Why HP erred in choosing Meg Whitman as its new CEO

[Renew Deal]

It's now official: HP has appointed Meg Whitman as its new CEO, replacing Léo Apotheker. The company's choice is a curious one, to put it kindly. HP is struggling right now. It needs strong leadership and direction. It needs someone at the helm who is both business- and tech-savvy. In short, it needs someone who is not Meg Whitman.

Not convinced? Here are four reasons that Meg Whitman is a bad choice as HP's new CEO.

1. She has the charm of Larry Ellison. The recent California gubernatorial election served as perfect reminder of just how downright unlikable Meg Whitman can be -- or at least seem. Perhaps face to face over coffee or even in the boardroom, she comes off differently. But in the public spotlight, she comes off as brash and abrasive, qualities that are ill-suited for the public face of a company desperately needs a charismatic leader to inspire the folks at HP, not to mention charm the public, the press, investors, and partners.

2. She has the market knowledge of Steve Ballmer. Whitman's roots aren't in technology, at least not in the way that HP desperately needs. HP needs someone at its helm who understands not only the lay of enterprise- and consumer-technology landscape today, but where it's all going. The last thing HP needs is another CEO who will sign off on a billion-dollar acquisition of a company, only to squander that investment and lose major ground to rivals in the process, the way HP did with Palm. Oh, wait: When Whitman was with eBay, the company bought Skype for $4.1 billion, only to sell it later at a loss for $2.75 billion.
<snip>

The rest at: http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/why-meg-whitman-shouldnt-be-hps-new-ceo-173757

[Puzzler]

1. Hey, she's part of the corporate aristocracy, so she needs a job somewhere

[bemildred]

2. She spent $130,000,000 of her own money on a failed political campaign.

And she lost bad. What else does one need to know about her "management skills"?

[Taverner]

3. This is one Capitalism's fatal, and intrinsic flaws

Capitalism stops rewarding innovation, and rewards the employer class, a rarely-changing list of the same people every time. Doesn't matter if they ran a company into the ground, stripped it of assets and sold it off or did nothing. The employer class rewards itself.

Capitalism is a Ponzi Scheme

[rhett o rick]

4. I think it is a misconception that capitalism rewards innovation.

Granted some times it works out that way, but capitalism rewards success. I know that isnt very clear but I couldnt think of a better word. But I will attempt to explain. Microsoft's climb to the capitalism heights may have had some innovation, but a lot of innovation along the way was stolen or squashed. The oil companies capitalistic success hasnt been because they are innovative, but good at manipulation and corruption. The innovative electrical car attempts have yet to be rewarded.

In other words, in choosing a CEO, a person's connections, wealth and ability to manipulate are taken into account.

[Taverner]

5. Very true. It rewards luck

Hard word =/= money

Never has, never will...

[Scruffy1]

9. Anybody that thinks the poor don't work hard is nuts.

I would like to make everyone of these multimillionaires stand outside waiting for a bus in -20 degree weather in Minneapolis just to get to a low wage job. Then when your done for the day do all the chores that the rich have done for them.

[bemildred]

6. Yes, they do not really like competition either, what they like is money, lots of it.

And preferably without too much effort.

[rhett o rick]

7. Funny that people equate capitalism with competition when the opposite is true.

Capitalism abhors competition.

[Scruffy1]

8. Meg Whitman was installed by the private venture capitalist.

She was put in to guard their money. Ebay just turned out to be very successful. She didn't start it and had nothing to do with its initial growth. Getting rich is all about time and chance.

[rhett o rick]

10. Getting rich is more about knowing the right people. Manipulating regulations

in your favor while your competitors cant.

Many, many years ago there was a fight in congress as to whether to require cars to have 5 mph bumpers or 15 mph bumpers. The Senator from Washington the state wanted the 5 mph bumpers because it would be a boon to the aluminum corps of Washington the State while another state wanted 15 mph bumpers because it would be a boon to the steel corporations. Had nothing to do with safety.

[cstanleytech]

11. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after hiring Carly Fiorina