Unbelievable! Big news about 275 employees let go in a division bought for $1.5B and given away. Not bad for a company of 300K. That should fix everything.
What about senior/executive management still at HP that followed like lemmings as the company headed the wrong direction for years without raising a concern? Are they not smart enough to recognize what was going on or lacked leadership to address? Is this a company that rewards "shut up and play along"?
As I watch my stock continue to sink, I wonder why Meg would be so open about operational issues, but expects change from the same management that supported a blind, business destructive, model to begin with. Without cleaning shop, and not engineers, why would anybody believe in a turn-around story?
Too little too late to fix the leadership problem at HP. It's been inbred in the leadership DNA for some time now as incompetency at all levels of management has had the time to surround themselves with inept leaders who act and think like them. Contamination has spread like a contagion beyond repair.
This "me first" culture is built on following orders at any cost. Mark Turd taught this leadership team how to eat their own and enjoy doing it. People who challenge ideas for a better solutions are labeled discontents and sent packing. Pretty spreadsheets and scorecards rule the day - execution and working smart are ways of the past. Employees are treated by management like they are the problem, not the solution.
The best and the brightest have self selected out leaving behind a fragmented company of apathetic employees. This stock will crumble when the market starts heading down. Great short opportunity, even at these prices.
That is a great question. As a long term holder, it bothers me to see this happen to an icon. I guess I held more faith until I started thinking about the issue raised here. I should have bailed earlier and didn't. Reading the responses, I maintain the same concern regarding the company, given the company and stock are two different animals. In recent press, am also concerned funds like Vanguard are selling:
I think stock could float to upper teens until end of quarter which is painful. Weekly price drop looks as big hands are still liquidating. I would believe most are watching each event, especially overdue announcements on reorgs, strategy, and layoffs, to see how deep the changes will be. To pull off the needed funding in R&D communicated, HP is going to have to cut hard into operations and overhead. Expecting ugliness for a while.
When a manager says to you point blank, that they will do what ever it takes to keep their job, you know the company is in trouble. You've pretty well hit the problem on the head. PROBLEM, there's sixteen levels of management that have capitulated over the last ten years, getting rid of six people AIN'T going to help. Meg was on the board when LEO was hired and she isn't going to fix anything. It's just a new round of sucking the head off of the crayfish.
I agree with everyone who argues that the first cuts during the restructuring should be management. at least one layer should go.
I think Meg is scared to get rid of executive leadership like Bradley and Donatello is because she has not clue what to do... Be it innovation or anything else to do with technology.
We can only hope that they aren't 'let go'! Please force them to work at half pay (at most) until they demonstrate their ability to create and ship products at a profit instead of making bad decisions, time and time again. We don't want to see the rest of America seeded with losers talking big about their "executive experience" at Hewlett-Packard like a dandelion in the wind. It only perpetuates the myths!
At this point, HP couldn't even give itself to Oracle, much less consider a sale.
The way I see it, this company has a lot of problems and its reflected in the price of the stock, no one on this message board has any idea including me what is wrong, but you can't blame Meg, it was here long before she became CEO. just my opinion
Don't think you get it. Nobody appears to be faulting Meg. What about all of the legacy executive management that did nothing and are still there? What does that say about leadership at HP in general?
You also state:
"this company has a lot of problems and its reflected in the price of the stock"
Today's very negative price action on HPQ in a generally good day for the market says that is not the case.
YOU BRING OUT A SUPERB POINT.
Those at the top, unless they understand the workings of a given companys' bureaucracy, and deal with it, in a significant way are doomed to fail!!
THAT'S WHAT I SEE FOR HP.
AFTER I SEE THAT MEG HAS DEALT WITH IT, I'LL BUY, NOT TILL THEN!!!!!!
Apparently, you're unaware of the 'best of breed' business school practices finally working their way into corporate America. 'Rewarding Failure' is a highly popular practice today to encourage America's 'job creators' in their entrepreneurial endeavors and a leading innovation in today's MBA leadership classes. After all, why take a risk if the reward isn't guaranteed?
HP abandoned engineering practices a long time ago. After all, it's the 'HP Way' to innovate and 'invent' things like the 'Autonomy' buyout. See what happens when management is motivated to get beyond the 'Not Invented Here' paradigm. It's thinking like this that rewarded long-term shareholders with the WebOS success story. No wonder those parachutes are woven with gold!
How long does she get and what would be the adequate level of cutting?
All senior leadership would be suspect. As the plane flew in a downward spiral, was the picture so convincing that nobody at the company thought they might have a serious problem? Hurd and Leo can be blamed, but that leaves approximately 299,998 other employees. Even if you just took the upper part (10%) of the executive triangle, was nobody aware enough to raise the flag?