5 ms·

I can't take this seriously - blaming an individual, especially a CEO, for destroying a corporate culture is ridiculous. I know essentially nothing about the hi

I can't take this seriously - blaming an individual, especially a CEO, for destroying a corporate culture is ridiculous. I know essentially nothing about the history of HP, but what I do know is that the board bears ultimate responsibility for big decisions, for example a massive layoff. There is also the distinct possibility that the 'HP Way' was sacrificed to save the company. Again, I know nothing of the history, but putting out a hit piece like this right before the election is just crude.

mikeryan 16y ago
I have to disagree, I would think that the CEO would be the single most important individual in defining, creating and driving a corporate culture.
- pstuart 16y ago
  Steve Jobs comes to mind as a perfect example (in the positive sense).
- gamble 16y ago
  I agree, but in the case of HP I would add that the board has been entirely capable of disgracing itself independently of Fiorina. Fiorina, Hurd, and Apotheker didn't manifest out of thin air, after all.
- gaius 16y ago
  Agreed. Infact you could say that that's what a CEO does.
jbooth 16y ago
I can't take this seriously - blaming an individual, especially a CEO, for destroying a corporate culture is ridiculous. I think this is actually the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on Hacker News. If the CEO isn't responsible for corporate culture, then A) Who is? and B) What's the CEO responsible for?
- okaramian 16y ago
  And why are CEOs getting paid way more than everyone else if they have zero responsibility? Seems like an absolutely sweet gig if you can get paid and shirk any responsibility for a company's failure.
  - ezy 16y ago
    It is. You get paid either way.
  - MrFlibble 16y ago
    Just convince the board that you are a CEO and they should hire you. It worked for a friend I know who is a film producer who faked his early resumé as "Producer" and kept getting hired as a such. He would hire good staff & they'd pretty much run the show. He learned producing on the job and quickly replaced the fake resumé jobs with real ones. Thing is, all it took was convincing someone he actually was a Producer. I think many CEOs do the same thing. Walk the walk, talk the talk and hope your employees don't screw up.
- hugh3 16y ago
  It's still a political hit piece which would not exist in the alternative universe where this week's California Republican senate candidate is, say, Tom Campbell. There may be a time and a place for discussing the upsides and downsides of any particular CEO's tenure at any given company, but it would probably be much better to discuss it when said CEO is not standing for election in less than a week, so that people's feelings on politics don't cloud their opinions on technology management. I know nothing about Carly Fiorina's time as CEO of HP, but am disinclined to trust anyone's opinion on the subject this week. Can we talk about Geoffrey Immelt's CEOship of General Electric instead?
  - _delirium 16y ago
    That seems like a particularly relevant time to talk about it, though. When someone from the tech industry is being proposed for some position with greater power, isn't that a good time to review the existing information as a basis on which to make decisions? I'd say the same of positive reviews: if someone thought Fiorina was a great CEO, now, when people are about to make decisions about whether she should be a Senator or not, is a great time to write that piece and tell us why. I guess it'll still be relevant for the history books to write it in 10 years, but it's more practically useful to write it when people can actually use the information.
jacquesm 16y ago
The funny thing is that you're both right and wrong. You're wrong in that the CEO is the person most responsible for corporate culture, everything else flows from there. But in this particular case, the HP way was 'on the way out' for a while before she ever joined the company, the Agilent spin-off was already in the works before she took over as CEO. I'm sure that she carries her portion on the blame for what came next though, but spinning off Agilent was definitely not a smart move because it was to a large extent the strongest hold-out of 'the hp way'.

mikeryan 16y ago

I have to disagree, I would think that the CEO would be the single most important individual in defining, creating and driving a corporate culture.

pstuart 16y ago
Steve Jobs comes to mind as a perfect example (in the positive sense).
gamble 16y ago
I agree, but in the case of HP I would add that the board has been entirely capable of disgracing itself independently of Fiorina. Fiorina, Hurd, and Apotheker didn't manifest out of thin air, after all.
gaius 16y ago
Agreed. Infact you could say that that's what a CEO does.

jbooth 16y ago

I can't take this seriously - blaming an individual, especially a CEO, for destroying a corporate culture is ridiculous. I think this is actually the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on Hacker News. If the CEO isn't responsible for corporate culture, then A) Who is? and B) What's the CEO responsible for?

okaramian 16y ago
And why are CEOs getting paid way more than everyone else if they have zero responsibility? Seems like an absolutely sweet gig if you can get paid and shirk any responsibility for a company's failure.
- ezy 16y ago
  It is. You get paid either way.
- MrFlibble 16y ago
  Just convince the board that you are a CEO and they should hire you. It worked for a friend I know who is a film producer who faked his early resumé as "Producer" and kept getting hired as a such. He would hire good staff & they'd pretty much run the show. He learned producing on the job and quickly replaced the fake resumé jobs with real ones. Thing is, all it took was convincing someone he actually was a Producer. I think many CEOs do the same thing. Walk the walk, talk the talk and hope your employees don't screw up.
hugh3 16y ago
It's still a political hit piece which would not exist in the alternative universe where this week's California Republican senate candidate is, say, Tom Campbell. There may be a time and a place for discussing the upsides and downsides of any particular CEO's tenure at any given company, but it would probably be much better to discuss it when said CEO is not standing for election in less than a week, so that people's feelings on politics don't cloud their opinions on technology management. I know nothing about Carly Fiorina's time as CEO of HP, but am disinclined to trust anyone's opinion on the subject this week. Can we talk about Geoffrey Immelt's CEOship of General Electric instead?
- _delirium 16y ago
  That seems like a particularly relevant time to talk about it, though. When someone from the tech industry is being proposed for some position with greater power, isn't that a good time to review the existing information as a basis on which to make decisions? I'd say the same of positive reviews: if someone thought Fiorina was a great CEO, now, when people are about to make decisions about whether she should be a Senator or not, is a great time to write that piece and tell us why. I guess it'll still be relevant for the history books to write it in 10 years, but it's more practically useful to write it when people can actually use the information.

jacquesm 16y ago

The funny thing is that you're both right and wrong. You're wrong in that the CEO is the person most responsible for corporate culture, everything else flows from there. But in this particular case, the HP way was 'on the way out' for a while before she ever joined the company, the Agilent spin-off was already in the works before she took over as CEO. I'm sure that she carries her portion on the blame for what came next though, but spinning off Agilent was definitely not a smart move because it was to a large extent the strongest hold-out of 'the hp way'.