, my darling, was one of relative measure – not justification.

  2. 2 Brent
    February 10, 2005 at 9:19 am

    …”significant contributions to the foundation of the company’s reinvention”

    did you not see the proof points provided…..these contributions were significantly poor.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Photos on Flickr

February 2005
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28  

Blog Stats

  • 13,898 hits

%d bloggers like this: