new dog old trick

The HP Board Mess in the New Yorker

The current (Feb. 19 & 26) issue of The New Yorker magazine has a James Stewart article on the Hewlett Packard Board of Director's leak/pretexting kerfuffle.  It's not available online so you'll have to grab a copy of the magazine to read the article. 

It's a good article that recaps the whole ugly mess of the HP Board's effort to plug leaks to the press from members of the board.  Stewart's a good writer and he does a nice job boiling the he said/she said in this story down so that you can find the main story lines.

This episode, although more or less independent of the whole Carly Fiorina drame at HP, seemed to cap off the Fiorina-era erosion of the HP culture that had helped to make HP such a respected company. 

I found the article believable at least partly because it seemed to reinforce some of the thoughts that I have had about this case since reading about as it was unfolding.  It seems clear to me that Patricia Dunn is getting a seriously raw deal in being up for multiple felony counts over this case while HP CEO Mark Hurd and the rest of her former colleagues on the HP Board get a pass.  Does she bear some responsibility for what went down, absolutely.  Should she be defending herself from multiple criminal charges, no freaking way. 

Thomas Perkins does not come off well in the article.  Nor does he deserve to.  The massive ego and "damn the governance rules" attitude that he brings to the table are ample evidence of too many years being worshiped and feared as one of the great powers of the Silicon Valley elite.  It's also indicative of what happens when you try to apply the rules and methods that work for private, smaller, earlier stage companies to a mature, massive, public entity like HP.  But it is also clear that Perkins, who was close to both Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett, and who was an important player inside HP during the founding days of its computer business, cares deeply for HP. 

Stewart's article make it clearer than anything else I've read how some of the internal politics of the HP Board helped drive this whole drama.  Some of the early leaks come across as clearly made to support positions that Perkins and his ally, George Keyworth, favored.  It's also clear that Perkins has a nasty habit of making personal issues out of disagreements over business issues. 

Anyway, it's worth seeking out and reading.  It also makes me wonder if Stewart is working on a book about HP, maybe pulling together the Fiorina story and this one.  Sort of a high tech industry version of his very good book on Disney. 

Why vision statements matter

Link: BeyondVC: Why vision statements matter.

A good post by Ed Sim about the importance of a shared vision in a start-up.  I am a big proponent of creating a broadly shared vision for a company (start-up or otherwise).  I think that a shared vision is a fundamental platform for creating a great leadership team and great company.  I don't particularly care what terminology you use - if you're into Guy Kawasaki's "mantra" instead of mission, that's great, or you can use Collins and Porras's terminology (see below). 

It has always bothered me that many executives can't seem to understand the value of good vision and the value of investing energy in defining and maintaining a corporate vision and a supporting corporate culture despite all of the evidence regarding the importance in doing so.  I especially like it when supposedly short-term oriented investors like Sim (who is a venture capitalist at Dawntreader Ventures) or Kawasaki (of Garage Ventures) are clearly supportive of making such investments.

A solid vision should includes a purpose, values, and the other things that the classic Collins and Porras paper "Building Your Company's Vision" talks about.  Those ideas are embedded in the subsequent Collins and Porras book, "Built to Last" and discussed on Jim Collins website here.   Or see Jeff Cornwall's weblog, The Entrepreneurial Mind,  for some thoughts about why values should be an integral part of a start-up's vision. 

Here are a few of the things that Sim has to say in his post - but please do read the whole thing:

Vision statements matter.  Sometimes we get too focused on the daily bump and grind, the next product release, and forget about the big picture and what we are trying to accomplish (see an earlier post on Vision). Trust me, the word vision became a dirty word during the bubble as many companies were long on vision and short on execution.  I am not advocating that we return to that environment, but I am strongly saying that companies do need a vision and that it can help them with their execution.

I went out to dinner a couple weeks ago with a few key executives at a portfolio company and as we started talking about future product direction, it seemed that we all had different ideas of where the company should go.  Seeing some confusion I tried to get us focused back on the basics when I asked the team what our vision was.  The first pitch was great and so were the others but unfortunately they were all different.  It is really hard to drive future product direction when your key executives can't agree on what the company should be when it grows up.  In addition, it is quite difficult to get your employees on the same page without a simple, succinct vision.  Furthermore, it is hard to build word of mouth marketing without boiling down who you are and what you do in a memorable and short manner.  Yes, it can be challenging to distill everything you are doing into a short pitch but great companies are able to do this. 

