Prof. Brian Grizzell
Principles of Management BUS302
August 19th, 2011
The first problem that I noticed when I read the case was the fact it mentioned that HP was under managed. In 2001, HP had 84,400 employees while Carly Fiorina was Chief Executive Officer ¹. This fact lets me know that there should have been various levels of management from the CEO on down to the first level employees. In order for a company to be successful there has to be a vision and direction should be provided to carry out that vision. As CEO, Carly Fiorina took care of being the face of the company but neglected to provide that much needed direction internally. She could have organized a senior leadership team within the company to assist her with carrying out the vision that she was so busy portraying to the outside world. It sounds like Carly Fiorina should have opted for a vertical management structure. This structure allows for better delegation of tasks to employees and other departments within the company. Having this vertical management structure does have its negatives which were proven by the way Carly Fiorina choose to manage the company. If the upper management, in this case the CEO, is weak then it will lead to poor decision making other superiors and each successive hierarchical structure will become increasingly frustrated. Bottom line is that with a company the size of HP at the time, there needed to be a better implementation of the vertical structure in order to make it a success.
The second problem I observed in the case was Carly Fiorina’s own management style. In the case it mentions that she had a more “autocratic” style. This leads me to visualize that she ran the company as if she had absolute power and did not take any account the opinions of others. This left the employees feeling as if they worked for her versus working with her for the common goal of making the company a success. We covered a whole...