Slashdot Mirror
An Engineer's View of Carly Fiorina's Leadership
prostoalex writes "There is a pretty damning look at Carly Fiorina's leadership while at HP on TechnologyReview.com. The author was working for HP Labs, the center of invention and innovation for the company, only to be told that nothing exciting will happen in the tech market since it's a mature industry. He left the company in 2003. "The lab was never packed with genius marketers. Carly told us we had no business sense, and that every project needed to make a profit within three years or less. She usually said that right before the research budget got slashed again and more lab employees were laid off."" Update: 03/19 03:13 GMT by Z : As detailed on the TechnologyReview page, they have retracted the story on the grounds that they can no longer vouch for it.
In mid-2002, HP's labs became solely focused on finding ways for other businesses to save money.
Seems like this kind of backfired on HP's "We re-did NASA" marketing campaign, shortly before the Columbia crash.
Check out the sidebar to that article, printed back in February. You know you're doing a bad job if your ex-employees open champagne upon hearing of your leaving. Wow.
I'm posting anonymously because my father works at HP and I have done some work for them and they continue to be a client of my company.
Basically Carly's main failure was a total lack of vision. Her main changes were branding and cost-cutting. And in order to cover her major failing, she undertook the merger which would make success impossible to benchmark for about 3 years or so.
There were also countless re-orgs which also serve to make goals impossible to benchmark. While re-branding HP 'Invent' she did her best to ensure that no actual inventing occured... tying HP closer to Microsoft and pushing the actual inventing to other vendors (the HP iPod anyone?) while trying to eck out a living on those thinner margins by cost-cutting.
Now most business units are facing a 10% budget cut in order to finance Carly's kiss off. I don't need to say that morale is a huge issue and HP is largely rudderless (after being firmly steered in the wrong direction for so long this may be an improvment though)
And there is talk of having her run the world bank. I suppose it is typical in the US this day and age to continuously reward failure as long as it's big enough (Bush, Rumsfeld, CIA, Condi etc.) so Carly fits that bill perfectly.
The whole thing disgusts me really...
The last things I can remember HP doing right were their laser printers with single digit numbers. (EG. Laserjet II, III, 4 series, and even the 6P - which is a teriffic "small office workgroup" type printer.) The old scanners with single digit numbers were equally well-made and respectable (ScanJet 4 and so on).
But somewhere around the time they decided these products needed numbers in the thousands, quality took a nosedive and then came the parade of garbage "consumer desktop PCs".
Nowdays, I rarely recommend anything with the HP logo on it. Their inkjets have the most outdated print-nozzle technology out there for photo printing. There's still nothing noteworthy about their Pavillion PC line, and even their laptops seem like they're generally the size of bricks. (Those HP laptops with 17" displays are just HUGE compared to something like an Apple Powerbook 17".)
After ruining HP, the Bush administration has suggested her for rui^H^Hnning the World Bank. Read it here. 'Top executives' like herself like to tell us that they need their huge salaries because they take such risks, and if they screw up they are done in the business. Yeah, right. The truth is, it doesn't matter how much they screw up, their own will take care of them anyway.
If you don't understand your own products, you are going to suck as a leader. I don't care what the current nonsense is, but that's something I really believe - perhaps it explains the success of lawyers as politicians?
This is a theme you see in education all the time - you don't need to understand or have a degree in, oh, say physics in order to teach physics. Yeah, right. You can't teach something you don't understand at a fundamental level.
This goes to show that people with pure business backgrounds are not automatically assumed success in any field. Mr. Hewlett and Packard made wonderful products, by and for engineers. You can see it clear as day in what they produced. I love my HP48 calculator. I own oscilloscopes and function generators made by HP that dates back to the 70's and the gear still works flawlessly and looks great.
Watch for intel to make the same kind of mistakes - the best leaders for tech companies are those with BOTH business acumen and technical backgrounds.
Hopefully this Carly FIASCO will scare some brains into those who make the big decisions, but maybe I'm just dreaming. Short term profits, damn the cost!
..don't panic
It's funny, but having grown up in the 80's and having matured into computing in the 90's, by then HP had already started to fade. Their computers were notoriously crash-prone, their inkjet printers were slow, and their calculators seemed badly out of date compared to the very user-friendly TI stuff (I know about the power of the HP, no need for a flame war). And since then they've only gotten worse. My entire impression of HP, for my entire life, has been negative.
It's really kind of heartening to think back to what HP had done, and why so many companies and people still foolishly hold it in high regard. They really were a tech powerhouse in the 70's and early 80's, before they started rebranding iPods with the slogan "Invent." People gave HP a break for a very long time because they had built up a degree of cred, cred which they have been shamelessly squandering for many years.
But people still care about them. It's kind of heartening that way. Like thinking about your Grandfather when he was young, energetic, and happy, rather than the grumpy, senile jerk he has become.
The ______ Agenda
And now HPs calculators from the 70's and 80's sell for hundreds of dollars on EBay, while their current flagship product is a bug ridden POS with a bad keyboard. It's not only a matter of lack of interest at the fundamental R&D level, but a policy of making it as cheaply as possible, regardless of the quality level the market really wants. It is sickening to see the current product, feel the tacky keyboard and the gaudy painted plastic shell that the paint chips off easily and read reports of keypress detection problems, while that 25 year old model has keys that still work perfectly, with no sign of wear on key labels.
Marketing is fine as a tool for finding products people want. But it's useless for determining if a completely new technology might create or revolutionize a market.
Marketing is much, much worse than that in a technology driven company because the marketers do not understand even the current products and how they are used.
That seems to sum up the "new HP". Before they were pretty much doing thier own thing making specialized computers, test equipment and some damn fine laser printers.
Now 2/3 of thier profits come from ink and toner sales, thier systems are very unsupported, I know I just talked to a really friendly techie from India who couldn't answer my problem (I have just discovered are due to thier thier latest BIOS...grrr).
From what I saw when I booted this machine is that HP is cozying up to any company with money: Microsoft (XP, only XP), Apple (iPod), Symantic, AOL and other services (spyware/adware/Internet/etc). They seem to be using thier PCs hard drive capacity for garnering advertising, tie-in and lock-in revenue.
Certainly sounds like HP has been reduced to a me-too company, they should expand into the ringtone business, I hear there are big bux there now.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Fortunately Carly spun off the test and measurement instrument group into "Agilent". They have always produced the best instrumentation in the industry and continue to do so. It's a shame that they've lost the HP name, but they are still a top notch company.
IMO, Palmer's job was to make DEC an attractive take over/merger candidate. In that particular aspect, he was quite successful. ;-(
You know, interestingly enough, even though I don't have much against globalization, I still hate the world bank! Amazing, huh?
Globalization, short of virtually every gov't in the WORLD passing laws against multinational corporations, WILL happen. It is inevitable. At some point, governments will do the same thing (EU, perhaps), and eventually, someone will find a way to create a TRULY effective multinational gov't.
The US was an attempt at such. The concept was largely independent states united in an effort to protect themselves from more powerful enemies, such as (at the time) England. Originally (as I understand it), the concept was for states to retain most of the power, but the fed to have power for defense against foreign powers, and to make sure that no state did anything to violate the constitution.
How far we have strayed...
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Chilling. This means she had a key role in the sinking of two of the great American private research institutions.
Let's send her to IBM next. I am sure she can accomplish great things there.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga