The news broke on Friday regarding the resignation of Mark Hurd as the chairman and CEO of HP (Hewlett-Packard). The reason for his resignation was given that he was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint. The related investigation also uncovered that he also falsified expense reports in order to conceal the inappropriate relationship, even though the relationship was not sexual in nature.
So, the bottom line is that Hurd was forced out for dishonesty and such actions would get most employees fired without any recourse.
But here is the kick in the gut (especially if you are an HP shareholder)
According to CBS News, Hurd will get the following:
- $12.2 million severance payment and 350,000 shares of HP stock worth around $16 million according to Friday’s closing price.
- Extended the deadline to exercise an additional 775,000 options of HP shares.
I guess that when you are a CEO and dishonest, you can lose your job and get rewarded. If a normal employee had done the same thing, they would have been fired and been given nothing!
I think that HP shareholders need to ask the Board of Directors some hard questions. Why would they “reward” a dishonest CEO with an unbelievable severance agreement along with other perks?
I guess I will have to teach my son that in some cases dishonesty does not have a severe penalty. This one is going to be tough to explain. Luckily my son is only 4 and does not understand this stuff, but older kids and some adults may have questions also.
What really bothers me is that the CEO of the company that I work for serves on the board of HP!
Enough said… your comments or opinions?
Recently, I was made aware of a situation where I work regarding a person in authority told a subordinate that they were not allowed to use a certain word. That word was “huddle” . When I first heard this, I laughed and thought that it was a bit over the top. I then inquired as to why the prohibition against the word usage. I was told that the word “huddle” reminded this individual of sweaty football players and the violent nature of football itself. I was still in shock because the context in which it was being used was a meeting to go over some strategy. I felt like the usage was creative and no meaning of violence was created.
After I had time to think and process this, it made me angry for several reasons:
1) Outside of using speech that is either unprofessional or rude in nature. This individual should have not been rebuked.
2) I was reminded of an incident I had with this individual some time back and I used the word “rant” to describe a caustic email that I had received. I was told that “we do not use words like this”
3) The person who objects to words like “rant” and “huddle” is a staunch liberal and has no shame in dropping not-so-subtle hints regarding their liberal ideologies.
4) What is worse is that this action will go unchecked. The person directly involved will not discuss it further with senior mgmt because they fear for their job and the doctrine of political correctness in speech will continue to be propagated unless someone says something
If I were involved, believe me, I would speak up and go as far up the chain of command that I could! This is not about just controlling someone’s words, it is about freedom of speech in general! What is worse is that this person has managed to make it into a substantial leadership position in the company that I work for.
What would you do? Comments are welcome and encouraged!
Read this post and ask yourself that question…
Personally, I was convicted and challenged by this post.