Organizational Politics

Introduction

One of the main causes of the political behavior seen at Hewlett-Pakcard (HP) over the previous decades has been a lack of trust between the CEO and the Board of Directors. Types of political behavior have ranged from blaming others to trying to manage 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 will examine the factors that led to this situation.

Background

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 slew 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 a given. 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 in the running. The best that Whitman could do was try to cut costs wherever possible (Harwell & Paquette, 2015; Pearlstein, 2011; Veverka, 2011).

Discussion

Causes of Political Behavior

Lack of trust was a big factor in the organizational politics at HP. Individual and organizational factors of HP and its senior leaders led to the intense political behavior seen at HP from the 2000s onward. Leaks to the public (i.e., the press and investors) began after HPs 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 all to evident. By that time, CEOs were merely interested in maintaining face and not causing any more harm 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...

Ethics of Political Behavior

Regarding ethics, individual rights have to be considered, as does the welfare of those involved, along with the issue of distributive justice. It could be argued that the Board, for example, in leaking information to the press, was trying to take a utilitarian approach. However, an individual should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the Board surely violated the trust of its CEOs in doing so. Yet, one also has to consider the welfare of stakeholders, and if CEOs were not meeting expectations, putting public pressure on them is part of the nature of managing people out of their roles. It can be ugly at times, but from a duty ethics perspective, a Board could consider it as its duty to act in this manner.

Conclusion

When things go wrong, it is often easier for executives to blame their predecessors than to take responsibility themselves. This pattern of behavior has become all too common at HP. As a result, shareholders have become increasingly skeptical of the companys ability to make sound decisions and create long-term shareholder value. What is missing at…