n 2006, Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP became embroiled in a controversy over methods used to investigate media leaks from its board. HP Chairperson Patricia Dunn could have simply asked the directors who was the source cited in the story, sought an apology and gone from there. With some direct face-to-face communication, the story would likely have ended quickly. It did not. “Not only did investigators impersonate board members, employees and journalists to obtain their phone records, but according to multiple reports, they also surveilled an HP director and a reporter for CNet Networks Inc. They sent monitoring spyware in an e-mail to that reporter by concocting a phoney tip. They even snooped on the phone records of former CEO and Chairperson Carly Fiorina, who had launched the quest to identify media sources in the first place.” The situation continued to escalate. For example, the New York Times reported that HP consultants even considered planting clerical or custodial workers at CNet and the Wall Street Journal to learn who was leaking information to them. Following this, Patricia Dunn, as well as three executives, left the company. After a congressional hearing and several federal investigations, executives were charged with felonies, and HP paid $14.5 million to settle civil charges related to the scandal. HP is not the only company to use such methods; recent admissions by the investigation firms involved suggest that the use of ethically questionable investigative tactics by large companies is quite common. “It betrays a type of corporate culture that is so self-obsessed, (that) really considers itself not only above the law, but above, I think, ethical decency, that you have to ask yourself, where did the shame come in?” said Charles King, an analyst with Pund-IT Inc. Source: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing (2017) Instructions: Consider the situation at Hewlett-Packard from a multiple stakeholder perspective. Imagine you are a CEO faced with leaks regarding your strategic vision. Briefly discuss four approaches your group would take to determine who was sharing the information. Describe an advantage and a disadvantage of one of your proposed approaches.
n 2006, Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP became embroiled in a controversy over methods used to investigate media leaks from its board. HP Chairperson Patricia Dunn could have simply asked the directors who was the source cited in the story, sought an apology and gone from there. With some direct face-to-face communication, the story would likely have ended quickly. It did not. “Not only did investigators impersonate board members, employees and journalists to obtain their phone records, but according to multiple reports, they also surveilled an HP director and a reporter for CNet Networks Inc. They sent monitoring spyware in an e-mail to that reporter by concocting a phoney tip. They even snooped on the phone records of former CEO and Chairperson Carly Fiorina, who
had launched the quest to identify media sources in the first place.”
The situation continued to escalate. For example, the New York Times reported that HP consultants even considered planting clerical or custodial workers at CNet and the Wall Street Journal to learn who was leaking information to them. Following this, Patricia Dunn, as well as three executives, left the company. After a congressional hearing and several federal investigations, executives were charged with felonies, and HP paid $14.5 million to settle civil charges related to the scandal. HP is not the only company to use such methods; recent admissions by the investigation firms involved suggest that the use of ethically questionable investigative tactics by large companies is quite common. “It betrays a type of corporate culture that is so self-obsessed, (that) really considers itself not only above the law, but above, I think, ethical decency, that you have to ask yourself, where did the shame come in?” said Charles King, an analyst with Pund-IT Inc.
Source: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing (2017)
Instructions:
Consider the situation at Hewlett-Packard from a multiple stakeholder perspective. Imagine you are a CEO faced with leaks regarding your strategic vision.
- Briefly discuss four approaches your group would take to determine who was sharing the information.
- Describe an advantage and a disadvantage of one of your proposed approaches.
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
