HP Case Study paper - Course Assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Course Assignment...

Description

Caviness 1 Name: William A. Caviness II Professor: Dr. Michael Scharff Course: BA310 08AUG2017

Hewlitt-Packard (HP) Case Study Analysis Hewlett-Packard (HP) was formed in 1939 by Stanford graduates, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. The company manufactures printers, personal computers, and digital imaging equipment. The company headquarters is located in Palo Alto, California. (HP.com, 2007) In 2006, after a series of confidential boardroom discussions were leaked to the media, HP began an internal investigation of its own board of directors to identify the source of the leak. Though HP was well within its legal rights, the way it conducted the investigation is what led to charges being filed by the California Attorney General. (Ard, 2006) The key players in the HP case are Patricia Dunn, former chairman of HP’s board of directors. Kevin T. Hunsaker, a former senior lawyer at HP. Ronald L. DeLia, a private detective from Boston. Joseph DePante, owner of Action Research Group(ARG) out of Melbourne, Florida. ARG is a data brokerage firm. Bryan Wagner, employed by DePante. George Keyworth, board member accused of leaks. Thomas Perkins, former HP board member. Bill Lockyer, former California Attorney General brought charges against Dunn, Hunsaker, DeLia, DePante, and Wagner. To find the source of the leaks, members of HP hired private investigators to act as HP employees, journalists, and others to get telephone calling records by pretending to be someone else, which is called pretexting (Lazarus, 2006). Pretexting was not illegal at this time.

Caviness 2

During this time, there were numerous issues that faced the HP Board. Some of them include internal fighting between members of the Board, for example the disagreements on the direction of the company between Ms. Dunn and Mr. Keyworth. Leaks coming from closed door, supposed confidential meetings. The dismissal of CEO Carly Fiorina in my opinion had an impact on the case due to the fact that it put Ms. Dunn in a position where she had to make the decisions she did. Also, the actions that HP chose to take once they became aware of the leaks. There was invasion of privacy and abuse of power. The way that HP went about trying to find the source of the leaks and the issue of pretexting is the overlying issue that faced the board during this time. That and the utter turmoil that seemed to be coming from them. Ms. Dunn faced some very difficult and tough decisions during her time and it is easy for us to say that we should have done it this way or we should have done it that way but I do feel that there are some critical points. The first to me was when she took over as Chairman. At that point in my opinion she had a choice on what type of leader she was going to be and what path she was going to take. Ms. Dunn herself states in her Submission to Sub-Committee on Investigations House Energy and Commerce Committee that the board had conflict and that she “was cognizant of those conflicts because I heard about them from nearly all sides.” (H.Rep. No. sf-2199641, 2006) Patricia also made the choice to align herself with certain members of the board, by doing so I feel that she alienated other board members and this could have had a causal effect on the leaking. Ms. Dunn should have done more due diligence if she wasn’t one hundred percent sure about the investigation techniques that ARG was using. I believe that she got tunnel vision and was only trying to find out who the leaker was. These actions let her to not think as clearly as she should have and caused her to go ahead with investigation techniques that most would not be comfortable with.

Caviness 3

At any of these points Ms. Dunn could have taken a step back and looked at everything from a big picture standpoint. I don’t feel that she did this and I even though she might have thought that she was doing the right thing I don’t feel as though she made good choices. If this had been me I would have applied Virtue Ethics and viewed this with compassion and wisdom. The important aspect is to avoid greed and selfishness because it will prevent getting lost in the so-called weeds. I would have worked with the entire board and started by asked each member individually if it had been them that were leaking. I support this by the fact that Mr. Keyworth when they revealed he was the leaker responded by stating “Why didn’t you just ask me?” To find the source or sources of the leaks the Chairman, Legal team, and Investigators resorted to anything that they “thought” or were told was legal. They did this because they cared only about stopping the flow of leaks coming out of what to them were private confidential meetings where the sanctity of nondisclosure rules. I don’t feel that the actions were ethically justifiable and that the outcome was not what they wanted because in the end it caused so much damage. When they went to the levels that they went, legal or not, then they are acting in an unethical way and were sacrificing morals for results. Several on the team felt that they were going too far and were concerned about the legality of it. They did try and bring their concerns up but they had them dismissed by those who thought that they knew better. By acting in the manner that they did I feel that the board acted based off pragmatism. This is demonstrated by the fact that they didn’t care much about the anything but were driven by results. This desire caused them to not take into account the moral implications by invading the privacy of others. They were also deceitful in their actions which further demonstrates that they were quantitative and not qualitative in their ethical approach. The investigative team was also happy if they could get small victories because to them it was better than nothing. This was