Mythbusting E85 Fuel

Link: One Hand Clapping - Blog Archive - Mythbusting E85.

Nice post by Donald Sensing regarding the likelihood (his take - not very) that the E85 ethanol/gasoline mix will replace pure gasoline as a transportation fuel.  I've been reading a bit about alternative energy sources for transportation and other uses recently.  I'm not an expert but Sensing's arguments make sense in the context of what I have read.

One thing you figure out very quickly is that a lot of the material about how one fuel or another is going to replace gasoline is actually only thinly disguised advocacy (or attack) material funded by one of the industrial parties to either the current system or the new system they are trying to achieve in the future.  Hydrogen good or bad?  Electrical cars - good or bad?  Different types of hybrids - good or bad?  Ethanol - good or bad?  All good questions but you need to be very careful of the sources for the information behind what you read and understand their agenda. 

For me, ethanol just doesn't seem to make sense as a short or long-term fix.  Hydrogen also seems to have too many problems, many related to totally replacing our current infrastructure and also the need for additional technological breakthroughs, to be anything but a very long-term solution.  In the shorter term, improved hybrid systems of various sorts seem promising.  In the short to mid-term, it's entirely possible that a new generation of electric car technology will provide a solution to gasoline - but not without raising equally challenging issues regarding the source of the electricity. 

If you don't believe in the short term potential of electric cars - and who wouldn't have doubts if all you've read about is the aborted GM EV1 effort - just read a couple of the articles on the Tesla Roadster...0-60 mph in 4 seconds, a torque curve you won't believe, a range of 250 miles on a charge and fuel economy equivalent to something like 135 mpg, all on a platform derived from the Lotus Elise. 

John Hiatt, Lyle Lovett, Joe Ely and Guy Clark in concert: Louisville, KY

My brother Jim and I went to the Kentucky Center in Louisville two weeks ago to see John Hiatt, Lyle Lovett, Joe Ely, and Guy Clark in concert.  The first three are great favorites of mine.  I have most of their CDs and listen to their music constantly on one playlist or another on my iPod.  I know less about Guy Clark although I'm familiar with some of his songs that others have performed.  The four have been performing together in this format for a number of years in between their own personal projects and tours. 

The concert was excellent.  The four performers come onstage and sit in a line, each with their own guitar.  Mostly they alternate playing their own songs solo, although on some songs one of the others will provide some backup guitar licks or vocal support.  They also played two or three songs together.  The round-robin format is one practiced all the time at songwriter-oriented venues like the Bluebird here in Nashville and gives each performer a chance to showcase and control the delivery of their own songs.  No fancy pyrotechnics, no glitz, just four "old guys" and their guitars on stage with their songs.  In the hands of great songwriters like these, what else do you need?

A Pulitzer for KC Johnson?

I have been reading KC Johnson's indispensable blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, ever since the early days of the Duke lacrosse (not) rape case.  If anyone needs concrete evidence that a blog can be everything that mainstream, professional newspaper or other media outlets aspire or profess to be, Durham-in-Wonderland provides it. 

In a case where the majority of the mainstream media have looked to be clueless and inept captives of political correctness and a rush to judgement, Durham-in-Wonderland has provided insightful analysis, broad perspective, and a helpful guide to the actors and their roles in this complex and confusing epic.  With the notable exceptions of the News & Observer and the Duke Chronicle (a student newspaper!) the mainstream media, especially the print media, have disgraced themselves in their coverage of this case. 

I've been wondering recently if there was a way to recognize KC Johnson's contribution to the profession of journalism.  Like maybe a Pulitzer Prize.  Yeah, I know he's not a "professional" journalist, whatever that is these days.  He's a college professor.  But from what little I recall at this distance from my 100 level college journalism class, KC Johnson is the best real journalist working this beat (ok, maybe along with Joseph Neff of the N & O). 

Turns out I'm not the only one.  Jim Lindgren, who posts on the Volokh Conspiracy, has been noodling this too.  In a post from January 29 (you may have to scroll down a ways to find the post) he answers my question about a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for KC - turns out bloggers are not eligible unless their blog is hosted on a newspaper site. 

Well KC, looks like no Pulitzer in Journalism.  But you deserve recognition and thanks for shining a very bright light in some very dark corners.  Let's hope your book (there is a book coming, right?) achieves blockbuster status.  Thank you for your great work.