HP Uses PR Firm to Fire Mark Hurd

Already plenty strange (see previous post), Hewlett Packard’s firing of CEO Mark Hurd has become more strange. As it turns out, HP’s board of directors asked a public relaltions firm to tell HP what to do. I’m not making this up. One of the oldest and most respected technology firms in the U.S. decided on the future of its CEO based on snake oil.

PR firms, notoriously known for spin and bs, shouldn’t be the arbiter of any employee’s future. In advising HP, the PR firm said the negative publicity surrounding the sex harassment claim involving Hurd would be like the Tiger Woods’ saga. Tiger Woods! One wonders if anyone laughed out loud upon hearing this comparison.

Negative publicity was in the cards, no matter what happened. Publicity is always a factor in considering any action involving a top executive, but when it becomes the determinative factor, the tail is wagging the dog. Fluff, not substance, drives one of the single biggest decisions a company can make.

Based on what is known so far, HP had the right to fire Hurd. False expense reports, however minor, can’t be allowed by members of the C-suite. The question is whether firing is the correct punishment. HP said it decided to treat Hurd like any other employee. I don’t know how many HP employees have submitted questionable expense reports without being fired, but there are hundreds, maybe thousands.

The PR firm makes clear that the real reason for Hurd’s forced resignation was the sexual harassment claim, for which HP found no supporting evidence. Even so, HP could have fired Hurd for exercising poor judgment, giving HP employees and customers a poor impression of him, and generating bad publicity for HP. But the company should have given Hurd and the public the real reason for Hurd’s firing. I guess the PR firm advised against it.