Talk:The HP Way

heavy and persistent use of promotional language Faketuxedo (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article and I have no conflict of interest. In fact I hate what the modern HP has become. So what is getting promoted? Whatever might be promoted here is dead and gone. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your response, that makes sense - i only mentioned it not to accuse you but because the wording seemed promotional, or written from the fanpoint of a former employee. it definitely needs some work though with the tone overall, IMO -- i'll make a few edits and update the tag shortly. Faketuxedo (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

by the way, i apologize for not doing enough due dilligence to warrant the tag, and i appreciate your correction Faketuxedo (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a former employee, either. The HP Way has been described in glowing terms by just about every observer. That's why you are seeing the topic portrayed as positively as it is. Accuracy is part of WP:Neutral point of view, as is faithfully representing the sources.

If you still have a problem with the text after it was combed by AlderWillow then you'll need to say exactly what you don't like. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

if you'd like to see what im referring to please refer to my recent edits. --- by the way i agree, but the neutraility needs to be framed in he context of the source. i.e. widely regarded, "according to" etc. i tried to keep that nuance.

BTW - i didn't mean to imply you were connected with the source, i only explained my reasoning. its nothing to do with you i just think the article needs a heavy copyedit to be in line with wikipedia policy Faketuxedo (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

also it's important, IMO, to consider that some of the claims the article makes are quantitative (for example, relating to employment and growth) and need to be backed up by independent statistics. even if it's widely regarded by media, for example, that the hp way philosophy lead to retaining employees, it still needs to be framed as an opinion unless there's some way there would be data on emplyoee retention. even then, the best you could give is a correlation. those nuances don't exist, and it *comes off* (and i understand this isn't the intention, of course) as promotional and frankly unreliable. Faketuxedo (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments here and from your hacking away at the article text that you have not read these sources. You are not qualified to judge anything on this topic. All of the statements of fact that I had in the article appear in the sources. Put away the machete and work on topics that you understand. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

They've now done an additional 13 edits to the page in the last 24 hours. Seemingly without much of an improvement to the page. I don't understand what the objective of the tags at the top are when they sources make similar claims, as you pointed out. IndrasBet (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. So many sources talking about the HP Way are very positive, which is why a summary of the sources will also be very positive. For instance, tech writer Victor Rozek said in 2010,

There are a handful of universal values; behaviors and ways of being that work anywhere, any time, in any culture. Respect, integrity, kindness, honesty, appreciation, gratitude; these were the values Bill Hewlett and David Packard wanted to imbue in their fledgling company. Those values were not intended to be dependent on the state of the economy, or the judgment of shareholders. They were important because the company’s founders believed that’s the way people should treat one another—regardless of circumstance. It was, they believed, more important to behave honorably than to gain economic advantage by abandoning their values based on changing circumstances.

— Victor Rozek, IT Jungle

Another source could be pulled up from the external links and made into a citation. Michael S. Malone said in 2005 that the HP Way was "the most progressive management model ever devised".^[1] We should be describing the topic in more detail, pulling more information from more sources, rather than the recent reactionary pruning intended to stain the page. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

see my earlier comment

" by the way i agree [that it was widely positively regarded]... [it] needs to be framed in the context of the source. i.e. widely regarded, "according to" etc. i tried to keep that nuance."

everything i'm attempting to do its in the spirit of the original source... and using the source in a way that is relevant and. the "reactionary pruning intended to stain the page" is me removing sentences not especially relevant to the article itself, or is promotional in nature, even if it's included in the source. Faketuxedo (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how you can still be beating on "promotional" when there's nothing to promote. The HP Way is dead and gone. It's history. Nobody profits from having it portrayed as positively as the sources are portraying it. The "spirit of the original source" is exactly what was on the page before you got to it.

If multiple sources say that the HP Way is, for instance, a progressive business philosophy, then there is no reason why we should step backward and attribute this viewpoint to just one source, as if only one source says it. Your suggestion of adding "according to" should be saved for unique minor viewpoints that are not widely accepted as the mainstream view. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Another source that can be added is from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2001. The piece says, "When Hewlett and Packard built a company on the HP Way, it was a time when the only standard for corporate performance was return on shareholder investment. But at HP, their principles were about providing valued products to their customers, about building on company technologies to meet customer interests, about the company as a meaningful institution in the lives of its employees and the community. The principles included profits but saw profits as a means to foster further growth in the company and achieve key company objectives, the primary one being employee stock purchases. Managers were required to be approachable, open to ideas and to regard themselves as being on the same egalitarian team as their employees. They were required to walk around and talk to their employees. Packard called it MBWA—'management by walking around'—and he was proud of it as a concept and a practice. It was a collegial atmosphere and you could see it when you visited the company's facilities—employees stood in the cafeteria line with top executives, shirt-sleeved managers stood around coffee carts and chatted with employees. It was management by collaboration..." It was written by veteran Chronicle journalist Mark Simon, known for hard-hitting political analysis.

And another source to consider was written by business analyst James C. Collins to serve as the foreword to Packard's 1995 book. Read an updated version of it here, published in May 2005. Collins also talks about the HP Way in his book, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Company archivist Karen Lewis says that the HP Way was originally Hewlett's idea. After Packard's death, Hewlett credited Packard with the idea, so this is an interesting contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Fortune magazine consistently ranked HP among the top ten "most admired" companies in the US, largely because of the progressive business philosophy of the HP Way, including their generous corporate philanthropy. I don't know the earliest "most admired" listing in Fortune but the Agilent link mentions one in 1983. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Since it seems you're not particularly interested in my input and I don't have time for an edit war, how about let's settle on adding at least one tag to get some other editors in the mix. I'm proposing the tone tag - it can be interpreted broadly and doesn't suggest bias or incorrect information, so if other editors decide that the article needs work they will make appropriate edits how they interpret it. I think a neutral third party would do a lot for the article. The article is detailed and broad, so I think there is at least something other people could contribute. If nobody touches it, lets remove the tag in about a month.

kind regards

Faketuxedo (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

No. You are looking to stain the page for a month, without regard for how the topic is summarized from the sources. And without regard to whatever improvements are made.

Before I started this article, I looked at sources for about a year. I read Packard's book from cover to cover and I looked at dozens of articles about the topic. I don't get the impression that you have invested much in this topic. Which is why it's baffling to me why you have chosen to be some kind of gatekeeper. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

First, let me note that I have no intention of editing this article. It is long and Subject to debate.

Then please let me ask those involved if they have ever worked at HP. Have you?

There is one thing to read travel books about China, another to have been there. Those of us who were at HP when Bill and Dave were know that the HP way was 70% motivational talk. So it is good to cool off on the debates. I will have no further comment. Good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)