Poison on the Hewlett-Packard Board: James B. Stewart'€™s New Yorker Story

The current New Yorker has a compelling and disheartening story by James B. Stewart called "The Kona Files" about the nasty conflict and leaks to the press on the Hewlett-Packard board of directors that unfolded in 2005 and 2006. This internal mudslinging and mistrust culminated in chairman of the board Patricia Dunn and several others being charged with multiple felony counts in the "pretexting" or spying scandal.  It isn't available online, but Stewart story alone is worth the price of the magazine.  I won't go into the twists and turns, although I can say it does present a convincing case that Dunn is getting a raw deal and that billionaire Tom Perkins€“ -- who resigned from the board in a rage when he found out that HP was spying on board members -- acted like an arrogant jerk throughout the process. And the whole thing is also sad because  Dunn is not only fighting felony charges, she is fighting  ovarian cancer at the same time.

The thing that struck me most strongly about the article was that -- while accounts vary and finger pointing is rampant -- everyone seems to agree that anger, mistrust, and personal animosity raged throughout the board for years. Dunn and Perkins had nasty run-ins about everything from how much board attention should be devoted to complying with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements to Dunn's hesitation to say something nice about Perkins steamy novel €œSex and the Single Zillionaire.  Ousted HP CEO Carly Fiorina, €“ who was interviewed for the story, reported that she had breakfast with her replacement, Mark Hurd, in April, 2006 (it was the first time the two ever met). Hurd told Fiorina that he was "exasperated by tensions within the board" and that there were occasions when "board members had almost come to blows."

I don't fully believe what anyone involved in this mess says, as there is so much self-interest, posturing for a forthcoming trial, and so much emotion that it is hard to know what actually happened. But the thing that strikes me is this a cautionary tale about group dynamics and how bad they can get. The people involved in this drama are all extremely smart and accomplished, and most have a history of quite sensible behavior. But when conflict, anger, and rampant mistrust started flying, they all seemed to turn into stubborn and vindictive idiots.

There is a huge literature on group dynamics that has ideas about how to repair such groups. You might start with J. Richard Hackman'€™s Leading Teams if you want to learn some of this stuff. And therapists can be effective at helping dysfunctional groups – indeed, the HP board clearly needed a therapist. The best and most vivid example I know of an effective group therapist is in the film about the heavy metal rock group Metallica, called €œSome Kind of Monster. Check it out; that rock group's psychologist might have helped that HP board.

Now, for a short "€œasshole analysis:" What would I suggest to friend who was on that board€“ or anyone else in a situation like this where the asshole poisoning is so severe? Get out as fast as you can and get as far away from those people as you can: Only bad things will happen to you if you stick around. It will probably make you physically sick and almost certainly turn you into an asshole like the rest of them.  Sometimes it might be worth it to you, or your organization, to battle it out, but as I read this story, I mostly saw people trapped in a vicious circle that just got nastier and nastier -- and stopping such cycles is mighty hard and, even when accomplished, nearly always damages everyone involved in some manner.

Comments

[james rector]

I know the people involved in this story. Basically, one is good and one is not--but exceedingly wealthy.
There would be no confusion if he were not.

[Lilly Evans]

Besides being a 'cautionary tale of group dynamics' the HP Board members seem to have behaved like spoilt kids! It is amazing how much powerful executives (CEOs and Chairmen of Boards) seem to regress in their emotional development to about the age of 7-11 years.

Throwing tantrums is actually how we characterise 2-year olds. Hence Terrible Twos. At least they are not malicious to boot.

Do you think it had something to do with gender? I realise it is not politically correct to ask, but it seems to me rather obvious.