You bring up a good point John, however I don't think it's an issue. The
BOD should be closely involved with the selection process. What would
happen is that the outside firm would interview each director, (or perhaps
as a group) to find out what the BOD is looking for in a CEO. The firm
would also interview various people (probably at a very high level) within
HP, to get a feel for the environment and the reporting structure.
Next, the BOD would probably provide names of various people they may have
in mind and direct the firm to either contact them directly or find out if
they can be contacted.
The firm would then start their process of contacting the various people
that were mentioned by the BOD and also start putting together a list of
other potential candidates. They would probably be reporting on a continual
basis to the BOD and getting feedback.
The firm serves as an insulation layer between HP and prospective
candidates, it's just not something that can be done by the company itself.
In this day and age of increased accountability for boards, I am quite
certain the entire BOD is involved in the selection process, with perhaps
one or two members acting as contacts with the firm. If some of the members
are not participating, they should seriously consider their continued
presence on the board.
As for the $21 million or $42 million severance for Carly, I am actually
surprised it was that small. I would have expected a much larger
settlement. You can be sure the next CEO will have that written prominently
in his or her contract. From what I can tell and what I have read, Carly
did everything the board asked her to do; she just didn't cut deep enough
and fast enough. What may be coming next will make HP employees yearn for
the good old days of Carly.
I was also amused by some of the posts hoping to get Walter Hewlett back on
the board. Everyone seems to forget that after he agreed to the merger and
voted for it, he then changed his mind publicly and was against it. He also
was of the opinion that HP should get rid of everything but the printers.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of John Lee
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] HP's BOD
And I contend that it is part of the problem that has become rampant at
large companies. An astute BOD, between them, should already know the
short list of those capable and willing to lead your company. I think they
subcontract it out so they're not accountable for the decision...."well,
she came highly recommended", or "we did our due diligence", etc. I
understand putting the word out that you're looking....but who in the
business world doesn't know that HP is looking for a CEO???!! Why spend
millions to "come up with a list"? The list should be knocking on your
door.
But it doesn't matter to me anymore...I got rid of my HP stock long ago,
when they stopped innovating. The problem at HP and many other companies
is at the BOD. It's the leading indicator of a company's long-term return
on investment.
At 10:34 AM 2/18/05 -0600, Mark Landin wrote:
> > This is part of the problem at HP. If the Board isn't astute enough to
> > choose a CEO, then just what is their role as members of the BOD? When
> > millions of dollars are casually thrown around, it's a bad sign.
>
>Most large corporations use search firms to locate CEOs. The Board
>typically interviews the "short list" candidates. It's nothing unusual
>for HP to do the same.
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
