Hp Case Study

What stakeholders were affected by the actions of Hips board and chairman, and how were they affected? * Congress: They had to deal with the legal portion of the case, in addition to reform previous definitions of what is “presenting” and what is legal and what is not. * Reporters: Some were Involved in the leaking and worked closely with HP board of directors. Their Jobs could have been In the line for getting themselves in such scandal.

However, they had more material to write about. * Public: They got to witness the entire scandal go down. They might feel distrust awards the company, since HP didn’t follow their commitment to privacy.

They could wonder if they are being spied as well. * Investigators: They were hired to complete a Job that can be considered as unethical. High-risk job that could land them on Jail if they push the limits of law, In this case what Is considered pretext or not.

* Board of Directors: Most of them had their privacy rights violated, some lost their Jobs for leaking information or witnessed the leaking, others spearheaded investigations of questionable legality. However, the board did get insight on how to strengthen their security against future leaking. HP: Their reputation was highly damaged. Their board of directors broke Hap’s commitment to privacy by abusing the privacy of their peer board members. Customer loyalty might have been damaged beyond repair by making customers feel that If HP managed to spy on their own, they can spy on customers too. Competition: They benefited from Hips scandal.

Competitors can gain new business from former HP customers. 3. Were the actions taken by Hap’s chairman, legal department, and investigators to find the source of the leaks ethically Justifiable, or not?

What method or methods of ethical reasoning support your view? I would argue that presenting Is unethical In any context, specially when you also Invade the privacy of people who aren’t directly connected to the scandal, like the wife and other family members. However, the way HP did it was within the boundaries of the law since there wasn’t any law specifying phone records within presenting. In defense of the chairman, she was following the request of the rest of board directors, which was to find a solution to the leaking problem. Additionally, she was not stopped, the board allowed It to happen.

This teeth might be unethical, but It did In fact find the leasers, found ways to deal with teen, Ana complex tea ten task seen was sakes 4. How would you evaluate the actions of Hap’s board of directors relative to accepted standards of good corporate governance? In your response, you may wish to consider the board’s structure, function, and process. The actions of the board members were not practicing good corporate governance for many reasons. From the standpoint of shareholders, the leasers and the people involved in the investigation did not take in account how the scandal would affect the share prices.

Employees, partners, customers, suppliers and others might think twice before dealing with HP again. They might have distrust feelings towards HP and wonder if they are next privacy invasion targets.

HP proved they could do it once, they can do it twice. Their commitment might not mean anything to them. The way HP handled the leaking investigations, did not follow rules, practices and process that balanced the interest of all stakeholders. 5. Put yourself in the role of Mark Hurt, as of the date of the congressional hearing of September 28, 2006. What actions would you take now, with respect to ethics, overspent , and legal compliance?

Mark Hurt put a great message across when he testified.

He accepted they messed up and why things got to the level they did. However, in the case, he was described as a witness which makes him responsible too. If I had been in his shoes and with an ethical standpoint, I would have stopped the investigations as soon as I became aware of it. This is because the risk of damaging Hips reputations is too high, and it might not be worth it pushing the limits. After that I would have tried to brainstorm with other executives and legal consultants on how to go about solving the leaking problem.