The HP Way 2.0

theodp writes "How do you replace your Chief Pretexting Officer? HP CEO Mark Hurd announced that Joel Hyatt, an individual of 'exceptional judgment and outstanding character,' has joined HP's Board of Directors, filling one of the seats vacated during last year's boardroom scandal. Hyatt, who drew the ire of a judge over the illegal, Philadelphia-like treatment of an attorney at Hyatt's namesake law firm who was diagnosed with AIDS, was also appointed to HP's HR and Compensation Committee. Presumably, the HP womenfolk won't hold it against Hyatt that he reportedly once advocated keeping alma mater Dartmouth female-free. Hyatt acknowledged making mistakes that he's learned from, but said he was not eager to share them."

Comments

Stupid

[realmolo]

I love the fact that the only qualification you need to be on the Board of Directors at a billion-dollar company is to have once been on the Board of Directors at *another* billion dollar company. Doesn't matter if you wrecked that company, or got fired for incompetence, or were successfully prosecuted for some white-collar crime you committed while you were there.

HP deserves whatever they get. Talk about a fall from grace. HP was, at one time, one of the most important and successful and innovative technology companies in the world. Now what do they do? Sell cheap PCs and expensive ink.

No Problem with Dartmouth Bit

[Javit]

Presumably, the HP womenfolk won't hold it against Hyatt that he reportedly once advocated keeping alma mater Dartmouth female-free

Not really interested enough to read the rest of the article, but just wanted to say I don't see the problem with advocating same-sex schooling. My wife went to a women's college and I attended an all-boys high school, are there are definite advantages to it. In the high school case especially, I noticed that having the girls gone resulted in a hugely improved social atmosphere compared to middle school, with everybody pretty much getting along. At the public high school in the same town, however, kids were still vicious little bastards to each other.

Re:No Problem with Dartmouth Bit

[AuMatar]

Some studies showed that separate but equal was a good idea too. Studies tend to show whatever the guy who pays for it wants it to show.

Re:No Problem with Dartmouth Bit

[wellingj]

That's because todays society think there is something inherently evil with being a male....

Re:No Problem with Dartmouth Bit

[b0s0z0ku]

That's because so many males these days are immature little twits.

Replace "males" with "people" and you may be on to something. No one race/gender/creed/etc hs a monopoly on stupidity.

-b.

Re:No Problem with Dartmouth Bit

[Scudsucker]

Well if you want to argue by anecdote, I haven't heard of very many men killing pregnant women and then tearing the babies out of the women's stomachs to raise as their own.

This guy may be a sleazeball...

[niceone]

...but if all the dirt the summary writer can find on him is a firing 20 years ago and something he wrote while he was at Dartmouth (30 years ago??), I'm inclined to think he must be a saint.

(disclaimer: I used to work at HP, a looong time ago)

Dartmouth Co-education

[necro81]

It is true that there are some curmudgeons out there - mostly associated with Good Ol' Boy networks of the ultra-rich, entitled, privilaged, and (largely) conservative elite - who wish that Dartmouth had remained an all-male institution. As a recent alum, however, I will state emphatically that they are a tiny minority of alumni and current students.

Dartmouth has been co-ed for about 35 years now. Lots of Dartmouth students ca. 1970 griped about co-education. They were in the minority even then; vocal, but a minority. In the intervening years, particularly as their own daughters reached college age, most of those have come to realize that it wasn't the end of the world - it made the College a better place.

Re:Dartmouth Co-education

[b0s0z0ku]

Dartmouth has been co-ed for about 35 years now. Lots of Dartmouth students ca. 1970 griped about co-education. They were in the minority even then; vocal, but a minority

I'm not arguing that it made Dartmouth a better place or not. But, I still don't think it should be held against him, especially since all-female schools are pretty common, so why can't there be all-male schools? Should we lambast a female CEO that went to Smith, Holyoke, or Bryn Mawr if she expressed the opinion that her alma-mater would be better off not going co-ed? I'm not against co-education, but private universities should have a choice as to whom to admit.

-b.

Re:Dartmouth Co-education

[b0s0z0ku]

Men will succeed in co-ed and all male institutions quite easily. Women often underperform in co-ed enviornments.

Regardless, if women have the choice, so should men. I'm not talking about taking away women's right to single-sex education -- I'm saying that in order to have "equality", both genders should have that right.

Besides, the premise is that men and women are intellectually equal. Are you saying that women can't compete on a level playing field now?

-b.

Board directors HAVE TO BE sleazeballs

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't so much an indictment of them as of the way the corporate system works.

If you aren't a sleazeball then you simply don't make it to the Board, because entire legions of sleazeballs get there long before you can through sleazing their way up the ladder or through the business grapevine.

And it's not even a level playing field with the sleazeballs on the inside track, because not only do they have the souped up engines but they also have rear-mounted machine guns to make sure you lose. (Yeah, I love mixing my metaphors.) In other words, you're actively put down by them.

And that's why pretty much all upwardly mobile managers end up being sleazeballs too. It's built into the system.

The same applies in politics, which is why the President is always the greatest sleazeball of them all, regardless of which party is in power.

Re:I don't like business at HP

[j-pimp]

Afterwards they couldn't afford living in the United States - her husband had already retired - and they had to move back to Australia. She knew it was going to happen, too, it was just one big waiting game. Just out of curiosity, is it that much cheaper to live in Australia or was she just able to find a better job in her home country? I would think if your resume said "big executive" and "in charge of a business unit spanning multiple countries," one could make a living wage in whatever developed country one wished. I would be wrong though.

Re:So is Slashdot going to critique

[mpapet]

I think there's enough /.'ers who have been around long enough to remember when buying HP meant _great_ quality and service at not-that-high-prices.

Fiorina was pretty much the tipping point. Hurd's infamous "I didn't explicitely approve illegal actions, so I'm not liable or responsible" pretty much tells you what kind of scumbags he's likely to hire. It makes me feel sympathetic for the old-guard BOD's.

It also gives you an idea what passes for leadership in this country.