Tuesday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

dispatches from the new world of work

My "Watch," My Responsibility!

In the case of apparent atrocities at Abu Ghraib, I have been dumbfounded that most of the consequences have been laid at the feet of enlisted personnel. I surely favor punishing them if guilty. But why no Courts Marital (or have I missed something?) for the higher ups. The whole damn chain of command should have been held accountable.

Which leads me to Patricia Dunn, HP's chairwoman. Simple: She should step down. The California Attorney General seems certain something criminally illegal occurred in the process of "pretexting" to dig up info on Board members' phone records. I surely don't think Ms Dunn did it herself or even knew about it. But, damn it, it happened on "her watch." I surely think she has every right to defend herself against accusations, and I likewise acknowledge that I am hardly aware of the details.

But the/my point is straightforward: Something scurrilous clearly occurred. It occurred on "her watch." While she may be several degrees of separation from the dirty deed itself, as one reviews the Board's affairs, she is clearly responsible for setting the tone that may have spurred the excessive (criminal?) behavior.

Your watch. Your responsibility. That's the whole damn point of a chain of command—in Iraq or Palo Alto.

Step down, Ms Dunn.

Tom Peters posted this on 09/12/06.

Comments

So, following your responsibility idea, is it time for the Commander in Chief to step down?

Posted by GraceAnn at September 12, 2006 8:50 AM

Couldn't agree with you more in this situation, Tom. I wrote about this as it just started to unfold and have since become more and more aghast at how the situation is "hitting the fan" and continuing to further tarnish a great corporation (and former employer of mine).

http://www.intuitive.com/blog/dunn_follows_in_fiorinas_footsteps_as_hp_implodes_yet_again.html

Bill and Dave really must be just fuming with the misstep after misstep in the Board room since they loosened the reins...

Posted by Dave Taylor at September 12, 2006 8:57 AM

Word just came down that Dunn is not fired for now. But, what about the General Counsel whose office not only approved of but ran this fraud, according to Friday's WSJ? What about HP's coutside counsel, Wilson Sonsini, who also approved it? Although lawyers are supposedly held to a higher ethical standard, I have not heard of any action being taken against them. This is appalling.

Posted by Richard Cauley at September 12, 2006 8:58 AM

Agreed. Many people don't realize that there is a different oath that Officers take vs. Enlisted. The enlisted person takes an oath to follow orders... but the Officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. There's definitely a division of responsibility.

However, it's fairly normal to see enlisted folks be the fall guy.

(I'm a Navy Vet, enlisted)

Posted by Doug Karr at September 12, 2006 9:19 AM

I'm not up on the details of the HP case but I think the, "It happened on my watch" argument is too simplistic. Taken to an extreme, say you were to take office today and another person does something heinous tomorrow, should you resign? Well, it happened on your (24 hours old) watch...

I think you need to ask yourself some hard questions like, "Did I have in place and use the basic checks and controls that should have prevented or at least picked this up? Was it a one-off by someone knowingly breaking the rules or symptomatic of a bigger problem? When it came to light, did I react appropriately with regards to the actual problem, any victims and to the people that caused it?" If you can answer these questions with a clear conscience, the resignation issue is down to a judgement about whether your resignation would make the organisation better or worse off.

Posted by Mark JF at September 12, 2006 10:15 AM

Done!
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-09-12-feds-hp-probe_x.htm

SAN JOSE, Calif. â€” Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) said Tuesday that Patricia Dunn will step down as chairman of the computer and printer maker in January amid a widening scandal involving a possibly illegal probe into media leaks. She will be succeeded by CEO Mark Hurd.

Posted by sean at September 12, 2006 10:27 AM

Of course she knew what happened. If an investigator you hired comes back and says "here's who these people called that you are interested in" then you know pretexting was involved. How else did she think the information was obtained. Dunn has got to go. She's without scruples to lie about what she didn't know.

Posted by gavin macleod at September 12, 2006 11:57 AM

Mark: Very well said! That is exactly my reason for asking the question I did.

