The real reasons for Mark Hurd’s resignation from Hewlett Packard are already buried under layers of camouflage. There is a norwegian saying that typically follows such executive departures and translates loosely to “there is no hidden drama in this departure.” There almost always is and the same is true here.
(I particularly enjoyed The New York Time’s article on the subject: Real Reason for Ousting HP’s Chief)
During Hurd’s tenure magazines and newspapers frequently praised his work and HP’s improving results. He and the company he led became the new poster-child of progress and performance in the IT industry, at least in terms of growth and earnings.
But there’s another chapter to this story and its one that is much more interesting for those leading companies and building performance cultures. While the short-term results were stellar, were they being borrowed against the company’s future? In the above linked article and others we read about employees and executive rejoicing at the departure of an executive that “was a cost-cutter who indulged himself”.
The truth remains to be seen but it appears that HP’s board removed a leader who had lost their trust. He had apparently lost the trust of the company’s leaders and employees long before.
What can we learn from this? The closing lines of the New York Time’s article does a good job summing it up:
“What HP needs in its next leader, Mr. House told me, is ‘someone with Carly’s strategic sense, Mark’s operational skills, and Lew’s emotional intelligence.’ (Lewis E. Platt preceded Ms. Fiorina as C.E.O)”
HP fired a CEO who produced 18% growth annually due to cultural fit issues. Now that’s news.