Caviness 4

evident by the fact that they were so excited when they were moving forward with the “Jacob” board member and were trying to extract information out of CNET writer Dawn Kawamoto. I believe that if they were to do it over again that they should have adopted a duty ethical approach to how they handled situations. By doing so they would have been instilling the belief in the entire board that everyone has an obligation to do the right thing. People involved would begin the do things morally and ethically because they wanted to and inside all of us is the want and the need to be good and do right by others. Immanuel Kant believed that “one cannot make exceptions for themselves. (Kant, 1785) by taking the actions that the board did they exactly that. They made themselves believe that what they were doing was moral right and thereby made an exception. If they had not done this then they could have continued a moral and ethical path instead of going down one of deceit. Mark Hurd was in a difficult position and his actions did not help make it any better. I feel that there are some things that he could have done to help with the issue. The way I see is it is that the board is just like a team, everyone has their part to play. Mark was basically the quarterback and sets the entire pace and the direction. Conflicts and turmoil are going to occur on the board but it is the way that they are handled that will define a company. If I was Mr. Hurd in 2006 I would have tried to make several moves that could have, in my opinion worked to correct the issue. I would have clearly defined to the members of the board what their individual as well as team roles and responsibilities were. I would have also encouraged open dialogue between all levels of the company. Everyone on the board would have a clear and definitive understanding of who and how they could speak to media, reporters, or those outside the board. Discussions in the boardroom will be maintained with strict nondisclosure unless it is authorized

Caviness 5

by the board. If these things would have been done then we could possibly could have altered the path that Mark and the board were going down. In order to prevent ethical problems, both leaders and employees of an organization need to ask a series of questions before continuing on a course of action. First, is it legal? Legal only defines the minimum and doesn’t fully tell you on the direction, but it is the path to start down. Does it sit right with you or are there hesitations? Not feeling right about something is a great warning sign that there might need to be some more digging into the issue. Is there a chance that it could hurt anyone in the company? Will my actions be looked at as an example of good leadership? If any of this were to get out to the public what would it look like for the company? In the case I feel that there was a lot of damage done to the public image of HP. The trust for them as a company was completely eroded by the infighting and disagreements between the board. Disagreements are going to happen, it is inevitable. By acting in the manner that they did HP lost most of its brand loyalty and customers decided they would go elsewhere. Finally, the question needs to be asked, if I was the one being treated this way how would it make me feel? Would I be ok with it? In Matthew 7:12 (KJV) the bible states “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If we start with this golden rule then it will lead us in a good starting direction for acting morally and ethically. CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP: I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance received is acknowledged and disclosed in the paper. I have also cited any sources from which I used data, ideas, or words, either quoted directly or paraphrased. I also certify that this paper was prepared specifically for this course and has not been used for another course either in whole or substantial part. Name and Date: William A. Caviness II 10AUG2017

Caviness 6

References Ard, S. (2006). Leak scandal costs HP’s Dunn her chairman’s job. CNET 9/22/2006. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/leak-scandal-costs-hps-dunn-her-chairmans-job/ Lazarus, D. (2006). HPs Investigation Broke State Laws, Attorney General Says. San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2006. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/c/a/2006/09/08/BUG9EL1ALO1.DTL Patricia Dunn’s Submission to Congress. H. Rep. No. sf-2199641, pg. 1, at 33 (2006) Kant, I., The Metaphysics of Ethics by Immanuel Kant, trans. J.W. Semple, ed. with Introduction by Rev. Henry Calderwood (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1886) (3rd edition). Retrieved 8/9/2017 from the World Wide Web: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1443...