Damon Darlin, of the New York Times, published a story today entitled "Hewlett Packard Is Still Pondering Chairwoman's Fate," covering the evolving story about the secret, and allegedly unethically-conducted investigation of leaks by HP board members. Allegedly there was some sleazy sleuthing going on, as ordered by HP Board Chairwoman Patricia C. Dunn.
Last week, the story was that Dunn was aiming not to be made a scapegoat.
Loose lips seem to be in the DNA of HP. Indeed, former Chairwoman / CEO Carleton Fiorina
had herself suffered from, as I recall, a leaked voicemail with unflattering information about certain aspects of the then-merger talks with Compaq.
Caveat emptor: 1. I don't believe everything I read in the Times, and 2. It's easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize than it is to run a company, or a board, effectively with such enormous scrutiny and such garrulous shareholders.
That said, there is a worthwhile take-away here about accountability. I notice in the past when I've written about accountability, sometimes it disturbs leaders who are having issues running their organizations. So reluctantly, from the comfy sidelines of this most recent HP debacle, here's my take:
The research shows that great leaders tend to credit the efforts of others when positive outcomes are achieved, and look in the mirror when the outcome is negative.
They then maximize success and minimize failure through constructive follow up and choosing a new, better course. In contrast, there are others who credit themselves with success and outsource failure (sound familiar?) This is particularly true of people who operate from fear.
Each of us has our own way of handling accountability for the consequences of our actions and decisions. True accountability transcends credit or blame; it's about taking the next right actions. Ask yourself how you—and those around you—handle accountability in both positive and negative situations. The answers will help you walk more deliberately the path of great leadership.
In the case of HP, what could be wrong with "I ordered the investigation, the buck stops here. In the future, we will take a different approach?" Too simple?
