I really don't want the best people at the highest cost.
Executives need ample flexibility to respond to the market. That means both reducing costs and increasing innovation.
I'm old, I'm used to crummy service, I'm trained to get crummy service. To me, the fact I can get through to a call centre and then hold for 15 minutes, I don't get that upset. My kids won't. They want to know the answer to their question now. As a company you have to provide an answer to that consumer.
To be very blunt, I am not really that concerned with what labels get associated with somebody.
The more accountable I can make you, the easier it is for you to show you're a great performer.
My objective with strategy is to be very repetitive, to be somewhat boring, to allow people to coalesce behind a common direction.
We have, of course, all of our Oracle technologies in our cloud. But I don't think you're going to see customers wanting to deal with 50 clouds or 40 clouds or anything like that.
CIOs have to be able to lay out a clear path in concert with the business leader - I used to make the business guy responsible for the apps and force them to answer the question of why they feel they need non-standard apps when they know that's how the costs skyrocket.
From a productivity standpoint, you're supposed to reduce headcount on par with declining revenue. If you believe the environment isn't going to improve, you should take a bigger cut to get in front of the problems.
Like it or not, at HP we are technologists, not executive compensation consultants.
I know only a few ways to take market share and drive new revenue. I can engineer better products and services, I can build better relationships with my customers and deliver a higher level of service, or I can give my customers a lower price.