(Article : TheStreet.com. Image : http://fuckyoumarkhurd.com/)
Setting aside these more salacious details, I thought the most interesting new information came from Joe Nocera of The New York Times Friday. In his column, Nocera suggests the real reason Hurd was shunted aside was that he'd lost the trust and respect of the HP employees, and that charges of sexual harassment and inflated expenses merely masked that fact. Nocera illustrates this with some damning faint praise for Hurd from analysts and HP employees, both former and current:
"He was a cost-cutter who indulged himself."
"Mr. Hurd cares about one thing, how much money is in it for him. As an HP employee I see it every day. We don't have the tools to do our job, but he isn't doing without anything and doesn't care."
"He didn't have the support of his people. . . . he seemed to be the only one benefiting from HP's success"
"I was delighted to see Hurd go."
" . . . he lacks the moral character to be CEO."
I believe these latest revelations show board did lose trust in Hurd, thus providing reason to suggest he move on. However, I also believe Nocera has put his finger on a critical point: namely, the depth of HP employees' resentment toward Hurd for well over a year. About a year ago, for instance, I wrote about my belief that Hurd was not such a great CEO as what was portrayed by Wall Street analysts and investors -- and I remember being very surprised at the immediate and strong reaction I got from then-current HP employees. They were all united in their antipathy for Hurd.
They complained about how he'd cut the business to the bone but didn't have any ability to grow the company's revenues. They talked about his hypocrisy in forcing 5% across-the-board paycuts while doubling, tripling, or quadrupling senior executives' total compensation in the same year. Most of all, they complained of Hurd's total inability to connect with HP employees and a disregard for the vaunted "HP Way" of the past.
The comments and emails went on and on. Many pleaded with me not to share them publicly for fear of losing their jobs. Some of the comments I received for my most recent HP article, which published last Wednesday following Hurd's departure, further highlight the employees' sentiment:
"As a long-time HP employee, I have seen this incredible greed by our executives for some time while the employees have suffered income loss: loss of benefits and, more importantly, loss of jobs. There is no remnant of Bill and Dave's company left."
"Hurd did the same thing to HP that he did to NCR, a tech firm Hurd headed prior to his term at HP. He squeezes out profits in the short term at the expense of the long-term viability of the company. HP's IT information technology has been gutted, there is little to no growth in existing businesses, morale is terrible, teamwork is dead thanks to forced rankings, there is no innovation, and pretty much everything is outsourced.
"I agree there is nothing left of Bill and Dave's company. Working for them was such an inspiration. They were the epitome of humility and conservative frugality. They treated us so well and we were frugal too to repay them. Our management-development department worked hard to capture their style in our programs, to teach managers the "HP Way.'"
I remember chatting with some investors last year about these kinds of emails and comments. They immediately discounted them and defended Hurd. They said things such as:
"What do you expect from a bunch of workers? These are the whiners that Hurd probably already cut out of the business."
"Employees always complain. What matters is that Hurd's making the numbers. He delivers what he says he will."
"'The HP Way" -- who cares? That's not how business is run today. Fiorina should have whipped this company into shape, and Hurd finally went in there and did it."
I believe there's some truth both in the side of the employees and that of the analysts. But what's striking to me is just how easy it was -- before Hurd was forced out -- for outsiders to belittle the importance of employee satisfaction. Obviously people who comment on a story or email an author to complain are going to be the ones most upset about Hurd, and maybe there was a silent majority who thought he was doing just fine. For me, however, the quantity of strongly upset employees last year was a clear warning sign of trouble ahead for the company and for Hurd. You can't just stuff those kinds of feelings down for long without some problems cropping up down the road.
It's also interesting to reflect on the investors' comments now and see how quick they were to attribute HP's success to Hurd alone, and to discount the crucial nature of culture and of workers' feelings. I'm not saying all investors and analysts need to start holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" when they look at their price-to-earnings ratios. If nothing else, though, the HP affair shows that -- in this age multiple rounds of layoffs and real economic hardship that affects millions of workers -- investors need to examine the happiness of the remaining workers with the CEOs and senior executives who are leading them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Never-Discount-the-Grumbling-tsmp-982139253.html?x=0&.v=1&.pf=family-home&mod=pf-family-home
Setting aside these more salacious details, I thought the most interesting new information came from Joe Nocera of The New York Times Friday. In his column, Nocera suggests the real reason Hurd was shunted aside was that he'd lost the trust and respect of the HP employees, and that charges of sexual harassment and inflated expenses merely masked that fact. Nocera illustrates this with some damning faint praise for Hurd from analysts and HP employees, both former and current:
"He was a cost-cutter who indulged himself."
