Strategic Management in Action: HP Case Study Report

This report provides an analysis of strategic management in action, focusing on the case study of Hewlett Packard (HP) and its boardroom battles. The report delves into HP's strategy development process, highlighting the influence of political activities, leadership changes, and the impact of various CEO decisions on the company's performance. It examines the role of the board of directors, the challenges of strategic political management, and the effects of internal conflicts and external pressures, such as market share decline and employee morale. The report discusses key events, including CEO changes, strategic decisions like the Autonomy acquisition, and the impact of these decisions on the company's strategic goals and objectives, offering insights into the complexities of strategic management within a large organization. Furthermore, the report covers the importance of employee engagement and the effects of social media on the business. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the strategic challenges faced by HP and the implications of these challenges on the company's overall success.

Strategic Management in
Action

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
PATCH 1 ........................................................................................................................................3
Strategy Development process....................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Strategic management in action presents the scenario of current administrative theories
and practices which are related with the organisation activities. A company takes the actions to
improve their performance and through this, proper allocation of resources is done (Ackermann
and Eden, 2011). In the present assignment, case study of Boardroom battles at Hewlett Packard
has been explained with political activities which directly affect the strategy. Further, organising
for success has been described. Along with this, leadership and strategic change with the case of
Sergio Marchionne is explained.
PATCH 1
Strategy Development Process
In the year 2012, Hewlett Packard has exceed their turnover of $ 120 billion but there
profits were declined due to losing shares in the market. In this company, board of directors are
having big responsibilities to ensure that strategic direction has been used for the achievement of
objectives. The high authority management should ensures that they are hiring the qualified
candidates and have this much power to monitor the performance of employees. The employees
have to properly communicate with the stakeholders and shareholders which can support in
financial reporting.
Strategic political management refers to the set of actions plans which are enacted by
enterprises for intention of maximizing economic returns from political environment (Freeman,
2010). In the modern era, there is continuously increase in government activities which are
rapidly growing business and they are involved in public policy making also.
From over a decade, the CEO was finding difficulties in arriving at the coherent
strategies and this has caused infighting in the board room. In the year 2002, according to
Fortune, he found that some one in organisation was leaking the confidential information which
are passing through the press. On other side, the members are assuring about the refusing the
idea of CEO through this the it is causing on the development of strategy process. It also directly
affected the strategic development process of company to provide better services to customers.
When Mark Hurd's became CEO for the five years then it ultimately increased share price
for a long period of time (Hill, Jones and Schilling, 2014). It is also disguised that there is a
demoralised at workplace which is lacking from the innovations and it were not supported by

Hurd's autocratic leader styles. It ultimately affected company’s goodwill and the members of
organisation think that it will affect the activities of enterprises.
In the year 2010, CEO was Leo Apotheker and he improved employee’s morale and
earned high amount of returns in an innovative way. But in 2011, the issue against profits
warning had been raised with a plea to watch every penny. Due to this, the emails of people are
leaked but they have passed a positive message to investors and through this it is causing on
strategic development (Hitt and et. al., 2011). Through this, Apotheker is not believing on
someone in organisation and the decision which are taken by him should be reshuffle by the
board. All the board members were against him and supported Hurd.
In HP company, the political activity also take place when, as there are many employers
in the organisation who are commonly and mistakenly believe that there is a partiality between
the employees. The strategy which are made by the top management should not be different for
all employees who are working in same level. The manager have to create the awareness about
that what political activity are taking place which can decrease the strategic development process
in achieving the organisational goals. In the modern scenario, employees are using social media
tools like Facebook, Twitter and other social sites are to be monitor on privacy. Whatever
decisions are taken by different CEOs, it affects the organisation’s objectives and due to same, it
becomes difficult to fulfil the needs of customers (Lengnick-Hall, Beck and Lengnick-Hall,
2011). The private employees and CEO were also creating the negative environment in company
which harm the regular members or staff and due to this their thinking were become different in
performing the there task properly.
Apotheker believed that they should focus to increase the business-to-business sales for
printers and PC which will move into higher margin areas and would not affect the strategic
development process. In the year 2011, tablet computer was launched but it flopped and through
this people were created the political environment in organisation. and conflicts raise between
the employees and staff. It became difficult for company to handle these situations which
directly impacted on the strategic management in a negative manner. Managers taken some
actions to resolve these problems but they were not able to sought the same.
In August, the deal was done by Autonomy in spin off and the decision was announced at
the end to investors. The many PC of customers are ceased and investors objected that
acquisition will not place in the company (Loorbach, 2010). When the investors have objected

their problems, it is the responsibility of organisation to solve their problems and give equal
amount of share to employees when the acquisition takes place. After that, Meg Whitman was
appointed as CEO who seems better in the execution of long term strategies for development of
organisation. Through this, the share price of company fall down.
All these issues created battle at the board room of company and it also put a direct
impact on company’s reputation (Ndofor, Sirmon and He, 2011). It influenced all the activities
of strategic development process. The board members have to take proper and appropriate
decisions so that it would not affect the strategic development.
All these are the political activities which affect strategy of maximization of business
objectives. But there are other some political activities as well which affect the organisation like;
when CEO is taking any decision with regard to the profits of company and he/she does take any
one advice or suggestion, then different views are coming form different person then it can be
considered as political activity (O'Reilly and Tushman, 2011). In organisation, there were many
CEO who have taken decisions for the benefits of company but some of them gave negative
impact on organisation’s objectives.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C., 2011. Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice.
Long range planning. 44(3). pp.179-196.
Freeman, R. E., 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Hill, C. W., Jones, G. R. and Schilling, M. A., 2014. Strategic management: theory: an
integrated approach. Cengage Learning.
Hitt, M. A. and et. al., 2011. Strategic entrepreneurship: creating value for individuals,
organizations, and society. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 25(2). pp.57-75.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T. E. and Lengnick-Hall, M. L., 2011. Developing a capacity for
organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review. 21(3). pp.243-255.
Loorbach, D., 2010. Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive,
complexity‐based governance framework. Governance. 23(1). pp.161-183.
Ndofor, H. A., Sirmon, D. G. and He, X., 2011. Firm resources, competitive actions and
performance: investigating a mediated model with evidence from the in‐vitro
diagnostics industry. Strategic Management Journal. 32(6). pp.640-657.
O'Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M.L., 2011. Organizational ambidexterity in action: How
managers explore and exploit. California Management Review. 53(4). pp.5-22.
Poister, T.H., 2010. The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic
management and performance. Public Administration Review. 70(s1).
Tarique, I. and Schuler, R. S., 2010. Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of world business. 45(2).
pp.122-133.
Teece, D. J., 2012. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of
Management Studies. 49(8) pp.1395-1401.
Thompson, J. L. and Martin, F., 2010. Strategic management: awareness & change. Cengage
Learning EMEA.