Posted on 09/07/2010 7:33:09 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Oracle hires HP's former chief Mark Hurd
Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/Files
By Megan Davies and Ritsuko Ando
NEW YORK | Tue Sep 7, 2010 9:32am EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Silicon Valley technology giant Oracle Corp has hired Mark Hurd, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Co who resigned amid a scandal, as president.
Hurd, a close friend of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison will replace Charles Phillips, who has resigned, Oracle said in a statement on Monday. Phillips was co-president alongside Safra Catz, who remains in her role.
Ellison had slammed HP's decision to oust Hurd, calling the actions of HP's board "cowardly.
Hurd resigned from HP on August 6, after a probe into sexual harassment allegations. HP said at the time that he filed inaccurate expense reports related to Jodie Fisher, a marketing contractor who worked for Hurd's office from 2007 through 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
P!
They can have him. Any CEO that calls their employee’s “Human Capitol” is BAD NEWS!!!!!!!
Sounds like a good fit in this administration. He already knows how to cook the paperwork to steal money and cover up actions he did not want known.
That would include all the CEO's from the Ivy League, especially Harvard.
Are you kidding? Most people refer to their employees as Human Resources. Resources, like gasoline or toilet paper.
At least "capital" has long-term value intrinsic value that becomes a part of an organization.
Before Hurd came along, HP (which had just passed the turd Fiorina ....she may be other things politically or as a human being, but as a CEO she was a turd) was floating dead in the water. HP was history ....then Hurd came and saved it. Is he a hard manager ....heck he is! However, that’s what HP needed. I understand why he was fired ....HP had just gone through some major scandals, and they didn’t need another. Moreover, there is speculation that there is ais a scandal that hasn’t come out yet - which is the REAL reason Hurd was let go by the board. There is more to the story probably than one ‘altered’ expense report and a woman he allegedly never even slept with. On the other hand’ Oracle doesn’t care about such stuff. Hurd will fit in well there, and Oracle is very fortunate to get him. Good thing they acted quick, because Hurd was at the top of every headhunter’s list. In turning a company around financially, he is in a class of his own. That matters to most companies ....and the hidden truth is that many C suite holders (CFOs, CEOs, COOs, etc) have a LOT of dirt. A lot. Hurd got caught.
What’s the problem with the term ‘Human Capital?’
I’m not sure I see one.
Hurd doesn’t even see employees as resources, only expenses to be cut. He’s going to drive out the best and the brightest, turning a once-great engineering firm into another Dell.
“Hurd doesn’t even see employees as resources, only expenses to be cut.”
Well, he gets the credit, but many of his plans were started by Carly and just not fully implemented yet. He did whack certain parts harder than they would have otherwise and he was not as focused on trying to be the latest gadget maker like Carly was...imho
You had better not find much compassion in a CEO if you goal is profits.
It's the thinking that says if I lay off 100 experienced employees in the United States making $80,000 a year, and hire 100 inexperienced people in India at $16,000 a year, I can deliver the same service at lower cost.
Yes I remember when everyone that hated Carly was claiming the Hurd was some kind of great CEO -then we find out that his skills lead to 55 million dollar fine for bribes to federal contract people and the use of “soft core porn” girls at his business conferences. These are traits every CEO should pass along to his people. Oh and he cut the R&D budget Carly ahd built up - because wall street loves cutting costs. From 11 patents a day down to what 2 or 3. This was a real dream boss. Those over 50 engineeers that are pissed at Carlly should be really pissed at Hurd.
“It’s the thinking that says if I lay off 100 experienced employees in the United States making $80,000 a year, and hire 100 inexperienced people in India at $16,000 a year, I can deliver the same service at lower cost.”
That’s not what human capital means, at least to me. What you are describing above is the idea of ‘outsourcing’.
Human capital, to me, implies ‘managed human asset’. Something one invests in and protects. If mismanaged, the value of that capital decreases, or you risk losing that asset altogether.
You show me a union, and I’ll show you a situation where human beings become truly fungible. The value of an individual employee is irrelevant against the number of years another employee has spent occupying the same position. The idea that one employee is more valuable because they merely have ‘more experience’ speaks directly to the idea of ‘fungibility’.
Effectiveness, skill, level of personal investment in outside education/skill development never enter the equation.
What you describe above is management by CFO, but even then all the facts aren’t in evidence.
Markets change, demand fluctuates, and suddenly you have the challenge of how best to protect and extend the investment you’ve made in your people, and how much it will take to retool the people you’ve invested in to do something else.
Fact is, we’ve just come down off a period in business where there was little to no value actually created in terms of new products. Brands have been created (and destroyed), but there has been really nothing new created lately outside of the communications industry, and medical device manufacturing.
I’m watching Google do to Microsoft in 2010, what Microsoft did to IBM in the 80’s. Google has a campus very near Microsoft’s, and they are hiring away their best people.
As IBM was letting experienced engineers go in the 1980’s in Dallas, Microsoft had rented space across the street from IBM’s office and was hiring them as they were leaving with their boxes.
Eventually, you have to create some sort of sustainable competitive advantage. You can’t do that without human capital. Microsoft was so overly concerned about counting their licenses, and worrying about how much they were owed that they have innovated very little of their own accord in the last 20 years.
Apple’s about to find out what that looks like in the cell phone OS market with Android. Microsoft just gave up the small business office software application market to Google Apps in the last six months. Google never seems to sleep. Thank God they are still a US company.
You raise some valid points, but what I described is ‘off-shoring’, not ‘outsourcing’. We should probably just settle on disagreeing with each other.
Regards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.