I'm always fascinated by these sorts of reboot things. Many people have experienced 'The Purge' where a new CEO is brought in and the 'old guard' is moved out of the way and the 'new guard' is brought into replace it. Its human nature I think to change leadership that way. But its fraught with peril. In particular its dangerous if you do it several times then after a few purges you don't have enough people who have the skills to lead to pick from.
To pick an example from recent memory, look at Apple during its great withering. Sculley -> Spindler -> Amelio -> Jobs. Looking at how Jobs re-created that company from the inside out was fascinating.
I don't know if Meg Whitman can accomplish that much but she has the basic resource. HP's expertise is wide and deep. I wish her luck.
Jobs had the benefit of a relatively huge amount of credibility with the rank-and-file employees and management, of a very compelling vision to execute on (the transition to OS X and then post-PC computing), and the focus to bring it to fruition.
It's not clear whether Meg Whitman shares any of those benefits, nor if the desperation of her company's board is to the point that they might give her the level of leeway afforded Jobs at the time.
I'm assuming Whitman has a pretty impressive rolodex as well.
But HP doesn't need to swing for the fences like Apple did. They need someone to create focus. HP has too many product lines, is in too many markets, and hasn't had a huge amount of cost discipline for a long time. Whitman can fix HP just by being a competent CEO, assuming she has the support of the board.
To pick an example from recent memory, look at Apple during its great withering. Sculley -> Spindler -> Amelio -> Jobs. Looking at how Jobs re-created that company from the inside out was fascinating.
I don't know if Meg Whitman can accomplish that much but she has the basic resource. HP's expertise is wide and deep. I wish her luck.