Organizational Politics and Leadership Failures at HP
This paper examines the organizational politics that contributed to Hewlett-Packard's decline from the early 2000s onward. It argues that a persistent lack of trust between HP's Board of Directors and its succession of CEOs—including Carly Fiorina, Mark Hurd, Leo Apotheker, and Meg Whitman—fueled destructive political behaviors such as blame-shifting and impression management. The paper reviews the ethical dimensions of these behaviors through utilitarian, deontological, and egoism frameworks, and concludes that HP's repeated failures stemmed not from any single leader but from a systemic breakdown in organizational trust, vision, and strategic direction.
- Introduction: Overview of HP's political dysfunction and trust failures
- Background: HP's Strategic Decline: HP's deteriorating strategy, leadership, and culture
- Causes of Political Behavior: Trust deficits driving political maneuvering among leaders
- Types of Political Behavior: Blame-shifting and impression management across CEO tenures
- Ethics of Political Behavior: Utilitarian, deontological, and egoism frameworks applied
- Conclusion: Call for trust rebuilding between Board and leadership
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in a concrete, well-documented corporate case, giving abstract concepts like impression management and blame-shifting immediate real-world illustration.
- It moves logically from causes to types to ethics, building a layered argument rather than treating each dimension in isolation.
- The ethical analysis is balanced, acknowledging both the violations of individual privacy and the legitimate duty-based rationale for Board pressure on underperforming CEOs.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical framework analysis — specifically the juxtaposition of utilitarian, deontological, and egoism lenses against the same set of behaviors. Rather than simply labeling actions as right or wrong, the author shows how different ethical frameworks yield different — and sometimes competing — evaluations of the same conduct, which is a hallmark of rigorous applied ethics reasoning.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a five-part analytical structure: a brief introduction establishing the central claim, a background section tracing HP's strategic deterioration, a causes section identifying organizational trust deficits, a types section cataloguing specific political behaviors across multiple CEO tenures, and an ethics section applying normative frameworks. The conclusion synthesizes the analysis with a prescriptive recommendation. This mirrors a standard organizational behavior case analysis format appropriate for undergraduate business coursework.
Introduction
One of the main causes of the political behavior seen at Hewlett-Packard (HP) over the previous decades has been a persistent lack of trust between the CEO and the Board of Directors. Types of political behavior have ranged from blaming others to managing impressions. The ethics involved have been less virtuous and deontological and more centered on egoism. HP is a company that was once known for its innovative products and strong leadership. However, in recent years, the company has been plagued by infighting and political maneuvering among its senior leaders. This paper examines the factors that led to this situation.
Background: HP's Strategic Decline
From outsourcing its manufacturing, to cutting spending on research and development, to making several unwise acquisitions, HP lost sight of its core strategic value in the 21st century under a succession of different CEOs. Leadership was poor and often in conflict with the Board. Essentially, HP suffered from a decline in the quality of its vision, mission, strategy, and leadership. The lack of trust between the Board and its CEOs caused waves when Fiorina attempted to identify who was leaking information to the public (Kessler, 2006).
By the time Meg Whitman took over as CEO in 2011, HP was hemorrhaging badly and layoffs were inevitable. The organizational culture was in a state of total disrepair, and HP was no longer synonymous with innovation. The new innovative leader in tech was Apple, and HP was not even close. The best that Whitman could do was try to cut costs wherever possible (Harwell & Paquette, 2015; Pearlstein, 2011; Veverka, 2011).
Causes of Political Behavior
Lack of trust was a major factor in the organizational politics at HP. Individual and organizational factors involving HP and its senior leaders led to the intense political behavior seen at the company from the 2000s onward. Leaks to the public — that is, to the press and investors — began after HP's evident decline and loss of market share became all too clear to stockholders and the Board. The company had lost its way at the end of the 20th century, but it was not until the 2000s that this unwelcome fact became fully apparent. By that time, CEOs were primarily interested in maintaining face and avoiding further damage to their stock options or reputations.
Fiorina was already looking ahead to a possible political run with the Republican Party — she ran in the Republican presidential primaries in 2016. But under her leadership in 2001, HP acquired Compaq for $25 billion in stock, a move that would be criticized a decade later following HP's billion-dollar write-off from the personal computer acquisition. Under Fiorina, HP also found itself constrained by a deal between the CEOs of HP and Apple that helped propel Apple forward while keeping HP behind. Fiorina did not guide HP well, but neither did her successors. Division between the Board, stakeholders, stockholders, and the series of CEOs that followed demonstrated that trust was missing at every level. The Board, for instance, leaked internal issues to the press to put pressure on Fiorina, Hurd, and subsequent leaders.
Conclusion
When things go wrong, it is often easier for executives to blame their predecessors than to take responsibility themselves. This pattern of behavior became all too common at HP. As a result, shareholders grew increasingly skeptical of the company's ability to make sound decisions and create long-term shareholder value. What is missing at HP is a clean slate and a strengthening of the relationships between the Board, its CEOs, and stakeholders. Without rebuilding that foundation of trust, the cycle of political maneuvering and blame-shifting is unlikely to end.
References
Harwell, D., & Paquette, D. (2015, September 27). Fiorina's divisive legacy. Washington Post. [EBSCOhost]
Kessler, M. (2006, September 8). Controversial HP probe started under Fiorina; stock falls as board continues public feud. USA Today. [ProQuest]
Pearlstein, S. (2011, September 25). How HP, Silicon Valley's darling, became a soap opera. The Washington Post.
Veverka, M. (2011). The soap opera at HP continues. Barron's, 91(39), 25.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.