"Mr. Hurd cares about one thing, how much money is in it for him. As an HP employee I see it every day. We don't have the tools to do our job, but he isn't doing without anything and doesn't care."
"He didn't have the support of his people. . . . he seemed to be the only one benefiting from HP's success"
"I was delighted to see Hurd go."
" . . . he lacks the moral character to be CEO."
I believe these latest revelations show board did lose trust in Hurd, thus providing reason to suggest he move on. However, I also believe Nocera has put his finger on a critical point: namely, the depth of HP employees' resentment toward Hurd for well over a year. About a year ago, for instance, I wrote about my belief that Hurd was not such a great CEO as what was portrayed by Wall Street analysts and investors -- and I remember being very surprised at the immediate and strong reaction I got from then-current HP employees. They were all united in their antipathy for Hurd.
They complained about how he'd cut the business to the bone but didn't have any ability to grow the company's revenues. They talked about his hypocrisy in forcing 5% across-the-board paycuts while doubling, tripling, or quadrupling senior executives' total compensation in the same year. Most of all, they complained of Hurd's total inability to connect with HP employees and a disregard for the vaunted "HP Way" of the past.
The comments and emails went on and on. Many pleaded with me not to share them publicly for fear of losing their jobs. Some of the comments I received for my most recent HP article, which published last Wednesday following Hurd's departure, further highlight the employees' sentiment:
"As a long-time HP employee, I have seen this incredible greed by our executives for some time while the employees have suffered income loss: loss of benefits and, more importantly, loss of jobs. There is no remnant of Bill and Dave's company left."
"Hurd did the same thing to HP that he did to NCR, a tech firm Hurd headed prior to his term at HP. He squeezes out profits in the short term at the expense of the long-term viability of the company. HP's IT information technology has been gutted, there is little to no growth in existing businesses, morale is terrible, teamwork is dead thanks to forced rankings, there is no innovation, and pretty much everything is outsourced.
"I agree there is nothing left of Bill and Dave's company. Working for them was such an inspiration. They were the epitome of humility and conservative frugality. They treated us so well and we were frugal too to repay them. Our management-development department worked hard to capture their style in our programs, to teach managers the "HP Way.'"
I remember chatting with some investors last year about these kinds of emails and comments. They immediately discounted them and defended Hurd. They said things such as:
"What do you expect from a bunch of workers? These are the whiners that Hurd probably already cut out of the business."
"Employees always complain. What matters is that Hurd's making the numbers. He delivers what he says he will."
"'The HP Way" -- who cares? That's not how business is run today. Fiorina should have whipped this company into shape, and Hurd finally went in there and did it."
I believe there's some truth both in the side of the employees and that of the analysts. But what's striking to me is just how easy it was -- before Hurd was forced out -- for outsiders to belittle the importance of employee satisfaction. Obviously people who comment on a story or email an author to complain are going to be the ones most upset about Hurd, and maybe there was a silent majority who thought he was doing just fine. For me, however, the quantity of strongly upset employees last year was a clear warning sign of trouble ahead for the company and for Hurd. You can't just stuff those kinds of feelings down for long without some problems cropping up down the road.
It's also interesting to reflect on the investors' comments now and see how quick they were to attribute HP's success to Hurd alone, and to discount the crucial nature of culture and of workers' feelings. I'm not saying all investors and analysts need to start holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" when they look at their price-to-earnings ratios. If nothing else, though, the HP affair shows that -- in this age multiple rounds of layoffs and real economic hardship that affects millions of workers -- investors need to examine the happiness of the remaining workers with the CEOs and senior executives who are leading them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Never-Discount-the-Grumbling-tsmp-982139253.html?x=0&.v=1&.pf=family-home&mod=pf-family-home
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire