An interesting article in the New York Times today on the role of ex HP CEO Carly Fiorina in the presidential campaign of John McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06fiorina.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Avoiding the US political race, what was interesting to me was the comments of Fiorina on her legacy at HP. Did she turn them around, or was it Mark Hurd who should have credit for it. Not surprisingly she is pretty clear in her own mind on the matter. To quote her -From the day I was fired, every quarter, even before they had a new C.E.O., has been record after record. That doesn’t happen unless the foundation’s been built –
Whist of course this has merit, and she has a fair point, the market did not want her, the majority of the board and Senior Management Team did not want her. Furthermore, enough employees were not drinking from the kool aid to be happy without her there. My question is did Firoina really build the foundation at HP for its recovery, or was it done by the many thoushands of employees who got on with the job despite the speculation. HP was never a one person company, it was founded by two people and symbolically has grown from there to have a very unique culture that has allowed it to succeed often in spite of itself.
By the same consistency Mark Hurd cannot take the credit for the ongoing success of HP as well, (publically and from what I have seen, I doubt he would be inclined to anyway). That goes to the employees who battle on in head office and across the many HP plants and locations. The CEO is of course critical to provide the vision, discipline and following in a firm such as HP, but without the employees on the ground 1 person cannot make HP (or any other firm) great.
Be the first to rate this post
- Currently 0/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Subscribe