Posted by GraceAnn at September 12, 2006 12:16 PM

Tom, I am dumbfounded that you are dumbfounded that most of the consequences for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib have been laid at the feet of enlisted personnel. I believe I read that, like me, you are a military veteran. Therefore, you should understand that seldom does anyone above the rank of Captain (Lieutenant in the Navy) share any responsibility for what enlisted people do (are ordered to do), as rank does indeed have it priviledges. Generally, and in most instances, it works that way in the military, in the corporate world, in education and in every institution and organization I can think of.

Posted by Lewis Green at September 12, 2006 1:07 PM

Hi Tom, I agree with your succinct reasoning that Ms. Dunn should resign now (not four months later in Jan 2007). Why the HP board in their "infinite wisdom" decide to drag this thing on for 4 more months is beyond me.

Like other bloggers, I have blogged a lot (six times in the last six days) on this HP mess with the last two and first entries entitled, "HPâ€™s leak scandal is kinda, sorta, almost but not really forcing chair Patricia Dunn to step down", "HP board sings â€œOne Day Moreâ€ from Les MisÃ©rables as it postpones decision on Patricia Dunn" and "The Orwellian HP Way - Patricia Dunn Should Resign" available at the following links,

http://kempton.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/hpâ€™s-leak-scandal-is-kinda-sorta-almost-but-not-really-forcing-chair-patricia-dunn-to-step-down/

http://kempton.ideasRevolution.com/2006/09/10/hp-board-sings-one-day-more-from-les-miserables-as-it-postpones-decision-on-patricia-dunn/

generic viagra online canadian pharmacy http://kempton.ideasRevolution.com/2006/09/06/the-orwellian-hp-way-patricia-dunn-should-resign/

Cheers,
Kempton

Posted by kempton at September 12, 2006 3:47 PM

I agree , Tom. Leadership , more than anything is a responsibility.

Posted by Namith at September 12, 2006 6:31 PM

The knee-jerk reaction is WAAAAY too simplistic in these cases. Yes, the leader assumes the risk, hopefully willingly, that if things go bad on their watch, they're taking the fall. But I'd hesitate to say they are "responsible" for it, in a pure sense. I suppose Dunn could have micromanaged the investigation and this would have been avoided. I suppose Michael Dell could have micromanaged his accounting department, too ("Now remember, its an UNEARNED revenue until next period! That's right, debit cash....now credit...that's right...unearned reveue.") Sounds like great leadership to me.

Sometimes the 'leader taking the fall' bit is nothing more than ceremonial, giving closure to those watching, so that investors, employees, and the like can all breathe a sigh of relief and say "Thank God THAT'S over!"

As necessary as the ceremony might be, I hate to think what the world would be like if every leader resigned at the first sign of scandal on their watch (bye bye Bush, Dell, Gates, Branson, Kennedy, Alexander, Caesar (J and A)...and believe me, this list goes on and on). generic viagra discount

IF, and big if, Dunn is truly innocent in every way except that she was in the unfortunate position of heading a large company during a period in which an illegal activity occured without her consent or knowledge, then let her gracefully take her leave out of a sense of "responsibility" to the stakeholders, and let the rest of us wish her a comeback greater than where she was before.

I'm having a hard time verbalizing this, because while I think it may be proper for Dunn to step down and for a senior officer to be held ultimately accountable for Abu Ghraib, I can't get myself to say that they should have to do it because they are "responsible". I think it is more a duty or an obligation, but rationality leads me to say they are not "responsible".

Dunn may be guilty--if so she deserves whatever she gets. But I'm not on the knee-jerk bandwagon simply because I hate to see people in positions to change the world get laid low by someone else's stupidity. Until it is PROVEN she knew of, allowed, was intentionally naive, or even encouraged illegal activity, I wish her the best.

Posted by Paul at September 12, 2006 7:06 PM

Paul - by and large, I agree with what you're saying. I'd add, though, that the leader has also to show that they were not complacent or negligent and that the problem did not occur through a reasonably foreseeable act of ommission by him/her.

Posted by MarkJF at September 13, 2006 1:55 AM

Tom, It's highly unethical of you to ask Dunn to step down if you did not ask Hilary Clinton to step down for illegally having the FBI files for 900 Republicans.

We all admire you and I would not be spending my time and attention here if I did not find this site (and your books) valuable.

But if you did not speak out against H. Clinton, how can you about Dunn?

Just curious.

Posted by David Rieman at September 14, 2006 3:25 PM