A year ago, Mark Hurd, chief executive of Hewlett Packard, was forced out of his position because of “allegations of sexual harassment and expense account irregularities.” A story in today’s NYTimes reports on the consequences of that action: Under the new leadership, HP’s stock has dropped 49% over the past year, which is just a symptom of much larger problems they have under the new CEO.
Compare that to the results Mark Hurd had gotten in his 6 year reign:
“pro forma earnings leaped 242 percent on a 57 percent gain in revenue (to $120.4 billion); H.P.’s stock price rose 130 percent, to over $45 a share; free cash flow surged 138 percent and operating margins doubled.”
And this change in leadership was made because of an unfounded sexual harassment claim and some expense account irregularities?
This is an example of how guys can suddenly go from “good” to “bad” in a heartbeat — one incident, based on unfounded truths and perpetuated stereotypes of men as sexual predators and purveyors of corporate greed. It ends up having untold consequences not just for the man involved, but for a billion dollar company. It happens in politics, business, sports and pop culture, where ever men are seen as leaders they are just as quickly shot down from that position.
What is the next round of consequences that has to happen before that stops?
This post has serious problems, some far deeper than the curious expression “unfounded truths” (what?). For example, TFA makes clear that the allegations against Hurd were not necessarily baseless. To the contrary, “The board concluded the sexual harassment claim was unfounded…” The board? The same HP board that TFA and this post excoriate for cowardice or witch-hunting in its dismissal of Hurd? How do we insist on the one hand that the board lacks good judgment in firing Hurd, but accept at face value the board’s self-serving claim that the harassment allegations were “unfounded”? TFA goes on in the same… Read more »
Call me crazy, but did your article explain why this was the media’s fault? No, it didn’t. And to make matters worse, you cite The New York Times article—which last time I checked is definitely part of the media—to corroborate your story.
Interesting how without the media you wouldn’t be able to blame the media for no good reason.
Although the title might have been extreme, I stand by the intent of what we published here: That Hurd was quickly dismissed by a Board of Directors because of *unfounded* allegations of sexual harassment and expense account inconsistencies. And that those allegations in and of themselves would not have been reasons for a quick dismissal of a man with a history of financial success for a company if there hadn’t been ongoing, sustained and progressive news stories of men as sexual predators and corporate greed-mongers in the media. The NYTimes is not singularly at fault here, of course, no one… Read more »
But Lisa, if a company caves to pressure without a good reason or proof of any wrongdoing, that’s not on the media. It’s on the Board of Directors. I just fail to see why the tired “blame the media” cliche is thrown into the mix at all. Not to mention, even when news stories break about claims of sexual harassment, they are just that. Claims. Newspapers are not condemning someone when they write about this, they’re often quoting court papers or witnesses. They present the story and the readers decide what to think. That’s how it should be. I know… Read more »
How is this representative of a so-called “media witch hunt” against men? The NY Times article talks about a couple of high-level executives and focuses mainly on business/corporate profits,etc. It is not, given the evidence presented, “an example of how guys can suddenly go from “good” to “bad” in a heartbeat.” It is an example of one man. It does not represent “guys” going from good to bad “in a heartbeat.” To generalize by suggesting that Mr. Hurd represents all “guys” is unfounded. This is an economics story, not a gender story. What it represents here is a sort of… Read more »
It will probably stop when men stop raping women
Really, so the fact that rape exists puts blood on all male hands? that is exactly the problem. men are good not evil. Evil exists. That’s independent of gender. Its a matter of what we all do about it that really matters. And scapegoating a gender is a really bad idea.
Some men are good, some men are evil. Some women are good, some women are evil. The fact that it’s mostly men who rape women and not the other way around doesn’t mean that all men are evil. I would think that men who aren’t rapists would see that comment and move along, knowing that, since they don’t rape women, it doesn’t apply to them. It’s a little odd to see men get upset when they hear the truth about rape statistics.
“Men are good, not evil.”
Really? All men are good, not evil? What a strange thing to say.