Comments on: After the Hurd Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mott Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:41:03 +0000 You seem to slight the board’s decision and this may due to the fact that neither you nor any of us know enough of the details on Hurd’s systematic and intentional misconduct.

With due respect to your psychic abilities – one thing is evident from this and history that the only thing “scientific” about business is – financial accounting. This is what got AlCapone in trouble and so did Mark Hurd.

By: HuckleberryFinn Wed, 11 Aug 2010 05:02:24 +0000 Your well-written post should be contemplated by a wider audience and discussed thoroughly.

The HP-matter was the subject of discussions at a Sunday barbecue where opinions were split.

Most leaned towards an assessment of limited willingness to assume board responsibility of a matter deviating obviously only slightly from rigid corporate guidelines at the Valley juggernaut. Previous spying initiatives within HP a couple of years ago may have bolstered paranoia….. eventually winning the battle of minds.

Hurd goes, board stays and everything will be forgotten in a couple of months may have been the rationale for keeping the hands of the board “clinically” clean, but “operational” dirty.

The overall query looms: Has HP become so negatively institutionalized in a legalistic American perspective / lingo of the day, thereby eradicating the board’s understanding of what it takes to steer the boat through often stormy waters and in a fast changing market place where new, hungry and able competitors are waiting?

Considering the significant surge in HP’s operating profits the recent 4 to 5 years and the broader, yet competitive products’ offering through well-pitched acquisitions under the Hurd stewardship, the board story for axing an operatively gifted CEO is at best thinly shaped. Most likely, it may turn away potential CEO candidates with the right skill set to keep or better the position.

Next to Hurd, staff, business partners and shareholders may suffer while the value of HP-brand diminishes. Not to say that Mark Hurd is without faults in the dimly presented scenario of what really happened.

It appears that each board member personally may be tainted more so than Mark Hurd when the market is assessing each person’s capability in the future. We have noted the names of each board member placing them on a list for further scrutiny.

And finally. How sad many American companies cannot find a practical solution to internal as well as external matters of some controversy. Lawyers of limited substance and no understanding of running a business appear to be the de facto decision makers in many major American companies, often because of board weaknesses and outright stupidity. Most likely also within HP.

My operations in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have taught me that the Hurd-HP board dilemma would have been solved quietly there and to the benefit of all parties involved. Lawyers, if any involved, have a totally different mind set and business competences than those in America, making shareholders careful investments less careful and prosperous.